Stephen Chamberlain (Police Chief)

“If you want to judge the character of a man just watch the way he treats people who can do nothing for him or can’t fight back” Abigail Van Buren

Stephen Chamberlain was promoted to the position of Assistant Chief Constable in South Yorkshire Police, England and was given the portfolio of "Community Safety” When Chamberlain was appointed his personal biography described him as a married man with young children (1)

Shortly after his appointment Chamberlain represented the Police Service and appeared on the BBC's News Forum, “Cracking Crime,” where he answered a number questions posed by viewers. During the interview Chamberlain spoke about a multi agency initiative designed to provide early family interventions to support families to try and affect young' lives as positively as possible.

He pointed out that such an intervention would require a lot of effort to tackle offending behaviour before youngsters got into long-term offending and was aimed at young people from the age of six. (2)

Now to the casual observer his biography and his endorsement of “early family intervention” to “affect youngsters’ lives positively” could well have been interpreted to suggest that Chamberlain was a decent family man ideally suited to his public office. However his carefully worded pen picture and his admirable words did not accurately reflect his true character, for the real picture, evidenced by several well documented sources was somewhat different.

For the four times married Assistant Chief Constable was a serial womaniser who had fathered a number of children by different women. And shortly after his appointment his lack of personal integrity was again evidenced when he became involved with yet another woman. Chamberlain then selfishly walked out on his fourth wife and their two young children to set up home with his lover whom he later married in his fifth marriage.

To further complicate matters his lover was a policewoman who was already married to another policeman and both were junior members of staff. The betrayal of his fourth wife, the mother of his two children, caused his then wife, Jane Chamberlain, to respond with a series of bitter recriminations that were widely reported in the media. The publicity surrounding this "sex scandal" proved to be a catalyst to other events that were also destined to cause further embarrassment for South Yorkshire Police.

For Chamberlains first wife, whom he had married and divorced twice, alongside their son from that marriage and together with a “live in” girlfriend who does not count towards his five marriages, made a series of allegations against him including rape and assault. Again these allegations were widely reported in the press.

The Assistant Chief Constable then resorted to the High Court to prove that his first wife, his son and his former “live in” girlfriend had made inaccurate and misleading statements and he was awarded damages against the newspaper that carried the story.

All this from a man who was not just an ordinary policeman but a man who was expected to lead by example and a man, who, at the time, led South Yorkshire Police on Community Safety, which, ironically, was defined by his own department as, "All activity which seeks to promote harmony within our communities." (3) Clearly Stephen Chamberlain’s commendable call to affect “lives positively” was too much of a commitment to make on a personal basis.

It was the humiliating manner in which Chamberlain chose to abandon his fourth wife that brought these events to public prominence. The Daily Mail (UK) carried the story under the headline, “I don’t feel guilty says Police Chief’s lover” and explained how Chamberlain had moved from Northampton to South Yorkshire, and how his wife, Jane Chamberlain, soon began to receive anonymous letters alleging that he was cheating on her. (4)

It was reported that she had challenged him and he had denied it yet, in spite of this, Chamberlain walked out on his fourth marriage continuing to insist that nobody else was involved.

However further communications caused the Assistant Chief Constable’s wife to drive to her husband’s rented accommodation where, she found conclusive evidence that he had set up home with his mistress. Bitter and belittled Jane Chamberlain took a hanging basket from outside the love nest and went to a Sheffield Police Station in search her husband’s lover, who was named as Helen Chapman(5)

It was reported that Jane Chamberlain eventually caught up with her recreant husband at her in laws home in the Leeds area where, during an emotional and violent confrontation, she crashed her car into a police owned BMW motorcar being used by her cheating husband causing hundreds of pounds worth of damage.

Reporter Adam Powell investigated further and spoke to Helen Chapman at the bungalow she was now sharing with the Assistant Chief Constable. ACC Chamberlain remained silent as his cold-hearted lover publicly chided his wife and the mother of his two children, "Obviously Steve's wife has got her views about what has happened. But we were both estranged when our relationship began" (6) Showing little sympathy for the distressed Jane Chamberlain who faced an uncertain future as a single mother she added. "We are very happy together" (7)

Inspector Chapman may have thought that she had won but it was at the cost of the privacy and the dignity of everyone else involved and her “star prize” was to become the fifth wife of a serial philanderer and a feckless father. The article conclued by saying that Chamberlain had also married Jill Durran between his other marriages.

These events were also reported in the Sheffield Star under the headline “Police chiefs tight-lipped over affair” which added that the damage to the police car being used by Chamberlain had been quietly repaired, "without cost to police or taxpayers". (8)

However this embarrassing situation, which saw Stephen Chamberlain demean his wife, shame his young family and bring disgrace to South Yorkshire Police, had not yet concluded. More revelations appeared in a further story that was published in "The Mail on Sunday" (UK) under the headline, "Love Cheat Police Chief is a Wife Beater Too" (9)

This article quoted his first wife, Karen Davidson, and a former “live in” girlfriend who was identified as Jacqueline Beverley a 47 year old mother of three children, together with his son, Mark, from his first marriage.

Karen Davidson claimed she married Chamberlain twice only to divorce him twice because of his alleged infidelities. She also claimed that he beat and raped her and even pushed her down stairs when she was pregnant causing her to miscarry. His live in girlfriend Jacqueline Beverley also made accusations that he had used violence against her and, astonishingly, his own son who was named as Mark Davidson Chamberlain, also claimed that his father had beaten him resulting in hospital treatment.

ACC Chamberlain resorted to the High Court to contest these allegations and after a hearing he was awarded an apology and “substantial damages” (11) against Associated Newspapers who own the Mail on Sunday.

This blogg does not condone inaccurate and sensationalist journalism and totally accepts the verdict of the Court in clearing Chamberlain in relation to the serious allegations that were made against him. Yet some may feel that Stephen Chamberlain’s self centred lifestyle and litany of licentiousness may have contributed to this sad and acrimonious drama of family breakdown which was played out in the Court.

Indeed spare a thought for his wife, Jane Chamberlain, she must have known about her husbands track record before she committed to marriage. She built a home with him, had two children with him and supported him as he reached the top of his chosen profession.

Yet he treated her with contempt and she had to suffer the further indignity of watching her unfaithful husband defend himself against serious allegations made by former family members from previous relationhips. Regardless as his role as an exemplary police leader what sort of example did he set for his very own children?

In other instances where public officials are accused of sexual scandals or extra-marital affairs then the public often judge the individual on the reactions of those most hurt by the betrayal. Quite often they do not show any sympathy or understanding if their wives or families do not come to their defence. For, without doubt, it is the actions or in-actions of those most caught up in the turmoil that tell us much about the character of the individual concerned.

Consequently as this matter revealed such a catalogue of acrimony strung out across a number of separate relationships doesn’t it say much about the person at the centre of it? For in the end all those hurt and humiliated in this wretched affair had one thing in common, Assistant Chief Constable Stephen Chamberlain, the person charged with promoting harmonious communities in South Yorkshire.

By any stretch of the imagination, does Chamberlain or South Yorkshire Police emerge with any credit from this sorry episode played out in the full glare of publicity?

The conclusion of the High Court Case offered the Assistant Chief Constable the opportunity to show some humility by considering the feelings of others who had been drawn into these events. It may well have been an appropriate time for him to express some regrets.

He could have publicly expressed regrets for the hurt that he had caused to his wife and children by leaving them and the further embarrassment that was caused by the subsequent media reporting. He could have voiced some disappointment that he had no other option other than to resort to the courts to robustly challenge the inaccurate statements purportedly made by his former wife, his son and his live in lover.

He could have also expressed some regret that the turbulent events in his personal life had caused embarrassment to his colleagues in South Yorkshire and may have distracted him from his official duties.

But none of it. Chamberlain's self-pitying post Court interview was notable for failing utterly to consider the interests of anyone else, least of all his children. Instead they were all about him and what he had been through.

Playing the victim he said, "This article nearly ruined my professional life. This apology and the admission that it was false will help me rebuild my life" (12)

Onlookers could be forgiven for suggesting that the ACC Chamberlain should look over his shoulder. For these sorry events had unearthed a wife, two former wives, one live-in-lover and his own three children who had also been left to rebuild their lives because, quite evidently, Stephen Chamberlain puts himself first time and time again

One can only speculate whether any of the individuals left to in his wake may have identified with the damming comment attributed to his first wife, “Behind his facade of respectability he has wrecked lives" (13)

So despite his solicitor, Sarah Webb, proclaiming that the court case had totally cleared the reputation of Stephen Chamberlain (14) others may take the view that the combination of these events, which openly exposed the dysfunctional lifestyle of Stephen Chamberlain, caused irreparable collateral damage to his reputation both as a man and as a senior police officer.

For his numerous marriages, father absent children, live in lover and adulterous relationship with a married and junior member of his staff openly exposed Chamberlain as an egocentric and predatory philanderer. And surely, by any standards, that must bring into question issues of trust, judgement, honour and decency?

Yet irrespective of their entitlements to demand the highest standards of integrity and irrespective of their rights to expect Stephen Chamberlain to act in a manner reflecting his prominent public role, his senior colleagues at South Yorkshire Police casually dismissed his behaviour.

