Airpolice,
Good questions. Perhaps I can offer a partial answer. In around 2010, the MoD issued new security regulations. I was working on a PT, and was required to undergo the 'on line' training. I was amazed to find out that the new guidance for classifying information included 'protecting the reputation of the Government or the Department from damage'. I queried this, thinking that perhaps the MoD had just bought some generic 'data security' training package which also covered civilian organisations. Nope, I was told in no uncertain terms that classification of data would now be driven (in part) by whether it might damage the PT's (or the Government's) reputation.
Of course, this actually meant the PT Leader's reputation, or that of his superiors, including VSOs. As a contractor, I had NO reputation to protect. Nor did the rank and file desk officers. So, when you talk about people actually being held to account, the system has closed ranks over the past few years. Not exactly 'open government' is it?
My approach to the issue is not always 'hang the swines' - unless they are the senior people who should d**n well carry the can. The best way is to make sure that the systems, processes and training of the people in the organisation are up to the job they've been given to do. In this case, know how important keeping full, organised and available records is, and making sure that they do their part to make sure it happens. To answer you directly, I was hoping that where people are discharging professional responsibilities, they will be worried if they find out that they're not doing their job properly. I admit to being an optimist here. The central problem is that the rank and file in the MoD are being managed and driven to 'just get the job done', not 'do the job properly'. By the way, 'doing the job properly' does not have to mean that it takes longer.
Best regards as ever to all those doing the job properly,
Engines
Last edited by Engines; 27th Feb 2018 at 15:13.