I was a whistleblower in the voluntary sector. My experiences may inform volunteers who have similar concerns, and I also hope to find answers to my peculiar situation.

I was the victim of bullying and a political witchhunt by senior members of the two organisations I was involved with and trying to support. I was supported by many members of these organisations, but I was then subjected to an Ultra secret court process which isolated me from my supporters. I was unaware that this could happen in the UK. Therefore, for now I cannot name any individuals or the organisations concerned.
For several years I campaigned for more open governance of two affiliated political pressure groups, which are also registered charities. I had identified the habitual misuse of funds and facilities by a senior trusteee (X) in the larger group (A), who is also the CEO of the smaller group (B). The National Council for Voluntary Organisations advised me that this constituted a serious conflict of interest.
The Charity Commission also confirmed that because X was a trustee of B when she was appointed as its CEO, that her appointment was unlawful. In my view, because X was constantly using the facilities and funds of B to manage and manipulate A, of which she was Chairman, this was a continuing conflict which should be exposed and stopped. I had also identified issues of party-political bias, lack of democracy and misuse of funds by local trustees across the country.
I was a local trustee for A and I communicated my concerns on this broad range of issues to the trustees and members of both A&B. Gradually my activities led to some of the reforms I wished to see, such as the trustees being named on the websites of A & B, and the more democratic election of local trustees. The treasurer of B also responded to my concerns and tried to sanction X. Sadly, in the midst of his investigation he suffered a stroke and had to resign. X then decided to take personal legal action against me in the County Court, claiming that my activities constituted harassment. To cut a long story short, after I had signed a non-admittance agreement not to harass X, another trustee of B (Y) sent me confidential committee papers which proved that X's action had been taken 'in pursuit of her duties as CEO of B'. In effect, B and X had misled the court, as it had been stated in writing that B was not involved in the action and that it was taken by X in a purely personal and professional capacity. The then chairman of B also ensured that the payments of X's legal expenses were clearly shown in their accounts. That chairman sadly died recently, but I think he was trying to do the right thing after all.
I informed X's solicitors (who were also the official solicitors for A&B) that I was now aware of their subterfuge and that the agreement was worthless and, in my view unenforceable. Trustee Y was subsequently expelled from B for 'damaging the interests of B', in other words by revealing the truth about X's political motives in the action against me. X recruited several trustees of A to join the committee of B to bolster her position against rising criticism. This move was pretty much a takeover of B by A, and was actually in breach of a clause in B’s constitution, but X didn’t care.
I now wish I hadn't signed the agreement. However, because I was only given one week notice of the claim, and I was not given the so called evidence until the morning of the court hearing, I was unable to obtain legal representation. I realised on the morning of the initial court hearing that if I fought on I might loose on a technicality and it seemed easier just to sign the agreement not to harass, which was not my intention.
However, this had unforseen repercussions. I was a candidate for the forthcoming elections to the national committee of A. My aim was to carry forward the full range of governance reforms. X openly and quickly engineered my expulsion from A. And because the agreement had a non-criticism clause, I could not fight my expulsion without risking a breach of the agreement.
I now wish to publish my account of this story, but I am not sure whether the agreement is still enforceable, however dishonestly it was obtained. If there was an attempt to enforce it would the judge listen to my arguments and look at the evidence in B’s committee papers? I would, therefore be very grateful if someone with knowledge of harassment orders could advise me whether X could enforce the agreement in these circumstances. Does the doctrine of 'clean hands' apply here? 'He who comes to equity must have clean hands'.

Whistleblowers name names otherwise they are just a punter with an alleged whistle.

Unless the above is an algebraic puzzle.
If that's the case the answer is half and orange with poached cuttlefish bootees.

LIES

is it indeed algerbils as feather suggested?

but i dont know anything about harrassment orders as it happens. so im sorry whistle, whatever the hell your story is.

I would prefer to name names, but unfortunately there is a court agreement/order which precisely prevents me from doing this, unless I can establish that the order is somehow invalid because of the dishonest manner in which it was obtained. Establishing this is the point of my post. There may be other whistleblowers who find themselves in the same position, but who don't have the evidence to prove organisational abuse of the Harassment Act, for instance. Organisations which have corrupt lawyers who are willing to commit contempt of court are difficult to hold to account. I believe I have a chance to hold my persecutors to account, but I can't risk naming names just yet. I hope this explains my position.

It is in law not possible to harass an organisation, so this is why the organisation put up their CEO to fake a claim of personal harassment. Everything I did was to improve the governance of both organisations. Secret court agreements are very harmful for free speech. Getting this across on a dedicated forum like this appears to be more problematic than I expected.