Instead of setting standards and offering leadership they simply cowered in the shadows and responded with the feeble euphemism that Stephen Chamberlain was entitled to a” private life" (15) The sight of his male colleagues closing ranks and protecting their pal would have done little to engender confidence in their organisation.

So did his employers not question, even for a moment, whether such a flawed characteristic was compatible with the South Yorkshire Police brand of Policing? The personal conduct of the man they appointed had brought discredit upon himself and had brought his Police Force into disrepute.

His immaturity and lack of personal restraint had made him a laughing stock and sadly it was not just embarrassing for him and his family, it became embarrassing for everyone associated with South Yorkshire Police. Stephen Chamberlain undermined the dignity of his high office and compromised his colleagues who responded by giving him the comfort of their tacit support.

To their eternal discredit South Yorkshire Police failed to show the same understanding to a more junior officer who also let events in his personal life overtake him. For during the same time as Chamberlain was making the headlines P. C. John Wetherall, who was described as a married father of one, was “required to resign” after a clandestine meeting with his lover in a neighbouring county. (16)

Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary, the body responsible for maintaining standards in the Police, released a publicly available report called, “Police Integrity: Securing and Maintaining Public Confidence”. This document outlines the findings of an investigation conducted into police integrity and highlights a number of recommendations to ensure that the highest standards of ethical behaviour are maintained.

These recommendations included the direction that “All supervisory officers should be more active in raising the standard of behaviour of all staff” A further recommendation clearly outlined the need to lead by example “Chief officers should more actively set the right example, and continually reinforce it through deeds rather than words” (17) Quite evidently these recommendations carried little weight in the corridors of powers at South Yorkshire Police.

Despite this Chamberlain still attempted to maintain some form of credibility even though his personal behaviour clearly contradicted his public image. During the height of the scandal Stephen Chamberlain led a South Yorkshire Police delegation to Lahore in Pakistan where, ironically, he conducted a seminar on professional standards.

During his visit he spoke of the need for “trust” and praised the extended family. Unbelievably he told journalists, "The extended family system and religion are playing a big part in controlling the crime. The extended families in a way police their relatives'" (18)

With staggering hypocrisy Chamberlain later went on to publicly endorse a police led children and young person’s intervention programme that was intended to promote good citizenship in schools. This strategy included a plan to target the “moral, spiritual, cultural and social development of young people. (19)

Readers are left to draw their own conclusions.

REFERENCES


1. Retrieved from South Yorkshire Police website http:// www.southyorks.police.uk/

2. BBC News. Talking Point. Six Forums: 'Cracking Crime'. Thursday 19 September 2002.
Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/l/hi/talkingpoint/ forum/six forum/2264662.stm)


3. South Yorkshire Police website. 'Definition of Community Safety'.
Retrieved from http://www.southyorks.police.uk/


4. Powell, Adam. 'I Don’t Feel Guilty Says The Police Chief's Lover', The Daily Mail (UK) dated 4 September 2003.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid

8. The Sheffield Star (UK). 'Police Chiefs Tight-Lipped Over 'Affair'' dated 3 September 2003.
Retrieved from http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/Police-chiefs-tightlipped-over-39affair39.652011.jp

9. Chapman, A and Lewis, T. 'Love-Cheat Police Chief is a Wife Beater Too’. The Mail on Sunday (UK) dated 5 October 5 2003

10. Ibid.


11. BBC News website 'Police Chief Wins Libel Damages' dated Thursday 5 May 2005. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/4516777.stm

12. Ibid.
.
13. Mail on Sunday dated 5 October 2003, op cit.

14. BBC News Website dated 5 May 2005, op cit.

15. Sheffield Star dated 3 September 2003, op cit.

16. The Daily Mail Newspaper (UK). 'Amorous PC Caught Out by Camera in his Own Car' dated 7 May 2004.

17. HM Inspectorate of Constabulary. 'Police Integrity Securing And Maintaining Public Confidence’ dated June 1999
Retrieved from http://www.nationalarchives.qov.uk/ERO/records/ ho415/l/hmic/polinteg.htm

18. Daily Times (Pakistan). A New Voice For A New Pakistan 'British
Police Team In City' dated Wednesday 8 October 2003.
Retrieved from http://www.dailvtimes.com.pk/default.asp? paae=storv 8-10-2003 pq7 17

19. South Yorkshire Police Authority (Minutes) Community Affairs Committee dated 4th February 2005. (Item41/05. Vulnerable Groups (A) Children and Young Persons Intervention Programme.) Retrieved from http://www.southyorks.gov.uk/embedded_object.asp?docid=3069&doclib

David Blunkett (Home/Sec)

The Home Secretary is the Minister in charge of the Home Office of the United Kingdom one of the country's four Great Offices of State.)

Everyone wants to know how to define this thing called Charachter. It is not hard.Charachter is doing the right thing even when nobody is looking.

M.P. David Blunkett had been a rising star in the Labour administration for some years and after a succession of influential posts he was promoted to key Ministerial positions within government. Blunkett was quick to engage with the media and wasted no opportunity to promote government policy designed to build a better Britain. Blunkett saw “positive role models” as an essential component in raising responsible young adults and in his role as Education Secretary he unveiled plans to tackle boys’ underachievement in the classroom. Blunkett said that he was determined to stamp out the myth among boys that it was “cool” to fail at school.

He said,” The government is concerned that a macho, anti authoritarian culture among teenage boys is affecting their studies” He continued by adding that “better male role models were needed both in schools and society to counter this culture”. (1)
Again, in his role as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Blunkett launched “National Childcare Week” where he was quick to champion the benefits of strong and influential characters to inspire the young. During this campaign he called for men to develop a greater role in childcare and to provide a positive role model for children. He said, “It is important for men to play a real part in raising children for the benefit of children, fathers and society as a whole” (2)

Yet within his term of office, David Blunkett, Minister of the Crown and holder of one of the highest offices in the land became embroiled in a sex scandal when he impregnated a married American journalist named Kimberley Quinn. Initially, Blunkett, attempted to present himself as a righteous man but against his ex-lovers wishes he tried to break up another's man family and destroyed the stability and security of two young children who would be torn apart by parental rights and biological claims of fatherhood.

Following the end of the affair Blunkett petitioned the Family Division of the High Court to grant him legal access after DNA tests proved that Blunkett was the father of Quinn’s eldest child, William. Although Kimberley Quinn’s behaviour was not flawless Blunkett’s behaviour in putting the heavily pregnant mother to be under so much stress in the glare of a full media circus was equally reprehensible. He was eventually forced out when he realised that the “Budd Inquiry” had uncovered e-mails and faxes that highlighted irregularities concerning expenses and allegations that he had used his position to fast track a visa application for his lover's former nanny.

Blunkett lost both his head and his heart and had acted like a man possessed. So what happened to this once highly respected politician with the strength of character that enabled him to overcome his disability of blindness and to get to the very top? Journalist Melanie Phillips had a clear view and she claimed that power had corrupted him. She said, "His capacity for self delusion led him to define irresponsibility as responsibility, abuse of public office as integrity and the destruction of a family as a noble and personal sacrifice" (3)

Although not in the public eye Kimberley Quinn fared little better by embarking upon an affair within months of her marriage and becoming pregnant by her lover. Then, quite viciously, she ruthlessly orchestrated the destruction of her child’s father amidst bitterness between the former lovers that was played out in the tabloid press.

With some irony the journalist Amanda Platell commented, “The only thing that unites them now, apart from a lifetime of miserable contact over their child, is each person’s belief in their own self righteousness.” (4) Indeed Platell only reserves her sympathy for the child innocently caught up in the maelstrom and thrust into the public spotlight “born into a lie and his life now defined by the sheer selfishness of his mother and her lover” (5)

After some attempts to try to justify himself as a man of integrity Blunkett accepted that he had to stand down. However to the surprise of many, including members of the Labour Party, his eventual resignation was accompanied by an astonishing declaration of support by the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who told Blunkett, "You leave Government with your integrity intact" (6) This from a party leader who had promised voters that he intended to be "tough on sleaze and tough on the causes of sleaze” (7)

Again Amanda Platell seized on this declaration of support. She said “Welcome to the parallel moral universe of David Blunket, where having a three year affair with another’s man wife is not wrong, when fathering one, perhaps two, children with her behind his back is not wrong, where allowing his private office to fiddle a nanny’s visa is not wrong. For all the protestations he leaves with his integrity in shreds.” (8)

However to the amazement of many Blunkett was soon returned to the Cabinet as Minister in relation to pensions. Yet within five months of this new appointment he was again forced to resign after newspapers speculated on a relationship with an estate agent, Sally Anderson combined with other irregularities. These events quickly developed into a downward spiral and were seized upon by the publicist Max Clifford. "The People" newspaper reported that the former Home Secretary had made Ms Anderson pregnant, had abandoned her, and had then lied about it. (9) Blunkett also faced allegations that he had breached the Ministerial code of conduct by taking up a directorship with DNA Bioscience without consulting an independent parliamentary committee

Blunkett responded by saying that he could "smell and feel it was time to step away" and during a resignation speech he acknowledged that he had let himself down.” I am deeply sorry for the embarrassment that I have caused the Prime Minister" (10) Blunkett's downfall and humiliation was completed by a Channel Four (UK) comedy drama entitled "A Very Social Secretary" (11) that portrayed David Blunkett as an obsessive buffoon who had lost the confidence of the people whom he had been elected to serve. Even his closest allies now accept that Blunkett’s poor judgement and dishonourable behaviour has seen him banished to the political wilderness. David Blunkett later received damages from the "People" newspaper regarding his relationship with Ms Anderson and the inaccurate claim that he had made her pregnant. (12)

Quite worryingly the former Home Secretary then released his memoirs where he admitted to suffering from clinical depression as result of the mess he had got himself into. Disturbingly Blunkett questioned his own ability to conduct government business at a time he was dealing with critical National issues such as terrorism, crime and immigration. He said, “My whole world was collapsing around me. I was under the most horrendous pressure. I was barely sleeping at night and I was being asked to sign government warrants in the middle of the night.”(13)

Not only did this revelation provide clear evidence that David Blunkett was in no fit state to carry out his public duties it also calls into question Tony Blair’s judgement by allowing him to remain at the helm of one of the highest offices in the land.
References

1. Blunkett, D, quoted in 'Blunkett Tackles the Gender Divide'. BBC News (UK) online edition dated 20 August 2000.

2. Blunkett, D, quoted in a press release from the Department for Works and Pension media centre dated 6 June 2005.

3 Phillips, Melanie. 'Mr. Blunkett's Ignominious Exit'. The Daily Mail (UK) dated 17 December 2004.

4. Platell, Amanda. 'Downfall of a Minister: The End of the Affair: Retribution'. The Independent on Sunday dated 19 December 2004.

