Public Concern At Work " I cannot agree with your claim that as matters stand, the risk is too great for any doctor to blow the whistle"

Correspondence between PCAW and Me

Public Concern at Work is a Charity. The people behind the charity can be seen here. This is what the Charity Portal say about them

"To promote ethical standards of conduct and compliance with the law by governmental, industrial, commercial, voluntary sector and professional organisations in their administration and management, treatment of personnel, health safety and commercial practices and protection of the natural environment and in furtherance of such objects but not otherwise to undertake categories of work as defined in clause 3 of the memorandum."

There is a conflict between those governed by Charity Law and their ability to criticise the UK government. It is important to understand that much of medical whistle blowing centres around system failures. This is a direct criticism of the government's management of the NHS. It is vital to understand this point when dealing with Public Concern at Work. Essentially, it is not " charitable" to be seen to challenge the government. The theory behind the conflict between charities and the government is listed here .

"The rule that charities cannot have objects which are classed as ‘political’ has developed in the English courts over a long period of time. The most obviously political objects are those which relate to party politics. Genuine education in party political matters can be charitable.[1] However, promotion of a particular political party is not charitable.[2] Political propaganda in the guise of education is also not charitable.[3]

In terms of non-party-political, broader issues of public interest, genuine education or research into an issue is charitable.[4]However, attempting to maintain or secure changes in domestic or foreign laws, or in government policies or decisions, is not charitable. This rule developed through the three leading cases on politics: Bowman v Secular Society [1917]; National Anti-Vivisection Society v IRC [1948]; and McGovern and Others v Attorney-General and Another [1982]"

We then have to assess whether or not Public Concern at Work is a Trojan Horse. I say this for many reasons. It would be convenient for the Department of Health to have a honey pot to catch all whistleblowers. It is in the government's interest to have all whistleblowers silenced or ruined or both. This isn't a conspiracy theory but a probable hypothesis. The Department of Health cannot be seen to be silencing whistleblowers following the Bristol and the Shipman Inquiries. They therefore encourage whistleblowing :). Of course, encouraging whistleblowing and ensuring accountability are two different issues. One is a PR escapade for the public. Mr Guy Dehn and his liking for the Department of Health is well known. Mr Guy Dehn is listed as PCAW's legal counsel. His legal advice is actually quite poor. The most detailed account of the dealings between Public Concern at Work is with high profile NHS Whistleblower Ian Perkin. The exchanges between the two power houses can be read here.

I like Ian, probably because he is good looking but then we all look beyond cosmetics and view his ability to be a true hero in the whistleblowing world. Ian Perkin kicked the establishment and unlike many NHS whistleblowers, continued to carve a good life for himself. I have a great deal of respect and time for Ian. We agreed on the PCAW issue.

My dealings with PCAW were acrimonious. That is probably because I found Guy Dehn to be a man who is quite full of himself. He has ideas above his station and is divorced from reality. I contacted them by phone once and they laughed at me when I said " I am going to sue the GMC" in 2004. They told me I would never win because no one ever wins against the GMC. Well, I won the first hearing and PCAW were wrong. They then progressed to undermine the issues regarding Ward 87. They ignored the reports and as everyone can see, despite being one of the main whistleblowers in the NHS, PCAW does not list me on their website. It is vital to marginalise a whistleblower who the Department of Health has spent years discrediting. Guy Dehn's modus operandi was to dissuade me from seeking any accountability.

After detailed discussions with Ian, I decided to make a formal complaint about Guy Dehn. The nub of my complaint was this - it is reckless for PCAW to encourage whistleblowing in the NHS given the lack of protection for doctors and other health professionals. The response provided by Michael Smyth the Chairman is listed above. I found their habit of jumping in bed with the Department of Health disturbing. Their responses to the Shipman Inquiry were as follows

"In July 2003, the Department of Health sent our updated whistleblowing toolkit, the Policy Pack 2003, to all NHS trusts in England. It had commissioned this update, following the successful response to our Policy Pack 1999. The 1999 Pack was sent out with HSC 1999/198 (a copy of which is attached to the report at Annex 4). We enclose a copy of the revised and current Pack at Annex 5."

The quality of service is so bad that their legal advisor has been severely criticised. The website details the allegedly faulty advice given by Public Concern at Work.

Both Ian Perkin, I and many other whistleblowers know that Guy Dehn is divorced from reality. Here he is writing in Health Matters. He trumps up the faulty legislation - Public Interest Disclosure Act. As everyone knows, litigation is extremely costly, hard going and the whistleblower continues to be criticised [ as Ian Perkin found out]. Guy Dehn has never talked about the pitfalls of PIDA. This provides a kind of false security for those working in the NHS. They are of the view that if they whistleblow, they will be protected. This is not so as I have shown in detail. The Public Interest Disclosure Act was drafted badly. It provides "no protection" because by the time any whistleblower gets justice, hell does freeze over. Every whistleblower knows they have to jump through hoops like - bad legal advice, corrupt barristers, lack of funding, witnesses lying under oath, biased Tribunal judges and the list is endless. Of course, no one tells you this when you are a virgin whistleblower. Naive doctors often have a rose tinted view of justice.

Jonathan Gornall wrote a interesting article in the Times concerning Ian Perkin. It was called Blow the Whistle and You are History. This is probably a more accurate reflection of whistleblowing today.

My advice - don't whistleblow - just walk away. Seriously, that is the safest way - because the concept of the " principle" is not going to save you from the difficult path ahead. The spotlight will normally fall on the whistleblower. I know the spotlight has often fallen on me - this is a kind of judgmental spotlight where people whisper about my predicament behind closed doors in a condescending manner, it is a sort of spotlight where the reaction you have as a whistleblower holds you up against the wall, it is the sort of reaction that imprints people's view of the persona rather than the number of people that died on a ward. The whistleblower stands naked and each section of your personality is scrutinised. Character assassination is amazingly difficult to cope with - I deal with it by simply accepting I cannot change those who have narrow minds and I subsequently walk away.

PCAW is much like a disability to any whistleblower. I found their advice judgmental, faulty, mocking and oppressive. I would never advise any whistleblower to approach Public Concern At Work. I doubt they have the whistleblower's concerns at heart. Their vested interests make them a liability to any whistleblower who already finds themselves in a difficult predicament. They do though make an awful lot of money as the Charity Commission shows us. Clearly, they Guy Dehn functions as the media star he needs to be. It is a great shame the quality of his advice does not match his media prowess.