The great scandal behind UK Whistle-Blowing Law By Eileen Chubb

How UK parliament APPGs are using a lobbying loophole and the detrimental affects this is having on whistle blowers and the public interest. Why those dictating whistle blowing laws know nothing about whistle-blowing and everything about exploitation.

I have always been aware of UK Whistle-Blowing (WBUKs) agenda to protect financial whistle-blowers and the pro-United States bounty hunting profit bonanza. This report came as no surprise in many ways but in other ways is staggeringly complacent in its poorly concealed window dressing.

Stephen Kerr MP who is a mouthpiece for WBUK and their Co-defendants opens the report on Page 2, by stating the obvious about whistle-blowers being an asset to society which we all know already. Mr Kerr then goes on to state how many MPs have had experience of whistle-blowers and how taxing this is on MPs and their teams. Perhaps these "Taxed MPs" should have thought about protecting whistle-blowers with an effective law 20 years ago: or at least have listened when they were told repeatedly by the BUPA 7, that the law was useless from the start.

When we refer to MPs we make notable exceptions as the below have fully supported us. They are - John MacDonnell, David Hinchliffe, Charlotte Lesley, John Horam, and the late Tony Benn. It's also pertinent to mention that we made a judgement to not engage with or submit any evidence whatsoever to this APPG from the start as we suspected the agenda and outcome and we were right.

We are now at a situation where the abysmal failures of the current law PIDA, are being finally accepted by some MPs. However, they have sought advice on a new law from the alleged whistleblowing charity "Protect" (PCAW) who changed their name I presume to fool some people into forgetting the crucial fact that Protect drafted PIDA the useless law that now needs to be replaced. We have a situation where those who caused the problems are being consulted for the solution. Is this common-sense Parliament style?

Protect PCAW could not be more aptly named because they protect themselves always. Their law PIDA and their support for WBUK is driven by their compliance industry income. A law that promotes whistleblowing arrangements, policies and procedures or "kitemarks" brings huge financial rewards to those who sell such products to the industry. Protect PCAWS income comes from providing just such products as will all the recently registered companies set up by WBUK CEO Halford Hall, to corner the global market on the misery that will result from their law proposals.

The intended global market "kitemark" on industry compliance being hawked as whistle-blower protection might well be acceptable for Guaranteeing the sale of holiday insurance or the like but when it comes to whistleblowing protection then it is about as effective as a Mary Poppins song, but far less credible.

This APPG report concludes there is evidence for an office for the whistle-blower based on a flawed questionnaire that had by WBUKs own admission, changed the questions after the survey started, as it was pointed out, the questions were not relevant: the questions are still not relevant.

We have published evidence from the first 1500 thousand whistle-blowers who contacted our helpline and intend to publish the evidence we have gathered from a further 5000. This evidence is in the form of whistle-blowers own words because whistle-blowers are people not numbers on a pie chart. WBUK and co-defendants have no evidence of criteria to define if those giving evidence were actually whistleblowers at all: hence the term "presenting as whistle-blowers" This a staggering oversight from an organisation that is supposed to allegedly know what a whistle-blower is. Compassion in Care has clearly and very successfully separated whistle-blowers from non-whistle-blowers for 20 years and published evidence from both whistle-blowers and families. Both groups are equally important despite having very different issues to be addressed. We have also encountered a third group who do not warrant legal protection at all despite being under the illusion they are a whistle-blower. WBUK and co-defendants would lump as many customers as possible onto their protected persons list ultimately protecting no one at all.

I have no connection to the APPG nor to any of those involved, nor do I want any. I do not fight for the vulnerable and those who could protect them: in order to obtain a status or financial reward for myself. I sacrificed any future security to fight for justice and I do so at great personal cost. I would not touch anything to do with WBUK nor their "Office for the whistle-blower" I note the reference to Compassion in Care.

This APPG is flawed from beginning to end and the only positive thing to come from it is that it demonstrates the ignorance, self-serving and identical agendas that resulted in the law PIDA 20 years ago as being equally present today. The remainder of this APPG report repeats itself, there is a short predictable section on retaliation, as the first whistle-blowers to use PIDA, the abuse we reported and which was upheld in full, the physical and mental assaults and hardships we suffered pale into insignificance compared to the biggest harm to those in Isard House and to ourselves, the worst retaliation suffered, the worst punishment was the law called PIDA and all those who refused to act on the BUPA 7 case because I live with the lives that have been lost as a direct result of those failures.

The BUPA 7 and all those who have suffered injustice must be given an acceptable inquiry and the accountability that would remove those who harmed whistle-blowers from the system and Ednas Law must be adopted for future whistle-blowers. The APPG should be dissolved and investigated.

NOTE: This news is based on a letter submitted to Devdiscourse by Eileen Chubb. The bulky letter running into several pages was edited and published.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are the personal views of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of Devdiscourse and Devdiscourse does not claim any responsibility for the same.)