5. Platell, Amanda. ‘The Blunkett Affair: The Heart of the Matter - He Must Go'. The Independent on Sunday dated 5 December 2004.

6. BBC News and Politics, 'Blunkett’s and Blair’s Letters' from BBC News 24 online dated Thursday 16 December 2004.
Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4099917.stm

7. Blair, Anthony, Prime Minister (UK). Address to Labour Party Conference, October 1996. Re-quoted in the Daily Telegraph (UK), 3 November 2006.

8. Platell, Amanda, 'Downfall of a Minister', op cit.

9. The People (UK) Newspaper. 'Blunkett's Lover loses baby' dated 16 October 2005. (NB: successfully challenged in court).

10. BBC News (UK) Edition Politics. 'Blunkett Quits after 'Mistakes' dated 11 February 2005. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk politics/ 4398004.stm

11. A Very Social Secretary, More 4: (UKTV). 'How Blunkett Became a Metaphor for Tony Blair's Decadent Regime.' Aired on 10 October 2005.
Retrieved from http://www.channel4.eom/more4/drama/s/
socialsecretarv.html

12. BBC News (UK) Edition. 'Blunkett Wins Affair Claim Payout' dated 12 March 2006.
Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4798182.stm

13. Valley, J. Edinburgh Evening News, 'Affair Drove me to the Brink of Insanity Says Blunkett' dated Saturday 7 October 2006.

John Prescott (DP/M)

I never did, or countenanced, in public life, a single act inconsistent with the strictest good faith; having never believed there was one code of morality for a public, and another for a private man.” ~Thomas Jefferson, 1809

In April 2006 details emerged that John Prescott the Deputy Prime Minister of Great Britain had been involved in an adulterous relationship with a junior civil servant who was employed as his diary secretary. This revelation dominated the British newspapers particularly when it emerged that Prescott had entertained his Mistress, Tracey Temple, at his official residence which was funded by the long suffering British taxpayer. Furthermore it was also alleged that Prescott had used his official vehicle to ferry his lover around London for illicit meetings.
Initially the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, tried to pass off these episodes as “private matters" but it became increasingly clear that that many constituents preparing to vote in local elections thought otherwise.

Indeed Labour councillors reported that the conduct of the Deputy Prime Minister was consistently raised on the doorsteps during electioneering. Stephen Pound the Member of Parliament for Ealing North called for the Deputy Prime Minister to consider his position and said, "Prescott's behaviour has made a deep impression on voters in this constituency" (1) The Independent Newspaper (UK) also commented that Prescott had lost all credibility and had become "a laughing stock." The paper concluded that Prescott had lost his judgement and political awareness and expressed the opinion that the voters would find it difficult to trust a man "who could lie with such ease" (2)

The Government, already under investigation by Scotland Yard in connection with allegations that they were selling peerages to wealthy businessmen faced further embarrassment when a member of the British public, Alistair Watson, wrote to Scotland Yard. Mr. Watson a retired Police Inspector from Glasgow called for a police investigation to probe the conduct of the Deputy Prime Minister. He pointed out that the allegations that Prescott had entertained his lover during working hours and had used both his publicly funded homes and vehicles during this deceit amounted to an offence of "misconduct in a public office."

Mr. Watson pointed out that a police officer from the Greater Manchester Police Force (UK) who had also been accused of having sexual intercourse with a woman whilst on duty had been convicted by the courts and ordered to carry out 200 hours community service. He said, "I think in the interest of equality of justice, there is no reason why Mr. Prescott and Miss Temple cannot be prosecuted, as the police officer was." (3) Mr. Watson went on to add that his complaint was not malicious but was driven by his belief that rules that apply to ordinary people should also apply to more senior people like Prescott. Julian Young a solicitor advocate and vice-president of the West London Law Society felt there was a case. He said, "My view is that a minister is in public office. If there is one law for police officers who hold a public office from the crown, then logically that should equally apply to ministers. Almost certainly it would apply to civil servants"

Scotland Yard confirmed that they had received a letter alleging misconduct in a public office but after some consideration Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Yates responded by saying," It is considered that the potential consequences in respect of the alleged behaviour, even if it was proved, would not be so serious as to call for a prosecution." He added, "A distinction has to be drawn between action that could potentially discredit an office holder and those actions that constitute criminality. Accordingly I have decided not to embark upon a criminal investigation as to do so would not be an appropriate use of police resources' (4)

To many, including Alistair Watson, this may well have been interpreted to suggest that the higher the profile, the more senior the position and the more responsibility held, the less likely the individual will be held to account. Despite this other members of the Labour Party including Geraldine Smith, Member of Parliament for Morecambe Bay, shared Mr. Watson's misgivings. Ms. Smith voiced her concerns by saying, "It's as old as Adam-the male employer taking advantage of the young employee. It looks pretty appalling- what someone does in his private life is one thing -it's between him, his mistress and his wife. But when it cuts across his public role and the whole country is talking about it then it makes it extremely difficult" (5)

Other Labour M.P's were equally disturbed and the Daily Telegraph reported that many Members were unhappy about Prescott's "predatory sexual behaviour" and described him as a "liability" that made him a "laughing stock" that had humiliated the Labour Party. (6) Voters also provided a clear indication that they were unhappy with the conduct of the Deputy Prime Minister and the falling standards within the Labour Party. In the May 2006, local elections Labour lost two hundred and fifty councillors in a grim night for the Government.

In an attempt to steady the rocking ship Prime Minister Tony Blair used this event to reshuffle his cabinet and the spotlight fell upon John Prescott. To the surprise of many Prescott hung on to his role as Deputy Prime Minister but was stripped of his department. However, to the amazement of many voters, Prescott kept his 'grace and favour' apartment at Admiralty House in the capital and his official country residence in 'Dorneywood' Buckinghamshire.

Geraldine Smith again went on the offensive and told BBC's Radio 4 that Mr. Blair had sent out the wrong message by suggesting that Prescott was not fit to run his department, but was good enough to remain Deputy Prime Minister and to run the country when the Prime Minister was abroad. She said, "It is outrageous that the Deputy Prime Minister loses his department but keeps his position, his salary and the perks of his job." She added, "Most people are astonished by this reshuffle" (7)

Indeed in what other country would a man caught having sex with a subordinate in the office be allowed to keep his job, his salary, his expenses, his chauffeur-driven cars and free accommodation, while not actually being expected to do any work or having to pay tax on any of the perks? What sort of message does this send out and what are the wider consequences of his actions? Many may feel that the conduct of John Prescott served to undercut the efforts of millions of parents trying to instil positive values into their children.

Yet further revelations followed and the Independent newspaper reported that two former Labour Party employees who were named as Sarah Bissett- Scott and Trish Mcdaid also spoke of incidents of sexual harassment at the hands of the Deputy Prime Minister. (8) Ms. Bissett- Scott claimed she had a two-year affair with Prescott while Tricia Mcdaid described Prescott as a “serial groper” She added ‘He was a boastful, arrogant, nasty pig. He just jumped on you when he felt like it at a party. Several times I nearly slapped his face”. (9) Although Prescott denied these allegations and threatened to complain to the Press Complaints Commission he never did.

Even after these revelations the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, condoned this activity by throwing a protective arm around his old pal. Despite him engaging in sexual activity in the work place with a junior member of his own staff, despite him cheating upon his wife of forty-three years, despite him using his official residence to entertain his mistress, despite him using official cars to ferry Ms Temple around the Capital and despite him undermining the dignity of his high office a Downing Street insider said, “There was no question of judging him as this was a private issue. John has been very supportive and the Prime Minister was repaying that support” (10)

Others saw it differently, writing in “The Guardian” reporter Catherine Bennett said, “There is no reason to suppose he will lift up the skirt of Tessa Jowell or look down the front of Margaret Hodge or harass other senior women who do not appeal to him, or talk dirty to them at staff parties… That is something he only does to his juniors-in private.” (11)

Journalist, Ben Fenton, continued this theme and wrote an article in “The Telegraph” entitled “A Bully from a More Brutal Age”. He wrote, “His affairs are not with equals they are with subordinates. He never tries to put his hand up the skirt of a female political colleague, but always a junior, always someone beholden to his goodwill" Fenton continued, "Would it be unfair to suggest that for each woman who has accepted Mr. Prescott's boorish behaviour there must have been several who said no? (12)

With gross hypocrisy the luminaries of New Labour that most enlightened hammer of political correctness, chose to defend the lewd approaches of a late middle aged man to junior employees, when in many other walks of life he would most probably have been suspended. Furthermore it did not go unnoticed that a political colleague of the Deputy Prime Minister, Meg Munn, the Minister for Women and Equality, charged with overseeing new legislation to tackle sex discrimination and harassment in the Public Sector retained an embarrassed silence.

