Edited by Frederique Lanoix, Tuesday, 2 Apr 2024, 16:52
HERE, you can view one of my videos regarding Pitri Patel made a few months ago.
The Transcript is as below:
Hi this is Fred from IVisible.
For those who do not know my channel, I encourage you to check my previous videos and most importantly my website by clicking on the link in the description box of this video.
I would love to hear from you regarding both the quality of the videos and the website.
So please leave a few words in the comment section of this video.
Today, I will cover the video where Priti Patel was grilled by Members of Parliament over the issue of channel crossing.
Many questions were asked so I will focus on what I think is important to remember from the exchange between the ex-Home secretary and the chamber.
At 15.15 minutes, the question of how can the Met Police improve its recruitment process and check on those who apply for the jobs was asked, followed by a question on the strategy that relates to enforcing the law against abusers at 20.53 minutes of the conversation.
Pitri Patel had no real answer and started some kind of business-like pitch about the police force excellence.
She was reminded that it was not the topic for the day, but she kept on going and came across as very rude.
She argued that she had to put some contextual details. Hence the importance of spending a long time congratulating the police workforce without any tangible ground for it.
This seemed highly superficial and out of touch with the conversation’s aims and direction.
In fact, when the main speaker of the chamber was able to get back on track topic-wise, it was mentioned that no face-to-face recruitment for police officers was available.
I would have asked why the number of white British male police officers is so high compared to other ethnic groups. And why nothing has been done to change the racist and abusive culture currently perpetuated by such a pivotal public service department.
Then, at 16.17 minutes, Patel was asked how to tackle low-level of sexual offenses. And are masturbation, voyeurism, and exposing private parts considered low levels of crime?
There again, no specific reply was laid on the table to give at least some kind of reassurance that progress is being made.
Her answers were vague and she briefly spoke about how mental health issues are all important points to explore including prevention. Of course, no delivery dates were given for substantial improvement.
I strongly believe that the police should be held accountable for the lack of competency when required. However, I don’t understand what more tools they need in order to tackle sexual offenses.
Are we talking about providing more adequate training on sexual offenses or being innovative by using new technology in order to detect potential offenders, and subsequently prevent a high degree of violence from happening in local communities?
Due to the lack of insight into the subject, I was left wondering what the real purpose of officers investigating crimes is, and what can be improved to gain more compliance from the police task force.
I wanted to gain more knowledge about how abusers operate and how to raise awareness among the police force and the public at large.
Most importantly the hearing was an opportunity to advocate for survivors of sexual assaults and domestic abuse.
I was also expecting Mrs. Priti Patel to use less jargon and to listen to others’ concerns.
Her focus on how often she is in contact with the police force was not an important aspect to be pointed out because it doesn’t help reduce crimes.
It could, nonetheless, help create an adequate plan to tackle domestic abuse or prevent offenders from aggressing others but she had no insight of this sort to offer on that day.
She was reminded that she had to submit a clear plan of action back in 2021 and this was still not completed.
The second part of the conversation was focused on the channel crossing by asylum seekers.
Diane Abbot tried to pinpoint how Mrs. Patel justified the potential involvement of the navy to deter channel crossing by asylum seekers.
Mrs. Patel used a lot of jargon and didn’t want to answer the question. Patel expressed the fact that the work that included the navy had not been completed, yet.
Whilst deliberately and rigidly staying on that ground, she refused to give more details on the operational approach to planning, coordinating & delivering a solution to tackle the issue.
Meanwhile, Mrs. Abbot quoted James Heappey, the defense minister, who sent the clear message that no plausible intervention of the Navy on the matter was to be anticipated. (Channel migrants: MPs criticise use of navy to tackle English Channel crossings, 2022)
To conclude, the Tory party has once again shown a lack of transparency and professionalism that is highly patronising and demoralising.
The only real certainty here, is Patel’s inability to be effective and efficient. In addition to her incapacity to understand that the public and her colleagues are not duped by her lies.
I am glad that she resigned and I hope that she will not be given any type of front bench opportunity in parliament ever again.
We should detail her background though because this is not the first instance where Patel showed her unprofessionalism politically speaking.
Patel had to resign in November 2017 over an unofficial meeting with Israelis as UK international development secretary. (Priti Patel quits cabinet over Israel meetings row, 2017) And the same year she stopped paying her Husband £25000 for advising her whilst in office. (Laud, 2021) After all this, why has this woman been given a senior position under Johnson’s premiership?
