See update as at 15th January 2023 on Point 9 (who funds WhistleblowersUK?) and Point 8 (Twitter sock accounts)

Without Prejudice

I am writing this as a long term, respected and active participant in the international whistleblowing space and especially as a legitimate whistleblower.  In the spirit of transparency, openness, and courage, I have a number of growing concerns which I would like to share with you which affect us all and I believe to be in the public interest.

This communication is in defence of the truth and is not intended as an attack on anyone or any organisation.  This blog is not to be interpreted as a call to action, although you may choose to act.  This is a sharing of a fact-based investigation, dispassionate due diligence and the raising of rational questions.

The due diligence will follow below.  Leading into my findings is this  2 minute video highlighting assertions followed by suggested questions for you to ask.

Before running my findings up the nearest flagpole, I took my lead from this  case, and in the spirit of civil dialogue I shared and invited Georgina Halford-Hall, the CEO of WhistleblowersUK to discuss the findings with me, as a first right of reply. (see confirmation of receipt of my posted due diligence below) I added the caveat that I would be sharing my findings with whistleblowing circles if I received no response within two weeks.  Many months have now passed, and I’ve received no communication besides having been blocked by the twitter accounts of  WBUK and APPG Whistleblowing.

The truth is always worth exploring and defending, for if we can’t agree on what is true, we cannot solve any of our other problems. Truth is linked in a circular relation with systems of power that produce and sustain it, and uncovering truth and untruth is imperative to our institutions and democracy.

Wars have been fought, fortunes lost, and corporations and communities wrecked due to our discomfort in active listening and question-asking. We have grown accustomed to accepting artful paltering and half-truths.

It’s been a difficult decision to share my findings with you, but having journeyed as a Whistleblower I’ve learnt that actual tough decision making isn’t about figuring out what the right thing to do is but mustering the courage and selflessness to ask the right questions and to act on the information uncovered.

Due Diligence performed 19th August 2021

I have conducted a due diligence, without prejudice, on four video interviews, newspaper articles and social media posts which are in the public domain, of Georgina Halford-Hall, the CEO of  WhistleblowersUK and the Secretariat of the APPG on Whistleblowing.

The reason for this due diligence is because there are a number of incremental, disquieting, and conflicting narratives arising from these interviews and subsequent communications, and I believe the implications are important as they have wider implications of propriety and the perception of the whistleblowing community.

Legitimate questions cry out for answers and create a vacuum that serves as a voice opportunity via speaking up and listening up. We can either try to limit the truth by censoring, policing, and muffling all questions, terms and ideas that worry us or we can find the courage to engage to reflect, understand and grow.

Truth must be our guiding ethos and mutual care-taking our intention.

My questions currently revolve around nine Issues:

  1. Claims by Georgina Halford-Hall as a founding member of WhistleblowersUK and/or Whistleblowers UK
  2. Claims around Professional qualifications, positions held and appointed roles
  3. Claims around being a Whistleblower in the charity sector
  4. Claims around being the Whistleblower for the DoYRMS case
  5. Plagiarism
  6. Setting the wrong tone in the Whistleblowing community 
  7. Obfuscations and shadow profiles on social media
  8. How WBUK is funded in order to pay Ghh as Secretariat of the APPG on Whistleblowing
  9. Breaches of GDPR and Privacy laws

1. Claims of being a Founding Member of Whistleblowers UK, which was founded in 2012 by Ian Foxley, Eileen Chubb, Gavin Macfadyen) and/or WhistleblowersUK (founded in 2014 by Ian Foxley)

In the following video: on 21st June 2021 GHH asserts:

27.31: “…During this journey I met Ian Foxley who said ‘come and join us at Whistleblowers UK….that was sort of mid 2013 and 2014 I formally became their treasurer and by the end of 2014 we folded the company and kept the name and set it up as a proper company.”

33.20 “you asked me about Whistleblowers UK. I was a founding member because at the time I was, we were setting up the new company properly I was on police bail in my part in the handling of stolen documents…..”

36.58 “In nov 2015 I was asked to stand as CEO”

In this Video  Ghh interview with ‘David’ of the Doctors Association UK 3rd June 2021  GHH asserts:

.27 “I’m a founding member of Whistleblowers UK and made the Chief Executive in 2015”

Comments: Whistleblowers UK was founded in 2012 by Gavin MacFayden, Ian Foxley and Eileen Chubb. Herewith an email to me in September 2012 from Ian Foxley stating this.