The Sunday Times then reported an astonishing attack upon Tony Blair by Sir Alistair Graham who had been appointed by the Prime Minister as a "sleaze watchdog". Sir Alistair made reference to the Prescott affair and said, "You cannot get a situation where a public figure is subject to such ridicule and scorn that their position becomes difficult" (13) He added, "Is there clear evidence that in pursuing "private matters" they have taken advantage of their public position? For if you involve a junior member of staff you increase that risk. There is a duty of care as far as any staff member is concerned" (14) Alistair Graham claimed, with great exasperation, that the Prime Minister "sees standards as a peripheral minor issue" but the a “Times Editorial” warned that “sleaze turns off voters and makes public figures objects of contempt”, which it proclaimed " is in nobody's interest" (15)

Tracey Temple later published a diary and revealed lurid details of her intimate relationship with Prescott. She claimed that Prescott had “exploited power for his own sexual gratification” and alleged that in 2003, the Deputy Prime Minister had taken her to St. Paul’s Cathedral for a State Memorial Service in honour of British servicemen killed in Iraq. She then claimed that immediately after the service Prescott took her to back to his government flat on Trafalgar Square where they had indulged in sexual activity. (16) Can there ever be a greater contrast between the honourable and the dishonourable?

To add to John Prescott’s tales of woe ITV then screened a comedy based on the affair called, “Confessions of a Diary Secretary” (17). This production was broadcast across the country and portrayed Prescott in a sexual farce that prompted Andrew Billen to write in the New Statesman “If Prescott’s reputation was capable of sinking any lower “confessions” would have holed it below the Plimsoll line” (18)

As the disgraced Deputy Prime Minister adopted a low profile his critics reminded him of a speech he delivered to a Labour Party Conference berating the Conservative Party for their lack of standards. Prescott had said,
"They are up to their necks in sleaze...After seventeen years of this Tory government they have the audacity to talk about morality. I'm told that some Tory M.P’s think ethics is a county near Middlesex. It's a bit hard to take John Major-ethics man. The Tories have redefined unemployment they have redefined poverty. Now they want to redefine morality. For too many Tories, morality means not getting caught. Morality is measured in more than just money. It's about right and wrong. We are a party of principle. We will earn the trust of the British people. We've had enough lies. Enough sleaze" (19) Fine words, Deputy Prime Minister, fine words indeed.

References

1. Pound, Stephen, Member of Parliament for Ealing North. 'Scandals leave Blair at Voters Mercy'. Quoted in the Daily Telegraph, 2 May 2006.

2. The Independent Newspaper (UK), dated 3 May 2006.

3. Allardyce, J and Calvert, J. 'Prescott Faces Police Probe Into Office Sex', The Sunday Times (UK) dated 7 May 2006.

4. Yates, J, BBC News (UK Edition) 'Police Rule out Prescott Enquiry' dated Wednesday 10 May 2006.

5. Smith Geraldine. Member of Parliament for
Morecambe Bay. Quoted in the Daily Mail (UK) Dated
Tuesday, 2nd May 2006.

6. The Daily Telegraph (UK) 'Scandals leave Blair at Voters' Mercy' dated Tuesday 2 May 2006.

7. Smith, Geraldine (MP). 'Outrage over Prescott's Deputy Role' reported in BBC News (UK Edition) dated Saturday 6 May 2006.

8. The Independent Newspaper, Monday 1 May 2006.

9. Kirkup, James. 'Vultures Circle as Pressure grows on Prescott' quoted in The Scotsman (UK) dated 1 May 2006.

10. The Independent (UK). 'Chaos: Secretary’s Confessions Increase Humiliation for Prescott and Reeling Labour' dated 30 April 2006. Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chaos-secretarys-confessions-increase-humiliation-for-prescott-and-reeling-labour-476214.html

11. Bennett, C. 'Misconduct is a Very Public Matter', The Guardian (UK) dated Thursday 4 May 4 2006.

12. Fenton, Ben. 'Prescott. A Bully from a More Brutal Age'. The Daily Telegraph (UK) dated Tuesday 2 May 2006.

13. Graham, Sir Alistair 'Watchdog Blasts Prime Minister Over Sleaze - Blair Made Error of Judgement'. The Sunday Times dated Sunday 21 May 2006.

14. Ibid.

15. The Sunday Times (UK) 'Editorial' dated 21 May 2006.

16. Temko, Nick and Hinsliff, Gabby. 'Prescott Exploited Me Says Tearful Ex Mistress'. Guardian Online dated Sunday 30 April 2006.

17. Independent Television. Confession of a Diary Secretary screened February 2007.
Retrieved from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0939603/

18. Billen, Andrew. 'They’ve Never Had It So Good'. The New Statesman (UK) dated 5 March 2007.

19. Prescott, John. Address to Labour Party Conference in 1996. Re-quoted in 'Why John Prescott Should Resign' by Stephen Tall, Oxford City Councillor, Friday 7 July 2006.

Should we Care?

What is clear is that our great institutions generate enormous amounts of social power, the control of which is predominantly placed in the hands of relatively few of their leaders. Petrick and Quinn remind us of the great responsibilities that come with high office and speak of an "Ethical Awareness" which they define “as the capacity to remain sensitive to moral issues particularly when they have a significant effect upon others”. (1).

For, without doubt, the character of the leader casts a long shadow over his organisation and quite often the character of the leader can determine the character of the organisation itself. What leaders do, how they do it and what they say, or sometimes what they choose not to say, will set the tone for employees and create the boundaries of what is seen as acceptable behaviour.

Elmer and Cook (2) share these sentiments and contend that leaders demonstrating a lack of moral integrity may be detrimental to organisational success by undermining confidence, eroding member's organisational commitment and ultimately damaging the organisational reputation. The greater investment in a moral culture results in more ethical leadership whilst the absence of a moral culture often means leaders can determine their own level of integrity which, in turn, leads to inconsistencies in standards of behaviour.

For what is clear is that high personal standards aren't enough for organisational excellence as there is also a need to be an intolerance of low standards in others. Pritchett identifies this and warns of the need to be vigilant to ensure that the good name of an organisation is never compromised. He says, “If you accommodate questionable practices in others who touch your organisation, you risk soiling its reputation" (3)

Zussman declares that in all areas of public service organisations must strive towards social cohesion which, in essence, he argues, is the ability of people in society to work together in-groups and this ideology is based on shared norms dealing with issues like truthfulness, honesty and reliability. This, he claims, provides the foundations of trust that is essential in making a society work. (4) Consequently, he argues, that the way you treat other people in your professional or personal capacity is an indication of the sort of person you are and whether you can be trusted to stand firm in trying circumstances

Honesty and integrity features prominently in most academic literature seeking to define blue-ribbon leadership yet some people seem to think you can slip it on and off like clothing. They will speak of personal, professional or business integrity as if different suits of honesty can be worn according to the situation. But it is high standards of personal integrity that provides the consistency between what one professes and what one actually does. For those who are dishonourable do not suddenly become honourable when they go into workplace. Quite simply if somebody cheats in private they are cheaters and if somebody tells lies in private they will likely lie in public. Can you really invest your trust, public or private, in somebody who does that? In other words the fundamental question is not "What should I do?" but "What kind of person should I be?"

The leadership imperative is to translate such an understanding into action by doing the hard work of building relationships based on consistently demonstrated trust. Those who make the law and those who dispense it are inextricably implicated in the question of trust and revelations of sexual scandals can violate this trust. Clemmer reminds us that, quite often, it is fear and greed that reveals our true character and how we deal with difficult circumstances when the stakes are high reveals our true selves. He also claims that the choices we make during these intense moments of truth expose the depth of our character. (5)

Therefore Glass recommends that it should be standard practice that every leader faced with a personal decision that is likely to impact upon his professional life should simply ask himself a specific question. "Will my conduct build trust?" Will it build long-term trust? "How might it destroy trust?" (6) Such a simple approach will train the minds of our leaders to encompass all values with one vision and provide the ability to build trust with wholeness. Those who make the law and those who dispense it are inextricably implicated in the question of trust and revelations of scandals can violate this trust.

References


1. Petrick, J A and Quinn, J F. Management Ethics Integrity at Work. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Series in Business Ethics, 1997.

2. Elmers, N and Cook, T. 'Ethics - Why It Matters And Why It Is Difficult To Achieve' quoted in Culture, Corruption and the Endorsement of Ethical Leadership by Christian J et al, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, USA. Paper presented at the Gallup Leadership Institute Summit. Omaha, Nebraska, 2004.

