I have spent the past 48 hours without Internet, and only a vaguely French speaking Algerian and my own poor technical French to cure the problem. At 2 Euros an hour, it only cost me 120 euros to find that the problem was their fault – not mine.
I know, I know, I could send them an invoice, but if there is anything worse than grappling with a vaguely French speaking ISP help line, it is trying to extract money from a French company that is at fault – I am still trying to get back the 180 euros my French bank charged me when they ‘inadvertently’ sent me a bank statement with the last page missing. We are all agreed that it is their fault that I needed a copy of that page, we are all agreed that I should be refunded the charge forcibly removed from my account for sending me a copy, but can I get the money back into my account? Ask me again in six months and I will let you know what progress has been made. It’s only been four months, too soon to expect activity. You want to talk about bullying? Huh!
Whilst I was gone, it seems that those mad equality harpies, Harriet Harman, Vera Baird and Maria Eagle, have so indoctrinated the Equality and Human Rights Commission that they have been forced to issue a ‘clarification’ of their earlier report saying that ‘forcing’ schoolgirls to wear skirts could be damaging to any fledgling transsexuals amongst them, and that therefore everyone should wear a Chairman Mao type boiler suit Muslim girls should be allowed to break school rules and wear trousers, gay pupils should be allowed to break the school rules and wear their Mother’s cocktail dress, and in fact the only people who should have to abide by the rules, should be those who are not a member of any victimised single issue group. Like the children of parents who couldn’t afford to buy the bally uniform. No scrub that, they are suffering from child poverty so they are OK. That just leaves the children of law abiding hard pressed middle income families to abide by the rules…….
Meanwhile, Charlie Whelan’s Unite, surely the person best placed to recognised bullying when he sees it, has issued formal advice as to what constitutes bullying. It seems that you are a bully if you:
“use terror tactics, open aggression, threats, shouting, abuse, and obscenities towards [your] target”
So where does that leave Prescott jabbing his finger in the air, shouting, revealing details of an old employment tribunal, to say nothing of punching a member of the electorate.
Where does that leave Phil Woolas calling her a ‘prat of a woman’?
Remember Unite are quite clear that what constitutes bullying is ‘defined largely by the impact of the behaviour on the recipient, not its intention’.
Where does that leave Alan Sugar, arguably most famous for his hectoring confrontational treatment of contestants of his TV programme, who claims that this ‘is not bullying as far as I am concerned.’
So, Mrs Pratt is best qualified to decided whether her treatment at the hands of Mr Prescott constitutes bullying or not.
In the meantime – could they not have found anyone who doesn’t himself have a reputation as a bully to defend the Prime Minister? So far it has it has all the hallmarks of Hanibal Lector being called as a character witness for a man accused of eating his wife.
Now young Ms Pratt has called in the ultimate ‘champion of the bullied’ Max Clifford to field her corner. Has Labour accused her of being one of Tiger Woood’s mistresses?
One thing really bothers me about all this. A bully requires a victim, or someone prepared to act as victim. All the stories emerging in the papers of ‘emotional behaviour’, flying Nokia’s, and smashed computer screens evoke an image of people who, if not bullies, certainly behave as though they are superior to those they shout at, throw things at, heap abuse on, and make personal revelations about – I thought the Equalities unit was supposed to be ironing out all these hierarchies, I thought everyone was equal?
Not in Nu-Labour obviously. The class war is alive and well.