,
5 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
When we are public servants we are (sometimes if fortunate, often if not) asked to implement decisions that we might think wise but defensible. EG. A manifesto pledge.
No. No deal Brexit was NOT a manifesto pledge.
No. No deal Brexit was NOT a manifesto pledge.
2/.
But we might face political decisions that we know are presented as harmless but are looking at evidence that suggests that Government Ministers are lying or, at the minimum, are disguising evidence that suggests the citizens Civil Servants are supposed to serve.
But we might face political decisions that we know are presented as harmless but are looking at evidence that suggests that Government Ministers are lying or, at the minimum, are disguising evidence that suggests the citizens Civil Servants are supposed to serve.
It often is not easy to draw a line between regrettable but reasonable and really seriously misleading and damaging.
Esp so if someone is part of a professional organisation that spells out that to continue or support a course of conduct is a breach of professional standards
Esp so if someone is part of a professional organisation that spells out that to continue or support a course of conduct is a breach of professional standards
Similarly if the critical course of conduct seems to suggest we would be in breach of acceptable standards towards a protected group (eg race, religion) why would it be OK to expect that person to continue on that course of conduct?
If flagged and unaddressed how is it OK to treat them as if they are wrong to flag it. Put them into a place where they resign?
So decisions are not black and white.
But an environment that encourages speaking out safely so all can participate it important.
So decisions are not black and white.
But an environment that encourages speaking out safely so all can participate it important.