3. Pritchett, Price, American Psychologist, Writer and Entrepreneur. Quoted from 'The Ethics of Excellence'.

4. HS Zussman, David. 'Confidence in Public Institutions: Restoring Pride to Politics.' An address at Parliament House, Canberra, Australia. Part of the Senate Occasional Lecture Series, February 2001.

5. Clemmer, Jim. 'Integrity-Building: A Foundation of Trust, Honesty and Integrity'. Retrieved from www.clemmer.net/excerpts/honesty integrity. Shtml

6. Glass, Shirley, 'Shattered Vows: Getting Beyond Betrayal'. Psychology Today, July/August 1998.

Sex Scandals

In the past forty years we have embarked upon a culture in this country largely fuelled by the sexual revolution with the idea that sexual freedom is the highest enshrined constitutional right. Let us be honest and recognise that no man is a paragon of moral virtue and let us be realistic by acknowledging that those who fall victim to temptation should never be entirely disqualified from holding high office. But let us also recognise that infidelity is not a victimless crime, treachery is a betrayal word and where there is betrayal there is hurt.

Hornor reminds us that sex is everywhere. It permeates the movies and most television programmes and is readily available through the Internet. Hollywood is increasingly portraying sex outside of marriage as something perfectly natural and ordinary without highlighting the cost that is carried by cheated upon spouses and "throwaway" children. (1) Now some forty years into the “sexual revolution” that began in the 1960's many sociologists are increasingly concerned that not only is sexual promiscuity undermining the integrity of the family but it is also starting to shake the very foundations of the traditional community structure within the United Kingdom.

Adultery or infidelity is a betrayal that often leads to divorce and as any trip to the divorce courts will tell us this leads to anguish, anxiety and an increasing number of emotionally traumatized children. Childhood even within intact families is never trouble free. The fact that the most emotional structure in the child's life, the parent’s marriage, is terminated becomes forever embedded in that child's history. The claim that any crisis for the child is temporary and that children are often far happier post divorce is often a misguided notion, with the notable exception of high conflict relationships underpinned by regular acts of violence.
Yet even in these post feminist enlightened days of “gender equality” it should come as no surprise to observers of British Society that nine out of ten single parent households are headed up by lone females who have been deserted by male partners after they have fathered children. It therefore follows that nine out of ten single parent households do not have a male role model and this can have a significant effect particularly with regards to boys.

Rector points out that there is nothing glamorous about single motherhood even in the wealthiest and most educated of homes. For he claims that for the typical single mum even maintaining a mere functioning household is a Herculean task and in the overwhelming majority of cases single motherhood leads not to empowerment, but to the powerlessness of poverty and despair. He says, “Despite her best efforts the single parent cannot attend to all of her child's needs as quickly or as fully as she could if a husband assisted her. These factors tend to affect the mother's emotional attachment to her child and in turn reduce the child's lifelong capacity for emotional attachment to others and empathy for other” (2)

However, most ordinary people do not need to survey Social Science literature to know that a family life of affection, cohesion and parental involvement prevents delinquency. In particular they know instinctively that marital affection, marital self confidence and the fathers esteem for the mother are among the most critical elements in raising well-balanced children

Having identified this, it would be wrong not to acknowledge that many single parents do succeed, against long odds, in rearing successful, law abiding and well-balanced children. However this should not blind us to the overwhelming evidence that children in intact two parent families enjoy higher levels of affluence, do much better at school, succumb less from the temptation to commit crime or engage in drug taking and enjoy better physical and mental health.

So the question is at what stage and in what circumstances does a public official's "private life"- and more specifically, his sexual conduct-becomes relevant to his public life. Glass argues that what matters are facts, circumstances and context, as well as principles. For example she asserts that past indiscretion, followed by an authentic change in ways is vastly different from serial adultery. She poses the following question: "Was the affair marked by compulsiveness, carelessness and cruelty? Was there exploitation based on age and status? Did the affair involve a staff member? Did the person know his personal life would come under scrutiny and still decide to run the risk of an affair? These are factors to consider and weigh" (3)

Glass continues this theme and issues a warning when she claims that in some circumstances infidelity ought to be the subject of public concern. She maintains, "Infidelity can often reveal something important about a person's character and judgement, his trustworthiness and prudence" (4) No one disputes that public figures are entitled to a "private life" but if they exhibit certain characteristics or display an absence of judgement or restraint that is incompatible with their public office shouldn't the public have the right to know? In short are people ever really going to trust somebody who repeatedly indulges in excesses of immaturity evidenced by selfishness, lust and folly?

For there is nothing honourable and nothing worth defending the betrayal of the most intimate trust between a husband and a wife and a father and his children. Because if a man repeatedly betrays the people with whom he is most intimate and is so cavalier about his marriage vows can he really inspire confidence in the wider community? For surely it must follow that those who are concerned with the welfare of both individuals and society should disapprove of personal behaviour that undermines the foundation of the very community they purport to serve.

Yet despite this, in many instances, respective organisations are now seemingly more tolerant of dishonourable and selfish conduct and seek to excuse the behaviour of senior colleagues by attempting to compartmentalize the different spheres of their lives with the tired excuse that they are “entitled to a private life” Kettle sees it differently and is not convinced by people who try to draw a distinction between their public face and their private lives, when he says, “The awkward truth is that the way people live their private lives does tell us things that can help us make judgements about them as public people (5)

For, undoubtedly, the ultimate test of ethics is whether we are willing to stand firm when it is not in our self-interest to do so. Lorenz reminds us “Integrity means being the same person inside and out, all the time, whether in pubic or private. It means keeping our commitments accepting our responsibilities and being fair with everyone. (6)

The inescapable truth is that the conduct of senior people in public life can and often does have profound public consequences. This, unfortunately, is all- too- familiar territory in today's anything-goes culture, where sexual promiscuity is too often treated as just another lifestyle choice with little risk of adverse consequences. It is this mindset that has helped to undermine the social fabric of contemporary Britain.

The human sexual impulse is so powerful that societies have found it necessary to establish standards of sexual behaviour to protect the vital relationships that help communities to flourish. But it now seems that selfish instincts are breaking free of these civilized restraints, which several generations, over many centuries of experience, have determined were essential to the maintenance of civil order.)

With regard to workplace liaisons Grossman points out that sexual favouritism in the workplace “creates a hostile working environment in which the demeaning message is conveyed to female employees is that the way to get ahead is by engaging in sexual conduct with the management” (7) Rayner also cautions that leaders should guard themselves against “impressionable women with low self-esteem who see power as the ultimate aphrodisiac.” (8)

Yet, even in this deeply non-judgmental age it seems we are plummeting to new depths and we are seemingly prepared to tolerate discreditable conduct from individuals who bring their organisations into disrepute. However a growing number now believe that those who seek the rewards of high office, yet fail to understand the boundaries of such office, help to undermine confidence in our institutions by corroding both the values and standards that are essential in a civilised society.

Is it therefore unrealistic to expect that those who aspire towards the highest public offices in the land act both ethically and with the greatest degree of integrity in all parts of their lives? For those that seek the most powerful positions in society and those who can influence change in the lives of others through public service, must realise that there is a moral threshold, which, if crossed, will inextricably damage their credibility as a leader

For what is clear that sexualising a working environment can poison it for anyone who wants to be accepted as an equal as extra marital affairs involve much deceit both inside and outside the home. It corrodes good behaviour as one untruth leads to another. Powerful men with personal secretaries and official drivers cannot easily conduct such dalliances without misleading colleagues or making them accomplices. Bennett also asks us to spare a thought for other women who must continue to work alongside such philanderers and who may fear that they are constantly being sized up as the next conquest, “gazing on their cleavage and speculating on the kind of underwear that might be supporting it” (9) The reputation of a philanderer precedes him.

References

1. Hornor, Luke. Society's Slide into Sexual Immorality
Web retrieval dated August 2005.

2. Rector, Robert, Policy Analyst for 'The Heritage' quoted in Critical Issues, volume 1 issue 2, Family Values Test (September 2005

3. Glass, Shirley 'Shattered Vows: Getting Beyond Betrayal'. Psychology Today, July/August 1998.

4. Ibid. 97.

5. Kettle. M “Private Lives Really Matter” The Guardian, 30th November 2004.

6. Lorenz A “The Essence of Integrity” from Ethics Today (Ca). 2004

7. Grossman, Joanna. Find Law Columnist. CNN Special, Friday 29 July 2005.
Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/29/arossman. workplace/
8. Rayner, G. The Daily Mail (UK) dated 28 April 2006

9. Bennett, C. The Guardian (UK), 'Misconduct is a Very Public Matter' dated 4 May 2006.

10. The Sarge’s Desktop. The view from the end of the corridor. Posted Wednesday 11th February, 2009. Retrieved from http://ukpolicesergeant.blogspot.com/2009_02_01_archive.html

Leadership

It may be helpful to define what is meant by "leadership" and the language of ethics which can sometimes seem confusing when society uses the terms "values" "ethics" and "morals" interchangeably. For example what are the differences between "values", "morals" and "ethics" and what values a "person of character" may hold? In the first instance leadership may be defined as a process by which a person influences others to accomplish objectives and directs an organization in a way that makes it more cohesive and coherent. Boulding argues that people want to be guided by leaders they both respect and trust and who have a clear sense of direction. He maintains that to gain respect leaders must be ethical in all that they do (1)

Pinnell and Eagan provide us with further helpful definitions,
Values are core beliefs or desires that guide and motivate attitudes and actions.

