Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer
Cyclefree
Cyclefree
Close

A Fright at the Museum

28 August 20230Comments

What on earth has been going on at the British Museum?

  • For two decades it appears that Greek and other classical antiquities from the 15th century BC to the 19th century AD in store have gone missing, stolen or damaged. It is now estimated that around 2,000 items have gone missing. Their value is inestimable.
  • Some reappear on eBay and elsewhere “for sale“.
  • February 2021: An antiquities dealer, Ittai Gradel, notifies the museum that 3 items belonging to it – specifically pieces of Roman jewellery – are being sold on the open market. He also tells them about other items he has acquired.
  • He is subsequently told that there is nothing to worry about because the “collection is protected“. 
  • Specifically, the Deputy Director, tells him there had been a “thorough investigation“, “there was no suggestion of any wrongdoing” and security procedures are “robust“.
  • Another buyer, prompted by Mr Grabel, returns an item to the museum. So does Mr Grabel. He also gives them buyers’ names.
  • According to reports, an unnamed member of staff was investigated over allegations of “impropriety” in 2021 with the police involved but the case went no further.
  • By autumn 2022 the dealer has contacted one of the trustees. He is concerned that the museum is “sweeping matters under the carpet“. The trustee is similarly concerned and the museum’s director, Hartwig Fischer, is asked for information about the investigation, its timeline and conclusions. The director responds with an assurance that “there is no evidence of wrongdoing” and that the three items are “in the collection“. 
  • At some point in 2022 a new audit is carried out.
  • January 2023: the Metropolitan Police’s Economic Crime Unit is called in to investigate.
  • July 2023: Peter Higgs, 56, the museum’s curator of Greek collections, Greek sculpture and the Hellenistic period is dismissed after the management learn that treasures have been reported “missing, stolen or damaged“. In 2002 he had told a reporter looking at how treasures were stored in the vaults: “It’s chaos down here.”
  • August 2023: The Director expresses frustration that the dealer had not said more in 2021 and implies that this impeded the museum’s investigation. The dealer says this is a lie.
  • The Director resigns, apologises for his accusation against the dealer and withdraws it. 
  • He also says that it was “evident” that the museum did not respond “comprehensively” to warnings of thefts in 2021. 
  • The Deputy-Director also resigns. Or is “asked to step back from his duties“.
  • The usual statement of regret and praise for their departed directors’ abilities is issued by the trustees. 
  • A circular firing squad starts being formed at the museum. It is reported that the trustees are asking why it took 8 months for them to be informed of the allegations. The Chair of Trustees, George Osborne says that the previous statement that there had been a “thorough investigation” and “no thefts” was “obviously completely wrong.” Doubtless intending to be helpful, he also says that “groupthink” among the museum’s bosses may have been responsible for them not believing that an insider could be stealing. A reminder that Peter Higgs has denied wrongdoing and no-one has been charged. A reminder also that improprieties in the art and antiquities world have been well-known for years and might be expected to be known to museum bosses.
  • The trustees also announce an independent review of events and security to be headed by a former museum trustee, Nigel Boardman, an ex-City lawyer, last heard of when appointed by Boris Johnson to head up the inquiry into the Greensill affair, and Lucy D’Orsi, Chief Constable of the British Transport Police. The actual or potential conflict of interest arising from having a former museum trustee review the activities of the museum and, inevitably, its governance over many years and how this might – or appear to – affect the review’s independence does not appear to have occurred to anyone. Nor it is immediately obvious what particular skills the British Transport Police bring to such a review. 
  • The Chair of Trustees says that the process for finding a new director will start. 

George, sweetie: I have news for you. You need to find – at a minimum:

(1) a new director; 

(2) a new deputy; 

(3) a new curator of Greek antiquities; 

(4) a new head of security;

(5) someone who knows how to carry out “thorough” investigations; 

(6) someone to liaise with the police – a full-time job; 

(7) some bloody good legal advice given the various statutory obligations the Museum, its management and trustees are under;

(8) someone to run and catalogue the Museum’s vaults and store rooms. A notebook, pen and camera would be a start. Perhaps even some clearly labelled boxes.

(9) someone to say with a straight face, repeatedly, that the Elgin Marbles are safe with the Museum. Actually, you could do this: you’ve got the brass neck and have had plenty of practice saying the scarcely believable (remember “we’re all in this together”?)