WhistleblowerX wrote: What is the suggested penalty if you breach the 'agreement/order' < (which is it btw?).

Without names and supporting evidence you have no story to tell and are certainly not a whistleblower unless they changed the definition of that when I was asleep.

I'm not being nasty or unsympathetic for the sake of it. I've worked in the voluntary sector myself and it can be as corrupt as any other but frankly by withholding names and evidence you are a component in the concealment rather than exposure of these people and practices.

Get off the fence mate.

WhistleblowerX wrote: Easy now tiger.
It's really not our fault if your presentation of the issue was terrible.

Fair comment Feather, but when issues are so complicated it is difficult to simplify without loosing the context. I'm not claiming to be a great writer, but my heart is in the right place.

The penalty for contempt of court is very serious. Are you suggesting I should commit a contempt of court to satisfy your curiosity? Best not to get the cart before the horse.
I am trying to discuss this issue in terms of its general principles, so naming names is really not the point here. If I get the order lifted, or being defined as unenforceable, which is my aim, then I would be free to name the perpetrators of this injustice.
I never sat on any fences, I have campaigned for truth and justice for many others.
I would like to politely suggest that you need to understand serious legal issues like this before making such cutting personal comments.

WhistleblowerX wrote:
What's the real issue? You can be anonymous on the internet - or are you paranoid about being monitored and spied on?

The real issue is that organisations often use 'Ultra' ie secret court orders to silence critics. The legal system in the UK is particularly prone to such abuses. If I mentioned the organisations and individuals responsible in this case I would be subject to summary fines and imprisonment. I certainly wouldn't be anonymous if I mentioned names on a public forum like this. This isn't paranoia or chit chat, it is an issue which affects an unknown number of individuals. I hope someone on this forum will look at my post with a degree of objectivity.

WhistleblowerX wrote: I can appreciate that WB and I'm sure you are well intentioned.
If you opined that secret courts are a fucking terrible idea I doubt you would find anyone here who would dispute that.

Please understand though that it's difficult to form an opinion on the rest of your post without specifics which may then be checked and analysed.

Welcome to the group btw.
Please don't be reluctant to contribute.
My best wishes to you in your pursuit of justice for both you and the organisations involved.

I fully understand the legal implications and I would suggest that you do not understand the role of a whistleblower.
whistle-blower
noun
noun: whistleblower
1.
a person who informs on a person or organization engaged in an illicit activity.

You have deliberately (whether complying with a court agreement/order or not), failed to name either a person(s) or organisation(s) and therefore fall well short of the definition.

You need legal advice. Are there still solicitors who offer an initial meeting free of charge, with no commitment for you to pursue the issue further if either party decides it's not going to be beneficial?

Well now, if you want me to address this in the terms you have just quoted, it is a fact that I have already informed on the illicit activities of these persons and organizations, in the real world. I just didn't do it in the first instance on this forum, and nor was I obliged to in order to exercise my freedom of speech, in the way I choose to, safely, in this virtual world. What you are implying is that my freedom of speech should not be limited here, despite a legal ruling in the real world. Nice idea in an ideal world, but this is very problematic in practice. For instance, if I manage to obtain a means of legal challenge in the real world, I must be careful not to prejudice this by getting others to prejudge my case. If I named names, they would know it was me and I could be threatened, so you are also asking me to paint a target on myself, and what would that achieve, except to give my opponents the upper hand? I prefer to keep my powder dry. At least if they read my story here (unlikely but possible) in the way I have chosen to tell it, they may feel ashamed of what they have done, but they will be powerless to do anything except worry that their deeds may eventually lead to prosecution for contempt of court. If members here repeated the naming and shaming, they would be technically in breach of the order, but couldn't be easily prosecuted. However, see what happened to that Geldorf girl though, it is easy to fall into a serious legal trap by just chatting. Someone on a forum might know another member's identity, and spill the beans accidentally. In the end it's a Need to Know thing really, and we don't need to name names in order to be able to discuss this subject as a general and widespread problem. If you had understood these legal principles you wouldn't have lampooned me for not naming names, for which I have now explained my several good reasons.
This virtual world could be very useful to be able to take a step back from the purely personal, take a different perspective and highlight the issues for a wider discussion. Indeed, I think I could be accused of being less than candid if I used anonymity to rat on my former colleagues and name them in person, or as organisations, whilst remaining anonymous myself. The fact is that I put my head above the parapet and took those guys on in the real world. This forum is slightly detached from the real world, and as such it is supposedly somewhere where we can discuss concerns of mutual interest, without getting too pedantic or stressed out about actions law courts. I am not asking anyone here to accept and believe my side of the story, and condemn the organisations I have sought to reform. What we could usefully explore here is whether court orders which destroy free speech, and which have been obtained by dishonest means, are enforceable. If there was a good legal basis for believing that they would be difficult to enforce, I would challenge the perpetrators in the real world in the first instance, and report the results back here, if here helped to define the answer.
I hope this explains my principled position.

feather wrote:
Me too. The best way out of it (and the true defininition of the word 'whistleblower' as I understand it) would be to shout very loudly to just about anyone who will listen, including the press.

