National Bullying Helpline - don't they have to meet DATA PROTECTION laws?

[morningpaper]

I'm not fecking ringing them, the blabbermouths

No-one's confidentiality has been breached as no-one was identified.

Bullies should not be tolerated.If anyone ends up swearing and throwing things as a result of stress, they are, frankly, in the wrong job.

mp explained the problem with confidentiality and data protection below:

'Having worked for a similar helpline, there is NO WAY ON EARTH that you would divulge information about IP addresses / telephone conversations without getting permission from the individuals concerned. It is totally unprofessional at best.'

I don;t think that it matters that specific names were not mentioned. Tere must be a finite number of people it could be, coupled that with a colleague knowing a particular person or people has had difficulties it might be easy for them to work out who it was.

BullyingUK has released this statement. Seems fairly cut-and-dried on the confidentiality front.

'Bullying UK is horrified at a story in today's Daily Mail in which the National Bullying Helpline CEO Christine Pratt all but identifies someone from Prime Minister Gordon Brown's office who contacted her helpline for confidential help.

Mrs Pratt tells the Daily Mail: "At least one of the callers who we were in correspondence with was suffering from work-related stress and had time out of the office."

Gordon Brown's office is small and the National Bullying Helpline's comment will almost certainly identify this person who turned to the helpline in despair.

It's hard to imagine a more serious breach of confidentiality. And it's extremely concerning that we've had emails and Tweets (Twitter messages) from people who think that this charity is responsible.

We're not, we're disgusted and upset and we're writing to the Charity Commission today to complain about the National Bullying Helpline.

In the meantime, we suggest Mrs Pratt considers her position, given the damage she has caused to the anti-bullying sector where confidentiality is paramount.'

If you read the coverage, she went public as she was so angry at Mandelson's attempt to whitewash the whole thing and dismiss it out of hand. All she wanted was for an acknowledgement that No 10 would look into the reports. Also look at some new quotes on the Guardian website from an insider,

"His intense bouts of anger are unremarkable to anyone who has worked closely with him. You just have to put up with this stuff. It is part of the daily experience, almost part of the furniture. He would behave in that way constantly. He suffers from a massive paranoia and an inability to accept blame, yet he runs a blame culture that allows him to blame others.

"He does not seek to win an argument, he just seeks to bully. If you have not worked closely with him before, it is truly shocking. The more he trusts you, the more he vents."

For those of you playing down bullying behaviour at work, I suspect you've never been in a situation where your boss rants and raves, kicks furniture, slams doors in your face etc etc. I have and believe me it's no joke - we're talking living in a constant state of anxiety, sleepless nights at the thought of going into work - not pleasant.

I do not want the country to be governed by someone who cannot control their emotions in a professional setting (or any other one for that matter), nevermind the sheer hypocrisy that is constantly shown from this government - 'do as I say, not as I do'.

FWIW, as someone who has never met him, I'm finding the evidence that GB has serious temper/bullying problems quite convincing, and I agree that it's a troubling trait in someone in a position of authority.

But that woman shouldn't have opened her trap. Two wrongs don't make a right (and other bromides).

My jaw dropped when I heard the story last night

I cannot believe that woman, I really can't. It's an appalling abuse of power on her part and an even more appalling political bias.

I haven't seen the statements but good for Anne Widdecombe who has publicly condemned Pratt's actions!

Oh FGS! How can anyone be surprised. Haven't they watched 'The thick of it'?

she has a ropey dog fox

Yes, it does, sadly, seem to reflect v badly on him.

But I can't imagine a more serious breach of professional confidentiality than Pratt's. Awful. Everyone who has used her helpline (or any helpline) is vulnerable now to the anxiety that their confidentiality is not the absolutely valued thing they had assumed it to be.

CPD, you are obsessed with that bloody dog.

Yes, fair play to Widdy on this one.

lol at ropey dog

how can a bully charity leader have a bully dog? I think we should be told

That's what I thought Orm. People have been saying about "The Thick of It" for ages, OOh that's just what it's like! and are now acting all surprised.

Or maybe it was OK for Alastair Campbell to do the bullying on Tony Blair's behalf but not for Brown to do it himself.

Not that I am defending GB of course. Agree that this charity's behaviour is shocking and will watch this news story with interest to see what happens next.

Christine Pratts Dog - shouldn't you be muzzled?

Down boy!!!!

I know the dog.

So does my cousin - called Oscar?

To me one of the worst things about this is that clearly none of the politicians of any party cared one jot about this as an issue or the poor people being bullied until they thought they could make some political capital out of it.
The bullying is revolting but the cynical manipulation of it almost as bad. Add Mrs. Pratt to the mix and how vulnerable and paranoid will the civil servants and others targeted be feeling now?

that's right, it's a GSD.

Thoughts so BFG, so is the court order story true?

Cousin on hols so can't check but he always rants about them as his own dog was attacked by Oscar and needed sugery. Reputation is apparently notorious among the locals.

What is dog attacked a child?

Christine Pratt has acted up to her surname. BUT it is true that bullying, childish behaviour is seen as normal in government. I've not had the pleasure of seeing Gordon at close quarters, but other ministers and special advisers do it, I'd be surprised if Gordon is an exception.

Does it matter? Yes, I think it does. People have the right to be treated decently at work. Yes, national politics is stressful, but temper tantrums are just ridiculous. I don't think you'd find that kind of behaviour in other high stress occupations - although I'd love to hear from any surgeons/soldiers/air traffic controllers etc. etc. etc. who can say different. (True, bullying can be a problem in some parts of the NHS, but it doesn't tend to happen in the really stressful moments like in the middle of an operation, as far as I'm aware.)

BFG, BS - c'mon guys, even a bully dog is entitled to its privacy.

Grrrrr.

Agreed edam

I wonder whether the incredible demands and stress of the PM's job means that you tend to get certain types of individual occupying the post:

1. Megalomaniac, self-righteous types who don't give an arse what other people think (Blair, Thatcher)
2. More 'normal' people who do care about being insulted, run down by the press, etc, and react in a non-healthy way (Major, Brown)

Not sure which is worse for the country (although working for Brown prob. worse than working for Blair in a job-satisfaction sense)

David Owen once had something to say about politicians/megalomania/hubris etc - something like it can creep up on you but you shouldn't stay in office if it does. That was in the wake of Tony Blair. Sounds like he should do some more work on it. Sorry, can't remember details.

Oh, I think there was a lot of bullying under Blair too. And under Major, my mother reports. I had a lot to do with one minister who played Mr Nice Guy while his SPAD was Mr Nasty who grabbed people by their lapels and gave the impression he was about to thump them.