NGO Whistles

W-blowers

Fr dear Fr: Any light at the end of your canonical tunnel regarding Whistleblowers, do Whistleblowers also exist in churches at any remove?

Charity forbids a detailed ad hoc casum response given French concerns but - Whistleblowing is a modern past-time, made more popular of late, chiefly due to the very sympathetic treatment of Whistleblowers accorded them by the mass media since the Julian Assange arrest from the Ecuadorian embassy in London this last year or two, but the assumption of the mass media is interesting, since they are given a very big inexplicable platform on the assumption that a whistleblower is just a whistleblower is just a whistleblower which is true isn't it? And so WBs can always count on cooperation from a sympathetic media, and that is that - they are innocent parties motivated by concern and shock, and are keen to expose lies or corruption or scandal or injustice where they come across it inside the companies they officially work for - so that is the mass media perspective, it assumes a fundamental tabula rasa and a base innocence of the WB in question. Officially. But after several WBs escaped with pots of money, book launches, careers opportunities, and curiously coincidental launches of their lives, people in the media itself are becoming a little WB saturated and WB weary - it seems everybody who does so is officially a totally pure and innocent Laura on Little House on the Prairie or an Anne of Green Gables, and so on. Officially.

But keeping in mind the Francescas of the world, if this is true for the new victim companies such as FB who really do not like their employees escaping with 10,000 random documents downloaded onto some memory stick or CD, it is also true now more and more of churches and NGOs and charities that have also had their fair share of WBs of late. Officially the key actors are simply manifesting to the waiting world their story of how they bravely uncovered terrible injustice inside their charity, but book launches and book sponsorship deals await them with a strange rapidity and a strange velocity, like maybe they were state actors in the first place, from which many of these WBs take their inspiration. Unofficially state actors. Impossible to tell prima facie. So Whistleblowing was encouraged by state actors in the first place and then found its way into the very naive charities owned by christians and their believing pastors too. It is not beyond the pale of possibility to consider something else about such WBs when they appear strangely with their armies of lawyers, pre-organised, at public events, that in sum they may have been state actors in the first place who did not uncover injustice in a company while accidentally working there as is ever the case on these TV exposees, but simply penetrated the company and relayed messages back to the aggressor state agencies concerned in the first place - this seems to be the only logical explanation left at end of day. And it is such after we have excluded this or that alternative explanation along the way. As Sherlock Holmes says, the original actor character based possibly on my grand uncle of the same name at Dublin Castle intelligence gathering HQ - "Sometimes one must seize on the only credible explanation however seemingly implausible when it is the only logical explanation left in the repertoire of options - elementary my dear Watson."

Sometimes there is often one individual over-heating state actor behind the scenes urging some poor hapless girl like Chelsea or Francesca or Monica on and on and on. Peter Knott is an old template for this kind of thing, the idea that a church agent should only deal with churches, and this was a very popular idea among secret services in broader Europe for a long while, but state actors are also normally independent too, and they can come across as people of independent means at times, though much will depend on their primary instructions from their state agency superiors. Not for us to denigrate the achievements or their sweetness of actors like Francesca or Chelsea or Monica who are often quite innocent parties as such, in the ordinary run of things, but it is a little wearing to find more of the same over and over again. So such state actors when they are found out inside NGOs and charities and even in the normally sanguine churches, and they are never normally found out until many months after the initial revelations about the said Company in question, generally evince certain features:

- They are responding to a well-publicised secular sin or secular injustice;

- Their Exposees are often pioneered as the first in a series of lengthy exposees;

- Their Exposees are not officially engineered or contrived as a seeming confirmation of the issue;

- They are often based on the office rumours inside the company rather than on hard facts;

- They seem to be systematic of a hidden well concealed campaign by the opposition companies;

- CEOs are often brought in at the last minute to respond to the allegations, put on the stand.

So we are left with the only logical explanation, namely that such campaigns seem to be very very carefully constructed, and that only the state actor has the wherewithal or the finance or the connections to pioneer such Exposees in fact and in theory. WBs - a new quandary, a new mystery. State actors pointed.