Is Professional Snooping Always Wrong and What Must Local Government Do to Get a Favourable Press?
I sometimes get quite annoyed at the negative spin in the press with almost everything they report about local government.
This seems to have nothing to do with party politics, as the reaction seems to be the same whether on the left or the right.
A particular example was in the reporting of the fact that local authorities spend a lot (by what standard?) of money on the services of private investigators.
This was seen as both a waste of resources and as unfair snooping.
I do not know the details of every instance where this was done so I cannot say that it was justified in every case, but I can certainly think of situations where it could be the right thing to do both m orally and in terms of value for money.
I have myself been involved in decisions to use private investigators, and can also think of occasions when I wish they had been used! Think about each of the following scenarios and ask yourself how you would have dealt with them and whether hiring a private investigator would have been an option you would have considered.
Imagine you are the manager responsible for the service in question and you have a received an allegation or have developed a suspicion that: 1.
A contractor is bribing officials to give him work.
2.
Employees are claiming overtime for work they have not done.
3.
An employee who works away from the office is neglecting his duties and spending time on his own business.
4.
Children in care are being used in a sex-ring.
5.
Members of the public are obtaining by deception reductions in Council Tax or in Business Rates or are claiming benefits to which they are not entitled.
6.
People are claiming compensation for accidents which did not occur in the way they say or they are greatly exaggerating their injuries.
In each case think what your options are if you are not to use a private investigator: · Ignore the allegation or suspicion.
· Jump to a conclusion and take action yourself without evidence.
· Refer the matter to the police without evidence.
· Try to investigate it yourself or using other employees, bearing in mind the cost of your/their time, your/their level of expertise, and the risk of being recognised by the alleged wrongdoer with all its repercussions.
Now think how the press would report it, whichever option you had chosen, e.
g.
"scandal uncovered after years of neglect/cover up" or "innocent man the victim of prejudice/witch-hunt" or even "fiddlers get off due to inadmissible evidence".
Often an investigation will show there was no wrongdoing and the cloud of suspicion is removed.
Sometimes the result is inconclusive and with hindsight it appears to be a waste of money.
(I remember watching hours of video of someone who was claiming to be injured, lazing around doing nothing.
We destroyed the video.
It was so boring you would not want to inflict it on anyone).
And sometimes wrongs are uncovered and dealt with.
Of course there must be times when people get it wrong and waste money on unnecessary investigations, or get obsessed and keep one going long after it should have been abandoned, but nobody is perfect, we all make a wrong call sometimes.
What annoys me is the assumption by the press that it is always unjustified, making it a case of "heads local government loses - tails someone else wins ".
This is only one recent example of this phenomenon.
I could write about a lot of others.
Perhaps I will.
If any journalists read this (if any journalists read!) please think of the positive as well as the negative side of any story you are thinking of writing about local government.
This seems to have nothing to do with party politics, as the reaction seems to be the same whether on the left or the right.
A particular example was in the reporting of the fact that local authorities spend a lot (by what standard?) of money on the services of private investigators.
This was seen as both a waste of resources and as unfair snooping.
I do not know the details of every instance where this was done so I cannot say that it was justified in every case, but I can certainly think of situations where it could be the right thing to do both m orally and in terms of value for money.
I have myself been involved in decisions to use private investigators, and can also think of occasions when I wish they had been used! Think about each of the following scenarios and ask yourself how you would have dealt with them and whether hiring a private investigator would have been an option you would have considered.
Imagine you are the manager responsible for the service in question and you have a received an allegation or have developed a suspicion that: 1.
A contractor is bribing officials to give him work.
2.
Employees are claiming overtime for work they have not done.
3.
An employee who works away from the office is neglecting his duties and spending time on his own business.
4.
Children in care are being used in a sex-ring.
5.
Members of the public are obtaining by deception reductions in Council Tax or in Business Rates or are claiming benefits to which they are not entitled.
6.
People are claiming compensation for accidents which did not occur in the way they say or they are greatly exaggerating their injuries.
In each case think what your options are if you are not to use a private investigator: · Ignore the allegation or suspicion.
· Jump to a conclusion and take action yourself without evidence.
· Refer the matter to the police without evidence.
· Try to investigate it yourself or using other employees, bearing in mind the cost of your/their time, your/their level of expertise, and the risk of being recognised by the alleged wrongdoer with all its repercussions.
Now think how the press would report it, whichever option you had chosen, e.
g.
"scandal uncovered after years of neglect/cover up" or "innocent man the victim of prejudice/witch-hunt" or even "fiddlers get off due to inadmissible evidence".
Often an investigation will show there was no wrongdoing and the cloud of suspicion is removed.
Sometimes the result is inconclusive and with hindsight it appears to be a waste of money.
(I remember watching hours of video of someone who was claiming to be injured, lazing around doing nothing.
We destroyed the video.
It was so boring you would not want to inflict it on anyone).
And sometimes wrongs are uncovered and dealt with.
Of course there must be times when people get it wrong and waste money on unnecessary investigations, or get obsessed and keep one going long after it should have been abandoned, but nobody is perfect, we all make a wrong call sometimes.
What annoys me is the assumption by the press that it is always unjustified, making it a case of "heads local government loses - tails someone else wins ".
This is only one recent example of this phenomenon.
I could write about a lot of others.
Perhaps I will.
If any journalists read this (if any journalists read!) please think of the positive as well as the negative side of any story you are thinking of writing about local government.