egafd.com

How many times, when officialdom, or large corporate bodies are found to be in error, or even criminally negligent, do we hear the phrase "We can't comment on individual cases" in reply to media questions?

Now I can understand if a particular case is subject to sub judice rules that there are restrictions for the best of reasons.

On the other hand, as in cases, for instance, of petty officialdom making errors, utilities overcharging and being slow to rectify etc., this has now become a blanket to try to cover total incompetance and protect the often uncaring establishment.

Case in point. A customer complained about receiving an electricity bill for ?25,000+ for one quarter. The man was living in a one bedroom flat. After numerous complaints following the original bill and the normal reminders, he was cut off. He took his case to the local TV who interviewed him. He was vociferous in his demand that the utility company answer his complaint in public

Asked to appear on the programme, the utility company wouldn't put up a spokesman but issued a statement along the lines of "we don't comment on individual cases". When asked by the researcher why not, the answer came back "customer confidentiality".

Talk about total bollocks.

I once worked for a time as a Head of Department in UK Local Government. I was appalled at the number of times our PR Department fobbed off the media when someone in the system had made an absolute balls up.

If we are ever to see open government, transparent policing and fair play for utility, NHS and major company customers, this cover up approach needs serious investigation and reform

It usually means they are afraid of admiting anything in case you sue rather than accept the pathetic compensation offer made when its resolved eventually.

That is often the case, but then people should reject derisory offers of compensation and, even when they can't afford to sue, should keep publicly and privately making a nuisance of themselves until they get a reasonable offer.

I've done it a few times and persistence always pays.

Mysteryman wrote:

> How many times, when officialdom, or large corporate bodies are
> found to be in error, or even criminally negligent, do we hear
> the phrase "We can't comment on individual cases" in reply to
> media questions?
>

The problem is, if you do make a passing comment on an individual case, its likely that it will be used against you at some point in the future. So when asked "Do you think its fair?" and reply "not really" you find yourself in a courtroom a few weeks later being sued for something, and the prosecution telling everyone how even you stated that you thought it was unfair.

How very true.

....and that's an excuse for either not defending your position or not having the guts to accept your organisation is at fault?

Its about time that authorities, organisations and companies were GENUINELY accountable and not able to hide under the skirts of "the threat of the organisation being sued" or "it's not in the public interest to comment on individual cases".

If an organisation has been accused of malpractice those who might have been, or in the future may be, affected have a right to a public airing. If an individual raises a problem through the media which could affect others it obviously IS in the public interest to have a comment and that individual obviously wants a public comment on his/her case.

The current situation leaves large organisations in a win win situation. They know most people can't afford to sue and know that they themselves have lawyers on tap and plenty of time and money to obfuscate and bully the individual or small group.

Mysteryman wrote:

> ....and that's an excuse for either not defending your position
> or not having the guts to accept your organisation is at fault?
>


While ever people are permitted to use single words or phrases out of context to build their whole case against someone, then yes.

Ask Edwina Currie what one badly chosen word can do. She lost her job for saying 'most' when she meant 'much'.

Having been an "official spokesman", been regularly interviewed by the media and having had to mak "policy" speeches for employers the rule is to take care with what you say and listen to yourself as you speak, correcting any error immediately.

Currie was a big enough girl to know how important such care is

As to taking items out of context, that is another lame excuse as, on any recorded media, a statement can easily be checked for both meaning and context.

Sounds like good old Chicago politics here as well. A splitting image to be for real.