Who's been gagged?

There I was reading a piece in the Guardian about moral relativism by Julian Baggiani, and skimming the comments that followed, when I came across:

gaggedbyBC
April 14, 2007 11:56 PM
'Relativism has made liberal openness appear weak, empty and repugnant compared with the clarity of dogma.' I hope that Julian excludes the British Council from his blanket condemnation.

A look at a few other Guardian articles shows that this writer has left his or her mark elsewhere. In comments posted by readers below an article about the TV series “Life on Mars” we find this curiosity:

I think the teachers are mad. They should follow the good example of the British Council.
Posted by gaggedbyBC on April 15, 2007 12:03 AM.

And another one below a Guardian piece about the Kurds

I don't think we need worry too much about this. Now that the British Council is moving more resources to the Middle East surely it will have a pacifying (soporific) effect on these people.
Posted by gaggedbyBC on April 15, 2007 12:07 AM

The identity of this person – an employee of the British Council perhaps? – is a mystery. The comments all appear at first glance to be supportive of the organisation’s efforts, but they appear too to be heavy with irony, and the name is something of a pointer. We all know that the British Council's claims to openness and transparency are false, but who has been gagged? Any leads or information would be appreciated.

Edit/Update. Just found another in the Guardian. Clearly somebody with a mission.

gaggedbyBC

Comment No. 530023

April 14 23:50

i hope that when David refers to 'us binge drinking Brits' that he excludes British Council employees and the positive image of Britain that they project abroad.

Comments

[Jenny Smith]

Dear Mr. Blackie,

I have enjoyed reading the BC on your site and thought that it was about time I began relating a few of the interesting events here in Beijing.

In April 2006, the IELTS examiners in China (who are classed by the BC as ‘service providers’) were informed that a new contract would be introduced (the so-called “Invitation to Examine”) along with a new system for monitoring examiners (the so-called “Professional Support Network” or “PSN”). There was considerable uproar from examiners about both the Invitation to Examine and the PSN and the deadline for signing the Invitation to Examine was extended to the beginning of June as a result.

Following the meeting, one of our examiners, who I shall identify as examiner A, tried to speak with a person I shall identify as SI, one of two Examiner Professional Support Managers in Beijing, who replied that he did not wish to discuss the matter with the examiner. He apparently managed to include the ‘F’ word in his answer. There are two witnesses to this encounter.

A group of examiners set up a committee to co-ordinate the views of examiners and present those views to the British Council managers at a meeting. In fact, there were a few meetings. It is a matter of record that examiner A contributed to the committee and that these contributions were passed on to the BC management. Examiner A also consulted the new PSN Handbook – a weighty folder detailing IELTS-related procedures. The PSN Handbook also forms part of the Invitation to Examine. (Clause 8 – Policy and Procedures – “In addition to the conditions outlined in this letter, more detailed policies, procedures and obligations will also apply. These policies, procedures and obligations are provided in the PSN Examiner Handbook …”

The main issues that examiners had with the Invitation to Examine were that it
1. includes a clause clearly stating that the Invitation to Examine can be changed by the British Council at any time without prior notice and
2. is somewhat ambiguous about the tax position of examiners in China.
Let’s take each of these issues one at a time.

When it was pointed out to SI that asking employees of any kind to sign a fluid contract that can be changed by one party at any time without the agreement of the other party is rather unusual, he stated that it is “normal practice”. When asked whether it was normal practice in the UK or in China, he replied that it was the case in both countries. This has been checked with experienced lawyers, businesspeople and employees in both countries and they all agree that including such a clause in an employment contract is not normal practice, in China or in the UK.

The relevant tax clause is, to be fair to the British Council, complicated by Chinese law. The British Council in China is part of the British Embassy, which, as a diplomatic entity, appears to hold exemption from all forms of tax in China. Helpfully, the British Council included the following sentence – “For the avoidance of doubt, you hereby agree to indemnify the British Council in respect of any liabilities, claims, demands or costs (including any penalties and/or interest in respect of late payment) incurred or made by the relevant authorities against the British Council for tax and national insurance contributions due in respect of any fees payable to you under this agreement.”

This complicates matters. What if the British Council and/or its employees are actually liable for tax and this simply hasn’t been clarified yet? What happens when (if) Chinese tax law changes? Perhaps more pertinently, what happens when the British Council becomes independent of the British Embassy? (This is something that the British Council has been trying to achieve for years now.) Are examiners only going to be liable for tax that they should have paid or will they also liable for tax that should have been paid by the British Council?