Comments: WhistleblowersUK was founded in December 2014 by Ian Foxley and Ghh was invited to be the CEO in April 2015.  Companies House records confirm this.

2. Claims of Professional Qualifications and positions

In this Video Ghh claims via : on 21st June 2021

02.20 “I took a break and went to work for a smallish charity in a small part of the UK, the South of the UK and what I whistleblew about there ….it was just about a lack of governance

3.21 “I was suspended for gross insubordination ……..and ultimately there was an investigation into these allegations about my behaviour.”  “the concerns I raised with all of my trustees

I had all of the facts… an organisation, and I was on the Board, we have got this wrong

8.23 “the organisation I worked for didn’t survive in the end, but the work that it did continued under a different banner with different people running it and I’m really you know, I can say I’m genuinely pleased that I played a part in ensuring that did continue.

11.10 “bear in mind I’m on the Board

17.00 “my experience in working in senior levels in other organisations doing things that were much more contentious”   “I think my professional head clicked on”  

In this video Ghh is interviewed by ‘David’ of the Doctors Association UK 3rd June 2021 and claims

4.30 “I blew the whistle while working at a charity all about boring governance

This email below from Ghh dated 27th Feb 2015 stating that “I could recognise problems having been a senior leader in an organisation where problems existed in a conversation with the head”

In the following Video  of “Day 2 009 – Georgina Halford-Hall – Legislative reforms on whistleblowing in the UK  8th July 2019″  Ghh asserts

06.44 “so it’s my experience, being part of this winning whistleblower group and the very negative effects it had on my career, coz I wasn’t really working for really prestigious organisation, I was rather proud being a Chief Executive of a charity….

In 2018, being interviewed by Geoffrey Lewis for DFTNHS (doctors for the NHS) ghh claims to have worked in the HR department of the Royal Navy and went on to work in financial services, to move on to working at the Department of Work and Pensions where she was a leadership and performance management specialist. Ghh further asserts that she became the first internal HR leadership and development consultant working for the Chief of Staff, before she moved into the charity sector in 2008 as a Chief Executive Officer. (see below)

Below, the Footprints charity identifies Ghh , in April 2008, as being employed as the charity’s Centre Manager.  There are many of these validating examples populating Footprints  publications.  Such publications confirm that Ghh was no longer employed by Footprints by May 2010.




The questions begging to be asked are how and why an individual with a degree in Social Policy and Administration, who had built an impressive career, accepts employment as a Centre manager for a very small charity.  

In the following video of 26th September 2019 Isle of Man interview, Ghh is heard to assert

7.44 “I’m a Director of the Symposium of International Economic Crime over at Jesus’ College

Comments: Ghhs’ LinkedIn profile provides no information of the aforementioned qualifications (see Footprints note above: a degree in Social Policy and Administration), nor any position of Board member, CEO or Senior Leadership roles. 

Furthermore, Cambridge Economic Symposium confirmed by email that Ghh is not a Director of the Symposium in August 2021, as claimed by Ghh

I invite readers, attendees, observers, journalists and interviewers to ask for verification of any degrees that are asserted and from which University they were obtained from in addition to specific time frames of ‘senior leadership positions’ filled.

3.  Claims of being a Whistleblower for a ‘smallish charity’

Kindly note that the coloured-coded highlighted words below provide an insight into patterned and repeated claims.

In this video Ghh asserts on 21st June 2021

02.20 “I took a break and went to work for a smallish charity in a small part of the UK, the South of the UK and what I whistleblew about there ….it was just about a lack of governance

3.21 “I was suspended for gross insubordination ……..and ultimately there was an investigation into these allegations about my behaviour”

4.03 “all of those things, I’ve never put in the public domain but I really welcome the opportunity to do so now 

6.48 “I had all of the facts… an organisation, and I was on the Board, we have got this wrong

8.23 “the organisation I worked for didn’t survive in the end, but the work that it did continued under a different banner with different people running it and I’m really you know, I can say I’m genuinely pleased that I played a part in ensuring that did continue.  And, you know, again, not recognised”

