Whistle Blower

[dctyke]

Not seen this before, will delete if old news however not good if true:

Private Eye In The Back: DIRC-y deeds at the MoD (http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=in_the_back&issue=1401)

[Courtney Mil]

Interesting that it's only carried by Private Eye. BTW, there appear to be two Simon Bunces in the media.

[Kitbag]

Not exactly all over the net, but he is on LinkedIn here (https://uk.linkedin.com/pub/simon-bunce/27/161/9a1)

Is he telling the truth?

[Fluffy Bunny]

Not just the MoD, but it's favoured contractors too...

[Whenurhappy]

The story in Private Eye (strangely, not seen as I am an avid reader of the Eye) doesn't make a lot of sense. What is a level 5 security clearance? Presumably DV - but as far as I am aware, the terminology hasn't changed. And why were internal disciplinary proceedings held, rather that going to a civilian court? A 'flight risk'. I've never heard that term (or the restrictions) applied to Service personnel. I suppose that there's a lot more to the story...but it sounds a little fishy.

It's not clear whether he's a civilian SO2 rather than being (back)in the RAF.

And why would he report fraud concerns to his vetting officer? If he was worried about the CoC he should have contacted Defence Fraud Analysis unit or MOD Police. But vetting officer?

Just had a look at the Linked in page....hmmmmm,...very odd. Joined in 1981....left/kicked out....seems bitter about everything. Very odd, indeed. It is a little incoherent and definitely full of insinuations about almost everyone he's worked with.


And he got the hump with the Police as well, but there's a pattern here.

As one who still feels wronged by the RAF, I have stopped pursuing a civil remedy because it can become all-consuming and cloud one's judgement. I've got (for me) the dream job and I think of the poor saps who think they got one over me...stuck in MB or High Wycombe mediocrity. When I'm surveying a border post with the local Border Service, attending yet another garden party on some foreign embassy's lawn, or dressed in No 6as visiting a warship, I think of Hurricane Block and smirk...

[barnstormer1968]

Whenurhappy

Flight risk is a fairly standard term, and is routinely used. As long as you forget this chap was in the RAF, and that the term has nothing to do with flight safety it makes a lot more sense, but sounds nicer than 'might run away before court appearance' :)

[Chugalug2]

Well it all sounds very plausible to me, even if the media in general have decided not to touch it with a barge pole. The lot of a whistle blower in this country is still pretty parlous. The lot of a whistle blower in the MOD is decidedly hazardous. We have had testimony on this very forum that it is MOD policy (confirmed by ministers) that it is legal to issue an order to disregard safety regulations but sign them off as complied with, and that it is an offence to disobey such an order.

The fact that such a situation is in direct conflict with Military Law does not seem to concern the RAF Provost Marshal nor the Thames Valley Police. Evidently there is nothing to be seen here and we should all move along...

If Sqn Ldr Bunce was complaining about having tripped or fallen at work he would no doubt now be wallowing in piles of our money. The fact that he reported the possible theft of our money by those above him condemns him from the very outset.

[charliegolf]

Served for less than a year after commissioning; was chopped. But still made Sqn Ldr and Harrier pilot.

None of this makes his whistleblowing story false, but dents his cred for me.

CG

[Whenurhappy]

Barnstormer, I'm familiar with the term flight risk in a judicial setting yet I can't see why this would be applied in this case, unless there's a lot more about this case and the individual that we don't know. (Between 1997 and 2001 I was involved, inter alia, in fraud investigation son RAF and other MOD sites). Although his military background sounds a bit dodgy, and this shouldn't affect his whistleblowing, it does sound very odd to me. Also revealing that he has done work for Cheltenham is a little unwise, to say the least.

Does anyone know this chap? There are just too many inconsistencies in his stories. On his linked- in page there's no reference to him being a Sqn Ldr and flying Harriers - and when did we in the RAF write letters of resignation? I smell...bs

[Jimlad1]

The whole thing sounds very very odd indeed, and I am reminded that there are two sides to every story, and at present we're only seeing one highly subjective side of it.

[Davef68]

I looked at the author and immediately thought 'Hmmm'. Squarebasher's RAF tales are often full of inaccuracies

[barnstormer1968]

Whenurhappy.
Apologies for the misunderstanding.
I do make a link here, in regards whistle blowing and the MOD attitude towards it.
Let's just pretend this whistle blower is correct in his story and should be taken at face value.
Something like being considered a flight risk by the MOD would allow them to more severely punish him, or deter him from voicing his claims, even if they had no chance of getting a sound conviction.