Everyone has thousands of values, ethical and non-ethical.
Ethical Values are concerned with beliefs about what is right. They include caring, fairness and responsibility.Non Ethical Values relate to things we like, desire or deem personally important. These ethically neutral values may include a desire for wealth, fame or other pleasures. Values are motivators to actions.
Morals refer to an individual belief about what is right and wrong. Morals are a personal evaluation of values and behaviours especially concerning matters of religion, sex, drinking, gambling etc. Morals also serve as an internal alarm system.
Ethics refer to standards of conduct that indicate how people ought to behave based on specific principles that define what is right. Ethics deals with the ability to distinguish right from wrong and the commitment to do what is right. (2)

Individuals make choices based on their value systems according to their own morality. They may or may not choose to behave ethically. Some personal value systems are unethical according to the standards of behaviour most people agree upon. Boulding argues that the most successful leaders carry out this process by applying positive leadership attributes with high levels of skills and knowledge underpinned by unshakeable beliefs, values, ethics and character. (3)

Fluker, on the other hand, argues that leadership has a number of characteristics that arise from the life worlds of particular traditions. He maintains that this involves the embodiment of moral beliefs and practices that have influenced the ethos or character and the shared meanings of people engaged in those traditions. It also aims to serve the collective good through authoritative speech and responsible action. Therefore he declares that to achieve these goals a leader must have, "impeachable character", which finds favour with all parts of both the workforce and the client base and alienates none. Trust is an essential part of this mix (4)

Hawkins, points out that if a leader is trustworthy he must possess character, competence and commitment. Character, he argues, may be explained as the combination of moral guidelines by which a person is judged apart from intellect and talent. Hawkins develops this theme by asserting that, "character is the alignment of one's speech and actions with one's core belief about reality and truth. (5) Put simply character has to do with one's demonstration of virtue and ethical leaders must have consistent standards that cannot be diluted in that grey area between one's public face and private life.

Retired General H. Norman Schwarzkopf sums up the importance of character in relation to leaders. He said, "Leadership is a potent combination of strategy and character. But if you must be without one, be without the strategy". (6) It therefore appears clear that total accountability and transparency are vital ingredients in building a reputation as an honest and trustworthy individual. Such values are also core components of a person's character and are reflected in all life decisions regardless of the prevailing circumstances.

Therefore to be trusted you need to show consistency, sameness and continuity, which generate outer predictability and inner certainty. It therefore follows that this trust must transcend the fragile border between public face and private life and this is particularly true of leaders who represent powerful and influential organizations. Hawkins picks up on this theme and says “Individuals aspiring to be leaders must also recognize that the test of time is compelling, it builds patience and in some a rich humility. Time proves the values of one's virtues and a consistency with which they are displayed. (7) Time is the acid test that determines the credibility and morality of any leader and conversely it is also time that will allow patterns of unethical behaviour to emerge indicating flaws in one's character.

References

1. Boulding, K. 'Concepts of Leadership'. The Image: Knowledge in Life and Society. University of Michigan Press (undated).

2. Pinnell, P and Eagan, S C. Exploring Ethical Leadership. West Virginia University (WLE 352).

3. Boulding, K, op cit.

4. Fluker, W, President of Fellows of Harvard College. 'Ethics and Leadership' Roundtable 3: Conversations on Leadership 2001.

5. Hawkins, J. 'What exactly does Ethical Leadership Mean These Days?' Ph.VII, No 3, Issue 12, summer 2000.

6. Schwarzkop, F H. Norman, retired Commander in Chief, United States Central Command. (1988-1991). Quoted from Quotes on Integrity retrieved from web source.

7. Hawkins, J, op cit.

Loss of Confidence

Public trust in Institutions have, by many measures been in decline for more than a decade. Part of the reason for this decline concerns public faith in honest and transparent leadership in today's climate. Knapp describes this development as the "Institutional Trust Deficit" (1) and quotes Amartya Sen the Nobel Peace Laureate who compares ethics to oxygen; "We notice only when it seems to be in short supply". (2) Subsequently across many sectors including Government departments, the private sector, the public sector, the police, armed forces and even the church great efforts are being made to raise standards as research points to a widely held perception of a shortage of ethics.

A country survey of the World Economic Forum 2004 (3) found that the majority of those surveyed had no trust in important institutions to act in the best interests of society. Quite worryingly an earlier study by the same organization found that leaders of institutes enjoyed even less trust than the institutions themselves. Some of the reasons put forward for this loss of trust included corporate scandals, sexual misconduct and non-profit malfeasance. (4)

Interestingly there is substantial evidence that ethical failures by institutions or leaders within those institutions are occurring no more frequently today than in the past decade. However because of twenty four-hour broadcast news via multiple outlets and the vast global pipeline of information opened up by the “Internet” people are much better-informed and local scandals are quickly transferred into national and sometimes international news.

It is against this backdrop of a seemingly insatiable appetite for public news that those with senior responsibility in such organizations must calculate the damage that can be caused either to their own integrity, or the reputation of the organization they represent, if they choose to act inappropriately. Therefore the challenge is to maintain high corporate and personal standards whilst coming to terms with institutional change as traditional institutions try to cope with a post modern Western Society where people are becoming increasingly mobile and are frequently changing jobs, homes and other affiliations.

However what remains certain is that trust remains essential to democracy and free enterprise and a loss of trust is potentially damaging to the effectiveness of both institutions and leaders. Indeed the ethics connection is seen most clearly in the World Economic Forum's finding that ethics is deemed by respondents to be the most important factor in establishing and maintaining trust. Asked to name the attributes necessary for them to trust leaders respondents in fifteen countries overwhelmingly selected-Honesty (49%). Other important attributes were Vision (15%), Experience (12%) Intellect (10%) and Compassion (5%). Conversely the characteristics or behaviour most damaging to trust were-Not doing what they said (45%) Self Interest (28%), Secrecy (11%), Arrogance (8%) and Character flaws. (5)

We can therefore safely conclude that there is a strong link between trust and the ethical conduct of leaders, specifically truth telling and promise keeping. Furthermore the “Ethics Resource Centre National Study of Ethics in the Workplace” found that employees who trust employers are significantly more likely:
A.To believe management has integrity and is fair, honest and
concerned about people.
B.To be committed to ethical practices in the workplace.
C.To share ethical concerns and report misconduct to management
D.To conduct themselves in an ethical manner in relationships with
co workers (6)

These recent findings have clear implications for leaders and research by Nahavandi has concluded that leadership failures can very often be attributed to a loss of trust. (7) This view is consistent with other thinkers who see trust as essential to leadership effectiveness. Rhodes and Wilson, for example, present a two dimensional model of trust comprising both intra follower (horizontal trust) and leader follower (vertical trust) both of which are produced by the leaders actions and his reputation for competence and ethics. They draw a simple but pointed conclusion,” This means that a leader lives or dies by his reputation" (8)

De-pree also cautions that reputation and trust are not automatic. He says, "It cannot be bought or commanded, inherited or enforced" Rather he contends, "It grows as a result of translating personal integrity into institutional fidelity and at the heart of fidelity lies an uncompromising virtue of truth telling and promise keeping that is enshrined into the character." (9) Subsequently the most effective and ethical leaders must therefore translate this understanding into action by the hard work of building reputation by consistently demonstrating trust whether in his/her personal or professional life.

There is growing evidence that social trust is giving way to distrust and previously trusted institutions are proving not to be as trustworthy as before. It therefore follows that public figures who compromise the integrity or the ethical standards of their respective organizations not only run the risk undermining their own reputations, but may also cause serious and long-term damage to carefully crafted corporate brands.


References


1. Knapp, J C. 'Leadership and the Crisis of Public Trust'. PhD thesis, Southern Institute for Business and Professional Ethics (US) undated.

2. Sen, A. Quoted in 'Business Ethics. A Matter of Good Conduct and Good Conscience'. Presented at Conference of the European Business Ethic Network, Budapest, August 2003.

3. Quoted in World Economic Forum Global Survey on Trust, updated 1 April 04

4. Quoted in World Economic Forum Global Survey on Trust, November 2002.

5. Ibid.

6. Ethics Resource Centre- National Business Ethics Survey. 'How Employees view Ethic in their Organization'. Quoted in Washington DC (2003).

7. Narvandi, A. 'The Art and Science of Leadership'. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey (2000).


8. Rhodes, C and Wilson, R. 'Leaders, Followers and The Institutional Problem of Trust'. Paper presented to the Trust Working Group Meeting. Russell Sage Foundation (1999).

9. De-Pree, M. 'Leading without Power'. Holland / Shepherd Foundation (1999).

John Terry

On the 30th January 2010 many UK newspapers reported a legal landmark in the case of the English football team captain John Terry. Terry was due to lead his country to the World Cup Finals in South Africa later this year when details of his philandering were reported publicly disgracing him for cheating with a team mate’s estranged girlfriend. However, the most significant part of these revelations was the behind the scene efforts made by the £170.000 a week footballer, to try and keep the details secret. However Terry’s attempt to use privacy laws to stifle the freedom of the press to report his cheating behaviour was dismissed after a court battle.