I can understand if things have gone so far as to make you feel you're now unable to do that, but I would question just how that happened in the first place, as above. Things must have been moving very quickly indeed.

Although a fair few here have experienced corruption first-hand (who hasn't these days?) I don't think we collectively possess the necessary legal information to help you further. I hope to be proved wrong ofc, but I think we'd need more info from you in the first place. Catch 22.

Welcome, btw.

Thank you for a very pertinent suggestion Gilly. I actually took expert legal advice and was told that clearly an injustice had been done, and on this basis I was persuaded to pay over £1,000 for a barrister's opinion to clarify the process of getting the order lifted. The barrister advised that despite the fact that I had admitted to none of the allegations, and that various injustices had clearly been done, English law makes it very difficult to change agreements between two parties. A parallel is restrictive covenants, which can be enforced against new owners of properties who didn't know that previous owners breached those covenants. This often creates unfair situations, but that is English law unfortunately. In my case it would be a long and difficult process to get the order removed. Was it worth it to overturn an order which would probably never be enforced? The barrister gave me a 50/50 chance of succeeding, and I'd need a much better chance than that to get insurance for a conditional (no-win-no-fee) agreement with my solicitor to run the case. If I had £10,000 of my own money to throw down the drain, because I would probably not get my costs, then he was willing to go for it, without charging me solicitors fees, just court fees. It was suggested that I might be better off waiting for the trustees and staff of the organisations to gradually change, then re-join when the old-guard has disappeared. In the past few years, several of the old-guard have died, most have retired. I am now just left with CEO X, who would probably find it difficult to persuade the new trustees of either organisation to enforce the order, because she would have to explain and justify the subterfuge.
The lesson perhaps is that if corrupt organisations have unscrupulous lawyers they can obtain bad court decisions, but those organisations change, lawyers retire, and the determined whistleblower lives to fight another day. In the meantime, it would be helpful to exercise creative thinking to find a way to expose the general problem with English law, that allows such abuses in the first place.

Thanks Ab. Catch 22 indeed, if it was just about my situation. I did shout very loudly indeed to everyone who would listen, and the press, but they too were gagged by the order, and they were so desperate to hide the truth that they sold their souls, not expecting that some amongst them would contact me and own up. I'd like to help broaden out the discussion for general positive awareness though. I hope my further comments make this clear.

NVCO is a laudable organisation but it has no statutory role, it is at best an advisory body which offers support and publications to aid groups.

Why did the Charities Commission not pursue this themselves if they'd deemed it unlawful? The are the regulator after all.

If you have previously sought legal counsel and paid for a barristers opinion, what do you expect to glean from the usership of internet messageboards that would trump those?

In all objectivity, your cause hit the rocks as soon as you signed that agreement. Regrettable perhaps, but nonetheless true.
If a barrister estimates you have a 50/50 chance of overturning that agreement and a lawyer cannot get insurance to present your case, they are gently attempting to tell you to let it go.
I think you know these to be true and yes indeed the situation may suck and you may be mightily frustrated but I can't see a satisfactory outcome to the outline you've presented.

If that makes me the bad guy, so be it.

I don't get you wbx, sorry about that.

The entire judiciary is corrupt and in service of the state, not the people.
If you were asking how we can topple this corrupt system i would get you but you aren't asking that.
It seems your main question is, is this order enforceable.
Well that depends. If you respect and obey the system, yes it is. If you don't and have the courage of your convictions, no it isn't. Just ask Snowden...
Anyone standing up to a corrupt system paints a "target" on their back as you say. I myself have a quite big one sat there.

The main question i can see you need to answer is, are you brave and comitted enough to accept the target and all that entails.

But then, considering your evidence is of corruption in a couple of charities, is it worth it? Hardly earth shattering is it. Everyone already knows big charities are corrupt.

Please forgive me but i can smell sour grapes. Is there a chance you are acting out of personal umbrage?

I don't get why you have found and chosen a teeny forum like this to bring this to. There are many specialist sites that would be better suited to 'legal' stuff.

All that said, welcome.