Nobody, Socrates believed, knowingly does what is wrong: they always think that what they are doing is right.
I have been examining one particular part of Graham Power's Affidavit, in which he tells of how Wendy Kinnard, was, in his opinion, subjected to a verbal attack:
15. Further indications of an gulf between the Chief Minister and his associates, on one hand, and the force, supported by the then Home Affairs Minister, Senator Wendy Kinnard, on the other, emerged the day on which it was decided that Senator Kinnard was no longer able to maintain political oversight of the Historic Abuse Enquiry. This was because a few days previously she had made a witness statement which created a conflict of interest. At the time of writing I do not have access to my diary and notebooks and cannot be sure of the exact date. A meeting was arranged to discuss how this would be managed. The meeting was attended by me, Senator Kinnard, The Chief Executive and the then Chief Minister. The Chief Minister entered the room and immediately began a verbal attack on the historic abuse enquiry claiming that it was causing damaging publicity for the island. Senator Kinnard, who was the Minister to whom I was actually accountable, attempted to defend the enquiry but she was effectively shouted down.
16. I knew that the views being expressed by the Chief Minister were not the views of the Home Affairs Minister. She had been regularly briefed on the enquiry by members of the force and by senior advisors appointed by the Association of Chief Police Officers and had expressed her strong support for the conduct of the investigation. The Chief Minister said that he was "under pressure to suspend both the Chief and the Deputy Chief". He did not say where the pressure was coming from but he said this in a way which gave the impression that he was not hostile to that pressure. The heat of the exchanges rose and the Chief Minister spoke to Senator Kinnard in a way which I found offensive and I saw that she was clearly becoming upset. She was the only woman present and I was her only friend in the room. I intervened forcefully and told the Chief Minister that from my management experience, I considered that he was behaving in a way which, in a workplace, could be classed as bullying and lead to a claim or constructive dismissal.
In Frank Walker's comments to Channel Television, he makes the following statement:
I did not shout at Wendy Kinnard. At the meeting GP has referred to I, acting upon the wishes of, and reflecting concerns held by, the entire COM, asked her to confirm, given the conflict she had revealed, if she felt she was in a position to continue to act as HA Minister. That was a very important question that had to be asked and I did so in a calm and proper manner. I and others in the meeting were shocked at GP's vehement reaction which was in no way justified by the question I asked or the manner in which I asked it.
How is the historian to reconcile these two apparently conflicting statements? One way, which I have noted on other blogs, is to take Frank Walker's statement as a lie. But I don't think it is necessary to do that. For a start, let's just look at the exact words each participant gives.
Graham Power says of Wendy Kinnard that "she was effectively shouted down", while Frank Walker says that "I did not shout at Wendy Kinnard". There is a world of difference in that single word "effectively". It is quite possible to "effectively shout" a person down by simply continuing to speak, even "in a calm and proper manner", but not allowing them to get a word in edgeways to make their own case, and continually interrupting any attempts by them to speak "in a calm and proper manner". That, I would consider to be "effectively shouting down" someone, and it simply may mean no more than preventing the other person from speaking. If one looks as instances of the phrase, that is what it means, not actually physically shouting. So Frank Walker's denial, while on the face of it contradictory, is only superficially so.
But what of the other accusation?
I intervened forcefully and told the Chief Minister that from my management experience, I considered that he was behaving in a way which, in a workplace, could be classed as bullying and lead to a claim or constructive dismissal.
and the contradiction:
That was a very important question that had to be asked and I did so in a calm and proper manner. I and others in the meeting were shocked at GP's vehement reaction which was in no way justified by the question I asked or the manner in which I asked it.
Here we have, I think, a difference of perspective. From his own perspective, Frank Walker acted - as he saw it, in a calm and proper manner, but to a relative outsider, who had not seen how he behaved - like Graham Power, this could well be construed as "bullying" - especially given how we may understand "effectively shouted down".
