UPDATED: Confidential memo tells shocked Wirral councillors their emails are being read by town hall bosses

Wirral Globe: Wallasey Town Hall: 'Vetting' emails sent by the public to councillors Wallasey Town Hall: 'Vetting' emails sent by the public to councillors

Tory councillors have reacted with fury over the vetting of emails from the public by senior local authority managers.

A “confidential note” was circulated by chief executive Graham Burgess to all council members indicating that emails could be filtered to allow council staff to reply to grievances from the public.

Mr Burgess said the move was a reaction to several offensive emails - including some making reference to the Hillsborough disaster - sent to councillors by a member of the public.

Councillor Chris Blakeley said today: “I think it is outrageous that the council should determine which emails we should receive.

“I am totally opposed to any censorship this council might want to impose – particularly on elected members. I don’t want my name added to the filter list.

“It will be my decision about whether I read emails from members of the public.”

Conservative colleague Cllr Lesley Rennie said she was appalled that emails should be vetted to "ensure councillors are only given the good news."

She said: "If any member of the public wishes to contact me on any matter at all, I want to see that email. I do not want council managers intercepting emails and deciding which I should see, and which should be kept from me.

"It's really important to me that I hear views - good and bad - about the council.

"Let's not forget, it was this kind of secrecy that whistleblower Martin Morton exposed and which successive council leaders have said would not happen again."

She added: “My colleagues and I are absolutely appalled that there could have even been a suggestion that emails from the public could be considered for filtering.”

Mr Burgess said: “I have received a number of complaints regarding the content, unacceptable tone and high volume of emails sent by [an individual] including a specific concern regarding comments about the Hillsborough memorial service held at Wallasey Town Hall.

"I view this very seriously.

"Because of the offence given by this person regarding Hillsborough, a decision was made to filter emails - and every single councillor was asked if they wanted to continue receiving them.

“This is not censorship.

"We are not stopping [him] from contacting the council and councillors who want to receive his emails will continue to do so.

"His emails are not being blocked but are instead being directed to a specific inbox so that abusive comments do not continue to cause offence.

"It goes without saying that legitimate issues or enquiries will be dealt with appropriately.”

The chief exceutive added: "The reference to Martin Morton had no relevance whatsoever – it was a misrepresentation of the facts.”

Comments (40)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:21am Fri 2 May 14

johnbrace says...

Surely the quote attributed in the article to Councillor Blakeley should read censorship not sponsorship?
Surely the quote attributed in the article to Councillor Blakeley should read censorship not sponsorship? johnbrace
  • Score: 10

12:09pm Fri 2 May 14

PaulCa says...

It became obvious when some buffoon let the cat out of the bag...

http://goo.gl/n4cIFs


...that the usual suspects had been screening FoI responses for some time, so this is a natural progression. They've now moved on to interfering with elected members' emails.

I think it would have at least been a courtesy to contact these "aggrieved members of the public" (unfortunately pejorative) to inform them that their emails may not reach the representatives that they've entrusted their mandates to at the ballot box.

With each day that passes, it seems the LGA's expensive involvement didn't do what it said on the tin, and that the "Improvement" Board was here to P R O T E C T ongoing power abuse - and not to I M P R O V E democratic accountability.
It became obvious when some buffoon let the cat out of the bag... http://goo.gl/n4cIFs ...that the usual suspects had been screening FoI responses for some time, so this is a natural progression. They've now moved on to interfering with elected members' emails. I think it would have at least been a courtesy to contact these "aggrieved members of the public" (unfortunately pejorative) to inform them that their emails may not reach the representatives that they've entrusted their mandates to at the ballot box. With each day that passes, it seems the LGA's expensive involvement didn't do what it said on the tin, and that the "Improvement" Board was here to P R O T E C T ongoing power abuse - and not to I M P R O V E democratic accountability. PaulCa
  • Score: 12

12:33pm Fri 2 May 14

sandals_wearer says...

"every single councillor was asked if they wanted to continue receiving them"

If true - that councillors can opt out of the filtering - this is pretty much a non-story
"every single councillor was asked if they wanted to continue receiving them" If true - that councillors can opt out of the filtering - this is pretty much a non-story sandals_wearer
  • Score: 4

12:37pm Fri 2 May 14

Cheesy Peas says...