Although Terry had desperately tried to keep the public in the dark over his infidelity and had initially been successful in managing to use human rights law to obtain a gagging order, this was eventually overturned in the High Court. Ironically as Terry had systematically and shamefully cheated on his wife and young children he tried to argue that he was entitled to a “private and family life” no doubt trying to build upon the successful action brought by Max Mosely.

The Daily Mail reported a series of alleged incidents calling Terry a seedy serial brawler, drinker and womaniser and questioning how he could be retained as a leader of his National side.(1) This view was also shared by others as the internet was soon alive with calls demanding that Terry should be stripped of his captaincy. Even fellow England stars, not always known for their family values, had reportedly privately condemned Terry for “crossing the line” and becoming involved with a team mate’s partner and mother of his child. By his own treachery and betrayal many believed Terry had forfeited the right to any respect or loyalty two qualities essential in any captain.

His agents had promoted John Terry as the perfect ambassador to “create effective brand awareness” and endorse products and services globally, relentlessly trading on his wholesome image. This marketing strategy paid off and Terry obtained several lucrative sponsorship deals representing a number of well known brands and he pocketed a small fortune in return. An e mail uncovered by the press reminded potential clients of what they would get for their money,

“John Terry is a British sporting hero. England’s football captain, Word Cup 2018 ambassador, Football icon, Dad of the year 2008 and voted as one of the World’s most influential people” (2)

With so much at stake it is hardly surprising that Terry’s highly paid lawyers fought so hard to keep his true character hidden in the shadows. So although Terry was a married man with two young children, and “dad of the year” he impregnated and then secured the abortion for the estranged girlfriend of an international team mate. In the best traditions of hypocrisy Terry then tried to use his extreme wealth to hush up his infidelities by going to court to protect a series of multi million pound sponsorship deals threatened by the emerging scandal.

For many the John Terry ruling struck a powerful blow against the increasing use of privacy laws used by the rich and the powerful to silence their critics and keep their bad behaviour secret. For the first time in a decade a senior judge rejected secrecy in favour of freedom of speech and the right of ordinary people to criticise the rich and famous. The privacy laws which were built up by judges and based upon the Human Rights Act, without endorsement from Parliament, made it risky to tell the truth about the wealthy and the powerful. Perversely many of the individuals who have rushed to the Courts to demand their guaranteed rights to preserve their “private and family life” have been destroying the same families they claim they wish to protect.

However in his landmark ruling Mr Justice Tugendhat effectively declared that the rich and the powerful should not be able to stifle the press from reporting their activities even if they were embarrassing. He said,

“There is no suggestion that the conduct in question (Terry’s affair) ought to be unlawful, but there will be some who suggest that it ought to be discouraged. That’s why sponsors may be sensitive to the public image of sportspersons whom they pay to promote their products. Freedom to live as one chooses is one of the most valuable freedoms. But so is the freedom to criticise the conduct of others as being socially harmful, or wrong. The modern concept of public opinion emerged with the production of newspapers in the 17th century. Before that there was no medium through which public debate could be conducted. It is as a result of public discussion and debate that public opinions develop.” (3)

In an editorial entitled “A great day for freedom the Daily Mail reported,

“The ruling that England captain John Terry can be named and shamed over his squalid love life strikes a hugely welcome blow against EU inspired privacy laws that protect the rich and famous from the consequences of their wrong doings. As Justice Tungendhat said when he lifted his temporary gagging order “Freedom to live as one chooses is one of the most valuable freedoms. But so is the freedom to criticise the conduct of others as being socially harmful, or wrong. In these times when society and the family are paying a terrible price for the breakdown of traditional values, other judges must take these wise words to heart”. (4)

The England, Fabio Capello, manager recognised that Terry’s behaviour exposed a flawed character that undermined the qualities that are necessary in a leader to command loyalty and respect. Capello stripped John Terry of the captaincy to preserve the unity of the team forged during the qualification for the World Cup Finals. In a meeting that lasted no longer than half an hour Terry was not offered the opportunity to resign or to argue for his retention as captain. Instead Capello told him that his position was untenable and that he was removing the captain’s armband. Capello is understood to have reached the view that the betrayal of trust demonstrated by Terry’s affair and the distracting publicity it had generated risked destabilising his team.

In a carefully worded statement Capello said,

“After much thought I have made the decision that that it will be best for me to take the captaincy away from John Terry. I have to take into account other considerations and what is best for all of the England squad. What is best for all of the England squad has inspired my choice.” (5)

Telegraph columnist Henry Winter said,

Fortunately Capello has taken a stand against declining standards. England’s World Cup chances have been improved by the welcome show of authority by the coach who believes that discipline matters off the pitch as well as on it. It has taken an Italian to remind to us that standards count.

Verdict: I concur with the views of Justice Tugendhat. Sure people have got the right to live the way they choose and as long as it is lawful nobody should interfere with that right. But, similarly, people should have the right to comment if the private behaviour displayed stinks of hypocrisy and is in stark contrast to the public image they are happy to cultivate for personal or professional reasonsoften translated into financial gain.
References

(1)“Legal Land Mark means John Terry can’t keep adultery secret” The Daily Mail (UK) Saturday 30th January, 2010
(2) “Dad of the Year’s squalid secrets” The Daily Mail (UK) Saturday 30th January, 2010.
(3)“John Terry gagging order lifted by the High Court” BBC News web page dated 30th January, 2010.
(4)“A Great Day for Freedom” The Daily Mail Saturday, 30th January, 2010.
(5)“Capello sacked his captain for betraying team unity” The Daily Telegraph, dated Saturday, February 6th 2010.
(6) Winter: Henry “Terry had to go after sullying such a great sporting honour” The Daily Telegraph dated Saturday, February 6th, 2010.

Max Mosely

Not being a motor sports fan I had not heard of Max Mosley prior to allegations about his sex life being reported in the British tabloid newspaper, the News of the World. Mosley was the President of the FIA that represents Formula One Constructors and in essence he operated in a small community. However during the media reporting, together with the rest of the world, I also learned that Mosely was the son of Oswald Mosely the leader of the British Fascists in the 1930’s and 1940’s and I had heard of him.

I also learned that in March 2008 the newspaper, released video footage of Mosley engaged in sado-masochistic sexual acts with five sex workers in a scenario that the newspaper alleged involved Nazi role-playing. Mosley admitted that it was, indeed, him depicted in the released footage but he strenously denied that the activities involved a Nazi type theme. Whatever your views on this matter, one thing is crystal clear. Despite the fact that Mosely must have been a man of some intelligence, he apparently didn’t have the foresight to either realise that he was being filmed or was bright enough to take an interest in the distribution of the video that had been made. Or, like most men in senior positions, he may just have been arrogant enough to believe that he was “fire proof” and could simply please himself without having to face the consequences.However, outraged that the News of the World publicly released the video, Mosely resorted to the High Court in an attempt to prove that there had been an infringement to his rights of privacey. In July of the same year Mosley won the High Court Case when the presiding judge, Mr Justice Eady, found in his favour and said, “ I see no genuine basis at all for the suggestion that the participants mocked the victims of the Holocaust."

Inexplicably, Mr Justice Eady suggested that if Max Mosely had been involved in a Nazi orgy he would most probably have found in the newspaper's favour on the basis that Mr Mosley is a public figure, and that “people of all races and religions' with whom he has to deal with in his job, might have been shocked. However, despite the uniforms, use of the German language and other suggestive props, Justice Eady did not believe that the orgy was based on a Nazi, death camp.Therefore the judge found in Mr Mosley's favour.

However after he was vindicated by Justice Eady, Mosely became the self appointed champion of privacy laws and he even went on to address a Parliamentary Select Comitte looking at this matter. Mosely claimed that he had been permanently robbed of his dignity and the whole affair had caused great distress to his wife and children. Quite clearly shame is an entirely foreign concept to him and he seemed to conviently forget that, when all is said done, he played more than a significant role in his own downfall. In short like many other public figures before him, he got caught up in a web of deceeipt of their own making.Max Mosely saw himself as a victim and was allowed to take the moral high ground, blaming the press for exposing his depravity

Mosely is not a figure of great importance and despite his position in motor racing, he was not well known outside of the sport. He did not have a public platform to address the public on conduct and behaviour and presumably he did not expect his staff to comply with any code of conduct relating to standards. Speaking personally, I would rather not have read about Max Mosely and by any standards the Formula One boss was guilty of depraved behaviour. He used his wealth to degrade five women and he betrayed his wife and his family and undermined his position as a representative of well known global brand. So despite the outcome of the case we are still entitled to continue view Max Mosley as morally reprehensible.

But, having said that, I don’t believe the newspapers had the right to expose Mosely because his behaviour was not contrary to any public image he was trying to portray and therefore he could not be accused of being hypocrypt. Max Mosely likes to be whipped by hookers and although this may seem alien to some he has never gone on record condemning such behaviour. Therefore his behaviour does not impact upon the social landscape as he does not represent any instituion or organisation trying to shape the way we live our lives.

To date not too many strong public-interest cases have come under scrutiny as many of the privacey cases that have ended up in Court thus far have tended to to be rather trivia .For example it may include the publication of wedding photographs (no doubt already sold off to a magazine in an exclusive deal) or photographs of children or private holidays on a beach.However where it becomes more difficult, and where we must take a stand, is in relation to a public figures who puts forward a view which is relevant to his public persona but completely inconsistent with his private life. This is the crux of the matter.