[tucumseh]

Fraud by misrepresentation is not an offence in MoD. This has been confirmed 4 times in the last couple of years by Cabinet Secretaries, Sir Robert Kerslake and Sir Jeremy Heywood, in writing. They formally ruled;



It is not an offence to issue an order to commit fraud
It is an offence to refuse to obey that order

These rulings repeated those of various Ministers; an unbroken line back to Dr Lewis Moonie. Probably beyond if I dug deeper, but I remember Moonie as he was particularly deranged. Ivor Caplin. Adam Ingram. Bob Ainsworth. Andrew Robathan.

As I have said many times over the years on pprune, I first came across this policy in December 1992 when 7 of us were threatened with dismissal by Air Vice Marshall Christopher Baker, Director General Support Management (in AMSO) for doing essentially what this officer has done; only far more and far more often. We flatly refused to commit fraud and Baker's staff at Harrogate simply committed it themselves. He threatened us again if we complained about their actions, stating he fully supported them. Baker and his two Air Cdres who conducted this "hearing" will not challenge my statement. All 7 witnesses are very impressive, with full records.

The evidence was presented to the Director Internal Audit in January 1993. He reported in June 1996, direct to PUS, supporting us to the hilt. Not one of his 19 recommendations has ever been implemented. Again, the very existence of this report, and the record showing precisely why it was commissioned (to head off dismissals), means no-one will contradict me.

I can confirm the process is not confidential and your annual report and service record will reflect your offence.

I still have all the related papers, as I do the tape recordings of the 9th September 2002 hearing that resulted in the same rulings by Sir Robert Walmsley, Chief of Defence Procurement.

If Private Eye wish to contact me.........

[Rosevidney1]

Obviously you do not want to deal directly with a grubby journalist so may I mention that 'for a generous consideration' I am prepared to act as your agent.

[Whenurhappy]

Barnstormer, the Eye article claims that he is/was considered at risk of flight basically on National Security grounds, because he 'knew too much'. I think that's stretching credibility a bit, given that he's now working as a driver, with this mystical Level 5 security clearance (and since my earlier post, I've done some background checking and no one seems to have heard of it).

I also checked a past copy of the Air Force List that I found in the office, covering the time that he was supposedly on Harriers. There's is no commission officer of his name listed, but the Air Force List is not always that accurate - I was missing from it, inexplicably, for several years.

But I get back to his story- why on Earth would he want to report this matter to his Vetting Officer in the first instance, unless it was part of a vetting interview (and the context of the article would indicate it wasn't)?

Oh, and an earlier enterprise of his was closed down by the FBI, according to his Linked-in entry. But again, this could be misinterpretation. But this business was whilst he was serving as a Sqn Ldr, which, again, doesn't tally up.

I'm süre this is all part of a vast conspiracy against him...

[Fluffy Bunny]

Funny this "Level 5" clearance thing. The copy of his pass in the article (if gen) shows he is a 3rd party contractor with only a minimal clearance (Sub-SC level, so CTC or BC).

[Jimlad1]

His badge is a deception - he's so secretly cleared that he knows where the UFOs are kept under Rudloe Manor, but to ensure we don't know that he needs to know what he needs to know, his need to know pass implies he doesnt need to know as much as he actually needs to know. :E

[MATELO]

Level 5 clearance is possible.

[Whenurhappy]

Ahh, Jimlad, so you do know then. Clever this security marlarky

[Jimlad1]

Security is not a dirty word Blackadder!

[Roadster280]

He's got his security clearance on his LinkedIn page - SC. I would not think that merely holding SC clearance is a reason to throw him in the slammer on remand lest he run off to the Syrians.

His LinkedIn page shows he was a trainee pilot for just a couple of years before he got chopped, and he recognizes this where he says "failed Harrier pilot".

He's got "USA NSA SECRET" on his LinkedIn page as a grade of encryption software. Two points. 1) The NSA would not thank you for publicising what you sell to them. 2). The canteen menu and phone directory are probably the only things as low as SECRET there.

None of this makes sense to me. Maybe he goes about his business differently to others, and it's gone a bit pear shaped for him. Maybe.

[tarantonight]

Haven't fully followed this and typing on the hoof, but.................are we talking about a Walt here?

[Rosevidney1]

It would be nice to know the true story.

[Whenurhappy]

I wouldn't normally use such a vulgar term as Walt...but he seems to meet all the criteria...

[airpolice]

From LinkedIn

General Duties / Pilot - Permanent Commission
Royal Air Force
March 1980 – June 1982 (2 years 4 months)UK and where ever I was sent
Commissioned on 15 Oct 81 after 2 goes at RAF Cranwell. Finally got through on 54 IOTC.

Held at No 1 Sqn, RAF Wittering. No 1 Sqn CO was Wg Cdr Peter Squires.
Joined No 55 BFTC at No 1 BFTS, RAF Linton on Ouse on 1 Dec 81.

