5 ms·

In the comments here I read a lot about if this is whistleblowing or not, or if disciplinary measures are warranted for an employee "badmouthing" an employer's

In the comments here I read a lot about if this is whistleblowing or not, or if disciplinary measures are warranted for an employee "badmouthing" an employer's client while not having an official mandate to speak in public, while mostly ignoring the threats made by a government official. This is exactly the problem why the world sucks so hard. The engineer, certainly knowledgeable in this field, made a measured public remark, which could have saved lives. He has done nothing wrong, because he didn't claim to speak on behalf of his employer, and has the right to speak his mind as a person. In public, and with a lot of reach. The government official, however, applied unconstitutional pressure to get the engineer fired and threatened his employer to lose business. Humanly very low and damaging to future public rail infrastructure, if a capable company is not allowed to provide services anymore and therefore most likely to increase prices through diminished competition. If anyone should lose their job over this matter, it clearly should be the UK rail minister.

callamdelaney 2y ago
There is no constitution here, your existence and rights as a British citizen is at the convenience of the state.
- graemep 2y ago
  Its not that simple. There is a body of constitutional law. There is extensive law governing what powers ministers have - powers are granted to them by legislation. There are human rights granted by law and treaty. Everything from some clauses of the Magna Carta that are still in force https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/originsofparliament/birthofparliament/overview/magnacarta/magnacartaclauses/ https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofp... to the European Convention on Human Rights.
  - philwelch 2y ago
    And thanks to parliamentary supremacy any and all of those protections can be repealed by a simple majority of the House of Commons.
    - graemep 2y ago
      True, but that is a long way from how I read the comment I replied too
      - philwelch 2y ago
        In countries that actually have a strong constitution—the US is the primary example though I hope others exist—the Constitution itself is the supreme law of the land and is, by design, difficult to amend. When legislatures pass laws that exceed the bounds of the Constitution, the courts strike down those laws as null and void. In that sense, Britain does not have a constitution. Obviously it has a constitution in some sense, because there is always some set of laws, norms, traditions, and historical precedents that constitute the basis of government. But this is a much weaker sense of the term. For instance, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 was a “constitutional” law that supposedly made it impossible to call a snap election, but a snap election was nonetheless called in 2019 via the Early Parliamentary General Election Act 2019, which only required a simple majority because it had equivalent authority to the FTPA itself.
        tengwar2 2y ago
        No, in that sense the UK does not have an American-style constitution - no more, no less. It is not accidental that Parliament can reverse any decision taken by an earlier Parliament: in fact it is one of the most important parts of the constitution that no Parliament can take a decision which binds a later one. It is different from the American design, yes, but the way in which the American constitution is used does not seem praiseworthy, not does it suggest that it would be wise to copy it.
        philwelch 2y ago
        The Bill of Rights begins with the words, "Congress shall make no law..." before enumerating some of the basic human rights that Congress is constitutionally prohibited from infringing. I think it is highly praiseworthy indeed that, unlike Parliament, Congress is constitutionally prevented from infringing on basic human rights. It is also highly praiseworthy that, unlike Parliament, Congress is constitutionally prevented from forming a kangaroo court to sentence the head of state to death or from subsequently installing a military dictatorship (which is the exact historical precedent whence parliamentary supremacy was established).
