[halicarnassus]

In the comments here I read a lot about if this is whistleblowing or not, or if disciplinary measures are warranted for an employee "badmouthing" an employer's client while not having an official mandate to speak in public, while mostly ignoring the threats made by a government official.

This is exactly the problem why the world sucks so hard.

The engineer, certainly knowledgeable in this field, made a measured public remark, which could have saved lives. He has done nothing wrong, because he didn't claim to speak on behalf of his employer, and has the right to speak his mind as a person. In public, and with a lot of reach.

The government official, however, applied unconstitutional pressure to get the engineer fired and threatened his employer to lose business. Humanly very low and damaging to future public rail infrastructure, if a capable company is not allowed to provide services anymore and therefore most likely to increase prices through diminished competition.

If anyone should lose their job over this matter, it clearly should be the UK rail minister.

[smcl]

> while not having an official mandate to speak in public

Gareth Dennis has been a public figure for a while, appearing on BBC News a few times. So there was apparently a provision for this in his contract with Systra: https://x.com/GarethDennis/status/1829053692508623154

[keyshapegeo99]

Systra also lauded his media appearances on their website: https://web.archive.org/web/20240829120751/https://www.systr...

> [Gareth's] passion and enthusiasm for all things rail are well-known across the sector through his weekly #Railnatter podcast and as a regular national press rail commentator

[n4r9]

What's great about this is that instead of covering up the issue, Henry's behaviour has caused it to blow up and become way more visible. I certainly hadn't heard about any of this until reading OP.

[XCabbage]

What aspect of the UK's nebulous "constitution" do you claim was violated here? (Or are you just reflexively/thoughtlessly saying "unconstitutional" because it would be a First Amendment violation in the USA?)

[Tor3]

Well, the UK doesn't have a constitution, so technically you're correct in mentioning that, but it should also be said that something like this happening in Europe is beyond shocking. It sounds like an April's fool joke. But isn't.

[akira2501]

> it clearly should be the UK rail minister.

Absolutely. He's guilty of precisely what he complains about. He suggests that this engineer is implicating the "safety of Network Rail" whereas he's just implicating the safety of a _single decision_.

Instead of reacting to a single statement the minister has decided to implicate his entire job. Which is madness. He should be deeply ashamed of how he abused his position, and quite frankly, for his inability to accept and react appropriately to criticism.

A giant baby if I've ever seen one.

[rsynnott]

I suspect the minister may be an ex-minister soon, alright; it’s not a good look, and he’s only been in the job a month or so, so replacing wouldn’t be a huge deal.

[jonp888]

> he’s only been in the job a month or so, so replacing wouldn’t be a huge deal

He's way, way than more than just some guy who has been rail minister for a month, he's one of the most respected, perhaps the most respected transport executive in Britain(at least until yesterday). He's not an elected politician, he has worked professionally in rail transportation since 1975.

For 10 years he was Chief Executive of Transport for London which runs all public transport in London. Following that, for the past 10 years he was and still is Chairman of Network Rail, the organisation which is responsible for the entire British Railway Network. It's in this capacity that he sent the letter, not as a minister.

Unless this turns into some huge scandal, which seems unlikely, he'll be fine.

[alephnerd]

He's also a mid-level minister, so it's pretty easy to can him.

Most Ministers are just political appointees anyhow - the actual work is done by the Civil Service.

[ypzhang2]

Except it’s not government related action.

This is what a current official did prior to him becoming the minister while an executive of a rail company.

So the analysis and the discussion below all stem from a faulty premise

[tomatocracy]

"An executive of of a rail company" is not really the full picture here. Network Rail is state-controlled and a government minister appoints the Chairman.

[callamdelaney]

There is no constitution here, your existence and rights as a British citizen is at the convenience of the state.

[graemep]

Its not that simple.

There is a body of constitutional law. There is extensive law governing what powers ministers have - powers are granted to them by legislation.

There are human rights granted by law and treaty. Everything from some clauses of the Magna Carta that are still in force https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofp... to the European Convention on Human Rights.

[jonp888]

If you're trying to compare Britain unfavourably to the US with this comment then that doesn't really hold up.

People are sacked all the time in the US for bringing their employer into disrepute, and it doesn't even matter whether they actually did or not, since the employer doesn't have to give a reason anyway.

[immibis]

The same as an American citizen, then. That piece of paper locked up in the national archives (or wherever) didn't come running, armed with a gun, to save the life of George Floyd or anyone else.