CANCER RESEARCH & PANDORA'S BOX

Heu, contra principia negantem non est disputandum.

7. HIERARCHAL MISINFORMATION, DISINFORMATION & PARALOGISMS:

Introduction

[Leo Tolstoy wrote in What is Art?, 1898: "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."]


I. (Author's premises) Each individual — whether he or she be a member of the general public, volunteer, employee, or whatever — has the inviolable right to dignity in a Cancer Research UK workplace; and each individual's dignity can only be respected and ensured by the rigorous and critically audited implementation of the relevant Acts of Parliament, by the identification and removal of systemic weaknesses, by completely respectful communication and management, and by effective guardianship.


II. An illustrative and self-contained timeline revealing systematic failures and systemic weaknesses in just one of Cancer Research UK's 600 or so workplaces, ... and alluding to the organisational root causes of same.

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

19th July 2007. Shop Manager (Ms. Amy Logan) fails to action — within the two-week time scale — these two safety measures specified by the Area Manager; and, indeed, fails each week hereafter.

20th July 2007. Area Manager fails to ensure [1] that these two specified safety measures have been actioned; and, indeed, fails each week hereafter.

29th Jan. 2008. Area Manager fails to notice, during a formal shop visit in concert with the Shop Manager [see FSR no. 41828], that these two safety measures specified on the preceding page of the Formal Shop Report Book have not been actioned by the Shop Manager [see FSR no. 41827, headed "H&S Audit"]; and, indeed, fails each informal visit hereafter.

5th Feb. 2008. The Safety Committee, the Health & Safety Department, 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, as implicity required by the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, that there are no inactioned safety measures or risk-assessments; and, indeed, fail each week hereafter.

{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."}

5th Nov. 2008. Safety Auditor (Mr. Jim Holyhead) fails to notice, during a formal compliance audit, a 20-month inactioned risk-assessment of a swing-door [see film below] and the Area Manager's 16-month inactioned requirement to obtain a step ladder with the correct British Standard — ensconced in the shop's Health & Safety File and Formal Report Book, respectively.

19th Nov. 2008. Shop Assistant (Dr. Roger Peters) sends a 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): ... who fail to initiate an investigation into the letter's essential substance.

4th Dec. 2009. Interim Director of Internal Audit (Mr. Bhavani Jois) fails to initiate the investigation necessitated by the Shop Assistant's prima facie evidence of multiple and prolonged breaches of statutory safety legislation; and, indeed, fails each week hereafter.

9th Jan. 2009. Citing the Head of Health & Safety, the Trading Director — who, hitherto, had had no communication with the Shop Assistant and, therefore, had none of the verifiable information in context — writes:

"In his opinion the issues raised are not as a result of systematic failures and that CR-UK is meeting its obligations under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and other subordinate legislation."

16th Jan. 2009. The broken safety mechanism of a main swing-door is replaced: ... 22 months after the original risk-assessment.

26th Jan. 2009. Trading Director resumes in writing:

"I would reiterate I am confident that our health and safety processes and practices are 'fit for purpose' and I do not support your view that there are systemic weaknesses."


III. The multiple, prolonged, and recidivistic breaches of, amongst other Acts of Parliament, the Health & Safety at Work and Data Protection Acts, as summarized in Documents 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, provide irrefutable evidence — at every hierarchal level within the organisation — of CR-UK's ignorance or misunderstanding of the worthwhile meaning of dignity, the primacy of duty of care [2], an engaged safety culture [3,4,5,6], statutory obligations and internal codes of practice [7,8,9], and systems theory [10], & of CR-UK's non-existent or lamentably inadequate training, assessment, management supervisory, investigative, and auditing procedures.


IV. Given that Acts of Parliament do not provide a carte blanche for a succession of inefficacious audits, belated and incomplete remedial measures, or platitudes of present or future good intent, such breaches are ignominious in themselves. But of infinitely greater concern to present and future employees, volunteers, members of the general public, and beneficiaries of CR-UK's hugely innovative but necessarily safety-protocolled research — aside from discriminatory practices [8,9], breaches of confidentiality [11], and profligacy [12] — must be the internal propagation by diverse members of CR-UK's hierarchy of a plethora of falsehoods, half-truths, ad verecundiam arguments [e.g., *], non sequiturs [e.g., ], antiphrases [e.g., §], and ad hominem arguments [e.g., ].


V. Whilst exemplars from this plethora are contained within Documents 1-6 and 8, such barely skim the surface of the misinformation, disinformation, and paralogisms propagated by diverse members of CR-UK's hierarchy exercising titular authority: ... as distinct from exercising genuine authority realized by cognition, by the correct use of language, by the acquisition of expertise, and by thorough investigation.


VI. In order to provide the reader with the true information in context, verbatim transcriptions of correspondence with these members of CR-UK's hierarchy are interleaved with «commentaries» and with relevant extracts of Acts of Parliament and Internal Codes of Practice within the framework of timelines and authoritatively defined words and phrases [13].


VII. A thorough understanding of these commentaries requires unequivocal acceptance of the author's premises, a reflective appreciation of the background to, and the quite extraordinary implications of, his personal fons et origo of 12th August 2007, and provisional acceptance of the following interlinked points.