  - callamdelaney 2y ago
    I'd like to take this moment to thank the European Union for our human rights /s
    - foldr 2y ago
      No /s required. You can see a list of landmark judgments here, some of which apply to the UK. (Although you’re confusing the EU with the Council of Europe.) https://www.coe.int/en/web/human-rights-convention/landmark-judgments https://www.coe.int/en/web/human-rights-convention/landmark-...
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - callamdelaney 2y ago
        So now we need a council of Europe referendum? As you know human rights existed long before somebody decided to sign away our interpretation of them to a foreign body. Weird how the right to liberty and security doesn't apply to native populations.
      - dbdr 2y ago
        Patrick Stewart sketch: what has the ECHR ever done for us? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptfmAY6M6aA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptfmAY6M6aA
- immibis 2y ago
  The same as an American citizen, then. That piece of paper locked up in the national archives (or wherever) didn't come running, armed with a gun, to save the life of George Floyd or anyone else.
  - callamdelaney 2y ago
    No but it is a basis in law for eg freedom of speech, that sort of right is none existent here. Id much rather have a formal, immutable constitution.
    - foldr 2y ago
      There is a basis in UK law for freedom of speech (most recently, Article 10 of the Human Rights act). It's true that protections for free speech are not as extensive in the UK as they are in the US, but the US is the outlier in that case. Very few countries have free speech protections as strong as the First Amendment.
      - immibis 2y ago
        The UK laws elaborate on what is and isn't free speech, while the US law basically just says "there shall be free speech (as far as Congress is concerned. Other parties can do whatever they like to stifle speech)"
        callamdelaney 2y ago
        UK law is extremely loosely defined. Judges are ultimately responsible for its interpretation, which they do relatively literally - so as long as the police and CPS bring a case there's a good chance you've fallen foul of the law, subjectively - which is how they are written. E.g malicious communications act.
        foldr 2y ago
        The US constitution is even more loosely defined if you exclude the outcome of hundreds of years of judicial interpretations of it. Hence the endless disagreements over what is or isn’t constitutional.
- jonp888 2y ago
  If you're trying to compare Britain unfavourably to the US with this comment then that doesn't really hold up. People are sacked all the time in the US for bringing their employer into disrepute, and it doesn't even matter whether they actually did or not, since the employer doesn't have to give a reason anyway.
  - callamdelaney 2y ago
    What? That's a clause with almost every UK contract I've ever signed. The US constitution doesn't touch on employment rights. Id also point out that the UK is generally an extremely poor country, living standards for the majority are low, income is extremely low after taxes, especially compared to the states. Britain compares itself unfavourably to the US on almost every metric that matters.
smcl 2y ago
> while not having an official mandate to speak in public Gareth Dennis has been a public figure for a while, appearing on BBC News a few times. So there was apparently a provision for this in his contract with Systra: https://x.com/GarethDennis/status/1829053692508623154 https://x.com/GarethDennis/status/1829053692508623154
- keyshapegeo99 2y ago
  Systra also lauded his media appearances on their website: https://web.archive.org/web/20240829120751/https://www.systra.com/uk/news/gareth-dennis-wins-young-rail-professional-distinguished-service-award-2024/ https://web.archive.org/web/20240829120751/https://www.systr... > [Gareth's] passion and enthusiasm for all things rail are well-known across the sector through his weekly #Railnatter podcast and as a regular national press rail commentator
  - smcl 2y ago
