[Kizzy]

'A prison officer at the top-security Belmarsh prison has been jailed for 20 months after being found guilty of being a paid mole for five years for a reporter working at the Daily Mirror and News of the World.

Following an Old Bailey trial, Robert Norman, 54, was convicted of committing misconduct in a public office while working at HMP Belmarsh, south London, when it was home to a number of high-profile prisoners.

The court heard that he was paid more than £10,000 for passing on 40 tips to reporter Stephen Moyes between 30 April 2006 and 1 May 2011.'

Is this really an offence.. Why?
If there are failings within a system why is it illegal to have them outed, I personally feel he has only been jailed for shaking the publics faith in the establishment. Is this the definition of ' misconduct in a public office'?


http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...-mole-reporter

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

If there are failings within a system why is it illegal to have them outed, I personally feel he has only been jailed for shaking the publics faith in the establishment. Is this the definition of ' misconduct in a public office'?

Hmmmm on principle I agree with you if it was a case of whistleblowing. However, he took payment for the information so that paints it in a slightly different light, or at least his reasoning.

[Livia]

He wasn't doing it for any high moral principle. He was doing it to line his own pocket.

[Kizzy]

Who cares if the end justifies the means?
If he had done it for nothing he would still have been charged with the same offence.

[Livia]

But then he would have been a bit of a hero, not a money-grabbing turncoat.

[Kizzy]

It would have still been against the law, and he would still be a 'turncoat', that sounds a rather antiquated term what does it mean?
He is still a hero, he was paid for the information, it doesn't for me totally invalidate his intentions.

[arista]

Daily Mirror
Criminal Feckers

[Josy]

Well as an employee of the prison system I assume he signed a staff contract and code of conduct containing confidentiality clauses, which he then broke.

[Kizzy]

So he was just effectively a 'whistleblower'?
I disagree with these hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil clauses, if there is bad practice, mismanagement or abuse of position then it should be everyones right to out it.

[Josy]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

So he was just effectively a 'whistleblower'?
I disagree with these hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil clauses, if there is bad practice, mismanagement or abuse of position then it should be everyones right to out it.

It doesn't matter what you disagree with though Kizzy, if he signed a clause and he broke it then he broke the law.

He would have had official options he could have taken had there been any issues that he was aware of instead he chose to sell information to the papers.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Josy

It doesn't matter what you disagree with though Kizzy, if he signed a clause and he broke it then he broke the law.

He would have had official options he could have taken had there been any issues that he was aware of instead he chose to sell information to the papers.

With respect Josy I started the thread to debate the issue, it's not going to work if I say 'oh well, it's the law so that's it debate over' is it?

In the article it states his concerns were not addressed, maybe he felt this was the only option left.
It won't be unheard of for the media to pay people or organisations for information that is in the public interest.

[Josy]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

With respect Josy I started the thread to debate the issue, it's not going to work if I say 'oh well, it's the law so that's it debate over' is it?

In the article it states his concerns were not addressed, maybe he felt this was the only option left.
It won't be unheard of for the media to pay people or organisations for information that is in the public interest.

It doesn't mention anything in the article about him acting out on his concerns other than giving info to the paper though?

I know you started the thread to debate it, I wasn't expecting you not to. My reply above was in relation to you saying you disagreed with those clauses, your question in the OP asked why it was an offence...it was an offence because he signed those clauses.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It would have still been against the law, and he would still be a 'turncoat', that sounds a rather antiquated term what does it mean?
He is still a hero, he was paid for the information, it doesn't for me totally invalidate his intentions.

Google it.

He was paid for news stories. He has broken the terms of his contract undoubtedly and he's scored ten grand for it. It'd be very interesting to find out how his fellow officers feel about his hero status.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Josy

It doesn't mention anything in the article about him acting out on his concerns other than giving info to the paper though?

I know you started the thread to debate it, I wasn't expecting you not to. My reply above was in relation to you saying you disagreed with those clauses, your question in the OP asked why it was an offence...it was an offence because he signed those clauses.

'He claimed that the case of a Roman Catholic chaplain having affairs with inmates was being “swept under the carpet” by authorities'

Have you read those clauses?...We don't know anything for certain. If there are such clauses in place then that may account for the 'misconduct in a public office' offence.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

Google it.

He was paid for news stories. He has broken the terms of his contract undoubtedly and he's scored ten grand for it. It'd be very interesting to find out how his fellow officers feel about his hero status.

I actually did... I think you used it out of context.

He would have paid or unpaid that's clear, it's why whistleblowing is an offence I'm concerned with.
Whatever his colleagues feel is irrelevant to me, he is an individual working for an organisation.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I actually did... I think you used it out of context.

He would have paid or unpaid that's clear, it's why whistleblowing is an offence I'm concerned with.
Whatever his colleagues feel is irrelevant to me, he is an individual working for an organisation.

I used it adequately... and I'm not getting into a ridiculous bickering match over semantics.

