Paperback , MP3 CD. The Map of Heaven: La prueba del cielo: El Mapa del cielo: Only 8 left in stock more on the way. Proof of Heaven Korean Edition. By Eben Alexander M. Only 2 left in stock - order soon. Blick in die Ewigkeit: Provide feedback about this page. There's a problem loading this menu right now. Get fast, free shipping with Amazon Prime. Get to Know Us. English Choose a language for shopping.
Amazon Music Stream millions of songs. Amazon Advertising Find, attract, and engage customers. Amazon Drive Cloud storage from Amazon. Alexa Actionable Analytics for the Web. AmazonGlobal Ship Orders Internationally. Amazon Inspire Digital Educational Resources. Amazon Rapids Fun stories for kids on the go. Amazon Restaurants Food delivery from local restaurants. ComiXology Thousands of Digital Comics. East Dane Designer Men's Fashion. Full Cast and Crew.
Kevin Nwankwor , Kevin Nwankwor. What is Emily Mortimer Watching? Share this Rating Title: Tempting Fate 8. Use the HTML below. You must be a registered user to use the IMDb rating plugin. Edit Cast Credited cast: Extra William "Will" Daubert Jail Guard Dan Davies Church Member Whitney Gries Edit Storyline Two brothers, one of deep faith and the other buried in a life of crime have their worlds torn apart when the wrong one goes to jail and the other commits an unforgivable act. As part of this work, the Government will look at a sample of ET1 forms specifying a referral to prescribed persons to understand if this happened and if not, what the reasons behind this are, with a view to making changes if this is the appropriate course of action.
If the box has been ticked, do not forward a copy of the claim form direct to the regulator. A copy of the form should be sent via email to: Relevant claims are forwarded to and processed at a central location, and the parties are notified which regulator s the claim has been referred to. It would seem there is some attempt by HMCTS to introduce order through centralisation of this specialist work, to identify the correct regulators, but is it working? Are local Employment Tribunal offices aware of the protocol and adhering to it? Is the jurisdictional support team competently trained?
Anecdotally, there is still evidence of problems. For example the following case of a whistleblower who raised concerns about a major private healthcare provider.
Continuing failure of the system for notifying prescribed persons of whistleblowing cases which reach the Employment Tribunal. FOI requests were made to prescribed persons in August about the numbers of ET1 notifications that they had received. Alternatively, some of the of ET1 notifications that are received by prescribed persons may not be correctly logged.
The figures quite possibly suggest that there is a large element of failure by HMCTS to ensure that ET1 intelligence is passed on safely to prescribed persons. This spreadsheet summarises FOI responses from 42 major prescribed persons and a selection of 60 local authorities on the number of ET1 notifications received from the Employment Tribunal during the April to March All local authorities are prescribed persons for food standards, health and safety and consumer protection, but surprisingly they rarely seem to be sent any ET1 notifications by the Tribunal.
Forty-eight out of a sample of sixty local authorities had either not received any ET1 notifications, or held no data about ET1 notifications. Past FOI work by others has revealed that some local authorities are unaware of their prescribed person status. The responses to these latest FOI requests suggested that this is still the case. Several local authorities required clarification of the FOI questions because they were confused between ET1 claim forms received as an employer being sued, as opposed to those received as prescribed person being notified of potential wrongdoing:.
ET1 claim forms are used to make a claim to an employment tribunal — and are not sent by the claimant to the council. Please could you further explain your request. Staffordshire County Council revealed that it had never heard of the ET1 notification system to prescribed persons:. Neither did the major prescribed persons, regulators and other oversight bodies seem to receive many ET1 notifications.
Collectively, 42 major prescribed persons admitted to receiving fewer than sixteen ET1 notifications during the period April to March The gross mismatch between the two sets of figures raises very troubling questions. There were notable refusals by some prescribed persons to reply to the FOI requests citing cost exemptions, viz:.