11.10 “bear in mind I’m on the Board”  

13.46 “formal suspension as I was skiing down the piste” 14.06I was being told by the Vice Chairman that I was being suspended for gross insubordination“ 

15.06investigating me for helping some of our vulnerable clients to commit fraud

18.14 “it took the best part of a year to resolve it all and um, we had a couple of preliminary hearings and I had a solicitor and a barrister and um, supporting me, but I was very much in control of my own case

20.26 Jane Turner, the interviewer commentsyou were successfula judge ruled in your favour against the entity that had slapped you around” Ghh responds “if only life was so straight forward

20.44 “I had insurance….21.15 “so I was left on the first day of my hearing with a real dilemma, do I take the offer which is substantial or do I abandon the offer, abandon all my legal support and run my own case for a week or so.  And it was quite an easy decision to make  – I’m taking the money, because the the judge set out very clearly to my barrister and my barrister in turn to me that I wasn’t going to be awarded a huge amount of compensation in the courts and there’s nothing to be gained by declaring victory. And I totally agree and I’m more than happy to share that with people but I consider that I won

24.29 Jane: “did you need to sign a NDA…was that part of the settlement? “

24.41 “well, they, they, they did, they made me sign a settlement agreement. But in all honesty how do you enforce something like that? Back to putting your sensible head ofare they really going to challenge you, try and recover the money if you talk about the case , what did and didn’t happen.  The truthful answer is, no not really” 

27.31 “A bit about this , it’s the folklore that gets in the way of the truth here”  27.51 “moved abroad with my family and lived at the beach and it was different. And then my son needed to go to school….boarding school. And you know what children are like – oh, what does your Mum like – oh my Mums a whistleblower.”

In this video Ghh interview with ‘David’ of the Doctors Association UK 3rd June 2021, Ghh claims

4.30I blew the whistle while working at a charity all about boring governance……  There was some safeguarding in there……  I was, like Raj Matthu, suspended.  I was accused of a whole range of other horrendous things, like biggest bully on the planet.  But when it came down to it I did go the Employment Tribunal and after a number of hearings, and we got right down to the wire on the day of my hearing when the other side decided they wanted to settle.  Not that I did at that point, and, um but the reason I did have to, coz I was, um, being, my litigation was being funded through insurance and insurance, like settlements and barristers don’t work for free. Therefore within the context of that I say I’ve won and I unashamedly say I won coz if you get so much as one penny in compensation, let alone one pound or lots of pounds, as I got, you have persuaded people that you are telling the truth.”

In this video: Day 2 009 – Georgina Halford-Hall – Legislative reforms on whistleblowing in the UK  8th July 2019, Ghh makes the following assertions

6.22”…because I know myself, when I forced my lawyers to come to court with me, very reluctantly, that nobody was more surprised than them when I wonBecause the reality is, and from studies and numbers that we’ve got …is that only 3% of whistleblowers that go to the tribunal are successfulBut you can still lose when you win coz you don’t get your costs back.”

06.44 “so it’s my experience, being part of this winning whistleblower group and the very negative effects it had on my career, coz I wasn’t really working for really prestigious organisation, I was rather proud being a Chief Executive of a charity.that being part of 3% is really not a very, it’s just, it didn’t excite me. 

Comments: Ghh has publicly articulated her pleasure at sharing more information about her whistleblowing against a small charity where she ‘won substantial compensation’. Despite this, there have been no answers to any questions asked of her and despite being blocked on social media by Ghh, we will continue to invite her to verify these claims.

Update as of the 5th Jan 2022: A Freedom of Information request to Wiltshire Council has delivered confirmation that during ghh employment at Mere & District Footprints Ltd, there were a)  no documents referring to allegations of “financial irregularities and poor governance“. I would therefore suggest there was no whistleblowing by ghh as asserted by her.  Further confirmation verifies that b) there were no reports on changes in management, clarifying that ghh remained in her position as a centre manager and not promoted to a Board or Trustee position, as claimed by her.

With regard to claims of being part of a ‘Winning Whistleblowers group’: If ghh was one of three percent of whistleblowers who have won in an employment tribunal, as stated in a number of interviews, this ought to be celebrated and in the public domain as, it is in the public interest. There are no media reports, no legal documents, no information at all on this whistleblowing claimed by ghh, on a small charity case, where, against all odds, she claims to have won “substantial compensation” from a liquidated organisation, as a legitimate whistleblower.  

