A trawl of Google has found only two areas where “embedded officers” generally seem to operate: journalists with the military on operations and dedicated police officers in American schools.

1. In the case of journalists embedded with the military, the military attempts to influence their work by getting them to see the day-to-day work of soldiers on the front line but they CANNOT control what the journalist then says. The journalist is always employed by the newspaper or journal to which they are accredited and which pays them.

2. In the case if police officers, their beat is the school but the justice they dispense is that of the law and they are responsible to their police authority which pays them.

If Mr Pratten were employed as (1) his reports would not have been changed and censored by EDDC’s Mr Cohen (who admitted under oath that he “edited” a report which went to EDDC’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee about HQ relocation).

If Mr Pratten was employed in case (2) again, because he was paid via an outside agency then he would be considered as a representative of that agency (especially as Mr Pratten used cover sheets and back sheets of Davis Langdon). A “headmaster” would not influence his course of action.

But what if they were “embedded officers” a la EDDC? How would that affect the outcome of 1 and 2 above?

In case (1) it would mean a journalist submitting his or her report to a military commanding officer who would then change it to suit it to his or her requirements, circulate it and then expect it to be described as the work if the journalist but with (undocumented) bits missing. The journalist would have had no control over which bits were missing.

In case (2) the police officer would investigate a crime, find a particular. pupil allegedly committed it and then go to the headmaster and ask him if it was ok to charge the criminal on the. evidence that a crime had taken place. If the headmaster said no, the crime would go unreported and unpunished, with the police person’s bosses having no idea of this action.

EDDC seems to want to create a third category – where although the consultancy employs the worker, the client controls the worker’s output totally – neither 1 or 2 above.

This would create a dangerous precedent where a consultant would have to accept that his or her work could always be changed but the name in the report would always be theirs – no matter how much the report might be changed.

For example, a consultant might put in a report saying “Do not take this course of action, it is far too dangerous” but an embedded officer could put in the same report and have his report changed to say “Take this action, there is absolutely no danger at all”. Still with his name on it (and the cover and back page of a report that started out the opposite of what was originally written) but with a totally different conclusion. This happens to officers, they have no control over what course of action their boss decides to take.

A dangerous precedent and one that a consultant might think twice about if told that his or her status would be as an “embedded officer type 3”.