Comrades, I was considering writing this up on Labourhome but it occurreed to me that there was nothing in Ms Greenwood's words that indicated she was happy for them to be publishe, and Tom didn't make clear whether or not this was the case
The plug for MySociety aside, the angle most interesting to me was that this email was to Blears and therefore DSCF would have sacked Greenwood only if they were notified by Blears' office. DSCF do not have access to Blears' inbox as far as I know. Considering the circumstances, it would seem a bit rich for Blears to have got someone else sacked for something so minor - however, that might have been in the hands of an overdefensive assistant of Blears or an overzealous senior civil servant. Either way it doesn't look good. alex On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:52 PM, paul perrin <[email protected]> wrote: > I think a similarly high profile 'right to reply' would be in order. > 99.99% of the people reading the 'right to reply' will not have seen the > original story, and 99.99% of people who saw the original story will not see > the right to reply... > > So don't directly mention the original story in the 'right to reply' - just > say how wonderful 'mysociety' is, and mention in passing that it is financed > by public contributions (of time and money) and is jealously independant so > would not disclose any data unless obliged by law etc... > > A google on "You are a disgrace (including all the other honourable > members)" (having uniquely weird grammar) shows mail, telegraph and guardian > from MSM. > > Paul /)/+) > > ps. looking further I have just seen the guaridan story is about the > mysociety denial! pump that publicity!! > > > 2009/7/6 Tom Steinberg <[email protected]> > >> I will ask all the journalists who published the story without >> checking (and perhaps the bloggers too) if they'd like to donate, as >> part of asking for corrections! >> >> Tom >> >> >> >> 2009/7/6 Alexander Harrowell <[email protected]>: >> > On Monday 06 July 2009 15:40:03 Matthew Somerville wrote: >> > >> >> > I would guess that - if the story is not actually invented out of >> whole >> > >> >> > cloth, which has to be a live consideration - they picked up a >> > >> >> > confirmation e-mail coming *in*. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> Hmm, I guess there are chinks in my armour even when I try to be >> totally >> > >> >> clear. You can't comment on TheyWorkForYou without registering, so >> > >> >> comments are either visible or reactively hidden if they're drawn to >> our >> > >> >> attention. No comment equal to, or like in any way I tried, the one >> > >> >> quoted by the Telegraph exists in the site's database in any form that >> I >> > >> >> can find. Just to be clear :) >> > >> >> >> > >> > I'm not arguing that the comment exists, just that a >> click-here-to-confirm >> > message might have been detected by inbound e-mail monitoring. >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Mailing list [email protected] >> > Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: >> > >> https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mailing list [email protected] >> Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: >> >> https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list [email protected] > Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
