Whistle Blower
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...
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...
Last edited by Whenurhappy; 24th Sep 2015 at 09:08.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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'
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'
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.
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.
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
None of this makes his whistleblowing story false, but dents his cred for me.
CG
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
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
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.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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;
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.........
- It is not an offence to issue an order to commit fraud
- It is an offence to refuse to obey that order
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.........
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK
Age: 84
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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...
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...
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: South of the ex-North Devon flying club. North of Isca.
Age: 48
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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. 