Defending the Indefensible: How UK Government Agencies Prioritise Self-Preservation Over Public Safety

It feels like we are never far away from the next public inquiry that examines the last government high-profile scandal, from the Post Office Horizon disaster to the Grenfell Tower fire, Hillsborough, and the Windrush scandal. But has a sustained and ingrained refusal to learn and change means that functions like The Insolvency Service , Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) and Department for Business and Trade .

When confronted with overwhelming evidence of systemic failure, government agencies with the remit to protect public safety and ensuring justice, consistently responded in a manner that prioritises their own defence over resolving the core issues.

Rather than admitting mistakes and acting swiftly to rectify them, these institutions dig in, defending their positions at the cost of public trust, safety, and justice. I am sure if asked the public would agree especially those impacted by Post Office Horizon disaster to the Grenfell Tower fire, Hillsborough, and the Windrush scandal that it is time for a cultural shift in how government agencies handle crises—a move towards transparency, accountability, and putting the public first.

Norton Motorcycles : A Modern Case of Regulatory Failure

Take, for example, the case of the Norton V4SS motorcycles. a luxury brand with 35 defects, including 20 critical safety issues. Despite the severity of these flaws, the UK’s Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA), responsible for vehicle safety, has been steadfast in its refusal to act. Instead of issuing a full recall to protect riders, the DVSA limited its response to a recall of just one defect: the oil cooler hose that Norton have refused to act against. This selective enforcement leaves multiple life-threatening safety issues unaddressed on UK roads.

Why? Because, like so many other government bodies, the DVSA has adopted a defensive stance. Admitting to the scale of the defects and issuing a comprehensive recall would acknowledge a significant regulatory failure. By limiting the recall, the agency shifts focus away from its own shortcomings, leaving consumers at risk. This behavior mirrors the defensive posturing seen in other high-profile scandals, where agencies prioritize their own reputation and minimize legal liabilities, rather than taking swift and decisive action to address the problem.

Defensiveness as a Government Pattern

The Norton case is just the latest in a series of failures that expose a troubling tendency among government institutions. Instead of embracing their role as protectors of public welfare, these agencies become defenders of their own actions. We see this pattern play out time and again, with devastating consequences.

The Post Office Horizon Scandal: Fighting the Evidence

Perhaps the most glaring example of this behavior is the Post Office Horizon scandal. Over 700 innocent sub-postmasters were wrongfully convicted of theft and fraud due to faulty IT systems. For years, the Post Office defended the integrity of its Horizon system despite overwhelming evidence that it was defective. Rather than admitting fault and rectifying the situation, the Post Office embarked on a campaign to protect its reputation—ruining lives and livelihoods in the process.

Only after a massive public outcry and a series of judicial reviews were the convictions overturned, and the truth revealed. The Post Office, like so many other government institutions, chose self-preservation over justice, even when faced with overwhelming evidence that the system had failed.

Grenfell Tower Fire: Deflecting Blame Over Safety

The Grenfell Tower fire of 2017 is another tragic example of a government institution failing in its duty to protect the public. Seventy-two people lost their lives in a preventable disaster, with unsafe cladding acting as an accelerant to the fire. In the immediate aftermath, the government’s response was not to accept responsibility or take action to prevent future tragedies. Instead, officials focused on deflecting blame, citing complex regulatory frameworks and placing the onus on contractors.

Months passed before the government finally acknowledged the systemic safety failures that had contributed to the disaster. It took sustained public outrage and the findings of the public inquiry to force a broader response. Even then, action to remove dangerous cladding from other buildings was slow, leaving thousands of residents in unsafe housing for years after the fire.

Hillsborough Disaster: A Decades-Long Fight for Truth

In 1989, 96 football fans were crushed to death at Hillsborough Stadium. Yet, for over two decades, the police and government maintained that the victims were to blame. Despite evidence of police mismanagement and overcrowding, authorities doubled down, engaging in a cover-up to protect themselves from legal and public scrutiny.

Only after tireless campaigning by the victims’ families and a reexamination of the case were the real causes of the disaster, police negligence and failure to manage the crowd, acknowledged. The Hillsborough disaster represents one of the most profound examples of institutional defensiveness, where protecting the system took precedence over truth and justice.

Windrush Scandal: Denial in the Face of Evidence

The Windrush scandal saw British citizens, most of whom had lived in the UK for decades, wrongfully detained, denied healthcare, or even deported as part of the government’s "hostile environment" immigration policy. The Home Office initially denied that there was a systemic issue, focusing instead on justifying its aggressive stance on immigration enforcement.

It wasn’t until sustained media pressure and public outrage forced the government’s hand that the Home Office admitted fault. But by then, the damage had been done. People who had lived in Britain legally for most of their lives were torn from their families and denied basic rights. Once again, a government body chose to protect its policy framework rather than addressing the human cost of its actions.

Why Defensiveness is a Systemic Issue

This pattern of defensiveness is not an accident, it’s built into the fabric of government agencies. These institutions are under immense pressure to maintain the appearance of competence. Admitting mistakes, especially those that could lead to significant legal or financial liabilities, is seen as an admission of weakness. As a result, the instinctive reaction is to deny, delay, and defend, even when lives are at stake.

This approach creates a dangerous dynamic. Government bodies, tasked with safeguarding public welfare, instead become gatekeepers of their own reputations. The result is a system that prioritizes its own interests over the very people it is meant to serve. Whether it’s defective motorcycles, unsafe housing, or wrongful convictions, the focus remains on maintaining the status quo rather than addressing the root of the problem.

A Call for Change: Transparency and Accountability

If there’s one thing these scandals have taught us, it’s that government institutions cannot be left to police themselves. There must be stronger systems of accountability and oversight to ensure that agencies act in the public’s best interest from the outset, rather than waiting for public outrage to force their hand.

Here’s what needs to change:

1. Public Acknowledgment of Mistakes: Government agencies must be required to admit mistakes early and publicly outline the steps they are taking to resolve them. This transparency will help restore public trust and prevent further harm.
2. Independent Oversight: Regulatory bodies need stronger independent oversight to ensure they are enforcing safety regulations and protecting public welfare without bias. These bodies should be empowered to intervene when agencies fail to act, particularly in cases where public safety is at risk.
3. Stronger Whistleblower Protections: Many of these scandals were brought to light by courageous individuals who risked their careers to expose systemic failures. Strengthening protections for whistleblowers will encourage more people to speak out, ensuring that issues are addressed before they spiral into full-blown crises.
4. Meaningful Consequences for Inaction: Agencies and officials who fail in their duties should face real consequences, from job loss to legal accountability. Without these deterrents, the cycle of defensiveness will continue.

Conclusion: Putting People Before Policy

The defensive posture adopted by government agencies in the face of scandals must end. Whether it’s the Norton motorcycle defects, Horizon IT system failures, Grenfell Tower fire, or Hillsborough disaster, the lesson is clear: these institutions need to prioritize public safety, truth, and justice above self-preservation.

People’s lives, livelihoods, and trust in their government are at stake. Change must start now, with a cultural shift towards transparency, accountability, and action. Public outrage shouldn’t be the catalyst for change, government agencies must be proactive in doing what’s right from the beginning.

It’s time to stop defending the indefensible and start protecting the public. Let’s demand better, for the victims of these scandals and for future generations.