A. CR-UK's document entitled Our Approach to Dignity at Work, hereafter referred to as the «Dignity at Work Code», might be suitably paraphrased as: «Cancer Research UK's Guardians — the Council of Trustees [14] — will not condone, tolerate or ignore any form of unacceptable behaviour in the Charity's employment practices; and each individual exercising a managerial rôle has an absolute moral imperative to promote and implement these latter conscientiously, as explicitly required in the Management section of Cancer Research UK's document entitled Organisation and Responsibilities for Health and Safety within Cancer Research UK, wherein is stated: "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,"».

B. De jure and de facto, such employment practices — referring here to members of the general public, volunteers, and employees — must include implementing the spirit and the letter of, amongst other Acts of Parliament, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the Children Act 1989, the Human Rights Act 1998, the Data Protection Act 1998, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, the Part-time Workers Regulations 2000, and the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

C. Any individual within CR-UK's hierarchy — from the «humblest» to the «most august» — is breaking the «Dignity at Work Code» if he or she is not conscientiously and continually attempting to implement rigorously the relevant Act of Parliament, attempting to ensure the implementation of complementary (near) fail-safe auditing mechanisms for same, or keeping a weather eye open for inherent or acquired systemic weaknesses.


VIII. Given that the overwhelming majority of these breaches of Acts of Parliament were already of longstanding before the author's appointment on 11th August 2007, CR-UK's Executive Board and several Senior Management Teams have continuously breached the «Dignity at Work Code» from before this date, through his first contact — in whatever form — from his Line-Manager (Area Manager Ms. McIlhoney) on 7th April 2008, through his de facto constructive dismissal on 24th August 2009, up to (at least) March 2010.


IX. Deconstructing the aforementioned plethora is a trivial task: but mind-numbingly tedious to execute — not least because the «devil is often in the chronological detail». Similarly, the resulting deconstructions are equally tedious to read: and, one might justifiably assert, of decreased value unless they are complemented by constructive elements [15]. Accordingly, whenever justified, these latter are presented at appropriate points within either the commentaries or Document 8.


X. Finally, a caveat: ... as just the following extracts of four missives reveal all too clearly — and most dispiritingly — rationalism and CR-UK's hierarchy may well be «a bridge too far».

17th Dec. 2008. Chairman of the Council of Trustees writes:

"Please rest assured that nobody who, in good faith, raises genuinely held concerns that there is or may be be a failure to comply with legal obligations or an endangerment to an individual's health and safety will be dismissed or subjected to any detriment as a result of such action."

23rd Dec. 2008 to 20th Aug. 2009. Repeated — and, eventually, unbearably detrimental — intrusions of a plethora of misinformation, disinformation, and paralogisms — by unencrypted e-mail and/or letter — into the Shop Assistant's home by diverse members of CR-UK's hierarchy; namely, in chronological order, the Interim Director of Internal Audit [8], the Trading Director, the Regional Human Resources Advisor, an Area Relief Manager, an Area Manager, the Regional Manager, the Property Manager, a Human Resources Business Partner, and an Associate Head of Retail Finance.

9th Jan. 2009.  CR-UK's Trading Director — who, hitherto, had had no communication with the Shop Assistant and, therefore, had none of the verifiable information in context — writes:

"The [new] Shop Manager has received one to one training in the shop as part of the standard induction process, of which Health and Safety training forms a part. It is standard practice for new employees of Cancer Research UK to attend the first available Health and Safety training day. The Shop Manager joined the organization on 4 December 2008 and, in line with the above, will attend this training day on 25 February 2009.

The Health and Safety Training Programme has been developed by experienced professionals holding Health and Safety qualifications as well as Professional Trainer certification. It is constantly updated to take into account changes in legislation [16], incidents that have occurred, and any changes in Cancer Research UK operating procedures.

The training programme has been reviewed by an independent professional and was found suitable and sufficient to meet Cancer Research UK's obligations under Section 2(2)(c) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, as well as Regulation 13 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999."

18th Jan. 2009.  The author, (then) a part-time CR-UK shop assistant and volunteer — setting aside the Trading Director's inexcusable presumptuousness in writing to his home address — replies in an e-mail copied to the Chairman of the Council of Trustees, the Chief Executive, the Executive Director of Fundraising & Supporter Marketing (Mr. Richard Taylor), and the Interim Director of Internal Audit:

"1. Deconstructing each of these three paragraphs is trivial, but tedious: and my life, at least, is too short.

2. I [...] assert that «CRUK's safety training is not fit for purpose»: CRUK's hierarchy, supported by an "independent professional", assert the contrary.

Now, in order to be allowed to drive a car safely and legally on the road: one takes a highway-code course, then one's theory proficiency is assessed; subsequently, one takes a suite of driving lessons, then one's practical proficiency is assessed. Since time immemorial, and for very good reason, assessment follows training [...].

Setting aside the method of delivery, the fundamental reason why «CRUK's safety training is not fit for purpose» is the absence of assessment: so absolutely no one has the vaguest notion of anyone's proficiency in any given topic at any given time.

