Why the NBH shouldn’t be completely vilified
Posted on | February 26, 2010 | No Comments
Being at the receiving end of bullying can be a truly horrible experience.
You feel demeaned, belittled, and drained of self confidence.
In the past, I have experienced bullying at work – and it wasn’t pleasant. I had friends who supported me, but it remained very difficult.
Bullying is one of those experiences that is easily denied by the bully. He or she defends their actions as ‘taking a hard line’; ‘being strong willed’; or showing ‘leadership’. Refuting those defences and trying to prove just how much you’ve been affected by the experience can be very difficult.
And that’s why I don’t think Christine Pratt was necessarily completely wrong to say that her helpline had received telephone calls from staff at Number 10 who claimed to have been bullied. In the face of very strong denials from Number 10, if there was anyone who could support the claims of those individuals, they should feel obligated to step forward.
What has made this entire situation difficult, however, is the absence of evidence from Ms Pratt and the NBH; the potential breach of confidentiality; and the allegations of Ms Pratt improperly benefiting from the NBH.
I completely agree that confidentiality of the callers is important, but if I was the one being bullied, and I was effectively being called a liar, I would welcome the intervention of someone that could support me. I would probably then seek a legal resolution, but not everyone is minded to do so.
What has made this row worse though, has been the cack-handed PR response from NBH to the resignations of its patrons.
What should have been a measured and calm reaction, became a mud slinging row which has unfortunately left the NBH, its patrons, and its competitors, looking all the worse for wear.
Seemingly forgotten, are the people who (allegedly) sought help from the NBH. What is to become of them?
Comments
Leave a Reply