CANCER RESEARCH & PANDORA'S BOX

Heu, contra principia negantem non est disputandum.

6. HIERARCHAL BREACHES OF CONFIDENTIALITY

[The law of confidentiality is contained partly in Common Law, made by the judges when they set precedents in cases and in statute, as laid down by Parliament. The duty of confidence arises whenever there is a relationship between the parties which implies such a duty; for example, the Common Law duty of confidentiality exists between employee and employer.]


Foreword
In late-autumn 2008, continuing the fulfilment of his statutory [1], contractual, and moral obligations, the author sent "protected disclosures" — as defined in the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 — in several letters, each prefaced by the word CONFIDENTIAL, by recorded delivery to four senior individuals within Cancer Research UK's hierarchy [the Retail Health & Safety Manager (Mr. Steve Learmouth), the Chairman of the Council of Trustees (Mr. David Newbigging), the Chief Executive (Mr. Harpal Kumar), and the Director of Internal Audit (Mr. Bhavani Jois)]: ... each reply revealed one or more unequivocal breaches of confidentiality.

{The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 states: "In this Act a "protected disclosure" means a qualifying disclosure [... which] means any disclosure of information which, in the reasonable belief of the worker making the disclosure, tends to show one or more of the following —

(b) that a person has failed, is failing or is likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation to which he is subject,

(d) that the health or safety of any individual has been, is being or is likely to be endangered,"}

The principal purpose of this document is to provide a documentary record of these breaches; no attempt is made here to deconstruct the misinformation, disinformation, and paralogisms contained within these replies [2, 3]. However, in order to understand these exchanges of correspondence in true context, the reader might care to refer to the timeline below.

5th July 2007. Area Manager (Ms. Trish McIlhoney), following a formal shop visit in concert with the Shop Manager (Ms. Amy Logan) [see FSR no. 41827, headed "H&S Audit"], specifies in writing: "Fire drills to be implemented within two weeks" and "Step Ladder to be obtained with correct B.S. [British Standard]".

5th July 2007. Area Manager fails to notice, during this same formal shop visit, the anomalies in completed Young Person's Risk Assessment Forms, the totally aberrant placement of the main Health & Safety Notice, a 4-month inactioned risk-assessment of the swing-door in the shop's Health & Safety File, a 2-month unreported accident in the Safety Book, the de facto ornamental nature of the fire extinguishers, the total unsuitability of the fire evacuation point, the lack of provision for the safe temporary storage of broken glassware and sharps, the communal storage of food and shop cleaning chemicals, the lack of basic hygiene in the kitchen and toilet, exemplified by the antediluvian use of communal towels and non-functioning hand air-dryers, the non-alphabetical ordering of the volunteers' health details in the event of an emergency, and the non-implementation of the Data Protection Act [‡]; and, indeed, fails each informal visit hereafter.

[‡ Specifically: by failing to secure any personal data of past or present employees, of past or present volunteers (including, and in particular, legal minors), or of innumerable past customers; and by failing to destroy unnecessary personal data.]

10th Aug. 2007. Shop Manager starts two-week holiday.

11th Aug. 2007. (New) Weekend Shop Assistant (Dr. Roger Peters), working alone, starts first day in post.

12th Aug. 2007 (Sunday). Without prior warning, the Shop Assistant's duties unexpectedly include the sole supervision of a legal minor executing a Duke of Edinburgh Award — in a working environment replete with multiple breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and non-implementation of the Data Protection Act 1998.

21st Jan. 2008. Shop Assistant, on his routine day of volunteering (Monday), in the presence of an independent witness, formally expresses his disapproval to the Shop Manager of her (almost daily) placement of a «free box» immediately outside the shop, and requests — with particular reference to the safety of young children amongst the general public — that such boxes should not contain glassware, sharps, or small objects.