"a misrepresentation of the facts"

Dear oh dear. Total irony fail, GB.
"a misrepresentation of the facts" Dear oh dear. Total irony fail, GB. Cheesy Peas
  • Score: 10

12:52pm Fri 2 May 14

Growl Tiger says...

It is certainly not a non story. We know that many senior officers lie because for some reason they find it easier than telling the truth. They back up each other’s version of events so we seldom get an honest response to our requests, queries or complaints. If emails to our elected members are now “filtered” (for whatever reason) then all straightforward communication with the Council has been taken from us.
WBC has its own dictionary which defines the word “filter” as DELETE.
It is certainly not a non story. We know that many senior officers lie because for some reason they find it easier than telling the truth. They back up each other’s version of events so we seldom get an honest response to our requests, queries or complaints. If emails to our elected members are now “filtered” (for whatever reason) then all straightforward communication with the Council has been taken from us. WBC has its own dictionary which defines the word “filter” as DELETE. Growl Tiger
  • Score: 10

1:00pm Fri 2 May 14

JohnON says...

sandals_wearer wrote:
"every single councillor was asked if they wanted to continue receiving them"

If true - that councillors can opt out of the filtering - this is pretty much a non-story
The fact that 'wirral.gov.uk' is capable of filtering emails addressed to individuals is what makes this a story.

The fact that nameless/faceless individuals have access to the filtering settings is what makes this a story.

At what level(s) can the filtering take place? Clearly the 'From' address. The message content? The 'To' address? Who knows.

Residents have a right to expect that their emails will reach the intended recipient without nameless people from this "open and transparent" Council having a good nose of it first.

Luckily most councillors have other contact arrangements besides the ATwirral.gov.uk email address.
[quote][p][bold]sandals_wearer[/bold] wrote: "every single councillor was asked if they wanted to continue receiving them" If true - that councillors can opt out of the filtering - this is pretty much a non-story[/p][/quote]The fact that 'wirral.gov.uk' is capable of filtering emails addressed to individuals is what makes this a story. The fact that nameless/faceless individuals have access to the filtering settings is what makes this a story. At what level(s) can the filtering take place? Clearly the 'From' address. The message content? The 'To' address? Who knows. Residents have a right to expect that their emails will reach the intended recipient without nameless people from this "open and transparent" Council having a good nose of it first. Luckily most councillors have other contact arrangements besides the ATwirral.gov.uk email address. JohnON
  • Score: 12

1:17pm Fri 2 May 14

Moogos says...

Why doesn't any of the Councillors RESPOND to the emails being sent. to them? One emailer, a brilliant mind, historian and chartered accountant in the middle of exposing serious fraud and misfeasance instances in another potential council scandal gets treated like s***. This is another Martin Moreton type scandal and you only have yourselves to blame, all of you. When eventually the papers including this one have the guts to print that story without fear from reprisals (perceived) lets see whether Kowlonski gets involved there too. Im sure she will as central government is watching.
Why doesn't any of the Councillors RESPOND to the emails being sent. to them? One emailer, a brilliant mind, historian and chartered accountant in the middle of exposing serious fraud and misfeasance instances in another potential council scandal gets treated like s***. This is another Martin Moreton type scandal and you only have yourselves to blame, all of you. When eventually the papers including this one have the guts to print that story without fear from reprisals (perceived) lets see whether Kowlonski gets involved there too. Im sure she will as central government is watching. Moogos
  • Score: 22

1:27pm Fri 2 May 14

PaulCa says...

Moogos wrote:
Why doesn't any of the Councillors RESPOND to the emails being sent. to them? One emailer, a brilliant mind, historian and chartered accountant in the middle of exposing serious fraud and misfeasance instances in another potential council scandal gets treated like s***. This is another Martin Moreton type scandal and you only have yourselves to blame, all of you. When eventually the papers including this one have the guts to print that story without fear from reprisals (perceived) lets see whether Kowlonski gets involved there too. Im sure she will as central government is watching.
Because the heavy hand of the abusive and unaccountable council has a grip on the throats of elected members, some of whom are up to their collective necks in enabling and protecting fraudsters.