Now, having established the falsity of this particular example of received wisdom, one must attempt to remove the hitherto obscured [systemic] weakness — perhaps along the following (inexpensive and straightforward) lines [...]."

26th Jan. 2009.  CR-UK's Trading Director, continuing to exercise his titular authority, resumes in writing:

"I would reiterate I am confident that our health and safety processes and practices are 'fit for purpose' and I do not support your view that there are systemic weaknesses."

________________________________________________________________________________

1. ACCESS & EGRESS : 4pp.

2. ELECTRICAL & FIRE SAFETY : 4pp.

3. DIVERSE SAFETY : 10pp.

4. DATA PROTECTION & HUMAN RIGHTS : 6pp.

5. VOLUNTEER CARE : 7pp.

6. HIERARCHAL BREACHES OF CONFIDENTIALITY : 11pp.

7. HIERARCHAL MISINFORMATION, DISINFORMATION & PARALOGISMS:

[Deconstructions — in progress (*) or in preparation.]

7a. Ms. T. McIlhoney (Area Manager; & Line-Manager, from 11th August 2007 to 1st December 2008) : 6pp.*

7b. Ms. D. Scott (Data Protection Supervisor) : 5pp.*

7c. Mr. S. Learmouth (Retail Health & Safety Manager) : 6 pp.*

7d. Mr. David Newbigging (Chairman of the Council of Trustees) and Mr. Harpal Kumar (Chief Executive).

7e. Mr. Bhavani Jois (Interim Director of Internal Audit).

7f. Mr. Simon Ledsham (Trading Director), Mr. Kevin Thurlow (Head of Safety), and Mr. Bob Marston (Property Manager).

7g. Ms. Caroline Knight (Regional Human Resources Advisor).

7h. Ms. A. Logan (Area Relief Manager; & Shop Manager, from late-July 2006 to mid-September 2008) : 10 pp.

7i. Ms. Meta Lear (An Area Manager).

7j. Ms. Julie Byard (Regional Manager).

7k. Ms. Hannah Newton (Human Resources Business Partner).

7l. Ms. Jenny White (Associate Head of Retail Finance) and Ms. Hazel Bedford (LSF Regional Manager).

7m. Mr. John Macey (Human Resources Director) and Dr. Caragh Dewis (Organisational Development Practitioner).

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

________________________________________________________________________________


[Notes]

1. Ad hominem argument: logical fallacy of attempting to undermine an individual's argument by attacking the individual instead of addressing the argument. Ad verecundiam argument: argument from titular authority. Antiphrase: phrase conveying the opposite meaning to the one intended literally. Disinformation: falsehood(s) by omission. Doublespeak: systematic and deliberate misuse of language for the purpose of deception. Duty: moral or legal obligation. Dysfunctional literacy: impaired comprehension skills; unwitting misuse of language. Ensure: make safe or sure; make sure to happen; secure. Functional illiteracy: inadequate reading and writing skills for ordinary practical needs. Investigation: searching inquiry for ascertaining (relevant) facts in context; detailed or careful examination. Misfeasance: inadequate or poor performance of a contractual duty. Misinformation: falsehood(s). Nonfeasance: complete failure to perform a contractual duty. Paralogism: illogical reasoning, the illogicality of which the reasoner in question is unware of. Platitude: trite or banal statement, especially one expressed as if it were significant and original. Remedial: designed or intended to correct or improve a deficiency in a specific attribute. Root cause: initiating cause of a causal chain which leads to an outcome or effect of importance. Sophistry: fallacious reasoning. Systematic: marked by regularity. Systemic weakness: one that is judged to be a fundamental problem that requires corrective action through administrative, regulatory, legislative, or policy change.


2. The misinformation, disinformation, and paralogisms propagated by Human Resources Business Partner Ms. Newton and Human Resources Director Mr. Macey will be systematically and thoroughly deconstructed in Documents 7k and 7m, respectively: but the following timeline alone reveals a damning ignorance or misunderstanding of the minimum requirement necessary to effect even a rudimentary level of duty of care.

10th Aug. 2007. Shop Manager (Ms. Amy Logan) 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.

7th April 2008. Shop Assistant's first contact — in whatever form — from his Line-Manager (Area Manager Ms. Trish McIlhoney) since before his interview in August 2007; ... i.e., 8 months months after his appointment.

{Verbatim extract from Cancer Research UK Contract of Employment: "The first six months of your employment will be probationary during which time your performance will be appraised. The probationary period enables CR-UK to provide you with a planned introduction to the role, objectives and appropriate learning and development support."}

6th Oct. 2008. Shop Assistant's first contact — in whatever form — from his Line Manager since 7th April; ... i.e., 6 months months previously.

12th March 2009. Shop Assistant's first contact — in whatever form — from the Regional Manager (Ms. Julie Byard); ... i.e., 19 months after his appointment.

24th Aug. 2009. Shop Assistant dismissed.

8th Sept. 2009. Human Resources Director (Mr. John Macey) writes: "However, I would like to assure you that Cancer Research UK takes the welfare of its staff extremely seriously ..."

