Metropol

Is anyone else as shocked as me about this story?

Not shocked that there may be some "bully boy" tactics from the PM or others (frankly I expect the PM to be nothing less than demanding to his cohorts), but that the chief exec of this charity went public.

Its absolutely outrageous.

Even if it were true, she's identified (in all but name) people who have used a highly confidential helpline and left them open to being investigated.

The whole thing utterly reeks though - does it come as any surprise its Tory party bigwigs who are directors of this organisation?

Whilst I've been out at the dentist (having my teeth whitened - oh yes) I read that the boss of this helpline has resigned.

Totally unforgivable to leak this type of info (she apparently called the BBC to volunteer it), and smells of political mud-raking.

Must admit, this story shocked me a lot.

I thought that these bullying helplines were legally bound to be confidential? And even if they're not, it's a severe breach of morality to reveal details given to people, and I'm not surprised that the Tory's are behind it somehow. Their lead in the polls is slipping and they now seem to be desperately clutching at straws to gain power, even though whatever they do will probably lead to a hung parliament.

I'm meeting Norman Smith on Friday (BBC Political Correspondent - sorry for the dirty name drop, but he's friends with my stepdad) and I'll probably have a chat with him about this because it's really quite astonishing. In many ways, I'm glad that the PM is demanding. I imagine that nothing would get done properly otherwise.

Cameron is slithering around today saying, "however this news got into the public domain, we MUST find out what's been going on.."

Err... MUST we really?

David Cameron going on about paranoia at No 10, but everyone is out to get Gordon Brown!

Just been looking at the website of the Charity, There's no blanket confidentiality, it seems that although initial contact is confidential that they do have a clause which if the 'victim' agrees then the nature of the complaint could be passed on to third parties.

If the alleged victims in this case agreed to this information disclosure then the Charity is in the clear.

DVB Cornwall wrote:Just been looking at the website of the Charity, There's no blanket confidentiality, it seems that although initial contact is confidential that they do have a clause which if the 'victim' agrees then the nature of the complaint could be passed on to third parties.

If the alleged victims in this case agreed to this information disclosure then the Charity is in the clear.

Well that's a big "if", isn't it?

I tell you this though - I wouldn't feel confident ringing that number for all the tea in China, if their over-riding aim is to embarrass employers by revealing that staff have called in.

Do you think she would have gone to the press if that call had come from within the head office of BT or similar?

No - me either.

Interesting blog on the Telegraph's website here, and if you look at the BBC's report here it says "Mrs Pratt, who first called the BBC unprompted on Sunday... has made clear none of the callers accused Mr Brown of bullying and said he may not even have known about the claims." so now it looks very fishy indeed, because there doesn't even seem to be any evidence that staff were bullied directly by the PM. Instead, they were suffering from mild work related stress, which I can assure you, I would suffer from if I worked in one of the most powerful offices in Britain.

The plot thickens.

In a new interview on Sky News, Caroline Pratt says there was no direct complaints against Gordon Brown. This isn't what she said also on Sky News this morning.

Rawnsley needs to put up or shut up now, his book serialisation started this, the story substance is disintegrating by the hour now. Opposition candidates would be wise to shut up now.

DVB Cornwall wrote:Rawnsley needs to put up or shut up now

Are you Peter Mandelson?

There was a very interesting story in this fortnight's Private Eye that will be criminally ignored by the majority of the public, alleging that the original facts that were released in a popular right-wing tabloid rag prior to the Rawnsley serialisation (that Brown pulled a secretary from her chair, lashed out at staff and hit a civil servant) were false, and fed to the MoS by a "Number 10 source", with the feeling that the allegations coming out in Rawnsley's book were going to be far more serious.

Watching the interview with Caroline Pratt on Breakfast this morning was quite uncomfortable, for a number of reasons. When she turned up for the interview, they'd plonked her on a street in front of the charity's HQ, in the pouring rain, and she seemed irritable and tired. She was asked whether a Tory correspondant (who had e-mailed the charity, she claimed, after the allegations came out) prompted her to go public with the bullying allegations; this question she rudely dismissed as "irrelevant", which it's not - least of all because when we look at the (shrinking) list of patrons of the charity, one of them is one Ann Widdecombe MP. Second of all, Ms Pratt comes across as a thoroughly unpleasant person to head an anti-bullying group; condescending, rude, pedantic and confused. Bear in mind that she apparently called the BBC unprompted on Sunday - why would one do such a thing if one couldn't handle the ensuing maelstrom?

Ultimately everyone looks a prize twat. Brown, of course, looks like the horrible figure he always has. Cameron looks like he's flapping and blustering. Clegg - well, nobody can remember what he said. And an anti-bullying campaign group and charity looks decidedly seedy, with a leader as ineffectual as the incumbent Labour leader himself.