In a nutshell how are voters expected to trust their leaders to act honourably and honestly in their public duties if they are not doing so in the most important aspects of their private life? What price local democracy if the misdoings of our politicians or police are disregarded and the incompetence or corruption of our council officials are swept under the carpet Max Mosley wants rich and influential men to be able to control the way in which their lives are reported, so that they appear to us not as they really are, but as they want us to imagine them to be.

Seemingly old fashion and timeless virtues such as honest, integrity, virtue, loyalty and resoponsibility are simply dismissed as unimportant. Yet despite the political elite trying to excuse the behavior of the great and the good it is my opinion that it is your character and your values that build trust. Ironically those who were quick to defend Mosely are slow to champion the rights of the prostitutes who were traded as pawns for his own personal gratification. Article Eight of the Human Rights Act guarantees every citizen the right to respect for their family and private life.However if people who publicly champion decent standards and community values but act contrary to these values in his/her personal life then shouldn’t we have the right to know?

Verdict: Max Mosely was a high profile representative of a multi million pound private sector organisation. He has never come to the fore championing standards or promoting social responsibility. On his own admision he had been visiting prostitutes for many years, betraying his wife and family in the process,but that should be a matter for them. If Formula One are happy to have Mr. Mosely representing their global brand then so be it.
Stop Press : See the case of John Terry

Introduction

“To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man” (Hamlet. Act 1. Scene 3 78-82)

This blogg looks at the thorny question of standards in public office. Whether those who choose to put themselves forward as leaders in the public domain, whether elected or otherwise, have a greater responsibility to act both in their professional and personal lives with the very highest degree of integrity. There is no doubt that those who rise to great office have substantial perks both financially and otherwise and generally, in the past, this has always been accompanied by an unwavering sense of duty and an acute sense of awareness with regards to their roles and responsibilities.

Yet there is now growing evidence of people entering the higher echelons of public office who clearly lack both integrity and moral and ethical principles. There is also a growing view that their dishonourable behaviour is starting to undermine the trust and confidence in many of the key institutions they represent. Now from the outset let’s make it clear and recognise that we are all human and that we are all entitled to make mistakes. That goes without saying and “let him with no sin cast the first stone” but in many of the reported instance we see evidence of persons in position of power acting in their own self interest driven by selfishness and personal gain. By putting themselves first, not only do they bring shame upon themselves but, quite often, they also undermine the dignity of their high office.

And despite the often heard whine of people “being entitled to a private life” if the behaviour in question cuts across their public office and is totally at odds with the comments and opinions they broadcast then this hypocrisy should be exposed. For this is the very hear of the issue. By choosing to live one way but presenting themselves to the public in another, they pretend to have virtues that they do not hold. If the individual in question demonstrates that he dishonest and cannot be trusted in his private life then this should be taken into consideration when weighing up his sincerity when he makes promises publicly.

Scandals involving politicians and other senior public servants make the headlines because journalists vigorously assert their duty to ferret out anything that bears on the character of such individuals. And the principle reason for caring about the moral conduct of public figures is that their behaviour sets the tone for the rest of society. If they misbehave and get away with it, then every else will feel that they, too, can simply please themselves. Yet in some, quite sadly, personal integrity is a disappearing virtue and personal standards are tumbling in a society willing to sacrifice it all on the altar of self-indulgence.
However let us not fool ourselves into thinking that people fall victim to social circumstances that it is outside of their control. It is not our times or society that is to blame for a lack of personal restraint nor can the often-heard whine, "but everyone's doing it”, justify such behaviour.

If the truth were known it comes down to a lack of character, that combination of moral qualities that demonstrate honour and virtue and make us the person we really are. Quite simply it is often the difference between what “we want to do” and “what we ought to do”.

Is it therefore unrealistic to expect that those who aspire towards the highest public offices in the land act both ethically and with the greatest degree of integrity in all parts of their lives? For those that seek the most powerful positions in society and those who can influence change in the lives of others through public service, must realise that there is a moral threshold, which, if crossed, will inextricably damage their credibility as a leader

Yet, even in this deeply non-judgmental age it seems we are plummeting to new depths and we are seemingly prepared to tolerate discreditable conduct from individuals who bring their organisations into disrepute. However a growing number now believe that those who seek the rewards of high office, yet fail to understand the boundaries of such office, help to undermine confidence in our institutions by corroding both the values and standards that are essential in a civilised society.

Consequently leaders should never deem anything to their advantage that causes them to lose their reputation or respect for when they do so they also diminish the reputation and respect of the organisation they represent. Hawkins, for one, laments the loss of honour and institutional accountability and claims, “it is both tragic and destructive when leaders hold on to a position or to personal gain at the expense of their integrity (1)

For undoubtedly the ultimate test of ethics is whether we are willing to stand firm when it is not in our self-interest to do so. Lorenz reminds us “Integrity means being the same person inside and out, all the time, whether in pubic or private. It means keeping our commitments accepting our responsibilities and being fair with everyone (2) This desire for sameness and consistency of character strikes a chord with Kettle who reflects on the way some people try to draw a distinction between their public face and their private lives, he says, “The awkward truth is that the way people live their private lives does tell us things that can help us make judgements about them as public people (3)

Many parts of the United Kingdom are in the midst of an epidemic of social disorder and many now believe that part of this national scandal lays the failure of our leaders to have the moral courage to demonstrate civic responsibility by setting honourable and decent standards of conduct. Indeed ironically, McIIroy, for example, reminds us that the social elements of shame and disgrace are the driving forces behind New Labours Anti Social Behaviour Orders. However, he also points out that “such orders presuppose the existence of a moral community.” (4)

This social malaise is further evidenced by a damming report from a United Nations study, “Child poverty in Perspective” that placed British children at the very foot of an international table of well being after a comprehensive assessment of the lives of children in the wealthiest nations. (5) This scathing report produced by an organisation with no political bias, caused considerable embarrassment for the British Government and was another clear indicator of a failing society. Commenting upon the report the children’s commissioner, Sir Alan Ansley Green said, “We are turning out a generation of young people who are unhappy, unhealthy, engaging in risky behaviour, who have poor relationships with their family and their peers, who have low expectations and don’t feel safe” (6) The case for the much maligned “role model” appears to be overwhelming.

Therefore is it hypocritical for the British establishment to lament over anti social behaviour, poor parenting, teenage pregnancies, drug abuse, binge drinking and the breakdown of communities into crime-infested neighbourhoods? When, on one hand, extolling the virtues of personal responsibility and on the other hand remaining totally indifferent to excesses of immaturity, lust and selfishness that are starting to unravel the refinements and achievements of civilisation.
Yet it would seem that we no longer care and the consequences of this "moral anarchy", already evident all around us, will no doubt further corrode the trust that remains essential to the democratic process. Trust, honesty and loyalty are precious commodities and the greatest fallout from a lack of integrity in the “me” generation is the wholesale loss of trust.

So set against this background, we shall consider what level of accountability should be expected of senior people in public life who are charged with improving the quality of life in contemporary Britain. Whether those who enjoy the benefits of high office and exercise great power on behalf of the state should display exemplary and unshakeable standards of integrity. Or whether we have gone beyond caring, blighted by a political correctness that forbids us from passing judgement on the conduct of others or whether the time is fast approaching to stop institutionalising shamelessness


References


1. Hawkins, J. 'What exactly does ethical leadership mean these days?' Ph.VII, No 3, Issue 12, Summer 2000.

2. Lorenz A “The Essence of Integrity” from Ethics Today (Ca). 2004

3. Kettle. M “Private Lives Really Matter” The Guardian, 30th November 2004.

4. McIIroy, D. Honour and Shame (Cambridge Papers), Volume 14, No.2 dated June 2005.

5. Child poverty in Perspective: an Overview of Child Wellbeing in Rich Countries. Unicef Innocenti Research Centre, Florence, United Nations Children Fund, 2007.

6. Ansley Green, Alan (Sir). UK is accused of failing Children. BBC News (UK Edition) Online 14 February 2007.
Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6359363.stm

DISLAIMER

Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are.” John Wooden


The views contained in this blogg are influenced by a series of news reports and academic literature that is openly available for public scrutiny. Great steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy of this information and in many cases there are links to other sources that have already been published in relation to the topic or subject under discussion. The references at the conclusion of most subject heading points to the origin of such documents where any interested reader can test the accuracy of these sources or conduct further related reading. This blogg has been published in the interest of debate and opinion and as a response to the “politically correct” who forbid anyone to make judgement and who sneer at duty, honour and responsibility as unworthy virtues.

For what is becoming more apparent is that by tolerating misconduct in any institution or organisation then discreditable behaviour becomes the accepted “norm” and standards begin to fall. The knock on effect of misconduct in public office leads to the public losing trust and confidence in that institution and this has the potential to undermine our democratic process. We need look not further than the Westminster expenses scandal to see clear evidence of this.

Everyone has the right to choose they way they wish to live but if the lifestyle they choose is contrary to their carefully crafted public image then, surely, others should also have the right to comment upon their conduct. So, undoubtedly, in this fast changing world, it is both right and proper from time to time, if only by way of a health check, to examine by whom and in what manner power is wielded on our behalf.
Again everything published in this blogg is already “out there” but in some cases different reports have been merged into one summary to provide a complete overview. However any inaccuracies should be reported to the editor who will gladly address the matter if it proves to be correct.