Whistleblowing loses it's hero status when people are taking a bung for it. If a politician was taking a bung you'd be up in arms, if it's someone who claims its for the greater good but actually made him a bundle of cash AND broke the terms of his contract, apparently that makes him an upstanding member of the community?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

I used it adequately... and I'm not getting into a ridiculous bickering match over semantics.

Whistleblowing loses it's hero status when people are taking a bung for it. If a politician was taking a bung you'd be up in arms, if it's someone who claims its for the greater good but actually made him a bundle of cash AND broke the terms of his contract, apparently that makes him an upstanding member of the community?

Are you presuming you know how I would react to your hypothetical situation?

As I said I feel the fact he was paid for the information is irrelevant, it would've been newsworthy either way and he would have been in breach of contract ( if we are suggesting such a clause exists) either way too.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Josy

It doesn't matter what you disagree with though Kizzy, if he signed a clause and he broke it then he broke the law.

He would have had official options he could have taken had there been any issues that he was aware of instead he chose to sell information to the papers.

No more to be said.

[Kizzy]

Again it's presuming there was a whistleblowing clause... so there's not a lot to be said seeing as we don't know :/

[joeysteele]

he was in my view wrong to take payment for any factual information he passed on.

If things are wrong in any organisation then I would hope and want people who know there is wrong to make it known.
We are learning only now, of things happening as to awful physical and sexual abuse in young offender institutions decades ago.

If whistleblowers had protection under the law,then maybe they would not take payments for same,knowing their careers could still be secure.
overall on this one, I more agree with Kizzy, wrongs in any places such as Hospitals Prisons,care homes,Nurserys etc; should all be made known.
In such places any clause as to not doing so, should be illegal and not law enforced clauses.
I also agree with ToySoldier, his wrong was he took regular payments for this.

Having said that,does it warrant a custodial sentence for doing so.
Not in my view, it's hard enough at times getting really violent people locked up,never mind filling a prison cell with someone,who may have been rightly or wrongly legally wrong as to making personal gain from his actions,while at the same time being near certainly morally right to help expose wrongdoing.

[Toy Soldier]

As far as I understand with "whistleblowing", if it's a case of illegal practices going on, you are allowed to break any contract you might have in order to take the information you have to the relevant authorities. E.g. if it's a private company you work for and you've signed a confidentiality agreement and then find out that they're breaking the law, you can take that information to the police and be protected. You cannot, however, take that information to the press... even if it's just to have it published... so you DEFINITELY can't take it to the press and receive bundles of cash for it. On multiple occasions.

tl;dr - if this was just about any wrongdoing, there are people he could have taken his information to without breaking the law. Selling it was completely his choice and - I would imagine - he knew fine well he could get into a lot of trouble.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

As far as I understand with "whistleblowing", if it's a case of illegal practices going on, you are allowed to break any contract you might have in order to take the information you have to the relevant authorities. E.g. if it's a private company you work for and you've signed a confidentiality agreement and then find out that they're breaking the law, you can take that information to the police and be protected. You cannot, however, take that information to the press... even if it's just to have it published... so you DEFINITELY can't take it to the press and receive bundles of cash for it. On multiple occasions.

tl;dr - if this was just about any wrongdoing, there are people he could have taken his information to without breaking the law. Selling it was completely his choice and - I would imagine - he knew fine well he could get into a lot of trouble.

HMP service at Belmarsh is not a private company though, it's a public service. So as such are the goings on not in the public interest?
As Joey said did it really deserve 20 months...Or was it simply a message to anyone else who dare to speak out? If there was nothing to hide then papers would have nothing to pay to print.
In other sectors whistleblowers are receiving protection, as they should. If there are moles leaking to the press then clean up the issues creating the headlines...

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Again it's presuming there was a whistleblowing clause... so there's not a lot to be said seeing as we don't know :/

Surely the fact he's being prosecuted is a huge indicator that he broke some kind of clause?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

'He claimed that the case of a Roman Catholic chaplain having affairs with inmates was being “swept under the carpet” by authorities'

Have you read those clauses?...We don't know anything for certain. If there are such clauses in place then that may account for the 'misconduct in a public office' offence.

That doesn't suggest that his own concerns were ignored or swept under the carpet.

Sounds like he's stumbled across something being covered up and his first port of call was the newspapers to get him some cash rather dealing with it in any other way.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

That doesn't suggest that his own concerns were ignored or swept under the carpet.

Sounds like he's stumbled across something being covered up and his first port of call was the newspapers to get him some cash rather dealing with it in any other way.

'On the personal mitigation, the judge said: “I recognised that the position you find yourself in is disastrous for you, not least your livelihood and good character. I am very mindful of the fact you have a sick wife and the unfortunate condition she is in.”

He went on: “I am quite prepared to accept you did have genuine concerns about the manner in which the prison was run. In particular having regard to budgetary cuts, and that in part was a motivating factor in acting as you did.'

Seems the judge feels he had a genuine reason for the leaks, we don't know what other ways he tried, we shouldn't presume he didn't try. Same with any clauses, gagging clauses in public services?... not good