UK Politician Dismisses Report of Bullying Against Dominic Raab as “Snowflakes”

Jacob Rees-Mogg, a Conservative MP for North East Somerset, has criticized the recent report that found Dominic Raab guilty of bullying staff, calling the complainants a “veritable blizzard of snowflakes.” Raab, who resigned as deputy prime minister and justice secretary last week, had been accused of acting in an intimidating and aggressive manner during meetings. Rees-Mogg believes that the report did not provide enough detail about the complaints and suggested that Raab’s resignation was unnecessary.

Rees-Mogg defended Raab, saying that the accusations related to his time as foreign secretary and his handling of Brexit negotiations over Gibraltar. He suggested that the complainants were being overly sensitive and that Raab was simply trying to ensure that the Civil Service code was being followed. Rees-Mogg also criticized the ambassador who was reportedly involved in the accusations, suggesting that the individual was too soft and that ambassadors needed to have a backbone to represent the country abroad.

Rees-Mogg Claims Double Standards in Government

Rees-Mogg believes that there are double standards in the government’s treatment of civil servants and ministers. He suggested that civil servants could behave appallingly without consequences, while ministers were forced to resign over minor issues. He argued that ambassadors should not be able to ignore government policy or suggest that foreign forces should enter British sovereign territory without being held accountable.

The Foreign Office declined to comment on Rees-Mogg’s remarks.

Institute for Government Expresses Concern over Trust Breakdown

The Institute for Government thinktank has expressed concern that the bullying investigation has led to a “complete breakdown” in trust between ministers and civil servants. Following Raab’s resignation, Oliver Dowden was named as the new deputy prime minister and Alex Chalk was appointed as the justice secretary. Meanwhile, Raab has attacked the findings of the report as “flawed” and claimed that they set a dangerous precedent for the conduct of good government.