    Ah that's an interesting revelation. But yeah totally unsurprising really, he's very good at talking in plain, accessible English about rail-related matters that might otherwise cause people to glaze over and ignore. And it's not like he's ever been a shit-stirrer either - in the interview in question he was pretty reasonable. It's just that this guy Lord Hendy has taken a dislike to NR being called out and started a little vendetta against Dennis.
- n4r9 2y ago
  What's great about this is that instead of covering up the issue, Henry's behaviour has caused it to blow up and become way more visible. I certainly hadn't heard about any of this until reading OP.
  - smcl 2y ago
    True, but it's kind of a shame we're dependent on those emails being leaked. If they hadn't been then it'd be Dennis' claim that someone in the government pressured his employer to get him sacked. Which doesn't hold a great deal of weight and could easily be dismissed by a government keen to cover its ass.
rsynnott 2y ago
I suspect the minister may be an ex-minister soon, alright; it’s not a good look, and he’s only been in the job a month or so, so replacing wouldn’t be a huge deal.
- alephnerd 2y ago
  He's also a mid-level minister, so it's pretty easy to can him. Most Ministers are just political appointees anyhow - the actual work is done by the Civil Service.
- jonp888 2y ago
  > he’s only been in the job a month or so, so replacing wouldn’t be a huge deal He's way, way than more than just some guy who has been rail minister for a month, he's one of the most respected, perhaps the most respected transport executive in Britain(at least until yesterday). He's not an elected politician, he has worked professionally in rail transportation since 1975. For 10 years he was Chief Executive of Transport for London which runs all public transport in London. Following that, for the past 10 years he was and still is Chairman of Network Rail, the organisation which is responsible for the entire British Railway Network. It's in this capacity that he sent the letter, not as a minister. Unless this turns into some huge scandal, which seems unlikely, he'll be fine.
  - prmoustache 2y ago
    But he is working as a mafia leader. I don't think that is the kind of chief executive a democratic country needs.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
      The United Kingdom is a monarchy [1]. Lord Peter Hendy is an un-elected member of the House of Lords. ______________ [1] More specifically, a Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy. Except it doesn't really have a constitution.
      - 2y ago
XCabbage 2y ago
What aspect of the UK's nebulous "constitution" do you claim was violated here? (Or are you just reflexively/thoughtlessly saying "unconstitutional" because it would be a First Amendment violation in the USA?)
- Tor3 2y ago
  Well, the UK doesn't have a constitution, so technically you're correct in mentioning that, but it should also be said that something like this happening in Europe is beyond shocking. It sounds like an April's fool joke. But isn't.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
    Not "Europe". The UK. They do things differently in the continent.
    - hayd 2y ago
      The UK is in Europe.
    - Tor3 2y ago
      The UK is firmly in Europe. Always been.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
akira2501 2y ago
> it clearly should be the UK rail minister. Absolutely. He's guilty of precisely what he complains about. He suggests that this engineer is implicating the "safety of Network Rail" whereas he's just implicating the safety of a _single decision_. Instead of reacting to a single statement the minister has decided to implicate his entire job. Which is madness. He should be deeply ashamed of how he abused his position, and quite frankly, for his inability to accept and react appropriately to criticism. A giant baby if I've ever seen one.
ypzhang2 2y ago
Except it’s not government related action. This is what a current official did prior to him becoming the minister while an executive of a rail company. So the analysis and the discussion below all stem from a faulty premise
- tomatocracy 2y ago
  "An executive of of a rail company" is not really the full picture here. Network Rail is state-controlled and a government minister appoints the Chairman.

callamdelaney 2y ago

There is no constitution here, your existence and rights as a British citizen is at the convenience of the state.

graemep 2y ago
Its not that simple. There is a body of constitutional law. There is extensive law governing what powers ministers have - powers are granted to them by legislation. There are human rights granted by law and treaty. Everything from some clauses of the Magna Carta that are still in force https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/originsofparliament/birthofparliament/overview/magnacarta/magnacartaclauses/ https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofp... to the European Convention on Human Rights.
- philwelch 2y ago
  And thanks to parliamentary supremacy any and all of those protections can be repealed by a simple majority of the House of Commons.
  - graemep 2y ago
    True, but that is a long way from how I read the comment I replied too
    - philwelch 2y ago
      In countries that actually have a strong constitution—the US is the primary example though I hope others exist—the Constitution itself is the supreme law of the land and is, by design, difficult to amend. When legislatures pass laws that exceed the bounds of the Constitution, the courts strike down those laws as null and void. In that sense, Britain does not have a constitution. Obviously it has a constitution in some sense, because there is always some set of laws, norms, traditions, and historical precedents that constitute the basis of government. But this is a much weaker sense of the term. For instance, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 was a “constitutional” law that supposedly made it impossible to call a snap election, but a snap election was nonetheless called in 2019 via the Early Parliamentary General Election Act 2019, which only required a simple majority because it had equivalent authority to the FTPA itself.
      - tengwar2 2y ago
        No, in that sense the UK does not have an American-style constitution - no more, no less. It is not accidental that Parliament can reverse any decision taken by an earlier Parliament: in fact it is one of the most important parts of the constitution that no Parliament can take a decision which binds a later one. It is different from the American design, yes, but the way in which the American constitution is used does not seem praiseworthy, not does it suggest that it would be wise to copy it.
        philwelch 2y ago
        The Bill of Rights begins with the words, "Congress shall make no law..." before enumerating some of the basic human rights that Congress is constitutionally prohibited from infringing. I think it is highly praiseworthy indeed that, unlike Parliament, Congress is constitutionally prevented from infringing on basic human rights. It is also highly praiseworthy that, unlike Parliament, Congress is constitutionally prevented from forming a kangaroo court to sentence the head of state to death or from subsequently installing a military dictatorship (which is the exact historical precedent whence parliamentary supremacy was established).
- callamdelaney 2y ago
  I'd like to take this moment to thank the European Union for our human rights /s
  - foldr 2y ago
    No /s required. You can see a list of landmark judgments here, some of which apply to the UK. (Although you’re confusing the EU with the Council of Europe.) https://www.coe.int/en/web/human-rights-convention/landmark-judgments https://www.coe.int/en/web/human-rights-convention/landmark-...
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - callamdelaney 2y ago
      So now we need a council of Europe referendum? As you know human rights existed long before somebody decided to sign away our interpretation of them to a foreign body. Weird how the right to liberty and security doesn't apply to native populations.
    - dbdr 2y ago
      Patrick Stewart sketch: what has the ECHR ever done for us? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptfmAY6M6aA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptfmAY6M6aA
immibis 2y ago
The same as an American citizen, then. That piece of paper locked up in the national archives (or wherever) didn't come running, armed with a gun, to save the life of George Floyd or anyone else.
- callamdelaney 2y ago
  No but it is a basis in law for eg freedom of speech, that sort of right is none existent here. Id much rather have a formal, immutable constitution.
  - foldr 2y ago
    There is a basis in UK law for freedom of speech (most recently, Article 10 of the Human Rights act). It's true that protections for free speech are not as extensive in the UK as they are in the US, but the US is the outlier in that case. Very few countries have free speech protections as strong as the First Amendment.
    - immibis 2y ago
      The UK laws elaborate on what is and isn't free speech, while the US law basically just says "there shall be free speech (as far as Congress is concerned. Other parties can do whatever they like to stifle speech)"
      - callamdelaney 2y ago
        UK law is extremely loosely defined. Judges are ultimately responsible for its interpretation, which they do relatively literally - so as long as the police and CPS bring a case there's a good chance you've fallen foul of the law, subjectively - which is how they are written. E.g malicious communications act.
        foldr 2y ago
        The US constitution is even more loosely defined if you exclude the outcome of hundreds of years of judicial interpretations of it. Hence the endless disagreements over what is or isn’t constitutional.
jonp888 2y ago
If you're trying to compare Britain unfavourably to the US with this comment then that doesn't really hold up. People are sacked all the time in the US for bringing their employer into disrepute, and it doesn't even matter whether they actually did or not, since the employer doesn't have to give a reason anyway.
- callamdelaney 2y ago
  What? That's a clause with almost every UK contract I've ever signed. The US constitution doesn't touch on employment rights. Id also point out that the UK is generally an extremely poor country, living standards for the majority are low, income is extremely low after taxes, especially compared to the states. Britain compares itself unfavourably to the US on almost every metric that matters.

smcl 2y ago

> while not having an official mandate to speak in public Gareth Dennis has been a public figure for a while, appearing on BBC News a few times. So there was apparently a provision for this in his contract with Systra: https://x.com/GarethDennis/status/1829053692508623154 https://x.com/GarethDennis/status/1829053692508623154

keyshapegeo99 2y ago
Systra also lauded his media appearances on their website: https://web.archive.org/web/20240829120751/https://www.systra.com/uk/news/gareth-dennis-wins-young-rail-professional-distinguished-service-award-2024/ https://web.archive.org/web/20240829120751/https://www.systr... > [Gareth's] passion and enthusiasm for all things rail are well-known across the sector through his weekly #Railnatter podcast and as a regular national press rail commentator
- smcl 2y ago
  Ah that's an interesting revelation. But yeah totally unsurprising really, he's very good at talking in plain, accessible English about rail-related matters that might otherwise cause people to glaze over and ignore. And it's not like he's ever been a shit-stirrer either - in the interview in question he was pretty reasonable. It's just that this guy Lord Hendy has taken a dislike to NR being called out and started a little vendetta against Dennis.
n4r9 2y ago
What's great about this is that instead of covering up the issue, Henry's behaviour has caused it to blow up and become way more visible. I certainly hadn't heard about any of this until reading OP.
- smcl 2y ago
  True, but it's kind of a shame we're dependent on those emails being leaked. If they hadn't been then it'd be Dennis' claim that someone in the government pressured his employer to get him sacked. Which doesn't hold a great deal of weight and could easily be dismissed by a government keen to cover its ass.

rsynnott 2y ago

I suspect the minister may be an ex-minister soon, alright; it’s not a good look, and he’s only been in the job a month or so, so replacing wouldn’t be a huge deal.

alephnerd 2y ago
He's also a mid-level minister, so it's pretty easy to can him. Most Ministers are just political appointees anyhow - the actual work is done by the Civil Service.
jonp888 2y ago
> he’s only been in the job a month or so, so replacing wouldn’t be a huge deal He's way, way than more than just some guy who has been rail minister for a month, he's one of the most respected, perhaps the most respected transport executive in Britain(at least until yesterday). He's not an elected politician, he has worked professionally in rail transportation since 1975. For 10 years he was Chief Executive of Transport for London which runs all public transport in London. Following that, for the past 10 years he was and still is Chairman of Network Rail, the organisation which is responsible for the entire British Railway Network. It's in this capacity that he sent the letter, not as a minister. Unless this turns into some huge scandal, which seems unlikely, he'll be fine.
- prmoustache 2y ago
  But he is working as a mafia leader. I don't think that is the kind of chief executive a democratic country needs.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
    The United Kingdom is a monarchy [1]. Lord Peter Hendy is an un-elected member of the House of Lords. ______________ [1] More specifically, a Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy. Except it doesn't really have a constitution.
    - 2y ago

XCabbage 2y ago

What aspect of the UK's nebulous "constitution" do you claim was violated here? (Or are you just reflexively/thoughtlessly saying "unconstitutional" because it would be a First Amendment violation in the USA?)

Tor3 2y ago
Well, the UK doesn't have a constitution, so technically you're correct in mentioning that, but it should also be said that something like this happening in Europe is beyond shocking. It sounds like an April's fool joke. But isn't.
- YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
  Not "Europe". The UK. They do things differently in the continent.
  - hayd 2y ago
    The UK is in Europe.
  - Tor3 2y ago
    The UK is firmly in Europe. Always been.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

akira2501 2y ago

> it clearly should be the UK rail minister. Absolutely. He's guilty of precisely what he complains about. He suggests that this engineer is implicating the "safety of Network Rail" whereas he's just implicating the safety of a _single decision_. Instead of reacting to a single statement the minister has decided to implicate his entire job. Which is madness. He should be deeply ashamed of how he abused his position, and quite frankly, for his inability to accept and react appropriately to criticism. A giant baby if I've ever seen one.

ypzhang2 2y ago

Except it’s not government related action. This is what a current official did prior to him becoming the minister while an executive of a rail company. So the analysis and the discussion below all stem from a faulty premise

tomatocracy 2y ago
"An executive of of a rail company" is not really the full picture here. Network Rail is state-controlled and a government minister appoints the Chairman.