Dominic Raab resigns after two bullying complaints against him are upheld

Published

2 years ago

April 21, 2023

admin

Dominic Raab has resigned after he was found to have bullied staff members while working as a cabinet minister across different departments.

A report from independent investigator Adam Tolley said two complaints against him had been upheld, concluding the deputy prime minister and justice secretary had “acted in a way which was intimidating”, and had been “unreasonably and persistently aggressive” in meetings.

The findings also said his conduct “involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates”.

But in a resignation letter posted on Twitter, Mr Raab took issue with the report, calling the inquiry “flawed” and claiming the conclusions “set a dangerous precedent for the conduct of good government”.

Politics live: Raab ‘keeps word’ and quits

The news comes after Rishi Sunak was presented with an official report into Mr Raab’s behaviour on Thursday.

In his letter, Mr Sunak said he accepted his deputy’s resignation “with great sadness”, saying it “should not make us forget your record of delivery in both this government and previous administrations”.

And the PM said there had been “shortcomings in the historic process that have negatively affected everyone involved”, adding: “We should learn from this how to better handle such matters in future”.

But Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said the situation showed “the continual weakness of the prime minister”, adding: “He should never have appointed [Mr Raab] in the first place… and then he didn’t sack him.

“It is that decision and that weakness I think that goes to the heart, not just of this prime minister, but of the 13 years now of [Conservative] failure and it is why people desperately want a change.”

Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats called for Mr Raab to resign as an MP and for a by-election to be held in his seat, saying he had shown “he is not only unfit to serve as a minister, but is totally unfit to represent his constituents in parliament”.

The 48-page report from Mr Tolley said there had been eight formal complaints against Mr Raab from across his time as justice secretary, foreign secretary and Brexit secretary.

A total of 66 interviews were carried out over the five months – including four with the minister himself – and 44 written contributions were given to the investigator.

In one of the complaints, upheld from his time at the Foreign Office, Mr Tolley concluded the minister had “acted in a way which was intimidating, in the sense of unreasonably and persistently aggressive in the context of a workplace meeting”.

He said Mr Raab’s conduct “also involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates”, adding: “In particular, he went beyond what was reasonably necessary in order to give effect to his decision and introduced a punitive element.

“His conduct was bound to be experienced as undermining or humiliating by the affected individual, and it was so experienced. I infer that [Mr Raab] must have been aware of this effect; at the very least, he ought reasonably to have been so aware.”

The minister also used “a form of intimidating behaviour in the sense of conveying a threat of unspecified disciplinary action” at a member of staff.

And he was criticised over his “use of physical gestures”, including “extending his hand directly out towards another person’s face with a view to making them stop talking” and “loud banging of the table to make a point”.

The second complaint came from his time at the Ministry of Justice, and Mr Tolley concluded Mr Raab “acted in a manner which was intimidating, in the sense of going further than was necessary or appropriate in delivering critical feedback and also insulting, in the sense of making unconstructive critical comments about the quality of work done (whether or not as a matter of substance any criticism was justified)”.

Examples included “unfairly personal criticism” of officials who didn’t answer his questions in meetings, and making comments about staff “frustrating his policy objectives” that left them feeling “insulted” – using phrases like “utterly useless” and “woeful”.

The investigator said Mr Raab “did not intend by the conduct described to upset or humiliate” or “target anyone for a specific type of treatment”, but “he did not always have in mind the impact of his approach at the level of the individual who was affected by it” and “ought to have realised earlier that some individuals would find it difficult to cope with his style and should have adjusted his behaviour accordingly”.

In his conclusions, Mr Tolley said: “The [deputy prime minister] has been able to regulate this level of ‘abrasiveness’ since the announcement of the investigation. He should have altered his approach earlier.”

But in an article published in the Telegraph shortly after his ousting, Mr Raab hit back at the findings and described the probe as “a Kafkaesque saga”.

In his resignation letter, the outgoing minister wrote: “I called for the inquiry and undertook to resign, if it made any finding of bullying whatsoever. I believe it is important to keep my word.”

But he said the report showed he had “not once, in four and a half years, sworn or shouted at anyone, let alone thrown anything or otherwise physically intimidated anyone, nor intentionally sought to belittle anyone”.

Mr Raab claimed the inquiry had set “the threshold for bullying so low” that it had “set a dangerous precedent”.

He added: “I am genuinely sorry for any unintended stress or offence that any officials felt, as a result of the pace, standards and challenge that I brought to the Ministry of Justice.