29th Jan. 2008. Area Manager fails to notice, during a formal shop visit in concert with the Shop Manager [see FSR no. 41828], the continuing anomalies in completed Young Person's Risk Assessment Forms, the totally aberrant placement of the main Health & Safety Notice, the 10-month inactioned risk-assessment of the swing-door in the shop's Health & Safety File, her own two 6-month inactioned safety measures specified on the preceding page of the Formal Shop Report Book [see FSR no. 41827, headed "H&S Audit"], the 8-month unreported accident in the Safety Book, the lack of provision for the safe temporary storage of broken glassware and sharps, the de facto ornamental nature of the fire extinguishers, the total unsuitability of the fire evacuation point, the lacunae in Portable Appliance Testing, the communal storage of food and shop cleaning chemicals, the lacunae in COSHH assessments, the lack of basic hygiene in the kitchen and toilet, exemplified by the antediluvian use of communal towels and non-functioning hand air-dryers, the non-alphabetical ordering of the volunteers' health details in the event of an emergency, and the continuing non-implementation of the Data Protection Act; and, indeed, fails each informal visit hereafter.

{The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 state: "Every employer shall ensure that young persons employed by him are protected at work from any risks to their health or safety which are a consequence of their lack of experience, or absence of awareness of existing or potential risks or the fact that young persons have not yet fully matured."

The Health and Safety at Work Act etc 1974 states: "It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety."

The Health and Safety at Work Act etc 1974 states: "It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees;"

Principle 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 requires that: "Appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data."}

5th Feb. 2008. The Safety Committee, the Health & Safety and Retail Departments, the Head of Health & Safety (Mr. Kevin Thurlow), the Trading Director (Mr. Simon Ledsham), the Retail Health & Safety Manager (Mr. Steve Learmouth), and the Regional Manager (Ms. Julie Byard) — all from afar — fail to ensure that there are no anomalies in completed Young Person's Risk Assessment Forms, no inactioned risk-assessments, no inactioned safety measures, and no lacunae in statutory safety provision and maintenance; and, indeed, fail each week hereafter.

{The Chief Executive's Health, Safety and Welfare Policy Statement reads: "The Council and Senior Management recognise the importance of managing Health and Safety and have appointed a Head of Health & Safety. In addition a Safety Committee, [...], oversees the implementation of health and safety legislation."

The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 state: "Every employer shall make and give effect to such arrangements as are appropriate, having regard to the nature of his activities and the size of his undertaking, for the effective planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review of the preventive and protective measures."

CR-UK's document entitled Organisation and Responsibilities for Health and Safety within Cancer Research UK states: "Management • All employees who are responsible for the management of other staff, [...], have a direct responsibility for the implementation of Cancer Research UK's policy on health and safety and welfare. This responsibility cannot be delegated,"}

5th Feb. 2008. The Legal and Retail Departments, the Data Protection Supervisor (Ms. Diane Scott), the Trading Director, and the Regional Manager — all from afar — fail to ensure that the Data Protection Act is being implemented; and, indeed, fail each week hereafter.

2nd April 2008. Shop Assistant forcefully recommends to the Shop Manager, in the presence of an independent witness, to adopt diverse remedial safety and data protection measures.

7th April 2008. Shop Assistant's first contact — in whatever form — from his Line-Manager (Area Manager Ms. McIlhoney) since before his interview in August 2007.

1st Aug. 2008. Area Manager fails to conduct a formal shop visit, despite more than 6 months elapsing since the previous one on 29th January; and, indeed, would not conduct one until 20th November.

5th Aug. 2008. The Safety Committe, the Health & Safety Department, the Head of Health & Safety, the Trading Director, the Retail Health & Safety Manager, and the Regional Manager — all continuing from afar — fail to ensure that there are no inactioned risk-assessments, no inactioned safety measures, and no lacunae in statutory safety provision and maintenance; and, indeed, fail each week hereafter.

5th Aug. 2008. The Legal Department, the Data Protection Supervisor, the Trading Director, and the Regional Manager — all continuing from afar — fail to ensure that the Data Protection Act is being implemented; and, indeed, fail each week hereafter.

8th Sept. 2008. Shop Assistant, on his routine day of volunteering, forcefully recommends to the Shop Manager, in the presence of an independent witness, to adopt further remedial safety and data protection measures.

8th Sept. 2008. Shop Manager, in the presence of the same independent witness, states: "I didn't think that Cancer Research had to follow the Data Protection Act."