So what actually occurred, and was Graham Power correct in his assessment, or Frank Walker in his? We have no verbatim transcript of this meeting, or even better, an audio recording with all the nuances of expression. So we must look elsewhere, and for examples of private behaviour, rather than public behaviour; this is sensible, because people may behave differently in the public arena.
We have, unfortunately, only one real example of Frank Walker's unguarded behaviour, which came in the well-known Newsnight interview of 2008, where he was filmed retorting that Stuart Syvret was out to "shaft Jersey internationally". The unedited version ran:
Syvret: "Frank, we're talking about dead children."
Walker: "Yes Stuart, exactly, so you shouldn't be politicising it. You should be throwing your support behind the police and behind every effort to find out."
Syvret: "I have. I've made every effort."
Walker: "No, you're trying to shaft Jersey internationally."
Despite the fact that he had used language unbecoming the dignity of his office, no real apology was offered to the public for this remark, which seems to indicate that Frank Walker did not think it as more than the kind of rough and ready remark a politician might make; politicians have been known for bruising remarks to other politicians. But this kind of tone, to a relative outsider, like Graham Power, or indeed any ordinary member of the public, might well come across as something which in a workplace could be "classed as bullying".
So there is a resolution between Graham Power saying in an Affidavit that Frank Walker behaved in a way which could be classed as bullying, and Frank Walker denying that - simply because it might well have been so much part of the way in which he behaved in private - as we can see in at least one example where he was accidentally overheard - that he was not aware of the way he behaved, or how his manner might appear to others who were not used to it - as coming across as bullying. In a like manner, people who customarily punctuate their language with swearing, are also often completely oblivious to the reaction it might give to people who are not used to that kind of language.
The real question is how Wendy Kinnard perceived this. Did she get upset, as Graham Power noted, or was she used to this as part of Frank Walker's style? It is notable that Mr Walker's statement does not address the issue of whether she became upset, and a third party clarification by Wendy Kinnard would certainly help to put the record straight.
Even if she did become upset, Frank Walker may not have been aware that it was his remarks or delivery which caused it, because from his own perspective he did not see it as anything outside his normal manner of behaviour. But the fact that an outsider, Graham Power, saw it differently, and is prepared to state as such in a document made under oath, suggests that Frank Walker may not be the best judge of his own behaviour.
Links
http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline_jerseynews/displayarticle.asp?id=483280
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=43188
I have been examining one particular part of Graham Power's Affidavit, in which he tells of how Wendy Kinnard, was, in his opinion, subjected to a verbal attack:
15. Further indications of an gulf between the Chief Minister and his associates, on one hand, and the force, supported by the then Home Affairs Minister, Senator Wendy Kinnard, on the other, emerged the day on which it was decided that Senator Kinnard was no longer able to maintain political oversight of the Historic Abuse Enquiry. This was because a few days previously she had made a witness statement which created a conflict of interest. At the time of writing I do not have access to my diary and notebooks and cannot be sure of the exact date. A meeting was arranged to discuss how this would be managed. The meeting was attended by me, Senator Kinnard, The Chief Executive and the then Chief Minister. The Chief Minister entered the room and immediately began a verbal attack on the historic abuse enquiry claiming that it was causing damaging publicity for the island. Senator Kinnard, who was the Minister to whom I was actually accountable, attempted to defend the enquiry but she was effectively shouted down.
16. I knew that the views being expressed by the Chief Minister were not the views of the Home Affairs Minister. She had been regularly briefed on the enquiry by members of the force and by senior advisors appointed by the Association of Chief Police Officers and had expressed her strong support for the conduct of the investigation. The Chief Minister said that he was "under pressure to suspend both the Chief and the Deputy Chief". He did not say where the pressure was coming from but he said this in a way which gave the impression that he was not hostile to that pressure. The heat of the exchanges rose and the Chief Minister spoke to Senator Kinnard in a way which I found offensive and I saw that she was clearly becoming upset. She was the only woman present and I was her only friend in the room. I intervened forcefully and told the Chief Minister that from my management experience, I considered that he was behaving in a way which, in a workplace, could be classed as bullying and lead to a claim or constructive dismissal.