“That is, however, what the public expect of ministers working on their behalf.”

In his newspaper article, Mr Raab gave his own account of the complaints made against him, saying some staff “complained that I asked too many questions, including in budget meetings with hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money at stake, curtailed unwieldy interventions in meetings, or that they were intimidated or offended by my body language”.

“These were dismissed,” he added.

On the allegations that were upheld, he said the report concluded “I had abused my power by replacing a lead negotiator when I was foreign secretary, and as justice secretary had left senior officials feeling insulted on three occasions because of direct feedback”.

But he doubled-down on his attack on the process, saying “normal rules of evidence and procedural fairness were disapplied”, including a rule for all complaints to be made within three months.

“In my case, all the complaints were stored up for over three months, most over eight months, some for over four years – and then submitted in a coordinated way,” he claimed.

“And I was subject to trial by media for six months, fuelled by warped and fabricated accounts leaked by anonymous officials.”

A painful read for Dominic Raab

It’s taken five months to get this far.

Two complaints were upheld, the rest dismissed.

There’s a lot that Dominic Raab will have found very painful to read.

There’s a lot that also suggests he doesn’t accept the accusations of bullying – although there are findings that he behaved improperly, he doesn’t believe he did so even now.

The document goes into inordinate detail – Mr Raab admitted that he was inquisitorial, direct, impatient, and fastidious.

He is admitting some bits of behaviour that he thinks are absolutely fine.

Clearly what he wants to do is make the case that different interpretations of behaviour are what’s going on here.

But as you get into the report, you can see that views differed, and it was the precise nature of the way that Mr Raab liked to conduct his work with his officials that caused “distress”, perhaps even harm to the health of the people around him.

Labour’s Sir Keir accused Mr Raab of “whining” when the public wanted to hear about things that mattered to them.

“There is a bigger picture here,” he said. “We have got a cost of living crisis, there is the future of the NHS that is really, really important… and we are mired in talking about the weaknesses and the inability of the government to actually deliver anything for the people of this country.

“I don’t know why Dominic Raab thinks in the middle of a cost of living crisis that anybody wants to hear about his whining about having to resign.

“What I think everybody wants is strong leadership and that has been palpably absent here.

“Why on earth was Raab appointed in the first place? Why on earth didn’t the prime minister act more quickly? Why on earth isn’t the government laser focuses on the cost of living crisis and the absolute mess of the NHS that they have made?”

The civil service union, the FDA, called for an independent inquiry into ministerial bullying following the findings of the report.

General secretary Dave Penman said: “This resignation is not a vindication of the current system, it’s a damning indictment of the inadequacy of a process that relies solely on the prime minister of the day to enforce standards.”

Mike Clancy, the boss of another civil service union Prospect, also said there had been “a toxic culture at the top of government for too long with civil servants and public trust paying the price for this chaos”, calling on Mr Sunak to now “clean out the rest of the stables”.

He added: “These issues go to the heart of the anger and distrust many people feel towards the way our country runs. It is time for ministers to step up and to start restoring trust both for civil servants and the good of the country.”

Mr Raab was appointed by Mr Sunak after he took power in October, and less than 48 hours ago he was sat alongside the PM at Prime Minister’s Questions.

Allegations surfaced about Mr Raab back in November, with former staff claiming he created a “culture of fear” in their departments.

He denied the allegations and requested an investigation into himself after two formal complaints were made.

As the weeks rolled on, more accusations came to light, with one report suggesting as many as 24 complaints had been made.

Mr Sunak has come under pressure over what he knew about Mr Raab’s alleged conduct, with a source telling political editor Beth Rigby the PM was informed about Mr Raab’s “unacceptable behaviour” before appointing him as his deputy and justice secretary.

Downing Street said Mr Sunak was “not aware” of any “formal complaints” about Mr Raab when he appointed him, but Number 10 did not deny concerns had been expressed informally.

Who could take over as the next justice secretary?

They will be the 10th justice secretary in 10 years and will also serve as lord chancellor, responsible for protecting and upholding the rule of law and independence of the judiciary.

For this reason, it is often the case that MPs with legal experience – normally as barristers – are the typical picks for the role.

Some names in the frame:

• Lucy Frazer: Currently culture secretary. Ex-solicitor general and junior minister at the MoJ. Former barrister.

• Victoria Prentis: Currently attorney general. Ex-senior government lawyer. Held several junior ministerial posts. Served four years on the justice select committee.