This suggests that Ghh has adopted the status of a whistleblower to dress up the legitimate claims of an investigation and suspension by her employer into her unethical, and possibly illegal acts. Basically, it’s whistleblower-appropriation and fraud.

As indicated in a number of interviews and cited above, Ghh  shares that she was suspended for gross insubordination and that her behaviour was investigated due to helping vulnerable clients commit fraud.  These are serious allegations. Was the Employment Tribunal about a Whistleblowing matter, or was it due to the investigation into her behaviour and her dismissal as a result of the investigation? I propose that if it was a whistleblowing matter she might have secured compensation, it is less likely she would secure a ‘settlement’. 

Settlement Agreement: A confidentiality clause or ‘gagging clause’ in a settlement agreement is not valid if you’re a whistleblower. Besides, if Ghh was made to sign a settlement agreement, as purported, she has shared publicly that this agreement will not stop her from disclosing information about this case and that youwelcome the opportunity to do so now’.  

Compensation as a Whistleblower or Settlement as a dismissed employee? Did Ghh actually blow the whistle on this charity or was she dismissed for her unethical acts?  Did she receive compensation under PIDA, as a whistleblower, or did she receive a settlement/compromise payment via an agreement with her employers, for her dismissal? 

The most common word utilised under UK Whistleblowing laws is ‘compensation’ and not ‘settlement’ – is Ghh conflating the two words to obstruct the truth?

Having spoken to Mr Peter Mason from Mere & District, ex Chairman of Footprints Ltd, he confirms that Ghh worked as a Centre manager at Footprints Ltd from 2008 to 2010.  He does not recall any whistleblowing taking place.   Mr Mason is willing to put me in touch with other individuals who worked at Footprints Ltd at the time of her employment, citing that Georgina was ‘notorious for all the wrong reasons’  

Because Ghh has articulated that she welcomes sharing this case in the public domain we seek confirmation of  whether this copy below, via the Employment Tribunal offices is a reference to her whistleblowing case against the ‘small charity’ or is it to do with her dismissal?  We note that the ET proceedings were dismissed by the claimant, Mrs G Shaw-Halford and question whether this  was due to an agreed settlement between Ghh and Footprints Ltd and wonder how Footprints Ltd was able to pay ghh a settlement of any kind since they were in liquidation.

In October 2019, a colleague of ghh who worked with her at Footprints attempted to reveal the truth of her dismissal by posting the following tweets:

The ex colleague suggested Freedom of Information requests in the following matters:


The timing of information within  above tweet, 24th March 2010, ties in with ghh no longer an employee at Footprints by May 2010.

Regrettably it has taken us two years from these alerts to take action and we have requested information, via the FOI process on the aforementioned suggestions. FOI requests have been lodged with the DWP, Wiltshire Police and the FCA and we will keep you updated accordingly.

4.Claims of being the Whistleblower for the DoYRMS (Duke of York Royal Military School) case

In this video on 21st June 2021 we hear the following:

27.13 Jane, the interviewer asksDid it take you some time to really recover and I’m really interested in how you turned it around….you turned it around and founded this organisation – can you tell us that process?

A bit about this, it’s the folklore that gets in the way of the truth here”  27.51 “moved abroad with my family and lived at the beach and it was different. And then my son needed to go to school….boarding school. And you know what children are likeoh, what does your Mum like – oh my Mums a whistleblower and so within days of him starting at the school people came and started, the teachers, the staff in the school telling me about things that were wrong at the school” 

28.56 It’s deeply saddening that so few people in positions of authority at the school decided to use their positions, or take, use the protections extended to them by the public disclosures act to actually make those disclosures themselves..  But it didn’t stop me from engaging with the regulators, the police, with the local authorities , all of the people who had obligations”

33.40 “in the medical centre in a school.  I was given this evidence by a member of staff at the school” 

Comment: At 28.56, Ghh  states that the ‘workers’ employed or contracted at the school, who would have been protected via PIDA chose not to utilise their rights, to not “actually make those discloures themselves”. If Ghh had already been a whistleblower, as claimed for the ‘smallish charity’, and she had wonshe would have known about PIDA, known about the rights and protections for these ‘workers’.