This implied poor governance and a failure to centrally collate and track data about ET1 intelligence. The Department of Health and Social Care admitted baldly that it could not provide the requested data, because it did not keep the data in a central form. This was the largest number of whistleblowing cases for any sector. CQC has had to be dragged for the last few years, kicking and bawling, to the point of accepting that its whistleblowing governance was still not sound. As part of this, CQC has accepted that it should review its systems for handling ET1 notifications, notably its lack of any central tracking mechanism.
The recent FOI data revealed clear mismatches between the numbers of ET1 notifications reportedly received by some individual prescribed persons and the numbers of whistleblowing cases reported by ACAS from the relevant sectors. However, Ofgem reported that it received no ET1 notifications. Ofwat failed to respond to the FOI at all. It is likely that if Ofwat had responded to the recent FOI, it would have reported zero or few ET1 notifications in keeping with the general trend.
Only the Civil Aviation Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority indicated in their replies that they had coherent governance in place to track and act upon ET1 notifications. The original incoming information, investigation records and closure recommendation are held for 10 years. NAO and HMRC indicated that they collated data centrally, but gave less clear assurance about follow up with the whistleblowers who had made claims to the ET. NAO said it had been sent misdirected ET1 forms, that should have been sent to other oversight bodies. NHS Improvement received one yes one ET1 notification, but did not contact the whistleblower and gave no reason for this.
Alexander's Excavations – Mostly whistleblowing, NHS underbelly but other stuff too!
The Serious Fraud Office preferred outright denial: Nor are we aware of any instance where this has happened. These facets of the failing prescribed persons system spell negligence writ large, writ thus:. I recall when I first contacted CQC almost a decade ago, to begin the process of disclosure, the person at the end of the phone could not even clearly confirm to me that the CQC was a prescribed person under the Act. When whistleblowers raise concerns about being given the endless run-a-round, they are often dismissed as querulous or vexatious.
Institutions paint themselves as reasonable and long suffering. But laid out here in these various FOI data is the real picture, of torpid, irresponsible and incompetent officialdom. An officialdom that neither cares nor fully understands the central importance of whistleblowing to a safe and healthy democracy, and to public protection.
It is a convenient collusion between CQC and government that CQC pleads inability, and government does nothing to clearly give CQC the necessary powers despite the regulatory gap being repeatedly highlighted by whistleblowers. These facts give lie to endless, monotonous government platitudes that the whistleblowing framework has been reviewed and improved with this or that minor adjustment, and that we must all be patient and wait for soft culture change. After the Gosport disaster, in which most of the lives lost fell after incidents of whistleblower suppression, this pantomime must end.
It is time to respect, protect and share power with the public by protecting whistleblowers with new and radically improved law. An illustrative post script which compellingly shows that the system of forwarding ET1 intelligence on whistleblowing cases by the Employment Tribunal to PIDA Prescribed Persons is truly broken.
A Scottish whistleblower filed a whistleblowing claim with the Employment Tribunal in and duly ticked the box giving consent for their case details to be forwarded to the relevant regulator. The data was never forwarded. After the whistleblower made recent enquiries, the ET advised on 17 October that it had finally sent the data onwards…but to an English regulator, who had no jurisdiction whatsoever. Replacing the Public Interest Disclosure Act.
- Ferragus (French Edition)!
- Shahdaroba - Alien Stone.
- A Sexy Bunny Uncensored - The FULL Set!;
- Tempting Fate () - IMDb?
- The Cold War and Soviet Insecurity: The Stalin Years.
It played a large part in introducing very ineffective UK whistleblowing legislation twenty years ago. Protect is an important reservoir of specialist knowledge because of its dominance of the market. It receives substantial income from the public purse but has declined to reveal full details of this income.
It provides services to employees and employers. Some may be concerned about the potential for divided loyalties, priorities and the degree to which Protect challenges power. In any case, the charity has no official status and no powers to protect whistleblowers. The charity has not challenged the most obvious frailties of sham government whistleblowing policy. The Freedom To Speak Up project, which is arguably the biggest block to real reform, not only goes unchallenged but was this week endorsed by a Protect trustee. In the terrible shadow of the Gosport disaster, the public has a powerful need for a statutory, independent expert body with powers to protect whistleblowers and the public interest, and is subject to proper legal accountability.