• Victoria Atkins: Currently financial secretary to the Treasury. Was a junior minister at the MoJ. Former criminal barrister.

• Oliver Dowden: Currently Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster based in the Cabinet Office. Considered a favourite. Seen as one of Mr Sunak’s closest and most trusted political allies.

Mr Raab’s departure follows Mr Sunak’s decision to dismiss Tory party chairman Nadhim Zahawi from his post in January after the former chancellor was found to have broken the ministerial code over his tax affairs.

World

How Trump changed his mind on tariffs

Published

9 hours ago

April 10, 2025

admin

“Liberation Day” just gave way to Capitulation Day.

US President Donald Trump pulled back on Wednesday on a series of harsh tariffs targeting friends and foes alike in an audacious bid to remake the global economic order.

Mr Trump’s early afternoon announcement followed a harrowing week in which Republican lawmakers and confidants privately warned him that the tariffs could wreck the economy.

His own aides had quietly raised alarms about the financial markets before he suspended a tariff regime that he had unveiled with a flourish just one week earlier in a Rose Garden ceremony.

Tariffs latest: Beijing takes fight to Trump

The stock market rose immediately after the about-face, ending days of losses that have forced older Americans who’ve been sinking their savings into 401(k)s to rethink their retirement plans.

Ahead of Mr Trump’s announcement, some of his advisers had been in a near panic about the bond markets, a senior administration official told Sky News’ US partner network NBC News.

Interest rates on 10-year Treasury bonds had been rising, contrary to what normally happens when stock prices fall and investors seek safety in treasuries.

The unusual dynamic meant that at the same time the tariffs could push up prices, people would be paying more to buy homes or pay off credit card debt because of higher interest rates. Businesses looking to expand would pay more for new loans.

Two of Mr Trump’s most senior advisers, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, presented a united front on Wednesday, urging him to suspend the tariffs in light of the bond market, the administration official said.

In a social media post, Mr Trump announced a 90-day pause that he said he’ll use to negotiate deals with dozens of countries that have expressed openness to revising trade terms that he contends exploit American businesses and workers.

One exception is China. Mr Trump upped the tariff on the country’s biggest geopolitical rival to 125%, part of a tit-for-tat escalation in an evolving trade war.

Mr Trump reversed course one week after he appeared in the Rose Garden and unveiled his plan to bring jobs back to the United States. Displaying a chart showing the new, elevated tariffs that countries would face, Mr Trump proclaimed: “My fellow Americans, this is Liberation Day.”

It proved short-lived. Markets plunged in anticipation of heightened trade wars, wiping out trillions of dollars in wealth.

Democrats seized on the issue, looking to undercut a source of Mr Trump’s popular appeal: the view that he can be trusted to steer the nation’s economy.

“Donald Trump’s market crash has vaporised a whopping $104,000 from the average retirement account,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, said on Wednesday on the Senate floor, hours before the president’s reversal.

The episode laid bare the rifts within Mr Trump’s team of senior advisers as the White House struggled to offer a clear, consistent argument about the duration of the tariffs.

While Mr Bessent seemed open to negotiations, Peter Navarro, a senior trade adviser, appeared to take a more hard-line posture.

Elon Musk, the billionaire Tesla chief executive who has been advising Mr Trump on the government workforce, called Navarro “dumber than a sack of bricks,” while Mr Navarro described Mr Musk as someone who is merely “a car assembler, in many cases”.

But the weeklong drama also underscored the peril of a policymaking process that is often tied to the wishes and vagaries of one man: Donald Trump.

Asked about the dust-up between Mr Musk and Mr Navarro, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a golf partner of Mr Trump’s, said: “I don’t think it matters. The only one who matters is Trump.”

Markets tend to favour predictability, as do business leaders deciding where to build new plants. When Mr Trump sets a course, however, there are bound to be detours.

A friend of his who spoke to him in recent days said Mr Trump gave no sign he was about to “back down quickly on this stuff”.

Mr Trump believes other countries trade unfairly and sees tariffs as a tool to make the United States more competitive, the person said.

“He’s very confident it’s going to work for him,” the person added, speaking on condition of anonymity.

👉 Follow Trump 100 on your podcast app 👈

And yet in the run-up to Wednesday’s announcement, Mr Trump and his aides were also hearing from GOP lawmakers and outside allies urging an alternative path.

One was Larry Kudlow, who hosts a show on Fox Business Network and was a senior economic adviser in Mr Trump’s first term.