It was better than working for a living but did not pay a living wage. Got in trouble with money.

Last flight from RAF Elvington, the RLG to No 1 BFTS was on 18 Mar 82.

Sacked in Jun 82 without compension, support or follow up. Charming!

Well, what do you expect from a bunch of RAF ******. Well, I did expect a little help to return to civy street - and I got absolutely no help what so ever.
So I picked myself up, dusted myself off and marched away - to a different beat.
The end.


I suspect that Private Eye might be the cause of the Walt aspect of how this reads. His flying "career" amounts to about 15 weeks, and a chunk of that was xmas/new year stand down.



From Private Eye

“THE Ministry of Defence has a zero tolerance approach to fraud,” boasts the MoD in rules designed to protect whistle blowers. “Reports are treated in strict confidence and all whistle blowers are fully protected.”

Simon Bunce, a former RAF squadron leader, may beg to differ.
After 20 years’ distinguished service he has learnt to his cost that making disclosures to the MoD’s supposedly independent fraudbusters in the Defence Irregularity Reporting Cell (aka DIRC) is anything but confidential.

Bunce was promoted from “fast jets”, Harriers at No 1 (F) Squadron, to pilot a fast desk at an army base in Wiltshire, while working on classified projects for, among others, GCHQ. It was when working on a “Purple Desk” (MoD-speak for a combined army, navy and air force project) that he noticed an “irregularity” on Project Vanguard.


Nobody with this level of detail on Linked in would describe themselves to a journalist as a Squablin Bleeder when it is so easy to get caught, surely?


I do enjoy reading Private Eye and I am disappointed in what looks like a poorly researched article.


As for the original claims, I have some experience with MOD Fraud investigations, and they do take some time. The very nature of his allegation might have been enough to identify him as the source. Not to mention the fact that he had already discussed it outwith the confidential system.

[dragartist]

Shock of my life: I checked this bloke up on LinkedIn. It would appear three of my contacts can introduce me to him. (an RAF Engineering Officer, an Ex Service recruiter and a chap who runs a parachute equipment company in Florida)

[Whenurhappy]

Airpolice,

I, too, like Private Eye, but where on Earth would they have got the idea or created the story that he'd been on 1 Sqn, flown Harriers, had been a Sqn Ldr, etc...unless he had provided it to the Journalist?

He was filling an SO2 role, it seems, as a civilian. SO2 = Sqn Ldr (sort of), but there is a clear disconnect in this story and his Linked-In page. However, like a lot of SP, my Linked-In page is rather sparse, having been advised to purge it in preparation for my current posts. But I agree, the Eye should have investigated this more deeply.

[Chugalug2]

Walt or no Walt, surely the issue here is the allegations that he makes? Nobody seems to doubt that he was an SO2 who reported financial "anomalies" to the appropriate authority, only to have his world fall apart thereafter.

He may well have form, but then so does the MOD, witness tucumseh's post. This is our money that he claims was being illegally misappropriated. Shouldn't we give some thought to that before resuming the ritual killing of the messenger?

As to linkedin, facebook, and twitter, include me out as someone once said.

[Crab558]

Dear dctyke
I am the MOD Whistle Blower.
On November 20, 2012, to my Security Clearance Vetting Officer, I did whistle blow (up to) ten thousand, six hundred millions pounds of Government Contractor fraud, identifying the Single Controlling Authority (SCA) and their (three) helpers. My reports to the DIRC (Defence Irregularity Reporting Cell) at HQ MOD Police, Weatherfield, Essex were called "Job's for the boy's in the Army".
The SCA was my Team Leader (at MOD).
MOD Police policy is "once the whistle blower is identified, refer them to the 'Chain of Command' for 'Management Guidance'".
My TL, when informed, sacked me on the spot (February 11, 2013).
Effective Date of Termination - Bank Holiday, Monday, May 27, 2013.
I am not sure where the expression 'Level 5' clearance came from.
I was DV - with an number of additional 'read ins' for individual 'projects'. I am not going to say anymore about that.
If anyone has any doubts as to what happened to me, perhaps you would like to come and see my evidence before you stand in judgement over me.
Thank you.
Kindest Regards
Crab558
(aka - the MOD Whistle Blower - in person)

[Whenurhappy]

Crab558,

Thanks for responding. I think we are all intrigued by this case (and as I mentioned, I was wronged by the MOD some 6 years ago now). A few clarifications, if I may:

Who referred to your reports at MDP HQ as "Job's for the boy's in the Army"?
Do you have a reference for the MDP policy "MOD Police policy is "once the whistle blower is identified, refer them to the 'Chain of Command' for 'Management Guidance'"
Where did all this Harrier/1 Sqn Malarky come from? Was this misreporting in the Eye?
Were you serving at the time your team elader sacked you 'on the spot'?
What were the grounds from your termination of employment?
Have you submitted your evidence to MDP or civilian police?
HAve you spoken to your MP about this matter?

