Walter said;
“However, what is needed is input of specific details from personnel in a position to know. Any “whistleblower” coming forward at the moment may anticipate a hard time which is why I made that last post reminding people of our values and strengths – at least they are unlikely to get the full David Kelly treatment at the moment!”
Taken in isolation, that is, lacking the more emotive theories (which one is entitled to but I personally don’t think there is mileage in), there is nothing wrong with Walter’s post. It harks back to a very simple, yet excellent post #376 by The AerosCo;
“Who, in these circumstances, exactly is the MoD? In particular, which entity within the MOD provides the necessary continuity over the years to allow the stock response to be trundled out time and time again? And who has the necessary influence/authority over that body to ensure that that stance is maintained?”
I don’t think this was ever answered, and one should certainly not name names on this forum. But I’m sure this point has exercised the minds of many of the leading lights in the campaign. I doubt if anyone here actually knows everyone involved in this (mis)information chain at any given time, never mind throughout the 12 years. Some of you know the RAF personnel, some those from Boscombe, others those in DPA/DLO. (Shortly to be one entity again which will give, for example, DPA staffs easier access to engineering records). Those at the lowest level (a relative term taking the MoD as a whole) do a difficult enough job without the added hassle of daily political pressure from above. And I mean “political” in the widest sense. This is the one area where Walter is wrong. They WILL, without doubt, get the full “Kelly treatment” if they so much as deviate one centimetre from the MoD party line. This “treatment” is actually a routine management tool. Do you seriously believe that the MoD’s “Mull team” do not see through the rubbish spouted in their name by their seniors? Do you not think they understand the practical aspects of the engineering and airworthiness deficiencies which so clearly undermine the MoD’s case?
I suspect there are some interesting debates whenever a PQ arrives which is too close for comfort. The natural temptation, based on professional pride (you do have pride, don’t you?), will be to draft a truthful response. Reality soon sets in because I imagine these staffs, who actually know what’s going on, are never allowed near those who have to sign the response to a Minister. But, there must be a middleman (or two) who deals with the gophers and the Gods. He will know the truth about the weaknesses in the MoD case, and the feeling on the shop floor, but will have had many a subtle briefing as to what is expected; and will know these “terms of reference” are wholly linked to his/her future career and financial wellbeing. This will have been flowed down. And there is NO WAY the MoD would appoint someone in this hierarchy whom they thought would rock the boat.
Walter is right about whistleblowers. In practice, the Act does not protect you; not least because you will find it difficult to get representation from your Union (for civvies) who are in Management’s pocket. Nor will colleagues or other witnesses come forward because they have seen what will happen to them. They will be encouraged to forget. But what I describe above is dangerous for management, especially given the FOI Act. What they said and did in the past, in their arrogance thinking themselves safe, is now open source. Also, there are a lot of people to keep sweet and eventually someone who knows will be treated so badly, so appallingly, they will react. I suspect that, somewhere, there is a very interesting diary waiting to be published. As time goes on, so those who know are ageing, retiring or dying. Beware the man who has nothing to lose!