29th Sept. 2008. Shop Assistant sends letter — «bristling with red flags» — by recorded delivery to the Data Protection Supervisor.

6th Oct. 2008. Line-Manager's first contact — in whatever form — with the Shop Assistant since 7th April; the former, Area Manager Ms. McIlhoney, conducts his first yearly Performance & Development Review (PDR).

6th Oct. 2008. During the course of this PDR, the part-time Shop Assistant provides the full-time Area Manager with her first copy of the eight principles of the Data Protection Act.

6th Oct. 2008. During the course of this PDR, the Shop Assistant draws the Area Manager's attention to the presence of the inactioned risk-assessment of the swing-door in the shop's Health & Safety File; she undertakes to address the matter.

7th Oct. 2008. Area Manager fails to action this risk-assessment; and, indeed, fails each week hereafter.

22nd Oct. 2008. Shop Assistant, continuing the fulfilment of his statutory and contractual obligations, sends confidential letter — «bristling with red flags» — by recorded delivery to the Retail Health & Safety Manager.

5th Nov. 2008. Safety Auditor (Mr. Jim Holyhead), at the conclusion of a formal compliance audit — partially conducted in the presence of an Area Relief Manager (Ms. Logan), formerly Shop Manager — gives a «score» of 44/51 [see extract of Health and Safety Audit 2008/2009 ("Area Manager: T. McIlhoney")].

5th Nov. 2008. Safety Auditor fails to notice, during this same formal compliance audit, these outstanding safety issues: the 20-month inactioned risk-assessment of the swing-door and the presence of an undated ex posto facto account of a cracked overhead-pipe in the shop's Health & Safety File; the lacunae in statutory maintenance; the Area Manager's 16-month inactioned requirement to obtain a step ladder with the correct British Standard, specified in the Formal Shop Report Book; the 12-month discrepancy between the Portable Appliance retesting date (April 2009) on Elecheck's Formal Safety and that on their tested electrical items (April 2010); the de facto ornamental nature of the fire extinguishers; the 6-month absence of weekly portable fire extinguisher testing; the Shop Assistant's 6-month inactioned recommendation for a safer and more convenient fire evacuation point for those of maturer years or with decreased mobility; the ≥ 30-month absence of fire evacuation drills for two long-serving volunteers; the lack of basic hygiene in the kitchen and toilet, exemplified by the antediluvian use of communal towels and non-functioning hand air-dryers; and the ≥ 30-month non-alphabetical ordering of the health details of volunteers in the event of an emergency.

19th Nov. 2008. Shop Assistant, continuing the fulfilment of his statutory and contractual obligations, sends confidential letter — «bristling with red flags» — by recorded delivery to the Chairman of the Council of Trustees (Mr. David Newbigging) and the Chief Executive (Mr. Harpal Kumar).

2nd Dec. 2008. Retail Health & Safety Manager fails to notice, during a formal shop inspection in concert with the Area Manager and the Area Relief Manager, these outstanding safety issues: the 21-month inactioned risk-assessment of the swing-door and the presence of an undated ex posto facto account of the cracked overhead-pipe in the shop's Health & Safety File; the Area Manager's 17-month inactioned requirement to obtain a step ladder with the correct British Standard, specified in the Formal Shop Report Book; the discrepancy between the retesting date (April 2009) on Elecheck's Formal Safety Report and that on their tested electrical items (April 2010); the de facto ornamental nature of the fire extinguishers; the absence of weekly portable fire extinguisher testing; the ≥ 31-month absence of fire evacuation drills for two long-serving volunteers; the lack of basic hygiene in the kitchen and toilet, exemplified by the antediluvian use of communal towels and non-functioning hand air-dryers; and the ≥ 31-month non-alphabetical ordering of the health details of volunteers in the event of an emergency.

3rd Dec. 2008. Shop Assistant sends confidential letter by recorded delivery to the Chairman of the Council of Trustees, the Chief Executive, and the Interim Director of Internal Audit (Mr. Bhavani Jois), together with a discussion document — «bristling with red flags».