Mr Kudlow told NBC News that he has had “ongoing” talks with friends in the West Wing about the need to negotiate with other countries before the United States slaps them with tariffs that stand in perpetuity.

Describing Mr Trump’s move Wednesday as “fabulous,” Mr Kudlow added: “Dealmaking is the best thing to do. In the last 48 hours, Trump has gone from non-negotiating to negotiating.

“It’s very clear that Bessent is now the point man on trade. Very clear.”

Anxious GOP lawmakers also weighed in.

Mr Graham said he spoke to Mr Trump at length on Tuesday night and told him he had been hearing from car manufacturers who are worried about how the tariffs would affect their business. BMW operates a plant in Mr Graham’s home state and is one of the companies he said he had spoken to.

Senator John Kennedy, a Republican lawmaker who was also in touch with the administration, said on Tuesday that he planned to have lunch with Mr Bessent. On Wednesday, he told NBC News he was also talking to the White House.

Mr Kennedy likened Mr Trump to the “pit bull who caught the car”. Now, he said, the question becomes: “What are you going to do with the car?”

After more market losses this week, and with pressure mounting from Republicans on Capitol Hill, Mr Trump began having second thoughts.

In his first term, he often viewed the ups and downs of the stock market as a kind of report card on his presidency, celebrating its rise. The downturn had got his attention.

“People were getting a little queasy,” he acknowledged Wednesday on an event with NASCAR racing champions.

“Over the last few days” he began to more seriously consider pausing the additional tariffs, he told reporters later in the day in an Oval Office appearance.

One prospect that intrigued him was personally negotiating new trade deals with the countries looking to get out from under the tariffs, the senior administration official said.

He’d made up his mind. Sitting with Mr Bessent and Mr Lutnick, he crafted the note announcing the 90-day postponement and ending, for the time being, the biggest economic crisis of his young presidency.

“We wrote it from our hearts, right?” Mr Trump said. “It was written as something that I think was very positive for the world and for us, and we don’t want to hurt countries that don’t need to be hurt, and they all want to negotiate.”

The day closed with the Dow Jones Industrial Average up nearly 8%, erasing some – but not all – of the “post-Liberation Day” losses.

Messy as it all may have seemed, his administration insisted that all is unfolding as planned.

“You have been watching the greatest economic master strategy from an American president in history,” White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller posted on Wednesday afternoon.

World

Andrew Tate ‘pointed gun at woman’s face’, court documents claim

Published

9 hours ago

April 10, 2025

admin

Andrew Tate 'pointed gun at woman's face', court documents claim

Andrew Tate pointed a gun at a woman’s face and told her to do as he said, according to court documents seen by Sky News.

Warning: This article contains graphic details of alleged sexual abuse

The controversial social media influencer allegedly told her: “I’m a boss, you’re going to do as I say or there’ll be hell to pay.”

The woman, who worked for Tate on his online webcam business, alleges he threatened her daily.

She is one of four women who have launched a civil claim against Tate in the UK, with allegations including rape, assault and coercive control.

A spokesperson for Tate said he “categorically denies” the allegations.

In a statement, the spokesperson said: “Mr Tate categorically denies these unproven and untested allegations.

“Specifically, he denies ever threatening anyone with a firearm, engaging in non-consensual acts or subjecting any individual to physical or psychological harm.

“These are civil claims, brought years after the alleged events and following a CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) decision not to pursue criminal charges.

“It is deeply troubling that such graphic and one-sided accounts are being publicised before any judicial assessment has taken place.

“This type of reporting undermines the presumption of innocence and shapes public perception in a way that is fundamentally unjust.

“We have seen other high-profile cases where similarly serious allegations collapsed under scrutiny – but only after irreparable reputational harm had already been done.

“Mr Tate will defend himself vigorously and remains confident the truth will prevail.”

The civil action was launched in the High Court in London last week, and a preliminary hearing is to be held next week.

In the court documents, he describes the allegations as “a pack of lies”, and in a detailed response said: “There may have been a toy gun in the flat.”

The woman worked for Tate in Luton in 2015 and is claiming damages for “assault, battery and/or intentional infliction of harm, including rape”.

Tate, 37, and his brother Tristan, 35, are facing a trial in Romania, where they have been living for the past two years, on charges of sexual exploitation and human trafficking.

The Romanian authorities have agreed that after the completion of their own criminal justice process, the brothers can be extradited to the UK on allegations of rape and human trafficking.

The brothers, who have joint UK and US citizenship, are also under criminal investigation in Florida, where they visited recently after a Romanian judge lifted a travel ban on them.