7th Nov. 2009. Human Resources Business Partner (Ms. Hannah Newton) writes: "However, I would like to assure you that Cancer Research UK takes its duty of care towards both part time and full time staff very seriously."

18th Nov. 2009. New Shop Manager's first contact — in whatever form — from the Regional Manager; ... i.e., 11 months after her appointment.

3. For two illuminating and salutary works, see Professor James Reason's study entitled Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents (Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, 1997; ISBN 1840141050) and Queen's Counsel Charles Haddon-Cave's official report entitled The Nimrod Review (The Stationery Office, Norwich, 2009; ISBN 9780102962659) — in particular Chapter 27, entitled New Safety Culture, which is prefaced by the following statement of Ian Whewell, Director of the Health & Safety Executive's Offshore Division: "A company which has got a compliance culture, does not have a safe culture."

4. The misinformation, disinformation, and paralogisms propagated by Associate Head of Retail Finance Ms. White will be systematically and thoroughly deconstructed in Document 7l: but the following timeline alone reveals an irredeemingly damning indictment of the disengaged safety culture of Cancer Research UK's hierarchy.

{The Chief Executive's Health, Safety and Welfare Policy Statement reads: "The Council of Cancer Research UK attaches the greatest importance to safeguarding the health, safety and welfare of all persons at work"; ... note the use of the superlative adjective in this phrase.}

Autumn 2006. Shop Manager (Ms. Amy Logan) displaces, to an effectively unreadable position, the main Health & Safety Notice — applicable and informative to every volunteer and employee: ... in favour of the shop's Sales Target Notice — a numerically illiterate spreadsheet relevant only to her monthly sales bonus [see sketch below].

Displacement of main Health & Safety Notice in favour of shop's Sales Target Notice.

{The Health and Safety Information for Employees Regulations 1989 state: "An employer shall, in relation to each of his employees: (a) ensure that the approved poster is kept displayed in a readable condition — (i) at a place which is reasonably accessible to the employee while he is at work, and (ii) in such a position in that place as to be easily seen and read by that employee;"}

5th July 2007. Area Manager (Ms. Trish McIlhoney), following a formal shop visit in concert with the Shop Manager [see FSR no.
41827, headed "H&S Audit"], specifies in writing in the Formal Shop Report Book: "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 [see proforma], the totally aberrant placement of the main Health & Safety Notice [see sketch], a 4-month inactioned risk-assessment of the swing-door in the shop's Health & Safety File [see film], a 2-month outstanding 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, and the non-alphabetical ordering of the volunteers' health details in the event of an emergency; and, indeed, fails each informal visit hereafter.

[† One that requires the individual — regardless of his or her mobility — to walk some 30 metres up a very steep slope.]

{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;"

The Health and Safety at Work Act etc 1974 states: "Without prejudice to the generality of an employer's duty under the preceding subsection, the matters to which that duty extends include in particular — (d) so far as is reasonably practicable as regards any place of work under the employer's control, the maintenance of it in a condition that is safe and without risks to health and the provision and maintenance of means of access to and egress from it that are safe and without such risks;"

The Health and Safety at Work Act etc 1974 states: "Without prejudice to the generality of an employer's duty under the preceding subsection, the matters to which that duty extends include in particular — (c) the provision of such information, instruction, training and supervision as is necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of his employees;"

The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 states: "The responsible person must, before employing a child, provide a parent of the child with comprehensible and relevant information on — (a) the risks to that child identified by the risk assessment; (b) the preventive and protective measures;"

The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 states: "The responsible person must — (a) take measures for fire-fighting in the premises, adapted to the nature of the activities carried on there and the size of the undertaking and of the premises concerned; (b) nominate competent persons to implement those measures and ensure that the number of such persons, their training and the equipment available to them are adequate, taking into account the size of, and the specific hazards involved in, the premises concerned;"

The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 states: "The following requirements must be complied with in respect of a workplace where necessary [...] in order to safeguard the safety of employees in case of fire — (a) emergency routes and exits shall lead as directly as possible to a place of safety;"}

20th July 2007. Area Manager fails to ensure that the Shop Manager has actioned the two specified safety measures in the Formal Shop Report Book [see FSR no.
41827, headed "H&S Audit"]; and, indeed, fails each week hereafter.

{The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 states: "The responsible person must — (a) establish and, where necessary, give effect to appropriate procedures, including safety drills, to be followed in the event of serious and imminent danger to relevant persons;"}

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.

{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."}

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 [see FSR no. 41828], the continuing anomalies in completed Young Person's Risk Assessment Forms [see proforma], the totally aberrant placement of the main Health & Safety Notice [see sketch], the 10-month inactioned risk-assessment of the swing-door in the shop's Health & Safety File [see film], her own 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 outstanding 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, and the non-alphabetical ordering of the volunteers' health details in the event of an emergency; and, indeed, fails each informal visit hereafter.

5th Feb. 2008. The Safety Committee, the Health & Safety Department, 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,"}

Mid-March 2008. Shop Manager introduces an electrically untested second-hand fridge into the kitchen.

