David Bennett

Whistleblowers in British Institutions

by

Once is an event, twice is a maybe, and three suggests a pattern.

One

When consultants at a hospital in Britain came to the dawning suspicion that Lucy Letby, a nurse, was murdering newborn babies, they told the management. And as they describe it, the management made them feel like creeps. Management even went so far as to require them to apologise to the nurse for saying about her things that were plainly not true.

Except of course they were true.

We know that because the nurse was convicted of murder. Some people say that there has been a miscarriage of justice. They say it wasn’t Letby who did these things. They say no one did and that it was natural causes exacerbated by poor hospital standards.

But let’s leave that aside.

The point to draw from this is that the management at the hospital just didn’t want to know and they didn’t want to investigate. They just didn’t want to upset whatever the system was that was in place. The system had been trundling along and they simply wanted it to continue trundling along, even if babies died. Apparently.

Two

Employees stole 1,500 artefacts from the British Museum. It turns out that it’s been going on for many years. It might have gone on longer had not somebody unconnected with the museum told the British Museum his suspicions. He saw an artefact or more than one item listed in eBay and put two and two together.

In response, the British Museum ignored the complaint and continued to ignore it for years. In fact, they even accused the whistleblower of something underhand. I don’t know what it was that he was supposed to have done, but whatever it was, he was innocent of it.

Eventually the truth came out, and now the police are investigating.

Three

Rebecca Wight, a nurse with sixteen years experience raised what she called concerns of life and death with the management at the Christie Hospital in Manchester. In an external memo, the Trust wrote that “We are grateful that RW raised her concerns which we took very seriously and used to improve the service. When RW raised concerns with her consultants, changes were made to the service and additional supervision was provided…”.

Internally the CEO Roger Spencer wrote “We are disappointed The Christie is once again the subject of untrue allegations made by Ms Wight.”

What Conclusions To Draw From This

I have said for years that there is a ‘sweep it under the carpet’ culture in Britain. What’s important is that it looks like the right things have been done. Less important is that the right things have actually been done.

That carries into not wanting to do anything about anything lest it upset the current state of affairs. I haven’t made this up. The TV series Yes Minister made a running joke of it.

The problem is that the aim and purpose of these institutions is to help. So it’s painful when the management circles the wagons and denies that there are any problems. In the hospital cases I would guess the managers are not themselves doctors. And in the case of the museum, managers who are not curators.

The function of a manager is to run an effective ship, and if anything happens on their watch, then their skills as managers are called into question. That risks their salaries and perhaps their jobs. What is needed is somehow to decouple what the managers are responsible for from any bad actors on the staff.

Of course, the range of bad actors is broad. Let’s stay with people trying to do the best job they can but with a side order of self importance or rank or forceful personality.

In operating theatres at a leading hospital in New York or Washington DC. (on’t hold me to the details) surgeons overrode nurses who raised the alarm. For example, a nurse would say that the surgeon had left a swab in the patient. The surgeon wouldn’t listen and the patient would suffer in consequence.

To correct this the hospital made a rule. When anyone in the operating theatre sounds the alarm, they must stop and they must investigate. There is no fault and no blame. Everyone is responsible and has a voice and works together to solve the problem.

That rule would change situations from ‘them and us’ to one united and involved unit with one purpose.

Why Jeff Bezos May Turn Out To Have Been Wise

by

For those who believe in people power, as in a lot of small people rather than a few big people, then the arc of this American election may turn out to be the perfect story.

The perfect adventure story is when the young huntsman sets off to find the prize, and is faced with a villain who at first appears to have been defeated and then comes back stronger. And then in the end is defeated. And that’s how the story will be seen to have gone if Kamala Harris wins.

If that happens, then everybody who votes for her and a lot of those who didn’t vote for her will breathe a sigh of relief. The story will have been the very best story it could have been.

This is a stronger story than if Harris had come on the scene and Trump had simply faded.

This way everybody has a satisfying feeling in the pit of their stomach, in their hearts and their minds and in their vision of the future. Back from the brink.

And of course the baddie in the story is Trump. But the even more evil baddie is the man, Musk, who represents what happens when someone who is good at business thinks they’re also good at politics.

In the end instead of Musk motivating a lot of individuals he was simply seen as a very rich man who pushed or tried to push the election one way.

I think we’ll look back and we’ll see that Jeff Bezos who’s been accused of failing to endorse either candidate will seem to have been the wiser person. Unlike Musk, he doesn’t have a political agenda. And when called, because he is big and important, he said no.

In time, and unlike Musk he will be seen as a person who saw that he is a businessman. He runs businesses. The day he starts getting into politics is the day he’ll lose his way.

I may have written this before, but in the 1930s the Communists in Germany thought they were going to win big in the elections. Inflation was through the roof and Germany’s social fabric was pulled to breaking point with riots. Trotsky told the Communists in Germany they were fooling themselves. When danger lurks, he said, the population runs to mummy’s apron strings.

