Mr McCormick: I think I have said here before that my personal view is that I protect whistleblowers regardless of whether they have protection under some sort of legislation, as far as it goes—though it is safe to say that many whistleblowers are quite often disgruntled ex-employees and sometimes the veracity of their evidence has to be tested. We do not reveal the names of people who give us information.
Dear Screaming, or should that be Mr Skull.
I am impressed by your statement to the PPrune public and the Senators, about protecting Whistleblowers.
My experience dealing with CAA and in particular in communicating with the CEO has been the opposite but maybe you have undergone some transformation in the last months. I look forward to your reopening the case of the Authorities role in the AvGas contamination Cover-up, no can't really call it re-opening as I was the party who supplied you with all the evidence which you nor any of your predecessors chose to act on. I don't think I should have given all the damning evidence, but then such is whistleblowing or commonly referred to by your organisation (pardon the pun) as CONfidential reporting, but then again we can't claim we weren't warned, the first 3 letters say it all!
Again now that you have proclaimed your support in the form of protecting Whistleblowers/CONfidential reporters, I look forward to your offer to settle my losses. But then again that was already an ORDER by the previous Minister as you may recall. I could again send you a copy should the previous half dozen have been misplac by OLC or is that LSD this month.
That implication in your most recent correspondence and that of the charming Ms Elizabeth Hampton to "Sue" if I don't like it or words to that effect appear contrary to your re-birth statements to the Senators!!
SW.