{The Electricity at Work Regulations 1999 state: "No person shall be engaged in any work activity on or so near any live conductor (other than one suitably covered with insulating material so as to prevent danger) that danger may arise unless — (a) it is unreasonable in all the circumstances for it to be dead; and (b) it is reasonable in all the circumstances for him to be at work on or near it while it is live;"}

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

2nd April 2008. Subsequently, the Shop Manager conducts the first fire evacuation drill since before her appointment in late July 2006 [see Fire Safety Book p. 32]: ... despite the Area Manager's specific instruction to this effect within a two-week time scale [see FSR no. 41827 of 5th July 2007, headed "H&S Audit"].

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.

14th April 2008. Shop Assistant, on his routine day of volunteering, directs a fire evacuation drill and, immediately thereafter, signs a recommendation for a safer and more convenient fire evacuation point for those of maturer years or with decreased mobility [see FSB p. 32].

15th April 2008. Shop Manager fails to action the aforementioned recommendation; and, indeed, fails each week hereafter.

22nd April 2008. Elecheck conduct portable appliance testing on all electrical items; only one item fails, namely the aforementioned fridge — because of failed insulation resistance.

Summer 2008. Shop Manager fails to implement consistently the remedial measure recommended on 2nd April for the safe temporary storage of broken glassware and sharps [see plan of workplace].

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 Committee, 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 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.

{CR-UK's document entitled Our Approach to Discipline states: "Gross misconduct: serious infringement of health and safety rules; serious breach of CR-UK's working procedures, policies or guidelines;"}

4th Sept. 2008. Training Development Officer (Ms. Debbie Bradley) — who had failed to notice the totally aberrant placement of the main Health & Safety Notice and who had previously certified that the Shop Manager had completed CR-UK's Health & Safety / Manual Handling Training Course [see proforma] — signs the «perfect score» of the Shop Manager's Level Two Completion Review Form [see CRV]; ... ... the «topic» of Health & Safety is distinguished by its absence on this form.

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 measures.

September 2008. Promotion of the Shop Manager to Area Relief Manager recommended by the Area Manager and approved by the Regional Manager, who — continuing from afar — fails to seek any independently verifiable information on their managerial competence regarding the implementation of the Health and Safety at Work Act.

6th Oct. 2008. Shop Assistant, on his routine day of volunteering, draws the Area Manager's attention to the the totally aberrant placement of the main Health & Safety Notice; after the latter's initial expression of incomprehension, she states: "Well, if you don't like it there, put it somewhere where you do like."

6th Oct. 2008. Subsequently, the Shop Assistant repositions the main Health & Safety Notice for the convenient eye-level reference of volunteers and employees — in accord with the Health and Safety Information for Employees Regulations 1989 [].

Repositioned main Health & Safety Notice for the convenient eye-level reference of volunteers and employees.

6th Oct. 2008. Shop Assistant also 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 [see film]; she undertakes to address the matter.

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

{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,"}

22nd Oct. 2008. Shop Assistant sends confidential letter — «bristling with red flags» — by recorded delivery to the Retail Health & Safety Manager: ... who fails to initiate an investigation into the letter's essential substance.

5th Nov. 2008. Safety Auditor (Mr. Jim Holyhead) fails to notice, during a formal compliance audit [see Health and Safety Audit 2008/2009 ("Area Manager: T. McIlhoney")] — partially conducted in the presence of an Area Relief Manager (Ms. Logan), formerly Shop Manager — these outstanding safety issues: a 20-month inactioned risk-assessment of the swing-door [see film] and the presence of her undated ex posto facto account of the overdue risk-assessment 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 [see FSR no. 41827, headed "H&S Audit"]; 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 [see FSB p. 34]; 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 [see FSB p. 32]; the 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 the non-functioning hand air-dryers; and the non-alphabetical ordering of the volunteers' health details in the event of an emergency.

13th Nov. 2008. Retail Learning & Development Manager (Ms. Lynn Paulo) effectively implies in a memo that Health & Safety training for new — but actively practising — managers is less important than training for Merchandising & Display and Stock Control.

19th Nov. 2008. Shop Assistant 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): ... who fail to initiate an investigation into the letter's essential substance.

20th Nov. 2008. Area Manager, during a formal shop visit in concert with the (recently promoted) Area Relief Manager [see FSR no. 41829 & no. 418230], writes: "Visit to go over compliance and H&S with Relief Manager."

20th Nov. 2008. Area Manager fails to notice, during this same formal shop visit, these outstanding safety issues: the 20-month inactioned risk-assessment of the swing-door in the shop's Health & Safety File [see film]; her own 16-month inactioned requirement to obtain a step ladder with the correct British Standard, specified in the Formal Shop Report Book [see FSR no. 41827, headed "H&S Audit"]; 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 [see FSB p. 34]; 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 [see FSB p. 32]; the 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 the non-functioning hand air-dryers; and the non-alphabetical ordering of the volunteers' health details in the event of an emergency.

{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,"} ® Hence the submissions of 3rd December.

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 [see film] 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 [see FSR no. 41827, headed "H&S Audit"]; 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 [see FSB p. 34]; 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 second 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» — which includes the following sentences.