She is just an opportunist and untrustworthy person who proved her callousness as she resigned for a second time in September 2022 as a home secretary.
She is aggressive and very disrespectful even in parliament. We witnessed her lack of calm and compassion when she shouted “shut-up” (The Independent,2022) to her colleagues in parliament and was found to have broken the ministerial code of conduct when an inquiry for bullying was raised against her last year in 2021. (the Guardian, 2020) I can imagine how difficult it might be to deal with her in the privacy of her home, especially for her son.
I am so glad that she is out and I hope never to see her again. To me, she is to be avoided at all costs and banned from public service, forever.
I think that this topic is very important to pay attention to. This is due to the undeniable impact that the role of the Home secretary has on the daily lives of all UK citizens. We deserve better than Patel!
Finally, this is my opinion only, I found her dress code very ugly. Her dresses lack grace.
Compared to Theresa May, just to take an example of another senior member of the Tory party, was always very well put together. Mrs. May’s jewellery and dress code sent a signal of competency, care, womanhood, and professionalism.
Priti Patel is not at that level of care at all. And as a woman from an ethnic minority, I must admit that she looked disheveled, not appealing nor aspirational.
This is all for today, thanks for listening to me and see you in the next video.
PRITI PATEL GRILLED BY MPS OVER CHANNEL CROSSING
HERE, you can view one of my videos regarding Pitri Patel made a few months ago.
The Transcript is as below:
Hi this is Fred from IVisible.
For those who do not know my channel, I encourage you to check my previous videos and most importantly my website by clicking on the link in the description box of this video.
I would love to hear from you regarding both the quality of the videos and the website.
So please leave a few words in the comment section of this video.
Today, I will cover the video where Priti Patel was grilled by Members of Parliament over the issue of channel crossing.
Many questions were asked so I will focus on what I think is important to remember from the exchange between the ex-Home secretary and the chamber.
At 15.15 minutes, the question of how can the Met Police improve its recruitment process and check on those who apply for the jobs was asked, followed by a question on the strategy that relates to enforcing the law against abusers at 20.53 minutes of the conversation.
Pitri Patel had no real answer and started some kind of business-like pitch about the police force excellence.
She was reminded that it was not the topic for the day, but she kept on going and came across as very rude.
She argued that she had to put some contextual details. Hence the importance of spending a long time congratulating the police workforce without any tangible ground for it.
This seemed highly superficial and out of touch with the conversation’s aims and direction.
In fact, when the main speaker of the chamber was able to get back on track topic-wise, it was mentioned that no face-to-face recruitment for police officers was available.
I would have asked why the number of white British male police officers is so high compared to other ethnic groups. And why nothing has been done to change the racist and abusive culture currently perpetuated by such a pivotal public service department.
Then, at 16.17 minutes, Patel was asked how to tackle low-level of sexual offenses. And are masturbation, voyeurism, and exposing private parts considered low levels of crime?
There again, no specific reply was laid on the table to give at least some kind of reassurance that progress is being made.
Her answers were vague and she briefly spoke about how mental health issues are all important points to explore including prevention.
Of course, no delivery dates were given for substantial improvement.
I strongly believe that the police should be held accountable for the lack of competency when required. However, I don’t understand what more tools they need in order to tackle sexual offenses.
Are we talking about providing more adequate training on sexual offenses or being innovative by using new technology in order to detect potential offenders, and subsequently prevent a high degree of violence from happening in local communities?
Due to the lack of insight into the subject, I was left wondering what the real purpose of officers investigating crimes is, and what can be improved to gain more compliance from the police task force.
I wanted to gain more knowledge about how abusers operate and how to raise awareness among the police force and the public at large.
Most importantly the hearing was an opportunity to advocate for survivors of sexual assaults and domestic abuse.
I was also expecting Mrs. Priti Patel to use less jargon and to listen to others’ concerns.
Her focus on how often she is in contact with the police force was not an important aspect to be pointed out because it doesn’t help reduce crimes.
It could, nonetheless, help create an adequate plan to tackle domestic abuse or prevent offenders from aggressing others but she had no insight of this sort to offer on that day.
She was reminded that she had to submit a clear plan of action back in 2021 and this was still not completed.
