Because it’s now a legal case, and because I couldn’t find any copies of it (maybe there’s responses to his content elsewhere?) I suspect that we won’t really know much until the Tribunal.

What struck me though was his defence by a Conservative, that he wasn’t revealing anything and was cautious. The article didn’t suggest to me that he was behaving like Civil Serf. It struck me as a heavy handed response – no suggestion of warnings or guidance for example.

Drawing some real lines, which the Tribunal may well do, between what’s permissible and what’s not, is very important for all government workers. Otherwise they are left with no political voice at all – I think this point gets lost in these discussions. I hope he’s being defended by his union – if he’s got one.

This doesn’t seem to be a case of someone being punished for their online activities – it’s someone being punished for one of two things : political activities, or for disclosing information revealed during the course of their work.

In fact, the full article on Paul’s blog notes that.

I suspect every civil service in the western world has longstanding restrictions on how far civil servants can become involved in political activities – and most civil servants interpret those restrictions to cover public commentary on the political process and the workings of their legislature.

This is an important point – both in maintaining the impartiality of the civil service and in determining how far civil servants will be willing to pursue transparent, honest and responsive activities online.

Their natural caution will always slow their reaction online. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but a situation that will need to be examined and addressed.