I think is a huge shame that one needs to note the detail, rather than take things at their apparent face value - however it has been demonstrated time and time again that politicians cannot be trusted to give a straight answer to a straight question, so such analysis is absolutely required. Maybe something more than the standard 'question' is needed now... Something that ensures that your fundamental enquiry is satisfied , rather than just your immediate words being addressed...
Maybe set theory would be useful - so the respondent has to place themselves in a group, rather than just repeatedly deny their membership of groups you propose to them... Or multiple choice - so a limited number of relevant responses are available, rather then the possiblity of getting an answer that doesn't actually address your question... Even journalists complain that they used to be able to trust 'number 10' - in the past they may not have given an immediate answer, but they would not mislead... now they can spin for the nation (and often do). 2009/7/22 Matt Wardman <[email protected]> > Note the detail. > > "The department's staff do not monitor any websites *to track the source of > remarks posted about Ministers*." > > That doesn't mean they don't read the remarks or track the site. > > Tracking the site access might help identify dodgy staff who believe in > transparency ... potential WHISTLEBLOWERS !!! > > Matt W > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