Hence Simon Mountney's bowing out.
[quote][p][bold]Moogos[/bold] wrote: Why doesn't any of the Councillors RESPOND to the emails being sent. to them? One emailer, a brilliant mind, historian and chartered accountant in the middle of exposing serious fraud and misfeasance instances in another potential council scandal gets treated like s***. This is another Martin Moreton type scandal and you only have yourselves to blame, all of you. When eventually the papers including this one have the guts to print that story without fear from reprisals (perceived) lets see whether Kowlonski gets involved there too. Im sure she will as central government is watching.[/p][/quote]Because the heavy hand of the abusive and unaccountable council has a grip on the throats of elected members, some of whom are up to their collective necks in enabling and protecting fraudsters. Hence Simon Mountney's bowing out. PaulCa
  • Score: 11

2:35pm Fri 2 May 14

sandals_wearer says...

JohnON wrote:
sandals_wearer wrote:
"every single councillor was asked if they wanted to continue receiving them"

If true - that councillors can opt out of the filtering - this is pretty much a non-story
The fact that 'wirral.gov.uk' is capable of filtering emails addressed to individuals is what makes this a story.

The fact that nameless/faceless individuals have access to the filtering settings is what makes this a story.

At what level(s) can the filtering take place? Clearly the 'From' address. The message content? The 'To' address? Who knows.

Residents have a right to expect that their emails will reach the intended recipient without nameless people from this "open and transparent" Council having a good nose of it first.

Luckily most councillors have other contact arrangements besides the ATwirral.gov.uk email address.
I'd be amazed if the systems administrators of any large organisation didn't have such a facility, if only to filter spam and malicious mail-bombing (and, no, I'm not saying that's what's happened in this instance).

*If* it's true that individual councillors can determine whether this filter is applied to their mail, I don't see the problem.
[quote][p][bold]JohnON[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sandals_wearer[/bold] wrote: "every single councillor was asked if they wanted to continue receiving them" If true - that councillors can opt out of the filtering - this is pretty much a non-story[/p][/quote]The fact that 'wirral.gov.uk' is capable of filtering emails addressed to individuals is what makes this a story. The fact that nameless/faceless individuals have access to the filtering settings is what makes this a story. At what level(s) can the filtering take place? Clearly the 'From' address. The message content? The 'To' address? Who knows. Residents have a right to expect that their emails will reach the intended recipient without nameless people from this "open and transparent" Council having a good nose of it first. Luckily most councillors have other contact arrangements besides the ATwirral.gov.uk email address.[/p][/quote]I'd be amazed if the systems administrators of any large organisation didn't have such a facility, if only to filter spam and malicious mail-bombing (and, no, I'm not saying that's what's happened in this instance). *If* it's true that individual councillors can determine whether this filter is applied to their mail, I don't see the problem. sandals_wearer
  • Score: -9

2:43pm Fri 2 May 14

PaulCa says...

Not condoning this for one second, but the Data Protection Act deems that the Data Controller OWNS all information arriving onto its own system. Which includes e.g. Councillor Bloggs emailing his wife from the Town Hall to ask her to chill some Chateau D'Trough in readiness for a relaxing night on the veranda.

This ownership, and the protection of senior people granted carte blanche to interfere is where democracy is being eroded.
Not condoning this for one second, but the Data Protection Act deems that the Data Controller OWNS all information arriving onto its own system. Which includes e.g. Councillor Bloggs emailing his wife from the Town Hall to ask her to chill some Chateau D'Trough in readiness for a relaxing night on the veranda. This ownership, and the protection of senior people granted carte blanche to interfere is where democracy is being eroded. PaulCa
  • Score: 8

2:49pm Fri 2 May 14

JohnON says...

"*If* it's true that individual councillors can determine whether this filter is applied to their mail, I don't see the problem."

I understand what you're saying and, in the general context of a large organisation, I would agree with you.

But local councillors are more likely to be receiving complaints about council departments (or about individual officers within the council) than is an 'ordinary' large organisation which has dedicated complaints procedures. As such 'Private and Confidential' should mean just that.
"*If* it's true that individual councillors can determine whether this filter is applied to their mail, I don't see the problem." I understand what you're saying and, in the general context of a large organisation, I would agree with you. But local councillors are more likely to be receiving complaints about council departments (or about individual officers within the council) than is an 'ordinary' large organisation which has dedicated complaints procedures. As such 'Private and Confidential' should mean just that. JohnON
  • Score: 9

3:26pm Fri 2 May 14

JohnON says...

