Originally Posted by
Fire and brimstone
Because the Public Interest Disclosure Act says so. Why don't you read it?
Is this matter 'public interest'? - the making of a BBC documentary seems to vindicate this.
If it's not whistleblowing, he will be hunted down like a dog.
Well I have read it and my opnion, and I am not a lawyer, is that this would not be considered a proteected dissclosured under the act because it does not meet the requirments for that, specifically
43B-f) 'that information tending to show any matter falling within any one of the preceding paragraphs has been, is being or is likely to be deliberately concealed'.
I think tankering was a well known practice which was not in any way concealed, therefore it does not meet the requirments ot be a protected disclosure under the act, essentially because it is not actually a disclosure.
The focus on it is also entirely disproportionate. All measures are necessarily trade offs between cost, efficiency, investment, performance etc. Some level of tankering is necessary and at the current level the effect is tiny so although things could doubtless be better it is crazy to focus on this and not other areas where much larger savings can be found. If we look at any area of modern life whatsoever we will find practices with similar or larger impacts which are not highlighted by an eratz 'whistleblower' as some shocking outrage. We should reject the fake outrage and seek to focus on changes that are a good trade off between benefit and cost/inconvenience.