3rd Dec. 2008. Shop Assistant's copy to the Interim Director of Internal Audit attached with prima facie evidence of «irregularities».

15th Dec. 2008. Shop Assistant, continuing the fulfilment of his statutory and contractual obligations, sends confidential letter — together with additional prima facie evidence of «irregularities» — by recorded delivery to the Interim Director of Internal Audit.


Breaches of Confidentiality

I. Retail Health & Safety Manager


[Address & Telephone No.]

rpeters@wissensdrang.com

22nd October 2008.

CONFIDENTIAL

Head of Health & Safety,
National Retail Centre,
3rd Floor,
North Point,
North Street,
Horsham,
West Sussex. RH12 1GX

Dear Sir,

The purpose of this letter is to ask you to consider, as a matter of urgency, CRUK's current method for ensuring, both in spirit and to the letter, the implementation of the Health & Safety Act.

During a period of over forty years — working successively in industry, academia, and secondary education — I have never observed such disregard for this Act as manifest at least three levels of management (shop, relief, and area) during the past twenty months or so; regarding, inter alia, fire safety, electrical safety, temporary storage of sharp objects, risk assessment, document[at]ion, and communication.

This disregard would appear to be attributable to ignorance, indifference, and hubris. Be that as it may, I am sure that you would agree on the value and importance of my aforementioned request.

Yours sincerely,

[Signature etc.]


Cancer Research UK
10 Cambridge Terrace
London NW1 4JL
United Kingdom

T 020 7472 0200
www.cancerresearchuk.org

[Recipient's Address.]

4th November 2008.

Dear Dr Peters,

I understand that you have contacted the National Retail Centre with a complaint about the level of Health & Safety in your shop.

I have spoken to Trish Mcilhoney your Area Manager, however I need to know exactly what issues you are referring to before I can investigate fully.

I would therefore be grateful if you could write to me at the above address.

Yours sincerely,

[Signature]

Steve Learmouth,
Retail Health & Safety Manager.

Essential substance of letter: Multiple and prolonged breaches of the Health & Safety Act — consistent with systemic weaknesses.

Confidence: 'Disregard for the Health & Safety Act at area level of management'.

Breach: "I have spoken to Trish Mcilhoney your Area Manager, ..."


II. Chairman of the Council of Trustees & the Chief Executive


[Address & Telephone No.]

Email: rpeters@wissensdrang.com

19th November 2008.

CONFIDENTIAL

Mr. David Newbigging, O.B.E.,
Chairman of Council of Trustees,
Cancer Research UK,
61 Lincoln's Inn Fields,
London. WC2A 3PX.


cc.: Mr. Harpal Kumar, Chief Executive of CRUK.


Subject: Implementation of Acts of Parliament.

Dear Sir,

During the last seven months I have attempted to engage supposèdly responsible individuals — at five different managerial/administrative levels within CRUK — to implement several Acts of Parliament, including the Health & Safety Act, the Children Act, and the Data Protection Act. These attempts have been met, at best, by severely disquieting platitudes and nominal activity, and at worst, by a breathtaking admixture of ignorance, indifference, complacency, and hubris.

I assure you that, despite CRUK being awash with the relevant internal literature, there are grave systemic weaknesses in CRUK's implementation of these Acts (amongst others). So, rather than «shooting this messenger», I hope you would agree that should these weaknesses be exposed by mischance, the potentially deleterious impact on revenue streams, and thus CRUK's mission, is a completely unacceptable prospect.

Thus far, I have not been able to determine fully the root cause(s) for these weaknesses. Nevertheless, I am confident that same can be speedily and discreetly nullified.

Yours sincerely,

[Signature etc.]


Cancer Research UK
PO Box 123
London WC2A 3PX
United Kingdom

Tel 020 7061 8177
Fax 020 7061 8411
david.newbigging@cancer.org

www.cancerresearchuk.org

27 November 2008

PERSONAL

[Recipient's Address.]

Dear Dr Peters,

Thank you for your letter of 19 November regarding implementation of Acts of Parliament.