PaulCa wrote:
Not condoning this for one second, but the Data Protection Act deems that the Data Controller OWNS all information arriving onto its own system. Which includes e.g. Councillor Bloggs emailing his wife from the Town Hall to ask her to chill some Chateau D'Trough in readiness for a relaxing night on the veranda.

This ownership, and the protection of senior people granted carte blanche to interfere is where democracy is being eroded.
Protecting people's data is one area where the technology of the internet is always several steps ahead of individual's rights.

For example, individual councillors can register as data controllers (and be responsible for the 'sanctity' of the data they receive) as they'll likely be handling residents' personal information.

But that becomes pretty meaningless if another data controller further up the food chain has already had their grubby hands on the same data - which may or may not then make it down the chain.

Overall, data is much better left non-interfered with and let the final recipient handle his/her own filtering: Who hasn't been waiting for an important email only to find it's been trapped way upstream by their ISP's 'harsh' spam filtering. Much better to do it yourself!
[quote][p][bold]PaulCa[/bold] wrote: Not condoning this for one second, but the Data Protection Act deems that the Data Controller OWNS all information arriving onto its own system. Which includes e.g. Councillor Bloggs emailing his wife from the Town Hall to ask her to chill some Chateau D'Trough in readiness for a relaxing night on the veranda. This ownership, and the protection of senior people granted carte blanche to interfere is where democracy is being eroded.[/p][/quote]Protecting people's data is one area where the technology of the internet is always several steps ahead of individual's rights. For example, individual councillors can register as data controllers (and be responsible for the 'sanctity' of the data they receive) as they'll likely be handling residents' personal information. But that becomes pretty meaningless if another data controller further up the food chain has already had their grubby hands on the same data - which may or may not then make it down the chain. Overall, data is much better left non-interfered with and let the final recipient handle his/her own filtering: Who hasn't been waiting for an important email only to find it's been trapped way upstream by their ISP's 'harsh' spam filtering. Much better to do it yourself! JohnON
  • Score: 6

5:40pm Fri 2 May 14

hobroW says...

Controlling the flow of data has enabled persons to stop investigations in the past whether at the BBC, at the police with the shredding of Operation Othona files, or with Cyril Smith simply by turning a blind eye and a deaf ear. Instances abound in the current times where chickens come home to roost thirty or fourty years later.

One may contain bad stories, or find "a good day to release bad news".We should currently be very wary of this "spinning activity" and be religious in our conversion to openness until we have purged all the bad things that float in our sewers.

Intercepting emails from a central server is absolutely wrong for it is up to the recipients whether they request this to be done at the central server or instruct their own computers to "junk" all mail "From" recipient.

The emails contained data which highlighted serious failures in the control over purchases of services, and discredited the regeneration arms of the council in their activities 2007-2009, As Cllr Rennie states, it is right that she should hear of bad as well as good news re the WBC. The necessity of emailing that data, as yet unchallenged for its accuracy, to all councillors in itself is damning because it had to be done due to 2 years and 10 months "purdah" on its dissemination.

The tone of one of the email correspondents WAS due to frustration at the evasions practised by the administration to delay the truth and wait for

"a good day to release bad news"
Controlling the flow of data has enabled persons to stop investigations in the past whether at the BBC, at the police with the shredding of Operation Othona files, or with Cyril Smith simply by turning a blind eye and a deaf ear. Instances abound in the current times where chickens come home to roost thirty or fourty years later. One may contain bad stories, or find "a good day to release bad news".We should currently be very wary of this "spinning activity" and be religious in our conversion to openness until we have purged all the bad things that float in our sewers. Intercepting emails from a central server is absolutely wrong for it is up to the recipients whether they request this to be done at the central server or instruct their own computers to "junk" all mail "From" recipient. The emails contained data which highlighted serious failures in the control over purchases of services, and discredited the regeneration arms of the council in their activities 2007-2009, As Cllr Rennie states, it is right that she should hear of bad as well as good news re the WBC. The necessity of emailing that data, as yet unchallenged for its accuracy, to all councillors in itself is damning because it had to be done due to 2 years and 10 months "purdah" on its dissemination. The tone of one of the email correspondents WAS due to frustration at the evasions practised by the administration to delay the truth and wait for "a good day to release bad news" hobroW
  • Score: 11

9:26pm Fri 2 May 14

hobroW says...

