You make a complaint, you are ignored.

This is repeated several times.

You eventually take your complaint to the Ombudsman.

They return the complaint to the department you complained about.

That department conducts its own investigation that you are not privy to.

You are called to several meetings at which point you are told the correct procedure for complaints to be made in the future.

Ombudsman’s office finally calls you to say you were correct that there had been bad practice and that the case is closed.

You have no idea what has happened only that what you complained about continues to happen.

There are further meetings where you are told in many different ways to never talk about it outside the department.

After more meetings where it is suggested you have witnessed a “tragedy” counseling is suggested as well as a need for time off and a suggestion that you are angry and that others may no longer see you as part of the “team”.

After denying the need for either counseling, support groups or time off the time off is imposed anyway and then an official review is suggested and implemented.

Strange questions are asked during the review and you can see the beginnings of a classic set up which will result in dismissal.

The “tragedy” you witnessed is experienced by other team members who after watching what has happened to you decide to be very quiet.

Even with legal training it is mostly impossible to beat the system. The following update into the Climategate emails is being met with precisely the “bureaucratic defense mechanisms” as identified in Robina’s article

Written by John O'Sullivan- Climate Change Dispatch. November 19, 2010

“Some of us with legal training smelt a rat when the investigation was first entrusted to Norfolk Constabulary. Why was this case, potentially the biggest international criminal fraud of all time palmed off onto plodding country constables?

But then it got worse! Almost immediately it was announced that ‘aiding’ Norfolk’s ‘finest’ was a secretive private police unit, the National Domestic Extremism Team (NDET). Yes, you read that right- a private police unit was in on the act. Now why would this be, we may wonder?

And where the hell was the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) when required? The SFO are mandated under law to take over any fraud case where more than £500,000 is involved and/or there’s an international dimension. Moreover, unlike the SFO the NDET were under no obligation to abide by the Freedom of Information (FOIA) Act. Like Jones, they got a green light from the authorities to play fast and loose with the evidence and then get away with it.

So throughout the coldest winter for 30 years progress in the investigations froze as completely as the weather. With no SFO in the picture (publicly accountable) and ACPO and NDET not accountable, being totally exempt from freedom of information laws (FOIA) this investigation is going nowhere fast.

Norfolk’s plodders and the secretive NDET, maintaining a clandestine line of communication with the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) another private and unaccountable clique, had a clear run to implement the cover up. It’s lasted a year so far - can they go the full distance? Such is the woeful state of British justice today.”

I also agree with Briar Rose's comment. However it is important to note that the control environment flows down from the top and many (all?) government agencies operate on personality.

The last mentioned problem always existed to an extent, but soon worsened following the devolution of powers from the Public Service Boards to the heads of agencies (particularly regarding recruitment, selection and the creation of positions) and the expansion of political appointments.

The changes wrought by both sides of politics to make the public service more 'responsive' (read as politically sensitive) and the corporatisation that put to rest the final vestiges of public service neutrality, independence and the traditional policy focus on overall community benefit (and an enduring community benefit at that).

What I am endeavouring to say is that whether they wanted it or not, the federal and State public services are now expected to be proactive in protecting their 'masters', ie., the government of the day. Ministers haven't been slow to side-step their ministerial accountability, throwing it to their departments and contractors too.

All of that makes it very awkward for public servants where the underlying direction of policy that is being implemented is contrary to what the government (and probably the opposition too) is informing the public. Migration and health provide examples.

It isn't that whistles aren't being heard, rather that the ministerial accountabilities that were crucial controls of the Westminster System of government have been lost. Although public servants are subject to strict codes for their behaviour, what worth are these where the overall system does not reward and more likely punishes such ethics as old fashioned, irrelevant and probably dangerous?

However, if it is a small consolation to whistleblowers, anyone who asks an awkward question, be it a staff member or 'client' (never 'citizen', that could imply some rights), can just as easily be labelled as 'aggrieved' (read as a troublemaker) and be shunted along the same path.

spindoc, there's a difference between
whistleblowers and conspiracy theorists.
Admittedly, the advent of the Internet
has blurred the difference somewhat,
at least to those credulous souls who
are predisposed to find nebulous wrongdoing
where it doesn't exist.

<< Ludwig, you have never broken the rules? >>

Paul, what ARE the rules?

The code of conduct is supposed to be the rule book. Then there are other rules on top of that and of course there is the law behind it.

But, general practice reveals that the rules ain’t the rules and that something else applies. You’ve basically got to very carefully sus out what is and isn’t accepted practice.

So, all too often, you can actually be breaking the rules very frequently while just upholding accepted practice. To this extent, yes I have broken the rules…. and if I hadn’t, I would have been placed at a disadvantage.

For example, when on fieldwork, we basically work for all of the daylight hours and then often into the evening. When you are out there, you want to maximise your efficiency. But our rule book says that we can’t work more than ten hours in a day in the field. If you decide that you are going to only work ten hours, you’ll soon run into strife with your colleagues. So, you work all day long and you mark only ten hours on your timesheets and give two or three hours of your time each day as voluntary, or I should say; forced ‘voluntary’ input!

That’s just one of many examples, which in itself doesn’t amount to much. But when there is a whole culture that is significantly different to the stated and often reinforced rules, then it can get a bit hard to cop... and awfully frustrating to sort out where you really stand.

So, if one breaks the rules while upholding accepted practice, do they then forego the right to complain about those who break the rules in a serious manner? Absolutely not.

Spindoc, don’t get mad get even. But how?

Turning up to vote at Forton (Lancashire) I chatted to the staff manning the polling station who expected a busy day as it was sunny, more were going to turn out to vote – the weather determined the result! We spend our time complaining about our rights but ignore our responsibilities. Are we alive to serve or be served?

One can complain about the SFO, NDET and ACPO and their failure to act – and at face value a clear failure in meeting their duties. But why should they behave differently?

In a democracy we have the power to choose those who will govern. Our choices are governed by our self interest. Climategate is but self interest from UEA, CRU and IPCC. If I can vote according to my self interest why can’t that CABAL act according to theirs?

If laws are an expression of common intent and that intent is self interest wherein lies the capacity to preclude any actions? Power of force that reflects what may be agreed from time to time – certainly no underlying eternal values.

Climategate and all such ills are a symptom not the disease. Philosophy posed the questions: Who am I, What is the nature of society, and What is the relationship between the 2?

If life is about self interest then government will bend to placating those interests, which will include those whose actions we see as corrupt. Power will be the commodity of impacting on events, and power will serve the interests of those holding it alone. Get power or get used to it.

If life is about values outside ourselves then act according to them; vote according to the values and make clear to the elected representatives they will be held to account against them. But be warned, the judgement exercised against Climategate will be exercised against oneself for the petty corruptions of self interest one pursues.

What are life’s values and what are my responsibilities?