It’s not a parallel because America is not on the ropes economically, but the world is uncertain and dangerous. So the question is – which is mummy? I think it is the good old, same old system that Harris represents. Trump is too wild, to uncertain in uncertain times.

If people need to translate that into something they can say they voted for, then two issues stand out. Reproductive rights and immigration. Well the next couple of weeks will see how well I predict this presidential race, which is a clear win for Harris.

Reptile: Film Review

by

Contains spoilers… lots of spoilers.

Other reviewers don’t seem to have like it, in the main.

I’ll talk about the weak points first.

There’s the clumsy opening in Reptile with Ben Nichols (Benicio del Toro) having cut his hand. It seemed so obviously made to encourage us to think that maybe he was the killer, and that therefore it was one of ‘those’ kinds of films.

And the sloughed off snakeskin that was irrelevant to the plot line and yet the film is entitled Reptile. Why?

It’s not 100% clear that it was Will Grady (Justin Timberlake) and not one of his co-conspirators who killed his girlfriend. The killer stabbed her many times. The film kind of pushes it that it was Grady. So how would he be able to leave the scene without leaving traces of himself on the victim?

And how would he be able to avoid having blood from the victim on his clothes, on himself and/or in his car when he left the scene? Oh of course, she wasn’t killed there. She was killed at that other place – the church with the calcimine paint that was found on her hand. That explains why the walls in the house weren’t covered in blood. But then how did the killer(s) manage to get her body into the bedroom in the house without leaving traces of her everywhere?

And why not just leave her body in the church? Why bother putting her body in the house at all?

They took swabs for DNA and all they found on the body was hair from a wig? And what wig? It is never mentioned again.

And why was there no follow-up, no investigation of how Nicol’s partner Dan Cleary (Ato Essandoh) let a suspect grab his gun?

Would the villains have shot Captain Robert Allen (Eric Bogosian) right there in a house full of people with kids playing outside? They would at least have to clear up. They would at least remove any doubt in Nicol’s mind about what might then happen. So surely the villains would have saved shooting there own there, and done it in a better time and place.

In the finale, did the kids playing outside not hear the first shot when the villains turned on their own? Did the kids not hear the next shot? Was it only when the third man was down that they crowded up to the window? Well, maybe.

That’s a lot of weak points. They should hire me to spot them before they wrap up films.

Despite All

Despite these little dents in the story – the strong points are very strong. The arc of the story reads like lives lived in a small town. And the pieces fall in and put the story together well.

Benicio del Toro is a joy to watch. I think he was wearing a wig. That’s a lot of hair. But who knows.

The little things, like the earring he wore at the dinner with friends. Then in the car on the way to the crime scene he removes it. And the way he leaned back, smiling, in the RV with is partner in the car dealer’s lot. Or the interactions with his wife – the language, the easy sexual closeness.

The finale when he confronts his bosses and the way that played out. That was convincing. That is except, would Wally (Domenick Lombardozzi) really have waited with gun cocked after Nicols shoots Chief Marty Graeber (Mike Pniewski)? Would he wait for old time’s sake?

Despite all these gaps and holes, for my money it’s a good film.

Macron And Israel

by

Let’s tie up Macron, Israel, the Far Right, Muslims, and Reform UK.

After Israeli troops were alleged to have fired on UN peacekeepers in Lebanon, Macron was quoted as saying that Israel “must not forget” it owed its existence to a United Nations resolution.

In reply, prime minister Netanyahu said Israel was founded by the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, not a UN ruling. And that among those who fought for Israel in 1948 were French Jews who had been sent to death camps after being rounded up by the collaborationist Vichy regime.

Ouch, and touché.

Now we have a question. What prompted Macron to make the comments about Israel in a cabinet meeting? Is he genuinely outraged over Israel’s actions? He cannot be blind to the lopsided proclamations of the UN.

Overall, Macron has supported Israel while also advocating for Palestinian rights and a negotiated peace process.

Then what? Is he perhaps only too aware of the powder keg on which he sits?

Around 8–10% of the French population is Muslim. That’s roughly 5 to 7 million people from the former French colonies in Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia.

If Macron came down heavily on the side of Israel and Muslims in France took to the streets, what would happen? Would The Gilets Jaunes also be swept up in a rising tide of discontent?

France is on in its Fifth Republic, established in 1958 under Charles de Gaulle in response to political instability during the Algerian War of Independence and the collapse of the Fourth Republic.

Does Macron fear that if he were to side strongly with Israel, we might see a sixth Republic?

Far Right groups in Britain say that Islam is incompatible with British life. They accuse the police force and politicians in Britain of backing off criticising Muslim grooming gangs for fear of upsetting the four million people of Muslim descent in the country.

Whatever the truth of the allegations, Britain is in a similar position to France, sitting on a powder keg.

One can see the rise of the right wing Reform Party because it is only too pleased to confront the issue and place responsibility on those immigrants would do not wish to be absorbed culturally.

Where will it lead, in Britain, in France, and beyond?