It gives workers the notion that they are protected, until it is too late and they realise they are not. Successive waves of bewildered whistleblowers have discovered that UK law is disinterested in the content of their concerns. Deaths due to poor whistleblowing governance have continued since PIDA came into force. Richard Shepherd MP the proposer of the current legislation reportedly defended its honour somewhat hotly:.
Protect sees itself thus:. Protect promised much of PIDA, which has not come to pass. For example, PIDA has not delivered accountability as originally promised:. It will give employees the assurance to sound the alarm on abuse in care, fraud and other serious malpractice and it will provide employers an incentive to handle such concerns responsibly. As it will ensure that employees and employers are less likely to turn a blind eye to the wider public interest, it will improve both accountability and public confidence in the workplace.
Protect has been ubiquitous. Few conferences on whistleblowing pass without Protect appearing on the attendance list. It has had a place for years on the national user group for the Employment Tribunal. Twining around any number of working groups, Protect has a well-marked dance card. Protect has amassed much power as a keeper of secrets. Access to secrets often generates more access, and the organisation is embedded into public life.
And in fairness, because it cornered the UK market in whistleblowing, Protect holds vast data and knowledge. Although it must also be said that the organisation sometimes overlooks sampling limitations. Those who ring the Protect helpline are more likely to have experienced problems with raising concerns. A prospective, whole population study as opposed to a retrospective trawl of Protect helpline case files would likely reveal different, less dramatic findings.
The lines between the charity and the government are blurred by the fact that Protect accepts public money by selling services to the public sector. Protect also trains staff from government departments. Some but not all clients are named. They advised that they could not tell me, or tell me with any accuracy:. Protect provides free telephone advice on whistleblowing which is available to all workers. However, it also sells consultancy services to individual employers. Questions have long been asked about the potential for conflict. Protect stated in an annual report of 31 December that its trustees have the responsibility for ensuring there are no conflicts:.
This menu would raise substantial hope in any inexperienced whistleblower, searching frantically for safe harbour. Raw contact numbers are given in annual reports. The report gives the following figures:. Protect tells others how to run their whistleblowing arrangements.
Anecdotally, I hear more from whistleblowers who express disappointment and who perceive limited support from Protect. To some extent, this could be perhaps anticipated given the parameters of the situation; desperate whistleblowers searching for refuge in the context of toothless law that does not protect but allows further abuse, rubbing up against a non-statutory organisation with limited resources, that has no powers at all. A few cases which offer interesting points of law are scooped up by Protect which is fair enough.
Cases are also used to promote the organisation and used for good news stories — perhaps not so fair enough. Hero-innovator narratives may be good for raising organisational profile, but sober policy arguments about deaths and egregious failures of weak law may be preferable.
Similar authors to follow
Protect similarly may approach figures and whistleblowers who might be seen to be useful because of their profile to join as trustees. The response is not always affirmative. Run-of-the-mill whistleblowers however, sometimes report a less solicitous attitude. It would be basic good practice for Protect to hold itself to the same standards that it says it expects from others, and to publish comprehensive data on how whistleblowers experience its services with broad details of what it actually does for them.
Real Men Do It Better (Includes: Tempting SEALs, #3)
Protect has not in my view been radical in campaigning for better law. Twiddling at the edges with esoteric tweaks of the existing legislation has had limited impact on the continuing failures of public protection. Protect has repeatedly made recommendations to strengthen, but not to replace the legislation. This was not the same as clear compulsion of investigation with mandatory timescales. A lack of radicalism can help to keep a place at the table.
A charitable interpretation might be that Protect feels it can be more effective inside.
Indeed, it is inordinately difficult to get any hearing from power on whistleblowing matters. But it is a question of the price of that audience. They throw into sharp relief the question of where the balance should be struck in challenging power. How much compromise is worth a place at the table for influence over future law? PIDA has been in force for twenty years. Twenty years of recurring disasters and deaths due to poor whistleblowing governance. It is fair to say that alacrity has not been the watch word.