In Frank Walker's comments to Channel Television, he makes the following statement:
I did not shout at Wendy Kinnard. At the meeting GP has referred to I, acting upon the wishes of, and reflecting concerns held by, the entire COM, asked her to confirm, given the conflict she had revealed, if she felt she was in a position to continue to act as HA Minister. That was a very important question that had to be asked and I did so in a calm and proper manner. I and others in the meeting were shocked at GP's vehement reaction which was in no way justified by the question I asked or the manner in which I asked it.
How is the historian to reconcile these two apparently conflicting statements? One way, which I have noted on other blogs, is to take Frank Walker's statement as a lie. But I don't think it is necessary to do that. For a start, let's just look at the exact words each participant gives.
Graham Power says of Wendy Kinnard that "she was effectively shouted down", while Frank Walker says that "I did not shout at Wendy Kinnard". There is a world of difference in that single word "effectively". It is quite possible to "effectively shout" a person down by simply continuing to speak, even "in a calm and proper manner", but not allowing them to get a word in edgeways to make their own case, and continually interrupting any attempts by them to speak "in a calm and proper manner". That, I would consider to be "effectively shouting down" someone, and it simply may mean no more than preventing the other person from speaking. If one looks as instances of the phrase, that is what it means, not actually physically shouting. So Frank Walker's denial, while on the face of it contradictory, is only superficially so.
But what of the other accusation?
I intervened forcefully and told the Chief Minister that from my management experience, I considered that he was behaving in a way which, in a workplace, could be classed as bullying and lead to a claim or constructive dismissal.
and the contradiction:
That was a very important question that had to be asked and I did so in a calm and proper manner. I and others in the meeting were shocked at GP's vehement reaction which was in no way justified by the question I asked or the manner in which I asked it.
Here we have, I think, a difference of perspective. From his own perspective, Frank Walker acted - as he saw it, in a calm and proper manner, but to a relative outsider, who had not seen how he behaved - like Graham Power, this could well be construed as "bullying" - especially given how we may understand "effectively shouted down".
So what actually occurred, and was Graham Power correct in his assessment, or Frank Walker in his? We have no verbatim transcript of this meeting, or even better, an audio recording with all the nuances of expression. So we must look elsewhere, and for examples of private behaviour, rather than public behaviour; this is sensible, because people may behave differently in the public arena.
We have, unfortunately, only one real example of Frank Walker's unguarded behaviour, which came in the well-known Newsnight interview of 2008, where he was filmed retorting that Stuart Syvret was out to "shaft Jersey internationally". The unedited version ran:
Syvret: "Frank, we're talking about dead children."
Walker: "Yes Stuart, exactly, so you shouldn't be politicising it. You should be throwing your support behind the police and behind every effort to find out."
Syvret: "I have. I've made every effort."
Walker: "No, you're trying to shaft Jersey internationally."
Despite the fact that he had used language unbecoming the dignity of his office, no real apology was offered to the public for this remark, which seems to indicate that Frank Walker did not think it as more than the kind of rough and ready remark a politician might make; politicians have been known for bruising remarks to other politicians. But this kind of tone, to a relative outsider, like Graham Power, or indeed any ordinary member of the public, might well come across as something which in a workplace could be "classed as bullying".
So there is a resolution between Graham Power saying in an Affidavit that Frank Walker behaved in a way which could be classed as bullying, and Frank Walker denying that - simply because it might well have been so much part of the way in which he behaved in private - as we can see in at least one example where he was accidentally overheard - that he was not aware of the way he behaved, or how his manner might appear to others who were not used to it - as coming across as bullying. In a like manner, people who customarily punctuate their language with swearing, are also often completely oblivious to the reaction it might give to people who are not used to that kind of language.