An email sent by Michael O’Sullivan (Head of the British Council in China) states that “Everywhere the British Council works, and for all [BC emphasis] staff, personal income tax and compulsory employee national insurance contributions are a personal responsibility – the British Council, like employers in general, does not pay these taxes for staff. In some countries and for some groups of staff, local law requires us to deduct income tax and national insurance from pay at source”. Several examiners noticed the discrepancy between the first and second sentences.

Examiner A was one of several examiners who refused to sign the Invitation to Examine and is therefore ineligible to test in China. However, in June, examiner A was asked to attend a disciplinary hearing. Examiner A had written to other examiners suggesting that we expose what had happened and clearly someone (inevitably) had leaked that letter to the managers in the hope of currying favour with them.

The disciplinary procedure itself was interesting. First, the rules state that an examiner who has been asked to attend a hearing regarding “gross misconduct” (of which examiner A was accused) should first be given the opportunity to discuss the matter with his/her Examiner Professional Support Manager. Examiner A was not given this opportunity. So much for all those British Council procedures that hundreds of people are paid hundreds of thousands of pounds to create! The BC claims that this is because the allegation of gross misconduct was serious. As examiner A himself asked “When is an allegation of gross misconduct not serious?”

Examiner A attended the disciplinary hearing with a colleague (who took minutes) and a Chinese member of staff was present, ostensibly also to take minutes, along with the aforementioned SI, who would be posing questions. To be precise, examiner A was accused of “jeopardising the British Council’s relationships with external clients”. The “external clients” that were referred to have never been precisely identified. Examiner A was also told that he had not attempted to make approach the British Council in any other way over the issues that he had with the new Invitation to Examine and PSN. This is a lie. As I have pointed out previously in this letter, examiner A tried to speak to SI about it. Examiner A had also accessed the whole PSN manual (there is an official British Council record of this) and spoken (again to SI) about the things he had read. Examiner A had also contributed to the committee set up by examiners to deal with the issues raised by the new contract.

The minutes of the disciplinary hearing do not reflect everything that was said. The Chinese member of staff was given a piece of paper with SI’s questions pre-printed on it, along with spaces for answers given by examiner A. Whenever examiner A was asked a question, it was not recorded, nor were the answers to those questions, as given by SI, when such answers were forthcoming, which was not often. A fuller version of the minutes does exist, since examiner A’s colleague managed to get some details down.

The result of the disciplinary hearing will not surprise those of you familiar with how the British Council works. Examiner A was found guilty of “potentially jeopardising the British Council’s relations with external clients”. In other words, the charge was modified. Examiner A tried his luck with an appeal. This was heard one-on-one with WP, and no minutes were taken. This is rather unusual for such a disciplinary meeting. WP actually works for IDP Education Australia, a partner in the administration of IELTS worldwide. Within the British Council/IELTS structure, she is Examiner Manager China.

WP said that she was concerned that examiner A hadn’t tried other methods of communication prior to sending an email to examiners suggesting further action. As I have stated above, examiner A had spoken with a manager, consulted the PSN documentation and made his views known through a committee. WP insisted that “none of these counted” as communication with management. Talking to a manager no longer counts as communication? Consulting documentation and asking questions about it no longer counts as communication? Expressing your views through a representative committee of your peers no longer counts as communication? I hope you noticed that, Lord Kinnock – ex-union man and now head of the British Council! An email sent to the British Council in the UK (including to Martin Davidson, head of the “open” BC!) never received a reply – not even an acknowledgement! The appeal failed and examiner A has been told that he can never examine in China for the British Council.

I don’t need to express what I think of the British Council and its managers – you can guess what they are. You can also guess why this message must be sent anonymously. I will be in touch with regard to other incidents shortly.

Best regards.

[Neil]

This is a quite dreadful story but sadly not unique to British Council China. It is this word
'normal' as in 'normal business practice' that must send a chill down the spine of every democrat
and trade unionist - apart from it seems Neil Kinnock who chairs
the organisation deploying such
Stalinism in China and elsewhere.

Those of us who were bundled out by British Council in Palestine after being challenged in Gaza were also told by bullying and corrupt British Council thugees
in their senior management that contracts could be varied on a whim and also that it was in no
way unacceptable for crooks with a clear conflict of interest to ask their PA to 'pp' letters of dismissal over the seal of other managers who were later proved to have been absent from the office and had not been briefed. When I raise that issue with the Council lawyers, I am also told that this was 'in line with normal business practice'. But it isn't - not in Britain, not in Ireland, not in Palestine, not in The Netherlands,
not in mainland Europe and not we now hear even in Communist China!