Government is rotten to the core!!

[woolybanana]

I am speechless with anger. Where did government get the idea it could hide its dirty laundry behind these orders?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9967901/14m-bill-for-gagging-axed-civil-servants.html

[NickP]

[quote user="woolybanana"]

I am speechless with anger. Where did government get the idea it could hide its dirty laundry behind these orders?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9967901/14m-bill-for-gagging-axed-civil-servants.html

[/quote]

So I suppose you think that this doesn't happen to people who leave commercial organisations. Sorry to rattle your little left wing cage WB, It's normal commercial practise. Having said that, doesn't mean I think it's correct. Some people are contracted not to pursue the profession that they are leaving for maybe a couple of years; and the gagging order is often to stop them revealing trade secrets. It's only M.P's etc. who leave Government positions and immediately get jobs strangely enough in their specialist field, Mr Milliband anybody, Mr Blair?

[NormanH]

But WB is to the right of Attila the Hun!

[woolybanana]

Oi, Norman Naughty Step, Attila had some fine qualities; he was kind to his mother and loved children. But, I must say, it is the first time I have ever been called left wing. Is that actionable, defamation of something? Like saying Norman is a member of UKIP.

[andyh4]

[quote user="NickP"][quote user="woolybanana"]

I am speechless with anger. Where did government get the idea it could hide its dirty laundry behind these orders?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9967901/14m-bill-for-gagging-axed-civil-servants.html

[/quote]

So I suppose you think that this doesn't happen to people who leave commercial organisations. [/quote]

 

Actually NickP, if the slant that I take of the Torygraph article is correct, I have never come across a commercial organisation attaching a cash sum to prevent a leaving employee from using his/her gained knowledge.

 

I have come across leaving packages where a clause is inserted that the leaver must not divulge company information. 

I have come across contracts of employment that demand the same - even after the contract has terminated. 

 

What I have never come across is a "here is your golden handshake of X and if you keep your mouth shut here is an additional Y" situation.  This seems to me to be what the article is implying - but I doubt if that ever really happens and what we see is leaving packages that include a confidentiality clause.  The package is for leaving not the confidentiality per se - exactly as in the commercial world.  But then that would not make a good story would it.

[woolybanana]

Well, given that gagging clauses seem to be the norm in the NHS, it seems quite reasonable that they would be used in government to hide their dirty little secrets. I think the example given is a case of local authority incompetence in dealing with old folks homes.

[idun]

I can but agree with the title of this thread 'Government is rotten to the core!!'.

Is there one anywhere that isn't???????

I'm glad that they are stopping gagging orders on NHS staff.

[andyh4]

But a confidentiality clause is just that WB.  It makes no distinctions between good and bad.

 

My own clause would prevent me from divulging if my company were avoiding taxes, had polluted the land, was using under-aged employees in Asia working for just $1/week, just as much as it would prevent me from divulging that the company had made anonymous donations to UNICEF, was about to make a breakthrough in science that would positively impact on world poverty, or was about to announce record profits.

 

I think you are being misled by the slant of the article.

[Pickles]

[quote user="woolybanana"]I am speechless with anger. Where did government get the idea it could hide its dirty laundry behind these orders?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9967901/14m-bill-for-gagging-axed-civil-servants.html[/quote]

Methinks that the Torygraph has overblown things somewhat. I took voluntary redundancy (from a university) and was paid more than the statutory minimum. ANYONE who left under those circumstances was required to sign a "compromise agreement" - primarily to avoid people getting enhanced redundancy payments and then going after the employer for unfair dismissal.