"Young persons — i.e., those lads and lasses under 16 — represent one of the two vulnerable sections of CRUK's volunteer base (the other being senior citizens); and, as such, CRUK's duty of care must be beyond reproach.

[The] Safety Committee should accept, without delay and without qualification, my judgement that all the following are unfit for purpose: management supervisory practices; safety audits; formal shop visits; safety culture; and safety training."

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

{CR-UK's document entitled Our Approach to Confidential Reporting (A "Whistleblowing" Policy) states: "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]}

4th Dec. 2008. New Shop Manager — on her first day in post — obtains a step ladder with the correct British Standard; ... thus finally actioning the Area Manager's safety measure of 5th July 2007 to the former Shop Manager (Ms. Logan), now Area Relief Manager [see FSR no. 41827, headed "H&S Audit"].

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: ... who fails to initiate an investigation into the letter's essential substance..

7th Jan. 2009. New Shop Manager implements the Shop Assistant's signed recommendation of 14th April 2008 — i.e., during the stewardship of the former Shop Manager, now Area Relief Manager — for a safer and more convenient fire evacuation point for those of maturer years or with decreased mobility [see FSB p. 32].

9th Jan. 2009. Citing the Head of Health and Safety, the Trading Director — who, hitherto, had had no communication with the Shop Assistant and, therefore, had none of the verifiable information in context — writes: "In his opinion the issues raised are not as a result of systematic failures and that CR-UK is meeting its obligations under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and other subordinate legislation."

9th Jan. 2009. Trading Director also writes: "The door has been inspected and was found to be slamming shut due to a strong closure mechanism. Whilst not deemed to be a health and safety issue ..."

16th Jan. 2009. The swing-door's broken slow-release safety mechanism is replaced: ... 22 months after the original risk-assessment.

26th Jan. 2009. Trading Director resumes in writing: "I would reiterate I am confident that our health and safety processes and practices are 'fit for purpose' and I do not support your view that there are systemic weaknesses."

22nd Aug. 2009. Associate Head of Retail Finance (Ms. Jenny White) states: "Clearly he [the Shop Assistant] has frustrations about health and safety but everyone has frustrations in the work place."

24th Aug. 2009. Shop Assistant dismissed.

March 2010. Despite integrity and excellence being supposèd core values of Cancer Research UK, no investigation has been initiated by either their Executive Board or their Council of Trustees to determine: the reason(s) for the multiple shortcomings of the Safety Committee, and the Health & Safety, Human Resources, and Retail Departments; the organisational root cause(s) of these multiple, prolonged, and recidivistic breaches of the Health & Safety at Work Act and other complementary legislation; or the reason(s) for the absence of an engaged safety culture.

5. Lord Cullen, Report of The Public Inquiry into the Piper Alpha Disaster (HMSO, London, 1990; ISBN 010113102), writes: "[The establishment of a safety culture includes the] systematic identification and assessment of hazards and the devising and exercise of preventative systems which are subject to audit and review."

6. Charles Haddon-Cave QC, loc. cit., writes:

"A Questioning Culture is the key to a true Safety Culture. In my view, people and organisations need constant reminding of the importance of asking questions rather than making assumptions, of probing and testing rather than assuming safety based on past success, of independent challenge of conventional wisdom or shibboleths, of the exercise of judgment rather than retreat behind the assignment of arbitrary quantitative values.


Questioning is a catalyst for thinking. As Professor McDermid [of the University of York] told me, if he could replace all of the regulations with one word it would be: "THINK". Thinking can often be painful, difficult and not always immediately productive. It is, of course, much easier and quicker to make convenient assumptions, or slavishly follow procedure or tick boxes."


7. For a standard reference work, see Allan St.John Holt's & Huw Andrews' Principles of Health and Safety at Work (ISOH Publishing, Leicester, 1993; 2nd Edition ISBN 0901357170).

8. The misinformation, disinformation, and paralogisms propagated by Interim Director of Internal Audit Mr. Jois will be systematically and thoroughly deconstructed in Document 7e: but, given,

firstly, the spirit and the letter of the Data Protection Act 1998, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999,

secondly, the substance of the Shop Assistant's
confidential submissions of 3rd and 15th December 2008,

thirdly, the spirit and the letter of CR-UK's document entitled Our Approach to Confidential Reporting (A "Whistleblowing" Policy), and

fourthly, CR-UK's document entitled Our Approach to Discipline, states "Misconduct: breach of CR-UK's working procedures, guidelines and policies; lack of proper care and attention to work. Gross Misconduct: serious infringement of health and safety rules; serious breach of CR-UK's working procedures, policies or guidelines;",

it is irrefutable that the Interim Director had sufficient prima facie evidence to initiate formal investigations into probable misconduct by the Data Protection Supervisor, the Head of Health & Safety, the Trading Director, and the Safety Auditor, and into probable misconduct and gross misconduct by the Retail Health & Safety Manager, the Regional Manager, the Area Manager, and the Area Relief Manager (former Shop Manager).

