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]". |
Breaches of Confidentiality
I. Retail Health & Safety Manager
|
Head of Health & Safety, National Retail Centre, 3rd Floor, North Point, North Street, Horsham, West Sussex. RH12 1GX
Dear Sir, Cancer Research UK
[Recipient's Address.] |
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
|
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, Cancer Research UK
PERSONAL |
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]
|
The Director, Internal Audit, Cancer Research UK, 61 Lincoln's Inn Fields, London. WC2A 3PX.
Dear Sir/Madam, AN ILLUSTRATIVE SELECTION OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS.
1. CASE STUDIES, regarding H&S.
CASE STUDY 1. [Address & Telephone No.] The Director, Internal Audit, Cancer Research UK, 61 Lincoln's Inn Fields, London. WC2A 3PX.
Dear Sir/Madam,
From: "Bhavani Jois" Bhavani.Jois@cancer.org.uk |
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]