In the context of the above message, I should highlight that like Michael Morton, the revelations when given to all councillors were already old dating from 2007-2009. The data manipulation was already a "fait accompli" and the councillors, not just the Cabinet members, ought to have known of these facts two years ago.

In the words of Graham Burgess himself on donning the robes of power in Summer 2012

"This shouid have been dealt with last april"

Last April 2012 is two years ago and our message has been stuck in the Spam filter already TWO YEARS
In the context of the above message, I should highlight that like Michael Morton, the revelations when given to all councillors were already old dating from 2007-2009. The data manipulation was already a "fait accompli" and the councillors, not just the Cabinet members, ought to have known of these facts two years ago. In the words of Graham Burgess himself on donning the robes of power in Summer 2012 "This shouid have been dealt with last april" Last April 2012 is two years ago and our message has been stuck in the Spam filter already TWO YEARS hobroW
  • Score: 4

10:09pm Fri 2 May 14

2040TIM says...

PaulCa wrote:
Not condoning this for one second, but the Data Protection Act deems that the Data Controller OWNS all information arriving onto its own system. Which includes e.g. Councillor Bloggs emailing his wife from the Town Hall to ask her to chill some Chateau D'Trough in readiness for a relaxing night on the veranda.

This ownership, and the protection of senior people granted carte blanche to interfere is where democracy is being eroded.
This is not an accurate account of what Data Protection says. The Data Controller is responsible for all the data created for its purposes, but they do not 'own' everything held on their systems. A council is Data Controller only for data created to carry out its functions. Any emails sent or created for councillors' purposes are their responsibility - they are the Data Controller and the Council is merely a conduit (a Data Processor in the jargon). The Council does not own Councillor data, and can only do with it what the Councillors tell them to do. Presumably this is why the story quotes the Chief Executive as saying that emails "could be filtered" - this would only be legitimate if the Councillors consented, and the story seems clear that it would happen only with their consent. A council that filtered councillors' emails without the councillor's permission would indeed be breaching Data Protection, but that doesn't appear to be what is happening here.
[quote][p][bold]PaulCa[/bold] wrote: Not condoning this for one second, but the Data Protection Act deems that the Data Controller OWNS all information arriving onto its own system. Which includes e.g. Councillor Bloggs emailing his wife from the Town Hall to ask her to chill some Chateau D'Trough in readiness for a relaxing night on the veranda. This ownership, and the protection of senior people granted carte blanche to interfere is where democracy is being eroded.[/p][/quote]This is not an accurate account of what Data Protection says. The Data Controller is responsible for all the data created for its purposes, but they do not 'own' everything held on their systems. A council is Data Controller only for data created to carry out its functions. Any emails sent or created for councillors' purposes are their responsibility - they are the Data Controller and the Council is merely a conduit (a Data Processor in the jargon). The Council does not own Councillor data, and can only do with it what the Councillors tell them to do. Presumably this is why the story quotes the Chief Executive as saying that emails "could be filtered" - this would only be legitimate if the Councillors consented, and the story seems clear that it would happen only with their consent. A council that filtered councillors' emails without the councillor's permission would indeed be breaching Data Protection, but that doesn't appear to be what is happening here. 2040TIM
  • Score: 1

11:47pm Fri 2 May 14

PaulCa says...

2040TIM wrote:
PaulCa wrote:
Not condoning this for one second, but the Data Protection Act deems that the Data Controller OWNS all information arriving onto its own system. Which includes e.g. Councillor Bloggs emailing his wife from the Town Hall to ask her to chill some Chateau D'Trough in readiness for a relaxing night on the veranda.

This ownership, and the protection of senior people granted carte blanche to interfere is where democracy is being eroded.
This is not an accurate account of what Data Protection says. The Data Controller is responsible for all the data created for its purposes, but they do not 'own' everything held on their systems. A council is Data Controller only for data created to carry out its functions. Any emails sent or created for councillors' purposes are their responsibility - they are the Data Controller and the Council is merely a conduit (a Data Processor in the jargon). The Council does not own Councillor data, and can only do with it what the Councillors tell them to do. Presumably this is why the story quotes the Chief Executive as saying that emails "could be filtered" - this would only be legitimate if the Councillors consented, and the story seems clear that it would happen only with their consent. A council that filtered councillors' emails without the councillor's permission would indeed be breaching Data Protection, but that doesn't appear to be what is happening here.
Thank you Tim. I'll accept your explanation, and I've no reason to doubt it. However with hindsight it looks like in 2009, I was lied to by a neighbouring data controller for the purposes of protecting their reputation and easing me out of my employment.