Our Internal Audit department have been asked to investigate the concerns you raise. They have identified that you wrote to the National Retail Centre regarding health & safety concerns and to our Data Protection Supervisor regarding data protection concerns. Unfortunately in the case of health & safety you had not been specific about the matters that concerned you and we understand that Steve Learmouth, the Retail Health & Safety Officer, therefore wrote to you requesting that you provide more information as to exactly what the issues were that you were referring to in order that he could investigate fully.

Internal Audit also ascertained that Diane Scott, our Data Protection Co-ordinator, responded to you explaining that we are currently undertaking a data protection audit which extends to the retail shop operations and that she would take account of your specific comments within that general audit and in drawing up an action plan to address any significant areas of concern. The specific matters that could be addressed locally have been passed on to the Area Manager for action.

In light of this, and in order to respond fully to your letter of the 26 November, we require more specific information from you on the outstanding matters that concern you. Accordingly I would ask that you utilise the Cancer Research UK policy 'Our Approach to Confidential Reporting (A 'Whistleblowing' Policy)' to enable our Internal Audit department to investigate more fully. I enclose a copy of the policy together with the Confidential Reporting Form - it would assist if you could complete sections 1-3 and return this direct to Internal Audit. This will enable us to ensure that we can investigate and respond to your concerns appropriately.

Yours sincerely,

[Signature]

D.K. Newbigging

cc: Mr Harpal Kumar

Enclosures

Essential substance of letter: Multiple and prolonged breaches of diverse Acts of Parliament — consistent with systemic weaknesses.

Confidence: 'Partial or complete disengagement at five different managerial/administrative levels within CRUK'.

Breaches: 'Internal Audit Department have identified and contacted two of the individuals with whom you have communicated: Steve Learmouth, the Retail Health & Safety Officer, and Diane Scott, the Data Protection Co-ordinator'.


III. Interim Director of Internal Audit [4]


[Address & Telephone No.]

Email: rpeters@wissensdrang.com

3rd December 2008.

CONFIDENTIAL

The Director,
Internal Audit,
Cancer Research UK,
61 Lincoln's Inn Fields,
London. WC2A 3PX.


Dear Sir/Madam,

I enclose copies of my second (and final) missives to the Chairman of Council of Trustees, together with an additional illustrative selection of relevant documents, in keeping with the spirit of his letter of 27th November.

Yours sincerely,

[Signature etc.]

AN ILLUSTRATIVE SELECTION OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS.

1.
This document alone indicates the systemic weaknesses in CRUK's current implementation of the H&S Act; it almost beggars belief that no manager or auditor has commented on this truly appalling item.

2.
The fons et origo of Case Study 1 [5].

3.
An extract of a letter from my line/area manager; the absence of details speaks volumes. Incidentally, this meeting of 7th April 2008 was the first with my line manager since before my interview for the post in August 2007 (conducted by the shop manager); in other words, my line/area manager deigned not to speak me for over eight months (i.e., two months after the completion of the six month probation period).

4.
A retrospective and totally misleading summary, by the then shop manager, of a potentially serious hazard identified a few weeks earlier by myself and a colleague (and relayed immediately to a relief manager); it is a grotesque parody of a risk assessment.

5.
Paragraph 3: "The increase you have been awarded is linked to the outcome of your Performance Development Review Discussion ...". Given that this appraisal would not occur until October 2008, this falsehood is unequivocal (and continuing) breach of the Data Protection Act.

CASE STUDIES, regarding H&S.

CASE STUDY 1.

In March 2007, the conscientious (part-time) stock processor identified that the swing-action of one of the doors at the front of the shop was a potentially serious hazard to colleagues and the public; her suggested (permanent) control measure was signed and approved by the shop manager on 5th March 2007. No action was taken by either the shop manager or the area manager (despite the latter's frequent informal visits to the shop and also her «formal shop visits»), from March 2007 until October 2008.

On 6th October 2008, during the course of my annual appraisal, I drew my area/line manager's attention to this aforementioned hazard; she undertook to address the matter. No action has been undertaken, from this date to the present.

In late November 2008, the shop had its (annual?) safety-financial audit; the safety auditor did not identify this hazard or the outstanding risk assessment.

