In most organisations with large numbers of employees, it will be the norm that:Psamathe wrote: ↑23 Jan 2022, 4:09pmIanhttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/partygate-boris-johnson-sue-gray-investigation-b1998921.html wrote:No 10 officials admit holding back information from partygate inquiry after being ‘frightened into silence’...
One source claimed that after being asked to remove information, they subsequently deleted evidence of that party.
They said they were also fearful that, having removed material, they could face censure: “I did the wrong thing and actually deleted stuff.”
“Everyone’s terrified. It’s a witch hunt,” another source told The Independent. “There’s been a culture of fear [in the office] every day since the first party story broke.”
Another source added: "I’ve held back from sharing evidence, it’s too risky. And I’d have to explain why I’d deleted some stuff, which would mean saying I’d felt intimidated."
...
- there will be clear rules NOT to destroy potential evidence of wrongdoing
- in particular, if something occurs that has become, or is likely to become, the subject of investigation by the police or a statutory regulator, it will be standard practice for all staff to be sent emails reminding them of the rules and law, and ordering them to PRESERVE all relevant records
- the following will be investigated and be liable to result in disciplinary measures: bullying, sexual abuse and harassment, financial misconduct such as accepting bribes/high value 'gifts' and improper use of funds, discrimination on grounds of sex or religion.
Although it will be common for large organisations to have very similar rules and procedures in place for the above, there will inevitably be plenty of individual instances of those rules being ignored or not applied properly by senior managers, whether to protect themselves, their friends, or out of a misguided desire to protect the organisation. Neverthless, increasingly the rules and procedures will tend to be observed, and will as a consequence deter wrongdoing occurring in the first place. And that is the real motivation for organisations to have such rules and procedures, because they ultimately help to protect the organisation and are in its long term interest.
Parliament and the top echelons of Government seem to be about 20+ years behind, and that seems to be because the perpetrators know/expect they will get away with it, and be protected by their colleagues (and in the case of MPs by the whips). Consequently we have
- senior Government and possibly civil service personnel instructing junior employees to delete evidence
- the blatant corruption of Owen Paterson, and the equally blatant efforts by his friends to stop him being punished
- the bullying by Priti Patel of junior civil servants, and the appalling failure of the PM to act on the report which found her guilty of bullying
- the reinstatement of the Welsh MP Rob Roberts by the Conservative Party despite repeatedly sexually harassing a member of his staff
- the reported discrimination against Nusrat Ghani
The above are just those examples which come immediately to mind or happen to be in the news at the moment, i.e. I doubt that they are isolated examples. Rather it appears that there is a very permissive attitude in senior Government and Parliament to behaviour that elsewhere would result in a finding of gross misconduct and a person's career being ended.