Still, no worries, not even the CEO here is a paragon of virtue or for that matter "loyalty", having once been a full-time officer of UNISON.

This would be a good point to note that as recently as October 2012, I discovered that NONE of Wirral's 66 councillors were registered as data controllers with the ICO - so at that point, with all of them breaching the law and at risk of ICO fines, and possible unlimited high court fines (to be paid by us?) who owned their email traffic if they were not registered?

So, it's all a bit rich for any of these people to get on their high horses and complain about interference and risks to their privacy.

Where was their commitment to the privacy of the public when they weren't even bothering to pay the paltry £35 per year required to register, and were playing fast and loose with their constituents personal information?

And on the subject of money, when Council Leader Phil Davies discovered I'd rumbled them, he put his hand in our pocket before firing off a cheque to the ICO for £2,170 to bail them all out. Presumably this will be covered every year so they can sit back, relax and continue to take pot shots at each other.

Phew.
[quote][p][bold]2040TIM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PaulCa[/bold] wrote: Not condoning this for one second, but the Data Protection Act deems that the Data Controller OWNS all information arriving onto its own system. Which includes e.g. Councillor Bloggs emailing his wife from the Town Hall to ask her to chill some Chateau D'Trough in readiness for a relaxing night on the veranda. This ownership, and the protection of senior people granted carte blanche to interfere is where democracy is being eroded.[/p][/quote]This is not an accurate account of what Data Protection says. The Data Controller is responsible for all the data created for its purposes, but they do not 'own' everything held on their systems. A council is Data Controller only for data created to carry out its functions. Any emails sent or created for councillors' purposes are their responsibility - they are the Data Controller and the Council is merely a conduit (a Data Processor in the jargon). The Council does not own Councillor data, and can only do with it what the Councillors tell them to do. Presumably this is why the story quotes the Chief Executive as saying that emails "could be filtered" - this would only be legitimate if the Councillors consented, and the story seems clear that it would happen only with their consent. A council that filtered councillors' emails without the councillor's permission would indeed be breaching Data Protection, but that doesn't appear to be what is happening here.[/p][/quote]Thank you Tim. I'll accept your explanation, and I've no reason to doubt it. However with hindsight it looks like in 2009, I was lied to by a neighbouring data controller for the purposes of protecting their reputation and easing me out of my employment. Still, no worries, not even the CEO here is a paragon of virtue or for that matter "loyalty", having once been a full-time officer of UNISON. This would be a good point to note that as recently as October 2012, I discovered that NONE of Wirral's 66 councillors were registered as data controllers with the ICO - so at that point, with all of them breaching the law and at risk of ICO fines, and possible unlimited high court fines (to be paid by us?) who owned their email traffic if they were not registered? So, it's all a bit rich for any of these people to get on their high horses and complain about interference and risks to their privacy. Where was their commitment to the privacy of the public when they weren't even bothering to pay the paltry £35 per year required to register, and were playing fast and loose with their constituents personal information? And on the subject of money, when Council Leader Phil Davies discovered I'd rumbled them, he put his hand in our pocket before firing off a cheque to the ICO for £2,170 to bail them all out. Presumably this will be covered every year so they can sit back, relax and continue to take pot shots at each other. Phew. PaulCa
  • Score: 5

11:54pm Fri 2 May 14

PaulCa says...

p.s. If councillors are data controllers and therefore responsible for the data and information they create, why the hell do WE have to dip into our pockets to bail them all out when 66 of them broke the law?

Does responsibility END when it comes to getting your wallets and purses out? Wirral, where the abnormal is still very much normal.

An answer from YOU will suffice Councillor Phil Davies when you read this.
p.s. If councillors are data controllers and therefore responsible for the data and information they create, why the hell do WE have to dip into our pockets to bail them all out when 66 of them broke the law? Does responsibility END when it comes to getting your wallets and purses out? Wirral, where the abnormal is still very much normal. An answer from YOU will suffice Councillor Phil Davies when you read this. PaulCa
  • Score: 8

12:15am Sat 3 May 14

PaulCa says...