I challenge what the reason might be for Ghh  not to share her knowledge and information about PIDA with the workers who were handing over information to her and, instead, chose to handle the information herself and put herself in the frame as the whistleblower,

35.02 Jane, the interviewer asks – “so you obviously, successfully blew the whistle on that school? “ (There is no response)

In this video of Ghh being interviewed with ‘David’ of the Doctors Association UK 3rd June 2021  Ghh claims:

4.30 ….I went on again, and just in case you’ve read the poster behind me in the newspaper, to be involved in some whistleblowing which I wasn’t actually a worker so wasn’t protected by legislation and…..  So, in the picture behind, you know, I became an inadvertent whistleblower at a school where disclosures were being made to me

Comment:  There was no requirement for Ghh to become ‘an inadvertent whistleblower’ since, as she claims, she had had experience of being a ‘winning whistleblower’ for the charity she mentions and would have known about PIDA.

In this article  we note the mention of ‘whistleblowing parents‘, plural and no mention of Ghh as the whistleblower.

We acknowledge the detriments suffered by the aforementioned Nurse, Beverley Richards, who leaked the medical book in the first instance.

Communication from Matrons at the School on how they were mislead by Ghh:

Comment:  It appears from the above evidence plus 100s of pages of additional evidence I have seen that it was Nurses who leaked a medical book to GHH  in addition to Tracy Austin, an employee of the school who leaked additional information to Ghh.   Both Nurses and Tracy would have been considered as workers with all PIDA rights and protections. 

What possible reason could there be for Ghh to choose to persuade these employees to provide the leaked information to her instead of persuading them of the legitimate process of whistleblowing and their rights under PIDA? After all, Ghh makes claims of historical whistleblowing and being part of a 3% winning whistleblowing group and would therefore have conscious knowledge of whistleblowing and the law and how to win a case.

The loss to these workers, the nurses and Tracy Austin, is fundamental. Due to the mishandling of the information by Ghh, these workers have suffered detriments but are not able to claim compensation as whistleblowers.  This in contrast to Ghh narratives articulating publicly that it is her who is the whistleblower, with no mention of the honourable people involved who placed their trust in her to do the right thing. 

I suggest Ghh has cynically crafted a career by putting herself in the frame of being a whistleblower. 

Please consider the Theft Act UK includes the appropriation through dishonesty where one person loses and another wins through deception.         See quote below:

In this video 4: 26th September 2019 Ghh asserts:

5.02 “So, while I was running Whistlebowers UK we were helping some whistleblowers at a school and the police decided to arrest me, and we were doing, and as I say lightly, it’s a very serious matter. We were exposing allegations of very significant child abuse, sexual abuse of children….”

Comment:  Many individuals, journalists, investigators NGOs etc ‘help whistleblowers’. None of them, however, claim to be the whistleblower. Protection for legitimate whistleblowers is limited to work-based relationship.  Customers, clients, parents have a different relationship to an organisation and protection is usually rather a question of consumer laws, or of education laws. Protection is usually provided in this context through administrative or civil remedies. 

06.00 “I went to the Crown Court and was found not guilty

Comment: Tracy Austin and Ghh attended a hearing and not a trial, as evidenced below:

There is a difference between a Hearing and a Trial and neither Ghh nor Tracy would have been charged through a hearing. Additionally, there was a discontinuance of the charges, therefore no trial would have taken place. See below, and

Comment:  against the hearing and trial processes of UK Crown Courts and the statement of facts via the Cambridge Crown Court letter above, Ghh claims that she went to trial , was charged and was found not guilty, additionally, stating it as a headline to the WhistleblowersUk twitter account.  This is not the truth. See below from ‘waterside09′ a shadow twitter account of Ghhs’.

5. Appropriation of a legitimate Whistleblower’s experience:

Comments: The above post is on the WhistleblowersUK Facebook page, which was created on the 2nd of  September 2014.   The article is dated the 6th of September 2014 and was shared by the administrator for WhistleblowersUK in the acknowledgement that Tracy Austin is the legitimate whistleblower for the DOYRMS.  As Ghh stated, she became involved with WhistleblowersUK in later 2013, early 2014.