9. The misinformation, disinformation, and paralogisms propagated by LSF Regional Manager Ms. Bedford will be systematically and thoroughly deconstructed in Document 7l: but the following timeline alone reveals not only the damnable value of these but also a damning ignorance or misunderstanding of statutory obligations and internal codes of practice.

10th Aug. 2007. Shop Manager (Ms. Amy Logan) 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.

{Principle 5 of the Data Protection Act 1998 requires that: "Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes."

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."}

29th Jan. 2008. Area Manager (Ms. Trish McIlhoney) fails to notice, during a formal shop visit [see FSR no.
41828], the continuing anomalies in completed Young Person's Risk Assessment Forms [see proforma], the totally aberrant placement of the main Health & Safety Notice [see sketch], the 10-month inactioned risk-assessment of the swing-door in the shop's Health & Safety File [see film], her own 6-month inactioned safety measures specified on the preceding page of the Formal Shop Report Book [see FSR no. 41827, headed "H&S Audit"], an 8-month outstanding 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, and the 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.

5th Feb. 2008. Retail Director (Mr. Simon Ledsham) and the Regional Manager (Ms. Julie Byard) — both from afar — fail to ensure that the Data Protection Act is being implemented and that there are no anomalies in completed Young Person's Risk Assessment Forms, no inactioned risk-assessments, no inactioned safety measures, no lacunae in statutory safety provision and maintenance, and no volunteer welfare concerns; and, indeed, fail each week hereafter.

18th Feb. 2008. Retail Director and the Regional Manager — both continuing from afar — fail to ensure that the Shop Assistant's 6-month probationary period has been supervised in the slightest degree by his Line-Manager (Area Manager Ms. McIlhoney); and, indeed, fail each week hereafter.

{CR-UK's document entitled Our Approach to Dignity at Work states: "All employees and applicants will be treated on merit, fairly, with respect and dignity. [...] Those in managerial roles have a responsibility to promote and implement the principles of this policy."

The Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 state: "A part-time worker has the right not to be treated by his employer less favourably than the employer treats a comparable full-time worker — (a) as regards the terms of his contract; or (b) by being subjected to any other detriment by any act [...] of his employer."

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,"}

7th April 2008. Line-Manager's first contact — in whatever form — with the Shop Assistant since before his interview in August 2007; ... that's to say, two months beyond the spirit and letter of the probationary period stated in his Contract of Employment (and, therefore, an unequivocal example of CR-UK's nonfeasance), and similarly two months beyond the spirit and letter of the Part-Time Regulations 2000.

{Verbatim extract from CR-UK Contract of Employment: "The first six months of your employment will be probationary during which time your performance will be appraised. The probationary period enables CR-UK to provide you with a planned introduction to the role, objectives and appropriate learning and development support."}


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. Retail Director and the Regional Manager — both continuing from afar — fail to ensure that the Data Protection Act is being implemented and that there are no anomalies in completed Young Person's Risk Assessment Forms, no inactioned risk-assessments, no inactioned safety measures, no lacunae in statutory safety provision and maintenance, and no volunteer welfare concerns; and, indeed, fail each week hereafter.

September 2008. Promotion of the Shop Manager to Area Relief Manager recommended by the Area Manager and approved by the Regional Manager, who — continuing from afar — fails to seek any independently verifiable information on their managerial competence regarding the implementation of the Health & Safety at Work Act, the Data Protection Act, Diversity Monitoring, or other Duty of Care obligations.

29th Sept. 2008. Shop Assistant sends letter — «bristling with red flags» — by recorded delivery to the Data Protection Supervisor (Ms. Diane Scott): ... who fails to initiate an investigation into the letter's essential substance.


22nd Oct. 2008. Shop Assistant sends
confidential letter — «bristling with red flags» — by recorded delivery to the Retail Health & Safety Manager (Mr. Steve Learmouth) at the National Retail Centre: ... who fails to initiate an investigation into the letter's essential substance.

19th Nov. 2008. Shop Assistant 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): ... who fail to initiate an investigation into the letter's essential substance.

3rd Dec. 2008. Shop Assistant sends second 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».

15th Dec. 2008. Shop Assistant, steadfastly continuing the fulfilment of his statutory and contractual obligations, sends confidential letter — «bristling with red flags» — by recorded delivery to the Interim Director of Internal Audit: ... who fails to initiate an investigation into the letter's essential substance.

17th Dec. 2008. Chairman of the Council of Trustees writes: "Please rest assured that nobody who, in good faith, raises genuinely held concerns that there is or may be be a failure to comply with legal obligations or an endangerment to an individual's health and safety will be dismissed or subjected to any detriment as a result of such action."

9th Jan. 2009 to 25th July 2009. Repeated — and, eventually, unbearably detrimental — intrusions of a plethora of misinformation, disinformation, and paralogisms — by unencrypted e-mail and letter — into the Shop Assistant's home by the Trading Director and the Regional Manager.

{Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 states: "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."}

12th March 2009. Regional Manager's first contact — in whatever form — with the Shop Assistant; ... i.e., 19 months after his appointment.