And that’s for starters. A full-time Chair would not go amiss at this point either.

There are plenty of questions to be asked and, doubtless, more to be revealed. Still, for now, could I make this plea? Will the last public organisation in the UK run even remotely sensibly, competently and lawfully, please wave and say hello.

Just so that we can be reminded of what this looks like.

We might even put it in a case for display in …. oh!


Photo by deepigoyal on Unsplash

Leave a comment

A Good Deed

24 August 20230Comments

The government has finally done something right! I know. Scarcely believable. Admittedly, it’s early days and it’s by its Legal Department (which usually manages to maintain some modicum of integrity and competence – or tries to anyway.) Small mercies. What has it done? The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, Alex Chalk, and Attorney-General, Victoria Prentis have announced an independent inquiry into the Andy Malkinson case. This will be into all the relevant authorities: the Greater Manchester Police (1 of 5 police forces in special measures), the Crown Prosecution Service and the Criminal Cases Review Commission. All three of them have pledged their full co-operation, not that they had any alternative, despite their own separate inquiries. The IOPC is looking at the police’s behaviour but, given its feeble record, little could have been expected of it. The CCRC has appointed a KC to review its behaviour; doubtless his findings will be fed into this one. The Law Commission is also reviewing this case as part of its wider review into the criminal appeals process.

It is not just what has been done but the way it has been done which is worth praising. The announcement states: “The inquiry will ensure Mr Malkinson’s views and experiences are heard throughout the process and this will be reflected in the Terms of Reference.” This is an improvement on the CCRC’s announcement a few days ago which did not even bother to inform, let alone consult, Mr Malkinson or his lawyers.

While the CCRC is being looked at, the role of its Chair, Helen Pitcher, should be reviewed. Like many of the Establishment’s Poo-Bahs, she has quite the CV, specialising in Advanced Boardroom Excellence. She is also Chair of the Judicial Appointments Commission (on top of various other directorships). Quite why she (despite her law degree) nor anyone appointing her to this role in February this year has not noticed that this creates a conflict of interest, certainly a perception of one, has not been explained. Let me spell it out: those appointing judges should not also be the ones determining whether those judges may have presided over a miscarriage of justice. The CCRC’s role is anyway important enough to warrant someone better than a part-timer treating the role as part of a portfolio.

From being largely ignored, Malkinson is now the centre of attention. As he should be. It is all too common for services such as these to forget the human beings at the centre of them. An injustice has been done to Mr Malkinson – deprived of two decades of normal life, to the raped woman who will now have to endure a second trial and to any victims of her attacker during the time he has been left free. We have to hope that, unlike the many other inquiries currently happening and announced, this one will not take years and will lead to some practical changes for the better. Not merely recommendations to be ignored until the next cock-up. Inquiries should be a means to identify action to be taken. Not as a substitute for it, a way of doing nothing at all.

If governments want to know what this looks like, they need only look at what patient, polite but persistent questioning and inquiry by the Business Select Committee’s Chair can achieve. Darren Jones has managed to get the Post Office’s CEO to return all the bonus given him under the false pretence that it has co-operated with the Williams Inquiry. It is more than the Business Secretary, Kemi Badenoch, and Minister for Postal Affairs, Kevin Hollinrake, have managed in the 7 months they’ve been in post. There is, of course, the rest of the Board to persuade to do the same. But it is a start and a credit to an MP and a Select Committee which understand what their role is.

One of the KC’s acting for some of the subpostmasters is Edward Henry KC. He acted for Andy Malkinson, as did Max Hardy and APPEAL, a charity focused on miscarriages of justice. In a week which has shown us the worst people can do, it is some consolation to find some MPs and professionals showing us the opposite.


Photo by N R on Unsplash

Leave a comment

The only lesson

18 August 20230Comments

7 murdered babies. Attempts to murder 7 more.

A hospital’s reputation in ruins.

(Oh – and another inquiry to report on all the lessons to be learnt. Like the ones not learnt from previous inquiries. Just as these ones won’t be.)

It is not too cynical to say that care for the hospital’s reputation – rather than investigating serious concerns about staff responsible for babies in their care – was almost certainly one of the main reasons why senior NHS managers, many of them trained doctors and nurses, sought over a year to dismiss and disregard repeated concerns and red flags raised by doctors about Lucy Letby, the nurse found guilty of those murders.