Link to the above story about Wirral's ££responsibility dodging councillors. All the culprits' names are provided, including one who thought Data Protection for their constituents' info was "A load of tosh"

http://goo.gl/WG6Kxx


There were only 2 councillors who were prepared to pay for themselves in the end:

Peter Kearney
Michael Sullivan

For the remaining 62 councillors, forking out 10 pence per day was too much to ask.
Link to the above story about Wirral's ££responsibility dodging councillors. All the culprits' names are provided, including one who thought Data Protection for their constituents' info was "A load of tosh" http://goo.gl/WG6Kxx There were only 2 councillors who were prepared to pay for themselves in the end: Peter Kearney Michael Sullivan For the remaining 62 councillors, forking out 10 pence per day was too much to ask. PaulCa
  • Score: 7

12:26am Sat 3 May 14

PaulCa says...

One Wirral councillor's reaction to the suggestion he registers with the ICO in order to guard his constituents' personal data:

http://goo.gl/GlLbjm
One Wirral councillor's reaction to the suggestion he registers with the ICO in order to guard his constituents' personal data: http://goo.gl/GlLbjm PaulCa
  • Score: 5

6:53am Sat 3 May 14

2040TIM says...

It doesn't matter whether a Councillor registers (notified, as it is now known) with the ICO or not in terms of who is responsible for the data - registering with the Commissioner is simply a recognition of reality. The Councillor is responsible for their data whether they like it or not, and the Council is obliged to act only on the Councillor's instructions. So even if a Councillor refused point blank to register, a complaint or challenge about their emails / other personal data would be their responsibility. A council cannot make decisions about data that is a Councillor's responsibility with their consent, regardless of whether that Councillor has notified or not.

Whether the Information Commissioner will ever take action against a Councillor that has not registered / notified is a good question. They have prosecuted Estate Agents, Solicitors and other professions, so there should be no technical reason why not.
It doesn't matter whether a Councillor registers (notified, as it is now known) with the ICO or not in terms of who is responsible for the data - registering with the Commissioner is simply a recognition of reality. The Councillor is responsible for their data whether they like it or not, and the Council is obliged to act only on the Councillor's instructions. So even if a Councillor refused point blank to register, a complaint or challenge about their emails / other personal data would be their responsibility. A council cannot make decisions about data that is a Councillor's responsibility with their consent, regardless of whether that Councillor has notified or not. Whether the Information Commissioner will ever take action against a Councillor that has not registered / notified is a good question. They have prosecuted Estate Agents, Solicitors and other professions, so there should be no technical reason why not. 2040TIM
  • Score: 3

7:36am Sat 3 May 14

hobroW says...

"The better fortitude of patience and heroick martyrdom as yet unsung"
is best applied to you Master Cardin.

Though one leading Councillor, and he on the Audit and Risk committee has referred to the need for councillors to register as a "Load of Tosh", nevertheless his Leader did in response to the ICO, indeed register all councillors.

The need to register is the heart of this particular story, veritably it is. the ICO needs the money to monitor the Counciol and the Councillors really ought to paid the fees themselves so that the second purpose, of understanding "IT IS NOT A LOAD OF TOSH", might be achieved by them personally OWNING the process.

The Councillors contempt for the process should alarm when he has been an influential figure on the Audit and Risk Committtee , that should demnand finesse and a curring intellect from its members.

Well done Mr Cardin, our Ralph Nader of electors
"The better fortitude of patience and heroick martyrdom as yet unsung" is best applied to you Master Cardin. Though one leading Councillor, and he on the Audit and Risk committee has referred to the need for councillors to register as a "Load of Tosh", nevertheless his Leader did in response to the ICO, indeed register all councillors. The need to register is the heart of this particular story, veritably it is. the ICO needs the money to monitor the Counciol and the Councillors really ought to paid the fees themselves so that the second purpose, of understanding "IT IS NOT A LOAD OF TOSH", might be achieved by them personally OWNING the process. The Councillors contempt for the process should alarm when he has been an influential figure on the Audit and Risk Committtee , that should demnand finesse and a curring intellect from its members. Well done Mr Cardin, our Ralph Nader of electors hobroW
  • Score: 3

7:38am Sat 3 May 14

hobroW says...