The second part of the conversation was focused on the channel crossing by asylum seekers.
Diane Abbot tried to pinpoint how Mrs. Patel justified the potential involvement of the navy to deter channel crossing by asylum seekers.
Mrs. Patel used a lot of jargon and didn’t want to answer the question. Patel expressed the fact that the work that included the navy had not been completed, yet.
Whilst deliberately and rigidly staying on that ground, she refused to give more details on the operational approach to planning, coordinating & delivering a solution to tackle the issue.
Meanwhile, Mrs. Abbot quoted James Heappey, the defense minister, who sent the clear message that no plausible intervention of the Navy on the matter was to be anticipated. (Channel migrants: MPs criticise use of navy to tackle English Channel crossings, 2022)
To conclude, the Tory party has once again shown a lack of transparency and professionalism that is highly patronising and demoralising.
The only real certainty here, is Patel’s inability to be effective and efficient. In addition to her incapacity to understand that the public and her colleagues are not duped by her lies.
I am glad that she resigned and I hope that she will not be given any type of front bench opportunity in parliament ever again.
We should detail her background though because this is not the first instance where Patel showed her unprofessionalism politically speaking.
Patel had to resign in November 2017 over an unofficial meeting with Israelis as UK international development secretary. (Priti Patel quits cabinet over Israel meetings row, 2017) And the same year she stopped paying her Husband £25000 for advising her whilst in office. (Laud, 2021)
After all this, why has this woman been given a senior position under Johnson’s premiership?
She is just an opportunist and untrustworthy person who proved her callousness as she resigned for a second time in September 2022 as a home secretary.
She is aggressive and very disrespectful even in parliament.
We witnessed her lack of calm and compassion when she shouted “shut-up” (The Independent,2022) to her colleagues in parliament and was found to have broken the ministerial code of conduct when an inquiry for bullying was raised against her last year in 2021. (the Guardian, 2020)
I can imagine how difficult it might be to deal with her in the privacy of her home, especially for her son.
I am so glad that she is out and I hope never to see her again. To me, she is to be avoided at all costs and banned from public service, forever.
I think that this topic is very important to pay attention to. This is due to the undeniable impact that the role of the Home secretary has on the daily lives of all UK citizens. We deserve better than Patel!
Finally, this is my opinion only, I found her dress code very ugly. Her dresses lack grace.
Compared to Theresa May, just to take an example of another senior member of the Tory party, was always very well put together.
Mrs. May’s jewellery and dress code sent a signal of competency, care, womanhood, and professionalism.
Priti Patel is not at that level of care at all. And as a woman from an ethnic minority, I must admit that she looked disheveled, not appealing nor aspirational.
This is all for today, thanks for listening to me and see you in the next video.
Reference
– www.youtube.com. (n.d.). Live: Priti Patel grilled by MPs over Channel crossings. [online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbCM0EvjLUM [Accessed 17 Feb. 2022].
In-text citation: (www.youtube.com, n.d.)
– Channel migrants: MPs criticise use of navy to tackle English Channel crossings. (2022). BBC News. [online] 18 Jan. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60042484 [Accessed 17 Feb. 2022].
In-text citation: (Channel migrants: MPs criticise use of navy to tackle English Channel crossings, 2022)
– The Independent. (2022). Priti Patel tells MPs to ‘shut up’ as she sets out her legacy. [online] Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/uk-news/priti-patel-shut-up-mps-b2161954.html [Accessed 12 Sep. 2022].
In-text citation: (The Independent,2022)
– Priti Patel quits cabinet over Israel meetings row. (2017). BBC News. [online] 8 Nov. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41923007 [Accessed 26 May 2021].In-text citation: (Priti Patel quits cabinet over Israel meetings row, 2017)Laud, G. (2021).
– Priti Patel husband: Is Home Secretary married? Do they have children? [online] Express.co.uk. Available at: https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1285932/Priti-Patel-husband-is-Priti-Patel-married-children-family-Alex-Sawyer [Accessed 12 Sep. 2022].
In-text citation: (Laud, 2021)
– the Guardian. (2020). Bullying inquiry ‘found evidence Priti Patel broke ministerial code’. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/19/boris-johnson-expected-to-rule-on-priti-patel-bullying-claims-within-weeks.
In-text citation: (the Guardian, 2020)