Comments on: Civil Serf – what went wrong

By: How to Blog about your employer: let me count the ways: Civil Serf | The Wardman Wire

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 06:55:28 +0000

[...] I’ll probably stay with the topic of Civil Serf for a few days – as there’s an interesting debate developing. [...]

By: Rob Bain

Rob Bain — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:57:32 +0000

“If you are truly whistle blowing then you have less to fear”,
Didn’t I read about the Eurostat EU whistleblower getting sacked /suspended after exposing financial irregularities?

Despite the Welsh Windbag saying I will root out corruption., there will be zero tolerance Looks like she had nothing to fear then?
See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/07/21/whistl21.xml

We all love the gravy train when we’re on it.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:55:45 +0000

But being indiscreet isn’t necessarily about whistleblowing, its often about inane gossiping and breaking confidences. My point was that if you are truly whistleblowing then you have less to fear than if you are simply gossiping and ignoring your obligations to your employer and your colleagues.

By: Oliver

Oliver — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:53:47 +0000

Jeremy:
Maybe there are enough protections for whistleblowers. Problem is, even if that were so, your line of argumentation is fit to provide a rationale for abolishing it. “Even if all she’s guilty of is being indiscreet, then she’s certainly not acted in the spirit of the code.” can be easily applied to classical whistleblowing disclosures. After all, there’s hardly anything more indiscreet than reporting the skeletons in your boss’ closet you know about.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 00:06:09 +0000

futureww. Correct about it being overblown.

By: futurewww

futurewww — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 14:22:10 +0000

I suspect this is very similar to what has always happened, ie that drunken conversations in whitehall pubs are ‘overheard’ by journalists, except, now, this takes place on line. When you look at it, there are actually very few examples of eg blogging leading to any problems with employees, when you consider the ‘ooo’s of people who are doing it. Storm in an e-cup!

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:31:07 +0000

@DC Easy to be rude when you hide behind anonymity. Have you not read what I wrote? As for the promotion, I wish…

By: DC

DC — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:08:21 +0000

@Jeremy, nice lower-backside licking for a promotion. Surely TW reading this will call his cronies to upgrade the grade.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:35:32 +0000

@Oliver. I’m not suggesting forbidding gossip. Only that if you do, you shouldn’t expect protection. In any case, political scandals are more than office tittle tattle about how bored someone might be in their job. There are plenty of channels available (and protection) to anyone genuinely whistleblowing.

By: Oliver

Oliver — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 06:55:57 +0000

Jeremy, you do realise that your rationale is perfectly applicable to silence whistleblowers (and is routinely used to that end)? Yes, there’s a difference between scrutiny and gossip, but if you forbid one with arguments that apply to the other, too, then you’re not precisely doing accountability a favour. As for your work being tightly scrutinised by all manner of bodies -with all due respect, Jeremy, but if that were enough at all times, there would be no political scandals, period. The fact that there are makes quite clear that alternative mechanisms to “get the word out” are necessary, just as they are in private business.