Whoever posted this onto the WhistleblowersUK Facebook page in 2014 recognised that Tracy Austin was the whistleblower for the DOYRMS whistleblowing case.  There have never been any posts, media reports or legal reports that recognise Ghh as the whistleblower for the DOYRMS whistleblowing case.

The same Daily Mail piece is posted again on the WhistleblowersUk Facebook page in 2016, supporting a different narrative.  As Ghh stated, she was initially the treasurer of WhistleblowersUK, from 2014 and then the CEO of WhistleblowersUK from 2015. How does this newspaper article and the sharing on WhistleblowersUK Facebook align with Ghh claims of being the whistleblower for the DOYRMS whistleblowing case?

In 2015, in crafting a list of whistleblower speakers for the Cambridge Economic Symposium, in which I was copied in, Ghh is suggested to be a speaker and identified as the whistleblower for the DoYRMS case (see below)

However, formally, Ghh is removed as a speaker talking about her ‘experience as a whistleblower’ and identified only as a consultant to WhistleblowersUK. (see below)

In contradiction to this, as noted above, I was there speaking at the event and recall Ghh stating that she was the whistleblower for the DoYRMS case.

Furthermore, see Ian Foxley’s letter, as a Director of Whistleblowers UK and dated 3rd July 2014, in recognising Tracy Austin as the whistleblower for the DOYRMS whistleblowing case. See below

Additionally, via the York University Press and from Ian Foxley

Comment: An additional mention of GHH reporting wrong doing in a charity and receiving a settlement. This note states that GHH was a parent supporting a ‘primary whistleblower who was a teacher’.

Additionally, below, an email dated 26th Feb 2015 from Ian Foxley to Ian and Simon, copying GHH in, clearly stating Tracy Austin as the whistleblower.

On asking Ghh about this discrepancy between her suggestion that she was the whistleblower for the DOYRMS case versus Tracy Austin as the whistleblower and via our Twitter correspondence on the 29th July 2021: Ghh states  ‘Tracy wasn’t the whistleblower’ followed by her comment ‘the identity of the whistleblower has never been disclosed’.  This suggests that at 6.58pm Ghh agreed that there had been an anonymous whistleblower.  However, by 11.09, Ghh had changed her position to state that she was indeed the whistleblower, in spite of media coverage, Facebook postings to the WhistleblowersUK Facebook page and legal reports that state otherwise.

If we agree that Ghh is not the legitimate whistleblower for the DOYRMS case I suggest Ghh has benefited and profited from the whistleblower label and her tweet under @waterside09 below, in 2019, is ironic in the extreme.

As is the comment below left, from page 10 of  the APPG on Whistleblowing 2019 report. Especially since ghh had personally and publicly supported Carl Beech, the fraudster who was jailed for making false claims about a paedophile ring in influential circles.



6. Plagiarism

In this video: on 21st June 2021  Ghh is heard to say

36.29 “I just plagiarise from everyone else


in this video: Ghh interview with ‘David’ of the Doctors Association UK 3rd June 2021

3.15 “ Feels like an AA meeting – I am a whistleblower” 

Comment: this is copyright infringement, plagiarising my narrative – See me speaking at an event here and my comment about an AA meeting and whistleblowing: comment here:

7.  Whistleblowing – setting the right tone

In this video: Day 2 009 – Georgina Halford-Hall – Legislative reforms on whistleblowing in the UK  8th July 2019  Ghh asserts

12.30 “everyone has a different understanding of what the legislation means and much of that comes out of the fact while whistleblowing is the term defined to this action, its not defined in the law so a huge part of what we’re debating this afternoon is what is whistleblowing.  It’s great to roll out the stories and we can all be really entertaining – I haven’t written my book yet but I’ll probably get around to it”  

Comment: we continue to invite Ghh to clarify statement highlighted  above as it suggests that she has knowledge outside of current international legislation.

04.20 “…..courageous – I’ve been called  so often.  The only thing that was courageous about everything Ive done is about the amount of money I’ve had to spend to do it.”

Comment: if Ghh believes that the only courageous thing about whistleblowing is about the amount of money spent in the courts then I suggest she has not journeyed as a legitimate whistleblower.