Thus, from March 2007 to the present (December 2008), neither the shop manager, nor the relief manager(s), nor the area manager, nor the regional manager (by default), nor the safety auditor, nor the Retail Health & Safety manager (by default) have resolved this hazard. Should anyone — including, and in particular, young children or senior citizens — be seriously injured from the swing action of this door, then CRUK would be prosecuted by HSE and each of these individuals would be personally liable.


CASE STUDY 2.

In April 2008, I demanded that shop manager should «PAT test» the electrical items within the shop and the backrooms. When these were executed (22nd April), the electrician determined that fridge introduced by the shop manager in March 2008 was electrically unsafe; this should regarded as serious, not least because four of the volunteers are aged between 60 and 82.

The electrician's safety report states that the date of the next test(s) should be April 2009: however, each electrical item states that the date of the next test should be April 2010. The potential legal implications of this discrepancy are decidedly non trivial: yet neither the shop manager, nor the relief manager(s), nor the area manager, nor the regional manager (by default), nor the safety auditor, nor the Retail Health & Safety manager (by default) identified this discrepancy.


CASE STUDIES 3 to ...

I could summarize innumerable other cases, including several which were as serious, or more serious than, the two examples above: but this would merely serve to push through a wide-open door with respect to systemic weaknesses.


[Address & Telephone No.]

Email: rpeters@wissensdrang.com

15th December 2008.

CONFIDENTIAL

The Director,
Internal Audit,
Cancer Research UK,
61 Lincoln's Inn Fields,
London. WC2A 3PX.


Dear Sir/Madam,

Following my submissions to you, dated 3rd December, I enclose further proof — if any be needed — of the correctness of my judgement that all the following are unfit for purpose: management supervisory practices; safety audits; formal shop visits; safety culture; and safety training.

Specifically, I enclose a letter from Mr. Steve Learmouth, Retail Loss Prevention and Healthy & Safety Manager, which summarizes the findings of his supposèd investigation; I will limit myself to three comments.

First, "The General headings of Fire Safety, Electrical Safety, Storage of Sharp Objects, Documentation and Communication ..." may indeed have been «discussed»: but none — I repeat — none of these systemic issues have been addressed, much less resolved.

Second, "I am aware [that one] of my Loss Prevention Officers had recently carried out a H&S compliance audit on the 5th November 2008 at the shop and that you were asked several questions to assist him in locating various H&S documentation ...": this is a blantant falsehood, since the said officer asked me one question and one only (to wit, 'What procedure would I follow on hearing the fire alarm'.) [6]

And third, despite the presence of Mr. Learmouth, Ms. McIlhoney (Area Manager), and Ms. Logan (ci-devant Shop Manager), neither the risks summarized in Case Studies 1 and 2 were indentified, much less resolved.

This letter fulfils my legal obligation under the Health & Safety Act: I can do no more.

Yours sincerely,

[Signature etc.]


From: "Bhavani Jois" Bhavani.Jois@cancer.org.uk
To: rpeters@wissensdrang.com
Sent: 23 December 2008 13:33
Subject: [...]

Dear Dr. Peters,

Thank you for your letter dated 15th December 2008. We would like to inform you that the concerns you brought to our attention have been referred to the respective teams and initiatives are underway to address the issues raised.

In order to ensure compliance with regulation, the team leaders will continue to monitor the progress of the required improvements.

Have an enjoyable festive break.

Yours sincerely,
Bhavani

Bhavani Jois
Interim Director of Internal Audit
Cancer Research UK
5th Floor, 61 Lincoln's Inn Fields
Holborn
London, WC2A 3PX

Tel: 020 7061 8374
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Charity number: 1089464

Essential substance of letters and documents: Multiple and prolonged breaches of the Health & Safety and Data Protection Acts — consistent with systemic weaknesses.

Confidence: Concerns relating to several named managers/administrators.

Breaches: Communication to (unspecified) teams and team leaders.

Afterword
Separately and collectively, these breaches of confidentiality had at least three deleterious consequences: one, from 23rd December 2008 onwards, a complete breakdown in the author's trust in the organisation's integrity; two, as the multi-sectioned Document 7 illuminates, the continuing production of a plethora of misinformation, disinformation, and paralogisms by diverse members of the organisation's hierachy; and three, a wholly unnecessary — and perhaps fatal — delay in resolving the root cause(s) of the organisation's inherent and acquired systemic weaknesses.