Mid-July 2009. Trading Director and the Regional Manager decide to initiate a dual grievance procedure against the Shop Assistant, ostensibly because of his supposèd breaches of the CR-UK code entitled Our Approach to Dignity at Work.

22nd Aug. 2009. Disciplinary Hearing Chair (LSF Regional Manager Ms. Hazel Bedford), at the hearing, asks: "Who else should be engaging with [the Shop Assistant] specifically?"

22nd Aug. 2009. Investigating Officer (Associate Head of Retail Finance Ms. Jenny White) replies: "The Regional Manager, as they have responsibilities for the region [and] are accountable for what happens within that region. I don't see how [Regional Manager Ms. Julie Byard] can do her job effectively if she can not have a dialogue with members of staff within the region."

[Disinformation; see
5th Feb. 2008 and 5th Aug. 2008.]

22nd Aug. 2009. Investigating Officer states: "[The Shop Assistant] was sent CR-UK's Our Approach to Dignity at Work by [his Area Manager and Line-Manager] Trish McIlhoney and he was asked to abide by it in her letter [dated 14th April 2008]."

[Paralogism; see 7th April 2008.]

22nd Aug. 2009. Disciplinary Hearing Chair asks: "Do you know if [the Shop Assistant] called the NRC [National Retail Centre]?"

22nd Aug. 2009. Investigating Officer replies: "No, he always called the directors."

[Misinformation; see 22nd Oct. 2008.]

22nd Aug. 2009. Investigating Officer states: "If you have such disrespect for CR-UK, as I believe [the Shop Assistant] does,"

[Ad hominem argument. Note, setting aside the Shop Assistant's remedial safety measures for CR-UK's customers, volunteers, and employees on
2nd April 2008 and 8th Sept. 2008,

his letter of 29th September 2008, sent by recorded delivery to the Data Protection Supervisor, states

"Should such personal data come into the public domain, either by mischance or by foul play, one undesirable effect would be to decrease severely the confidence of CRUK's customers and supporters in the organization; the potentially deleterious impact on revenue streams, and thus CRUK's mission, is a truly disquieting prospect.",

his confidential letter of 19th Nov. 2008, sent by recorded delivery to the Chairman of the Council of Trustees and the Chief Executive, states

"I hope you would agree that should these [systemic] weaknesses be exposed by mischance, the potentially deleterious impact on revenue streams, and thus CRUK's mission, is a completely unacceptable prospect.",

and his confidential letter of 3rd Dec. 2008, sent by recorded delivery to the Interim Director of Internal Audit, states

"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."]

24th Aug. 2009. Disciplinary Hearing Chair dismisses Shop Assistant.

[After Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass, Oxford, 1872: 'Now, if you'll only attend, Kitty, and not talk so much, I'll tell you all my ideas about Looking-Glass House (née 61 Lincoln's Inn Fields). First, there's the kangaroo court you can see through the glass—that's just the same as our court, only the things go the other way.']

10. For a gentle introduction to, and a «bird's-eye-view» of, systems theory, see Fritjof Capra's The Web of Life (Harper Collins, London, 1996; ISBN0006547516) — in particular Chapters 3 & 4.

11. See Document
6.

12. See Document
8.

13. Cf., Lewis Carroll, loc. cit.: "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."


14. CR-UK's Council of Trustees (2007-2010): Mr. David Newbigging (Chairman), Dr. Melanie Lee (Deputy Chairman), Professor Colin Bird, Professor Sir Kenneth Calman, Dr. Philip Campbell, Sir James Crosby, Ms. Liz Hewitt, Mr. Roger Matthews, Dame Bridget Ogilvie, Dr. Keith Palmer, Ms. Leah Sowden, Professor Jeffrey Tobias.


15. For example, the reader might be forgiven for thinking that the following summary

5th Nov. 2008. Safety Auditor (Mr. Jim Holyhead) fails to notice, during a formal compliance audit [see Health and Safety Audit 2008/2009 ("Area Manager: T. McIlhoney")] — partially conducted in the presence of an Area Relief Manager (Ms. Logan), formerly Shop Manager — these outstanding safety issues: the 20-month inactioned risk-assessment of the swing-door [see film] and the presence of her undated ex posto facto account of the 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 [see FSR no. 41827, headed "H&S Audit"]; the discrepancy between the retesting date on Elecheck's Formal Safety Report (April 2009) 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 [see FSB p. 34]; 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 [see FSB p. 32]; the 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 the non-functioning hand air-dryers; and the non-alphabetical ordering of the volunteers' health details in the event of an emergency.

is merely a vehicle for (unconstructive) illustrations of CR-UK's nonfeasance and misfeasance: ... but nothing could be farther from the truth. Thus, the failures are — in substantial measure — attributable to three inherent systemic weaknesses: lacunae in the Health & Safety Audit Proforma and in management supervisory procedures coupled to Cancer Research UK's disengaged safety culture (note the caveats by Mr. Ian Whewell and Professor John McDermid).

16. Incidentally, several lacunae in the «syllabus» of CR-UK's "Health and Safety Training Programme", during the period 2006 to 2009, become all too evident on reading the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and Acts cited therein.

Dr. R. Peters'
Home Page.

[March 2010]