They didn’t just ignore them. According to this Panorama report, they warned off the doctors, threatening them with “consequences“, including possible referral to the GMC. A line had apparently been crossed by daring to criticise a nurse described as “nice Lucy“. After two triplets died, duty executive Karen Rees, who refused to take Letby off duty against the wishes of 7 consultant paediatricians, was asked if she would take responsibility for anything that might happen to other babies and replied “yes“. We will learn now, won’t we, what value to place on that “yes“.

Why do senior executives do this? To protect the institution’s reputation is the usual reason. It never works. When you fail to look into concerns when first raised – and it really doesn’t matter which sector you’re in – the NHS, the police, banks, the press, Parliament, the army, the Guides, churches, the Post Office, oh just about anywhere, let’s face it – these are the consequences:

  • A small problem turns into a bloody big crisis.
  • You trash your reputation
  • You lose trust.
  • You’ll be clearing up the mess for years.
  • It will take longer than you can possibly imagine to rebuild that trust. Do not fool yourself into believing that quickly shuffling some people around (even out), some shiny new procedures and training, no matter how brilliant, will do it.

It is not the first time the NHS has got itself into these sorts of difficulties. Its treatment of whistleblowers has long been appalling. Similar events happened – and for many of the same reasons – at the Gosport War Memoral Hospital (see my commentary here on the report issued in June 2018). And that is only one of many. NHS management seems utterly oblivious to The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. The NHS – like the police – is one of those sacred cows that confuses the importance of its function with the importance of the institution and the egos of those running it, focused on their Key Performance Indicators (none of which would have included “murders solved“). This is a fatal flaw, inimical to the establishment of a healthy work culture. Politicians – those available in the foreseeable future anyway – are unwilling or unable to challenge or change this.

There is another reason why senior staff behave like this.

Cowardice.

Taking a concern seriously means exercising judgment and taking action. The judgments to be made will be difficult. There is no procedure which can act as a substitute for good judgment. The actions will often be tough. So it is easier – much easier – to do nothing (or the minimum you think you can get away with) and tell those bringing unwelcome news to keep quiet.

Senior staff would do well to remember these words:

“All organizations have bad apples but what an organization ….. also has is well paid and exquisitely educated bosses, part of whose job is to spot these bad apples and, if they are spotted, deal with them.”

Who said this? Andy Webb, the BBC journalist, who uncovered the story of how Martin Bashir and Panorama (oh, the irony!) got that interview with Diana, in May 2021. He said about the bosses who failed to do anything about the ethical breach they knew had happened: “It’s my feeling the bosses were not brave enough …. and it prompted the cover up.”

Not brave enough. That’s the only lesson to learn right there.


Photo by The New York Public Library on Unsplash

Leave a comment

Questions, questions.

2 August 20230Comments

Sir Keir Starmer must be sick of being asked the “what is a woman” question. But in light of his statement that a woman is an “adult female”, Anneliese Dodds saying that a medical diagnosis will still be required in its reform of the Gender Recognition Act (“GRA”) and Wes Streeting’s regret over the treatment of fellow MP, Rosie Duffield, on this issue, here are some questions which now need answering by Labour.

Why has Labour changed its views? How far, in fact, has it done so? What are the details of their revised policy? Is this shift reculer pour mieux sauter? Or merely a tactical change – a scraping of electoral barnacles off the boat in the run up to a general election? Or a fundamental shift in its approach?

It may seem churlish to ask such questions given what appears to be a welcome change. But the “no debate” approach has lasted too long, with disastrous consequences. Labour’s slipperiness and dismissal of women’s concerns over a long period and closeness to pro-self-ID lobbyists is reason enough to be mistrustful. It still takes as a given that the GRA requires reform. Does it? The process of getting a Gender Recognition Certificate (“GRC”) is not onerous and oppressive, no more so than the process of getting a passport, say. What is difficult is the process of getting a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Making it easier to get the former to get around the difficulties of the latter is not a solution to the latter. It is a way of sidestepping it and can, if not well thought through, lead to self-ID by the back door and/or the same adverse consequences for women’s rights.

Some questions:

Scotland

1. Will the decision not to proceed with gender self-ID stand even if the SNP wins its challenge to the S.35 Order preventing the SNP’s Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill from becoming law?