The real question is how Wendy Kinnard perceived this. Did she get upset, as Graham Power noted, or was she used to this as part of Frank Walker's style? It is notable that Mr Walker's statement does not address the issue of whether she became upset, and a third party clarification by Wendy Kinnard would certainly help to put the record straight.
Even if she did become upset, Frank Walker may not have been aware that it was his remarks or delivery which caused it, because from his own perspective he did not see it as anything outside his normal manner of behaviour. But the fact that an outsider, Graham Power, saw it differently, and is prepared to state as such in a document made under oath, suggests that Frank Walker may not be the best judge of his own behaviour.
Links
http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline_jerseynews/displayarticle.asp?id=483280
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=43188
Posts
4 comments:
The differing subjective perspectives of an emotive event are often hard to reconcile, aren't they?
And what are we to make of Graham Power's statement: "I intervened forcefully". That does sound like he reciprocated Walker's tone, maybe shouting back at him.
When we are actors in a scene like that we are easily blinded to our own behaviour or how it is perceived by others. But because our senses are heightened and our adrenalin is flowing, we perceive others' emotions much more intensely.
Only a film or recording watched by objective witnesses could allow us to know how the encounter developed. As you say, people who are used to 'laying down the law' with their employees don't perceive themselves as bullying although they are. You can prove this by noting how their behaviour changes when they are dealing with equals or superiors.
Similarly, people who are routinely sarcastic are often surprised when others are offended, because they think it is funny. Americans often have that problem with British humour.
It sounds like that was a very tense encounter with a lot at stake for everyone, so there were no objective witnesses in that room. But Graham Power, as a policeman, would have had long experience of dealing with violent situations (including verbal ones) in a controlled way and I would put my money on him being the most controlled and aware.
All of this accusation and denial looks like it will continue ad infinitum. Some resolution may be found in court cases and industrial tribunals, which I guess is where Power will end up. Even if he wins, and a gets a lot of compensation, the other side will still deny it.
It would have been much better for Jersey if they had done what Syvret wanted and had an inquiry into childcare services, let the police investigation run its course, publicly apologised to the victims and compensated them, instead of spending millions on suspensions and inquries into suspensions.
Meanwhile the reputation of the island is sullied around the world. Such a shame.
Rob, you are right; that is why I cited Frank Walkers one example of "private" behaviour to show the way we know he is capable of behaving when the spotlight is off.
It is unfortunately only one instance, and might be atypical.
However, when you add the fact that he never made a public apology, and insisted he was in the right, this suggests that he is not particularly self-aware of how he is perceived by others, and therefore is less likely to be atypical.
I try to examine this "objectively", that is, much as a historian might, from what sources are available, rather than starting with an idea of what the participants are like, and then letting that colour how we see their motivations and behaviours.
I suppose that if a lot of people who have worked closely with him corroborate that bullying behaviour, that counts as a form of evidence by hearsay.
Lenny Harper recently referred to him as a 'bully AND a liar' on another blog.
I wonder if there is a syndrome peculiar to politicians who have to deal with powerful civil servants and other officials who can countermand their desire and power. When they cannot get their own way they become enraged and resort to bullying.
I knew someone who was personal secretary to a certain recent Home Secretary who used to throw objects in their direction when things went against him. Fortunately that Home Secretary was 'visually challenged' and was easy to dodge.
There are reports of Gordon Brown exhibiting the same behaviour.
GP "The heat of the exchanges rose and the Chief Minister spoke to Senator Kinnard in a way which I found offensive and I saw that she was clearly becoming upset"
FW "I and others in the meeting were shocked at GP's vehement reaction which was in no way justified by the question I asked or the manner in which I asked it."
Are we seeing here that FW thought that GP was reacting wrongly to the question that was put (which may indeed have been put calmly and quietly) whereas GP was actually objecting to FW's subsequent behaviour as "the heat of the exchanges rose"?
Post a Comment