[Pontius Navigator]

[Quote ten thousand, six hundred millions pounds[/quite]

Is this ten thousand frauds of six hundred millions?

Or,

£10,600,000,000 or £10.6Bn?

[212man]

ten thousand, six hundred millions pounds

Sounds like a statement you'd find in an e-mail offer from Nigeria....:confused:

[tucumseh]

Difficult to think of an area in MoD controlled by one man and 3 helpers that is responsible for £600M (assuming that is the intended figure). Unless you're speaking of the IAB.

However, it is possible, because the mandated process of "Requirement Scrutiny" (whereby, ultimately, an individual makes a written declaration to the effect an agreed price is "fair and reasonable", and signs it) is serially abused. Knowingly making a false written declaration is Fraud by Misrepresentation; as I said earlier, this is not an offence in MoD, but it is an offence to refuse an order to commit that fraud.

I do know of one £4Bn Army programme that was kicked off with such a statement, but that was rank incompetence rather than a conscious act and ignored when it reached AbbeyWood. The real problem is that mistakes are always uncovered by those who understand, who tend to be much lower grades. By definition you are exposing incompetence at the highest level, so many decide not to say anything and just go ahead and waste the money. (And, hence, the later perceived need to make "savings at the expense of safety", rather than get to the root).

I do not like the term "whistleblower". It has negative connotations, but reporting such fraud is a legal obligation. I do however recognise the general attitude described, although cannot believe a Team Leader has the authority to dismiss on the spot. I certainly didn't and I never knew anyone who did. But I have certainly come across many who threaten such things, and learned very early that a mic and recorder planted firmly on the desk works wonders. It is why I am so confident about the above ruling. So your story doesn't surprise me.

[tarantonight]

Served for less than a year after commissioning; was chopped. But still made Sqn Ldr and Harrier pilot.

None of this makes his whistleblowing story false, but dents his cred for me.

CG

My thoughts exactly. All very odd.

[The Old Fat One]

Chuq, fixed your post for you old chap...

...as to any information which contradicts my cognitive bias include me out...

[212man]

Commissioned on 15 Oct 81 after 2 goes at RAF Cranwell. Finally got through on 54 IOTC.


I'm pretty sure 54 IOTC was earlier than 1981 - I was on in 105 in 1987 and a friend at university was on 97 in 1985. That tallies with 4 course per year, but 54 IOTC in 1981 does not.......

[Peter G-W]

The dates seem accurate. My IOT, 50, graduated in Apr 81. I seem to remember a guy on our junior course (which would have been 55 BFT, 1 Sqn) at Linton being dragged off to Wroughton, after some fraud involving a VW Scirocco.

[212man]

Intriguing, maybe they reset the numbering around then (RAF Henlow closure related perhaps) - seems a bit of a stretch squeezing 47 courses in 4 years.....

[Peter G-W]

A course started every six weeks then. A veritable sausage machine.

[MG]

No 90 IOT ran from Sep 85, so 97 must have started much later than you say.

[Pontius Navigator]

The other oddity is the date format. Anyone in the military for 5 minutes does day, month, year. In fact just about any office trained wallah anywhere in UK does that.

Veni, vedi, reliqui

[Chugalug2]

TOFO:_
Chuq, fixed your post for you old chap...
Quote:
...as to any information which contradicts my cognitive bias include me out...


Not sure of the point that you are making. All I meant is that I don't "do" social media:-

As to linkedin, facebook, and twitter, include me out as someone once said.

If you mean that I have a blinkered attitude, rejecting anything that I find contrary to it, then I protest most vigorously! Indeed, it is the MOD that has the form in that regard; dissembling, withholding information, and staking out juniors to deflect attention from the illegal actions of VSOs.

Whatever the truth of Crab558's allegations, the default reaction of rejecting them as the lies of a Walt says more about the defensive attitudes of those who prefer to leave all the stones unturned, for fear of discovering what they suspect might thereby be revealed.

[Whenurhappy]

The problem of this story are the gross inconsistencies, which jeopardise serious considerations of the allegations. The person who claims to have been the whistle blower hasn't answered what are reasonable queries; after all he decided to come on the thread and 'reveal' himself.

[Danny42C]

Chugalug (your #42),

Just come across your:
...All I meant is that I don't "do" social media:-...
Amen to that ! As my old mother used to say:

"The names of fools are like their faces -
Always seen in public places !"

Danny.