This matters because it appears to be the difficulties in Scotland which have prompted the change of heart. If the SNP wins its challenge, the basis on which it does so also matters. It could win on the grounds that the Bill does not impinge on matters reserved for Westminster under the Scotland Act i.e. it is intra vires. If so, that says nothing about the substance of the Bill. Or it could win on the grounds that there are no reasonable grounds for Westminster to believe that the Bill has adverse effects on the laws applying to equal opportunities in the rest of the UK. Regardless of the grounds, it is not hard to imagine Labour coming under pressure to back self-ID if the SNP wins its case and is able to implement it in Scotland. If it does, Labour would then have the added issue of deciding how to treat Scottish GRCs in the rest of the UK.

    Minority government

    2. If the revised policy will stand, will Labour confirm that it will not abandon this policy should it require the support of other parties after the next election?

    The Equality Act

    3. Will Labour agree to clarify that “sex” in the Equality Act (“EA”) means only biological sex and for all purposes? And that it won’t be replaced by “gender“?

    It is not clear whether Labour accepts that, regardless of whether someone has a GRC or not, the EA does permit (in specified circumstances) discrimination against people falling within the gender reassignment category on the grounds of their sex. The Haldane judgment in Scotland has cast some doubt on this. Without clarity on this issue, there is a risk that “woman” ends up including men with a GRC changing their legal gender to “woman“.

    4. Will Labour confirm that it will ensure that:

    • ALL the existing exceptions for single and separate sex spaces and single sex associations in the EA will continue; and
    • Be permitted for ALL the reasons currently permitted?

    5. In particular, will Labour confirm that service providers can continue to exclude those with the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment“, including those with a GRC, on the grounds of sex for all the reasons currently permitted under the EA?

    Anneliese Dodds has said in her recent Guardian article about wanting to maintain “places where it is reasonable for biological women only to have access”. This is not the test under the EA. There are far more reasons for having single sex services and spaces and the bar for them is not high. They need to be for a legitimate purpose and be proportionate to that aim. In essence, they give legal expression to well-established, valued and necessary social conventions by which women of all types and ages exclude men at certain times or in certain circumstances.

    Offenders

    6. Will Labour ensure that no-one convicted of or charged with (while awaiting trial) offences of violence or sexual offences against women & children can be eligible for a GRC?

    Medical diagnosis

    7. What steps will Labour take to ensure that a diagnosis of gender dysphoria must be obtained from doctors with professionally recognised expertise in this field of medicine? What checks will the doctor be expected to make e.g. in relation to those with psychiatric co-morbidities?

    8. What remedies will be available should such diagnoses be given – or obtained – fraudulently or in breach of any applicable conditions? In particular, will GRCs be revoked if obtained fraudulently?

    Spouses

    9. Will spouses of men seeking a GRC continue to be able to decide in advance of this being granted whether they wish to continue in the marriage or have it annulled so that they do not find themselves in a same-sex marriage without their express consent?

    Anneliese Dodds’ article wrongly describes this as a spousal “veto”. It is not. She also says that it will be removed. This is worrying for three reasons:

    • It will leave women stuck in marriages which have fundamentally changed from what they entered into. Having the possibility of divorce available after the event is not the same as being able to leave the marriage beforehand. Divorce is also not an option for religious women.
    • It ignores the fact that a step described by her as of “momentous significance” for the person seeking a GRC is also of momentous significance for that person’s family members, principally spouses. Their interests should be taken into account not dismissed.
    • Women’s consent to changes affecting them is vital. For Labour to signal that women do not have to consent to a significant change in their marriage shows a dismissive attitude to women and the concept of consent.

    The Cass Review

    10. Will Labour commit to accepting the findings of the Interim Cass Review in full?

    Conversion therapy ban

    11. Will Labour ensure that any ban on “conversion therapy” will not risk criminalising a “watchful waiting” approach by clinicians and therapists treating those with gender dysphoria or gender distress, whether alone or in combination with other conditions?

      Public authorities

      12. Will Labour ensure that public authorities, starting with the police and CPS, do not align themselves with any lobby group so that they avoid actual or potential conflicts of interest and can carry out their public duties “without fear or favour“?

      13. What steps will Labour take to ensure that the sex of offenders is accurately recorded by the police, prison and judicial authorities to ensure the collection of accurate data?

      Photo by Towfiqu barbhuiya on Unsplash

        Leave a comment