Nevertheless, the reader must not infer that breaching confidentiality is a characteristic of either the aforementioned individuals or the organisation. That said, one should bear in mind four caveats: one, none of these individuals has acknowledged — much less apologised for — his breach of confidentiality; two, such is contrary to the organisation's supposèd core value of integrity [7]; three, a further example of breach of confidentiality occurred post-dismissal [8]; and four, as Document 4 illuminates, systemic weaknesses resulted in the multiple, prolonged, and recidivistic breaches of the Data Protection Act.

________________________________________________________________________________

1. ACCESS & EGRESS : 4pp.

2. ELECTRICAL & FIRE SAFETY : 4pp.

3. DIVERSE SAFETY : 10pp.

4. DATA PROTECTION & HUMAN RIGHTS : 6pp.

5. VOLUNTEER CARE : 5pp.

7. HIERARCHAL MISINFORMATION, DISINFORMATION & PARALOGISMS: Introduction : 12pp.

8. PROFLIGACY : 13pp.; document in progress.

________________________________________________________________________________


[Notes]

1. For example, and in particular, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 state: "Every employee shall inform his employer or any other employee of that employer with specific responsibility for the health and safety of his fellow employees —

(a) of any work situation which a person with the first-mentioned employee's training and instruction would reasonably consider represented a serious and immediate danger to health and safety; and

(b) of any matter which a person with the first-mentioned employee's training and instruction would reasonably consider represented a shortcoming in the employer's protection arrangements for health and safety,

in so far as that situation or matter either affects the health and safety of that first mentioned employee or arises out of or in connection with his own activities at work, and has not previously been reported to his employer or to any other employee of that employer in accordance with this paragraph."

Now, given that Health and Safety at Work Act etc 1974 states: "It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.",

the aforementioned Regulations effectively state: 'Every employee shall inform his employer or any other employee of that employer with specific responsibility for the health and safety of his fellow employees, and those persons not his employment who may be affected thereby, — [mutatis mutandis].'


2. Disinformation: falsehood(s) by omission. Duty: moral or legal obligation. Ensure: make safe or sure; make sure to happen; secure. Investigation: searching inquiry for ascertaining (relevant) facts in context; detailed or careful examination. Misinformation: falsehood(s). Paralogism: illogical reasoning, the illogicality of which the reasoner in question is unware of. Remedial: designed or intended to correct or improve a deficiency in a specific attribute. Systemic weakness: one that is judged to be a fundamental problem that requires corrective action through administrative, regulatory, legislative, or policy change.


3. See, however, the multi-sectioned Document 7.


4. CR-UK's document entitled Our Approach to Confidential Reporting (A "Whistleblowing" Policy) states: "You should use this policy if you have a genuine concern that there are reasonable grounds that any of the following has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur: [...] a failure to comply with legal obligations, an endangerment to an individual's health and safety, [... ...]

If you raised the concern with Internal Audit directly, they will complete [part A of] the [Confidential Reporting Form] using the information you provide." [Part A — Notification of Irregularity/Malpractice; Part B — Investigation of Reported Irregularity/Malpractice]


5. Photocopy of the risk-assessment of the swing-door executed on 5th March 2007 [see also
film].

6. See
extract of Health and Safety Audit 2008/2009 ("Area Manager: T. McIlhoney")], prepared and dated (Wednesday) 5th November 2008 by the Safety Auditor (Mr. Jim Holyhead), where — in his capacity as a volunteer — the author's answer to the actual question — 'What procedure would you follow on hearing the fire alarm' — is truncated to two affirmative answers ("Y") on the proforma.

7. CR-UK's document entitled Performance & Development Review — FSM Form — 2008-2009 states: "Our Core Values are: • Integrity — We have integrity. We approach everything we do with honesty and trust. [...]".


8. See
partial summary; verbatim transcriptions are included in Document 7m.

Dr. R. Peters' Home Page.

[March 2010]