Timeline of inappropriate opioid use at Gosport War Memorial Hospital, which has been linked to unnatural deaths by the panel investigation: Report of the Gosport Inquiry. A Protect trustee has now gone into glowing print about the debatable merits of the Freedom To Speak Up project:. Her first report, published in September, reveals that more than 7, cases were raised with freedom to speak up guardians over the previous year. A third involved patient safety and service quality, and people alleged they had suffered at the hands of their employer as a result of raising concerns.
That thousands of people feel able to approach the guardians — albeit a fifth of them anonymously — is promising, and Hughes pushing for action at the trusts that failed to record any cases is a good sign. This data is flawed and unverified:. Parliament has acknowledged that this is a matter that needs to be pursued. Not wholesale, radical reform. Even in the terrible shadow of Gosport. As far as I can see, Protect remains perched on the fence.
Lip service, tweaking, and endorsing the biggest block to real reform — the Freedom To Speak Up project, which the government is trying to spread and embed. Once embedded, undoing it will be a devil of a job. In short, you can have all the technical expertise and knowledge in the world. It is time for any fiefdoms built on mutual interests to be challenged.
The public interest must always reign. A properly independent statutory body with duties and powers is needed to protect the public and whistleblowers, not private bodies partly paid for by the public that will not — or feel unable — to fully challenge power. An independent, statutory body with proper reporting duties, duties of transparency, duties under FOI, duties of Equality, duties to account for how it gets its money and uses it, and duties to answer to parliament. Hooper advised that the GMC should require medical managers to: Declare whether any doctors they had referred were whistleblowers Personally sign off referrals Make a statement of truth about their referrals.
The GMC indicated that it accepted these recommendations and would run a pilot scheme. This was reportedly on the basis that the GMC referral wrongly claimed: GMC also reports that since March , when the Hooper report was published, it has made enquiries in a single case about possible whistleblower reprisal by a senior doctor, but closed the case: Relevant details from the judgment are set out below. The ET noted that Hildrew failed to disclose these letters to the whistleblowers: The ET noted that Hildrew initially denied having any input into drafting the investigation report but admitted under cross examination that he had sight of and commented on a draft investigation report: Vasco-Knight maintained a narrative that she had she had been unfairly accused, and went as far as implying that the whistleblowers were racially biased against her: Nonetheless, there has been a fall in the proportion of Speak Up Guardians who think whistleblowers in their trusts do not suffer retaliation: Proportion of Speak Up Guardians who agreed that: A recently published report by Dr Ashley Savage, academic lawyer who has extensively researched whistleblowing and whistleblowing law, describes a typical process of attrition by employers: A recent example of her Office responding in a dismissive manner to concerns is given below: The only response that I received came from her Comms manager, which was a single sentence in an email about other matters: The National Guardian previously declined to support law reform, and told Rob Behrens: Fit for purpose law, encompassing a protection infrastructure, is needed.
And she was the Responsible Officer for more than 3, GPs. RB What sort of values did you gain through your upbringing? RB When did you set out to become a GP? RB So do you still practice now? And more importantly, giving them feedback on the actions that have been taken.
HH Thank you very much for having me. I contributed three questions as follows: Another NHS whistleblower contributed this question: A third person contributed this question: Recent survey data shows that some Speak Up Guardians are bullied and obstructed when raising patient safety concerns. And yet the National Guardian is well aware of the importance of feedback, as evidenced by her repeated policy statements and demands that others should collect and learn from feedback.
Real reform is needed. The results for other jurisdictions are given for comparison: Private Eye Issue , 18 May The National Guardian has declined to support reform of UK whistleblowing law, but the great majority of Speak Up Guardians who answered the survey felt that investigation of concerns should be compelled in law: Ann Reeves whose mother Elsie Devine perished at Gosport War Memorial Hospital, after deliberate administration of excess opiates without any clinical justification, comments: But a minority of staff witness statements raised concerns about a range of issues.
- Carrie Alexander.