8.  Other acts of probable dishonesty

On discovering a LinkedIn profile of a ‘georgina Shaw-Halford’, the same name as the individual working at the charity Footprints Ltd, Mere & District, and cited as the Employment Tribunal claimant, above, I sought verification that this individual had been or is a Principal consultant at Penna.  See below confirmation from Penna that georgina shaw-Halford is not a principal consultant at Penna.

Below, a LinkedIn profile suggestive of the role Ghh claimed in an early interview, noted in Number 2 above. We will be seeking confirmation from Kevin White, who spent seven years as HR director general in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) within the timeframe of this claim.

There is a clear pattern of Ghh opening a number of social media accounts with similar names and/or names that suggest a professional role or intention. Many of these cross over and communicate with each other.

Twitter sock accounts:   These shadow accounts all share the same claims and grievances but originate from different sock acounts.  Below we see (a) Twitter accounts of WhistleblowersUK and SpeakerOfTruth cross-engaging, both Ghh sock  accounts

(b) Disenfranchised, an additional Ghh Twitter sock account, identifying as the whistleblower for the Duke of Yorks Royal Military School

(c) SpeakerOfTruth circling to the Duke of York Military whistleblowing case

(d) Ultor, an additional GHH Twitter sock account circling back to Tracy Austin, the legitimate whistleblower for the Duke of York Royal Military School and identifying as the individual in the dock with Tracy.

(e) Herbert Howell, an additional Ghh shadow twitter sock account, responds to an ex employee of Footprints of Mere & District when they invite her to be truthful about the reasons for her dismissal.

Updates from 15th January 2023

(f)  SeekingJustice-GHH Twitter sock account

(g)pursuerofjustice- GHH Twitter  sock account

(h)Disenfranchised, a recognisied GHH sock account ,tweeting directly to pursuerofjustice, another of GHH’s twitter sock accounts

(i) SeekingJustice, a GHH sock account, re tweeting another of GHHs’ sock accounts, Disenfranchised – ‘outing herself as a trustee of Whistleblowers UK’


9.  With no obvious income, and WhistleblowersUK not registered as a charity, where does WBUK obtain their funds  in order to pay Ghh a salary for her position as Secretariat via the APPG Whistleblowing?

UPDATED 15th January 2023

As you know, Georgina Halford-Hall is the CEO of WhistleblowersUK. She is also the Secretariat of the APPG on Whistleblowing. To date, Halford-Hall, via WhistleblowersUK has donated an amount of £64 500.00 to the APPG on Whistleblowing. This amount is undeclared in the 2021 #financials of WhistleblowersUK.

Q1. Is this a #conflictofinterest? (Y/N)
Q2. Are you curious as to the source of the £64 500, undeclared, from WhistleblowersUK especially since WhistleblowersUK claim to have no Whistleblowing cases and declare having only £2 000.00 as income in any given year. 

Here’s a helpful hint before you answer: In light of the Westminster Accounts being compiled by Tortoise Media it’s worth rewatching Ian Hislop of Private Eye, Solomon Hughes and Richard Brooks attend the UK Parliament Standards Select Committee. Watch from 2mins in.

Look away to accept the strings that others pull for you, but above all, never lie to yourself. It is better to be an outcast, a stranger in one’s own country, than an outcast from one’s self.

After you’ve answered the questions above, head off to see more here: and try out the Tortoise tool for yourself.

To set the tone for what follows, the email below, dated 30th March 2014, from Ian Foxley, the CEO of WhistleblowersUK at the time, to David Cameron, confirms that it was Ian who ignited the creation of an APPG on Whistleblowing and not ghh, as claimed by her.

