As the Government has control over its departments, again, therefore the buck will lie with the Government. (Please also refer to the end of this post).
Whatever, I just think you're missing the point about the true culpability.
My point exactly, the Head of the Home Civil Service was appointed directly by the PM, so therefore where exactly do you think the blame should lie? Especially now as it appears the missing discs go somewhat higher than a junior officer.
The only person who has mentioned the Civil Service directly is me, so how is it your point. In the Civil Service
anyone below assistant secretary is a junior officer. In media terms at least.
But we are going round in circles I feel. In simple terms, why would Gordon Brown be standing in Parliament and defending his party, if he felt he/they were not to blame?
That doesn't even deserve an answer it's so obvious.
Actually, it is not known which courier service sent these discs...currently the courier service TNT are being investigated.
I read the same, but the issue seems to be surrounded in murkiness. If the discs were sent by courier it underscores my point to you and Osiris that using a courier is no guarantee of security.
eddyabs said:
...Gordon Brown, our unelected Prime Minister, has apologised on behalf of a 'junior official' who sent the package containing the disc UNREGISTERED from the Governments HMRC (Her Majesty's Revenus and Customs)....
As we can see, is was your goodself who stated the discs were sent UNREGISTERED (your caps). Perhaps before you try to score points this way, you review your own post?
All very well suggesting such, to make such accusations, but they hold no sway without proof. The remark you make about personal information, I'm sure this occurs, but again, you are heading into the realms of conspiracy when you are making no direct accusation or example.
I can assure you it does. It's not a conspiracy it's simple, honest negligence. Believe me - don't believe me, I care not.
No, the mailing company obviously should take the blame.....but this is not the point, as you already know, the person who sent these discs did so unregistered and unencrypted....and far from containing a weeks pension, these discs (again) hold the personal bank details, addresses and NI numbers of 25 million people....and your point is????
Actually I believe the data were password protected but that's a side issue. The loss of a pension payment is more of a problem to its recipient (you to buy minor items such as food) than a
theoretical ID fraud would be,
that was my point.
Actually, I was responding to Osiris....as the OP, I think I have the right to, and you already have proved within this post that you too are adept at 'going off on a tangent'.:wink:
So it's OK for you to do but not another? Being the OP grants no special privilges here with regard to the direction of the thread. To be honest I don't believe I have gone off on a tangent, I have tried to explain a few basic facts about the functioning of the Civil Service and why I believe you are placing the real blame in the wrong place because (IMHO) you are blinded by your dislike of all things Labour.
That's harsh. Of course I am entitled to hold my own opinion, it's nice to know that you assume to speak for me there. But please do state where exactly it is that I assume to speak for others?? Or are we sailing into the realms of tangents and conspiracies once more?
I wasn't speaking for you, I was speaking for myself. How is saying you have a right to your opinion speaking
for you pray tell isn't it quite the reverse? What conspiracies.....????? Could you explain where I have alluded to a conspiracy of any type
anywhere? In fact your
suggestion :
eddyabs said:
That's if it was even a genuine mistake! And come on, this was sent unencrypted on a disc and by unregistered post.
Are you suggesting the disc was 'lost'
intentionally? Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me, don't you think? Also that's your
second statement declaring them sent unregistered post.
To make my point clear as to why Gordon Brown may be more on the defensive for this huge and damaging blunder, I suggest you read this
article about the gradual politicisation of the Civil service since Labour came to power in 1997. In particular the 'fourth development'. Also if you refer to the link in the article 'September 2003
response to the ninth report of the Public Standards Committee' you'll find that the link has been removed,
especially when one discovers what exactly that link refers to.....funny that! Times change, and your argument about the Civil Service is dated. Now maybe you can understand why old 'Gord' is actually apologising.
It's interesting that the opening paragraph of the page reflects what I've said (my bold).
"The British Civil Service is now the only major Civil Service in the developed world to remain wholly unpoliticised in its upper reaches. Others sometimes claim to be, but no longer are. New appointments in these countries do not always clearly follow from party allegiance, but they reflect Ministerial preference and thus personal and political rather than constitutional and institutional loyalty."
Times do change but my argument about the Civil Service is entirely valid as a statement of principal. I've never said it
isn't being politicised because it is - and has been for decades, well before New Labour came to the party. They have merely continued the rot with renewed vigour.
As for the broken link, that happens, there's no conspiracy and the documents can be found in many places. Here's one:
Committee on Standards in Public Life | Ninth Report
The actual response by Wicks is here:
Chair’s statement on Goverment’s response to Ninth Report
I think you're looking for conspiracies where none exist. I fail to see how you can accuse me of doing the same when I'm actually doing the opposite.
I understand perfectly why Brown is on the defensive, this debacle is merely the latest in a line of defensive stands. I'm sure it won't be the last. That said nothing you have said here changes my opinion that while Brown is ultimately reponsible for departmental mistakes in a theoretical sense to expect him to resign over this is naive. Darling on the other hand is an incompetent buffoon who should be shown the door.