- Follow me on Twitter;
- My Front Page Scandal (Harlequin Blaze #352);
Whistleblowers and others said they had concerns about the use of opiates. Nursing regulator in battle with government gatekeeper for Gosport nurse evidence Erroneous medical opinions perverting justice.. NHS whistleblowing doubles but critics say watchdog lacks power It is particularly dangerous for NHS staff because some of the very organisations that should support them, the unions, are now colluding in the pretence that the Freedom To Speak Up project is sound and a safe route of disclosure.
The National Guardian invents new reasons for not reviewing some whistleblower cases, and leaves some whistleblowers to be sacked The National Guardian has also proven to be arbitrary and flowing from that, politicised. The National Guardian has repeatedly refused to help in some cases, allowing whistleblowers to be sacked: This is a letter to all relevant Select Committees about this grievous failing: The National Guardian wrongly claims that increased disclosures to Speak Up Guardians is evidence of the system working The National Guardian now claims that because more people are reportedly making disclosures to Freedom To Speak Up Guardians, the system must be working.
But the really hot cases remain as risky as ever. Whistleblowers are still coming through with horror stories. It is safest to assume that once sacked, there will be no help: There is no reliable protection at present. It would be dishonest to tell you otherwise. Here is lived experience from whistleblowers whose cases were so serious that they had to litigate, which may help shine some light on the path you face: Her annual report ekes out the scant case review activity to date by presenting the work done as 13 cases reviewed, when there have been four joblot case reviews: A recommendation is that the trust should arrange for a review within 6 months time: As a contribution to the debate, we have set out in plain English how a new whistleblowing law might work: In brief the proposed law offers: Timely, mandatory investigation of concerns An active duty to protect whistleblowers from the outset A mechanism for early resolution of conflict A means of ordering remedy without the need for litigation A range of civil and criminal penalties against individuals A means of funding legal representation for whistleblowers through a mandatory insurance scheme for employers Expansion of protected groups — the example of patients and families who speak up is explored We value all feedback and would be grateful to hear what you think.
How UK whistleblowers are ignored Protect: We also asked fellow whistleblowers to contribute ideas for improving the law. It is arguable that PIDA protects employers, not whistleblowers: As an example of fabricated allegations being used as a bargaining tool to remove whistleblowers from organisations, whistleblower 16 gave this report: Many of the whistleblowers reported concerted inaction or collusion between bodies, and regulatory complicity in cover ups and reprisal: A police whistleblower who raised concerns about false arrests reported: Some whistleblowers did not feel supported: An example of such an account is given in Annex 1.
Gagged whistleblowers are another significant group. What changes to the law are needed? Whistleblowers stress the importance of dealing with wrongdoing, for example: It follows that the State should take therefore greater responsibility for protecting such a witness: Mechanisms for addressing legal inequality of arms are suggested, for example: The information from non-litigated cases raises the following issues for any law reform project: Access to trade union support Addressing gaps in protected groups, such as non executive directors The use of gags in settlements, especially clauses which hide even the existence of settlements or which flagrantly breach rights by prohibiting access to data under FOIA and DPA, also needs to be addressed by any new whistleblowing law.
How I think the law should change: More accurately perhaps, it should be described as knowing when to pretend to give in. It did not complete the research questionnaire: It narrowed its sights to case studies of just five prescribed persons: NAO has advised that it is unable to participate in formulating policy, to the extent that it cannot even attend an event on 19 October on failure of current whistleblowing law: A failed attempt to make prescribed persons aware of serious whistleblower cases which reached the Employment Tribunal In , one of the token government concessions was to add a mechanism for alerting prescribed persons to whistleblowing cases that came before the Employment Tribunal.
The stated rationale was thus: HMCTS advised thus about its internal process: Continuing failure of the system for notifying prescribed persons of whistleblowing cases which reach the Employment Tribunal FOI requests were made to prescribed persons in August about the numbers of ET1 notifications that they had received. Several local authorities required clarification of the FOI questions because they were confused between ET1 claim forms received as an employer being sued, as opposed to those received as prescribed person being notified of potential wrongdoing: There were notable refusals by some prescribed persons to reply to the FOI requests citing cost exemptions, viz: