I think Jason has raised an interesting question (even if it may not apply to this particular case). In the UK there is general legal protection for whistleblowers - nice guide here www.mylawyer.co.uk/.../


BUT what this means in practice is that, for example, if you lose your job you can claim for unfair dismissal at a tribunal and hopefully (if your lawyers make a better case then your ex-employers lawyers) get some compensation. Great if you can walk into another job reasonably quickly, not so great if you can't (or don't think you will be able to).


I don't know of any cases in engineering which have gone wrong this way (and indeed I do know cases where the company affected has protected the whistleblower where the senior management realised - because of the whistleblowing - that a rogue division was putting the company at risk). But for anyone interested it's worth reading Dr Phil Hammond's articles about whistleblowing in the NHS (UK Heath Service), where despite legal protection whistleblowers still found themselves jobless in practice. (It's also worth going to see him speak, I found him very entertaining.)


So I agree, I think this would be a useful area for the IET to look at to consider whether the engineering profession is adequately protected such that engineers will act professionally - i.e. pointing out when their company is doing something potentially against the public interest, particularly which they appreciate due to their specialist technical knowledge. Maybe it will decide that it is, but if engineers don't KNOW that it is they still won't whistleblow (enough).


At the very least a good study into this would make an interesting article in E&T. (Apologies if there's been one and I misssed it.) 


Thanks David for the clarification on the VW case, the issue re "abdicating responsibility to speak out" seems to relate more to the arguments over his sentencing rather than whether he was guilty or not guilty of the charges. In the end, anyone who knows know their company is committing criminal acts where they are in any way involved probably needs to consider very carefully their legal standing as an accessory - I believe in the UK the definition is "Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of any indictable offence, whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any Act passed or to be passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted, and punished as a principal offender." I wouldn't want to be arguing my freedom in court over the exact legal meaning of the word "abet"!  


Cheers, Andy

I think Jason has raised an interesting question (even if it may not apply to this particular case). In the UK there is general legal protection for whistleblowers - nice guide here www.mylawyer.co.uk/.../


BUT what this means in practice is that, for example, if you lose your job you can claim for unfair dismissal at a tribunal and hopefully (if your lawyers make a better case then your ex-employers lawyers) get some compensation. Great if you can walk into another job reasonably quickly, not so great if you can't (or don't think you will be able to).


I don't know of any cases in engineering which have gone wrong this way (and indeed I do know cases where the company affected has protected the whistleblower where the senior management realised - because of the whistleblowing - that a rogue division was putting the company at risk). But for anyone interested it's worth reading Dr Phil Hammond's articles about whistleblowing in the NHS (UK Heath Service), where despite legal protection whistleblowers still found themselves jobless in practice. (It's also worth going to see him speak, I found him very entertaining.)


So I agree, I think this would be a useful area for the IET to look at to consider whether the engineering profession is adequately protected such that engineers will act professionally - i.e. pointing out when their company is doing something potentially against the public interest, particularly which they appreciate due to their specialist technical knowledge. Maybe it will decide that it is, but if engineers don't KNOW that it is they still won't whistleblow (enough).


At the very least a good study into this would make an interesting article in E&T. (Apologies if there's been one and I misssed it.) 


Thanks David for the clarification on the VW case, the issue re "abdicating responsibility to speak out" seems to relate more to the arguments over his sentencing rather than whether he was guilty or not guilty of the charges. In the end, anyone who knows know their company is committing criminal acts where they are in any way involved probably needs to consider very carefully their legal standing as an accessory - I believe in the UK the definition is "Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of any indictable offence, whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any Act passed or to be passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted, and punished as a principal offender." I wouldn't want to be arguing my freedom in court over the exact legal meaning of the word "abet"!  


Cheers, Andy