As a lead into factual evidence gathering and to demonstrate the concern of significant others, the Rt Hon Sir Norman Lamb resigned from the APPG Whistleblowing Group due to the lack of transparency of the external secretariat, Ghh.   This occurred after Sir Lambs’ legitimate questions about funding and finance were denied a response.
Please see below a copy of Mr Lambs’ letter to the Secretariat, 2019.
The lead up to Rt Hon Sir Lamb resigning was the discovery that the external secretariat, Ghh, who also operates as the CEO of WhistleblowersUK, was being provided with funding by American Whistleblower & Anti trust legal firm  Constantine Cannon
Note the above confirmation that in 2018, WhistleblowersUK was paid by Constantine  Cannon to act as the groups’ secretariat.  I would consider this a conflict of interest, at worst, lobbying, “which is a polite word for corruption” (Ian Hislop Jan 2022)
It appears that from late 2019, due to pressure for transparency and the resignation of Sir Lamb, the updated register of APPGs record that WhistleblowersUK is now ‘part funded by Constantine Cannon’. Additionally, there is £7 000.00 pa increase to WhistleblowersUK, ghh. How are these payments being funded?
In February 2019, a Whistleblowing activist received a reply from MP Stephen Kerr, who was the Chairman of the APPG on Whistleblowing, and  in response to her queries about what monies are paid to the Secretariat from the funds of the APPG Whistleblowing:
We note that Constantine are removed as funders from Feb 2020 to Feb 2022 which beggars the question as to what the origins of the funding from WhistleblowersUK are in order to pay monies over to the APPG Whistleblowing group.
The questions raised by Sir Lamb still stands.  How does the APPG on Whistleblowing raise funds?  Where does WhistleblowersUK receive their funding?  How is Constantine Cannon influencing UK policy?
As at the 18th of December 2021, we note the following curiosities:
The website for the APPG on Whistleblowing  , after being down for over one month, re appeared in January 2022. The most curious update was the resignation of Baroness Kramer, who had been the Co Chair to MP Mary Robinson.  After much media publicity by Kramer for the APPG on Whistleblowing,  there is no explanation for her resignation.  We are, once again, left only to consider her decision.
Screen grabs of when the APPG on Whistleblowing website did exist include extraordinary language, such as the example below which induces the question as to when a parliamentary APPG group has ‘clients’.  Might ghh’s  avarice have caused this Freudian slip?
Considering the importance of GDPR, the notion that the APPG on Whistleblowing commits to storing data in a ‘secure spreadsheet’ is astonishing.  Besides, WhistleblowersUK have had a number of formal and upheld complaints against their lack of adherence to privacy laws, breaching any trust from whistleblowers.                                      
The husband of Ghh is a Director of not only WhistleblowersUK but also two additional whistleblowing entities.  What is the purpose of these whistleblowing entities? Both of them are dormant, however dormant financial vehicles are often utilised to move money through in order to obscure their true origins and purposes.
Money grabbing from financially compromised Whistleblowers, and in contravention of regulation 4 of the Compensation (Regulated Claims management Services) order 2006.  a) WhistleblowersUK is offering associate membership, for a fee, with cynical financial onboarding that ensures monthly fees extend, at least annually. As far as I’m aware this is the only whistleblowing entity in the world that charges money for individuals to join them.
b) Below, additional evidence of WhistleblowersUK charging Whistleblowers  to pay £150 per hour, in contravention of regulation 4 of the Compensation (Regulated Claims management Services) order 2006. 
c) Accepting donations and claiming 5% of any Whistleblower’s compensation, against  regulation 4 of the Compensation (Regulated Claims management Services) order 2006.
d) In order to benefit personally, WhistleblowersUK , Georgina Halford Hall, purposefully positioned the company fraudulently as a charity and continued to utilise the company number of Whistleblowers UK which had been dissolved in 2015, which is another legal breach of the law. 
Ghh has utilised her parliamentary email as a tool of abusive power, not as an MP which she isn’t, but merely as an administrator,  to induce three police forces and the Charity Commission to silence a legitimate whistleblower and Founder of a Whistleblowing charity. See the May 2021 reporting by Private Eye. 
As at 18th January 2022, all agencies involved agreed that the claims made by ghh were unfounded and malicious.  Please find the report from the Whistleblowing Charity Founder here. The report covers a lot of interesting points, one of which is the ongoing counter investigation of WhistleblowersUK and the Charity Commission.
Currently there are ongoing collective concerns, legal, regulatory and psychological, aligned with the above list and this blog will be kept updated to keep you informed.  We would be happy to  listen if you have anything additional to add to this live due diligence. 
I invite you to ask your own questions, to prepare your own due diligence. This is in order for you to protect your reputation and to protect the truth.
Legitimate questions cry out for answers and create a vacuum that serves as a voice opportunity via speaking up and listening up. We can either try to limit the truth by censoring, policing, and muffling all questions, terms and ideas that worry us or we can find the courage to engage to reflect, understand and grow.