They are currently in Dubai, but must return to Romania.

The four women claim Tate strangled them during sex, and two developed red spots from burst capillaries in their eyes from asphyxia.

In an interview with Sky News last year, one of the claimants said she had consensual sex with Tate during a normal relationship with him, but once lost consciousness when he strangled her.

She said: “We were having sex and he put his hands round my throat and strangled me until I lost consciousness. And when I came round he was still having sex with me, still on top of me.

“The next day, all the white had gone completely red in one of my eyes. I looked it up afterwards and it was just lack of oxygen to your brain where your blood vessels start bursting to try and get more oxygen into your brain. That was quite scary.”

She said she didn’t call police because she was young, inexperienced and didn’t realise how dangerous the encounter had been.

World

Inside a NATO base in Poland – as residents bordering Russia say ‘scare tactic’ is needed

Published

15 hours ago

April 10, 2025

admin

Inside a NATO base in Poland - as residents bordering Russia say 'scare tactic' is needed

Along the thin strip of beach and woodland known as the Vistula Spit which marks the northernmost demarcation between Poland and the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, there is not much in the way of a border.

Just some torn wire fencing and a few rotten posts which seem to stagger drunkenly into the shallows of the Baltic Sea.

Beneath a sign barring entry, we find a couple of empty bottles of Russian cognac and vodka.

It doesn’t feel like the edge of NATO territory.

“I don’t see much protection. It’s not good,” says Krzysztof from Katowice, who has come to inspect the border himself.

“We have to have some kind of scare tactic, something to show that we are trying to strengthen our army,” says Grzegorz, who lives nearby.

“At the same time I think I would not base the defence of our country solely on our army. I am convinced that Europe or America, if anything were to happen, will help us 100%.”

Poland is investing massively in its defence, with military spending set to hit 4.7% of GDP in 2025, more than any other NATO country.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has said he will introduce voluntary military training for men of any age, and women too should they wish, so the army has a competent reserve force in the event of war.

He is investing $2.5bn in stronger border fortifications between Russia and Belarus, a project called East Shield which will include anti-tank obstacles, bunkers and potentially minefields too.

Along with its Baltic neighbours, Poland is withdrawing from the Ottawa convention against the use of land mines. It hasn’t committed to using them, but it wants to have that option.

We’ve been granted access to one of the cornerstones of Polish, and European defence, which is a couple of hours drive from the Vistula spit at the Redowicze military base.

Aegis Ashore Poland, together with its sister site in Romania, are the land-based arms of NATO’s missile defence shield over Europe, which is run by the US navy.

They are symbols of the US commitment to NATO and to the protection of Europe.

And despite changes at the top of the Pentagon it is “business as usual”, says Captain Michael Dwan who oversees air and missile defence within the US Sixth Fleet.

“Our mission to work with NATO forces has been unchanged. And so our commitment from the United States perspective and what capability we bring to ballistic missile defence and the defence of NATO is championed here in Poland.”

As far as Russia is concerned, NATO’s two missile defence bases in Romania and Poland represent a NATO threat on their doorstep and are therefore a “priority target for potential neutralisation”, per Russia’s foreign ministry.

NATO says the installations are purely defensive and their SM-3 interceptor missiles are not armed and are not intended to carry warheads. Russia counters they could easily be adapted to threaten Russia.

Not the case, Captain Dwan says.

“It’s not a matter of moving offensive weapons here into the facility, the hardware and the infrastructure is simply not installed.

“It would take months or years to change the mission of this site and a significant amount of money and capability and design.”

With so much marked “secret” on the site, it seems amazing to be granted the access.

But for NATO, transparency is part of deterrence. They want potential adversaries to know how sophisticated their radar and interception systems are.

They know that if they carried warheads on site, that would make them a target so they don’t.

Deterrence also depends on whether potential adversaries believe in the US’s commitment to NATO and to Europe’s defence.

On an operational level, as far as the troops are concerned, that commitment may still be iron-clad.

But as far as its commander-in-chief goes, there is still – as with so much around Donald Trump’s presidency – a great deal of uncertainty.

In the Oval Office on Wednesday afternoon President Trump suggested he might bundle a potential US troop drawdown in Europe together with the issue of EU trade and tariffs.

“Nice to wrap it up in one package,” he said, “it’s nice and clean”.

Probably not the way Europe sees it, not with a resurgent Russia on their doorstep, economic tailwinds breeding animosity and the notion of Pax Americana crumbling at their feet.