"that should demand finesse and a cutting intellect"

My keyboard is old and needs replacement
"that should demand finesse and a cutting intellect" My keyboard is old and needs replacement hobroW
  • Score: 0

8:36am Sat 3 May 14

David Scott says...

Is the headline correct or highly misleading? I'm still not sure.
Is the headline correct or highly misleading? I'm still not sure. David Scott
  • Score: 1

9:53am Sat 3 May 14

JohnON says...

David Scott wrote:
Is the headline correct or highly misleading? I'm still not sure.
Judging from the second paragraph of the article, it seems to be correct. In fact, not just read but actually replied to:

"A 'confidential note' was circulated by chief executive Graham Burgess to all council members indicating that emails could be filtered to allow council staff to reply to grievances from the public."

I certainly wouldn't have confidence in any councillor who has opted-in to allow council staff to reply to grievances expressed in personal emails and I think a list should be published of those councillors who have opted-in together with what filters have been applied in each case.

Which council staff would reply? Could it be (by coincidence, of course) that the reply would be come from the person or department being complained about?

It seems to be about as far from open and transparent as it's possible to get.
[quote][p][bold]David Scott[/bold] wrote: Is the headline correct or highly misleading? I'm still not sure.[/p][/quote]Judging from the second paragraph of the article, it seems to be correct. In fact, not just read but actually replied to: "A 'confidential note' was circulated by chief executive Graham Burgess to all council members indicating that emails could be filtered to allow council staff to reply to grievances from the public." I certainly wouldn't have confidence in any councillor who has opted-in to allow council staff to reply to grievances expressed in personal emails and I think a list should be published of those councillors who have opted-in together with what filters have been applied in each case. Which council staff would reply? Could it be (by coincidence, of course) that the reply would be come from the person or department being complained about? It seems to be about as far from open and transparent as it's possible to get. JohnON
  • Score: 4

11:37am Sat 3 May 14

ordinary personn says...

As I am not IT expert, I’d like to ask a question. Would it be possible for a data controller to filter emails without the intended recipient knowing this was being done?
As I am not IT expert, I’d like to ask a question. Would it be possible for a data controller to filter emails without the intended recipient knowing this was being done? ordinary personn
  • Score: 0

12:11pm Sat 3 May 14

PaulCa says...

ordinary personn wrote:
As I am not IT expert, I’d like to ask a question. Would it be possible for a data controller to filter emails without the intended recipient knowing this was being done?
Yes. Particularly at an organisation where...

o spin has a tight grip
o "we made mistakes" is the overriding deluded mantra
o the PR message of "an improved council" sweeps all before it
o the heat's turned up
o unaddressed council fraud rears its ugly head
o exposure looms large
o it becomes necessary to roll your sleeves up, get in there and meddle.
[quote][p][bold]ordinary personn[/bold] wrote: As I am not IT expert, I’d like to ask a question. Would it be possible for a data controller to filter emails without the intended recipient knowing this was being done?[/p][/quote]Yes. Particularly at an organisation where... o spin has a tight grip o "we made mistakes" is the overriding deluded mantra o the PR message of "an improved council" sweeps all before it o the heat's turned up o unaddressed council fraud rears its ugly head o exposure looms large o it becomes necessary to roll your sleeves up, get in there and meddle. PaulCa
  • Score: 9

1:07pm Sat 3 May 14

JohnON says...

ordinary personn wrote:
As I am not IT expert, I’d like to ask a question. Would it be possible for a data controller to filter emails without the intended recipient knowing this was being done?
Yes.

tinyurl.com/lb87mtx
[quote][p][bold]ordinary personn[/bold] wrote: As I am not IT expert, I’d like to ask a question. Would it be possible for a data controller to filter emails without the intended recipient knowing this was being done?[/p][/quote]Yes. tinyurl.com/lb87mtx JohnON
  • Score: 1

10:50am Sun 4 May 14

groovydadad says...

Now you have the possibility for cross party manipulation of say some councillors not acting on grievances or the some councillors having a reputation for not replying to constituents and thus losing popularity because they weren't even aware of certain emails in the first place. Who controls the emails can control who gets to see what.
Now you have the possibility for cross party manipulation of say some councillors not acting on grievances or the some councillors having a reputation for not replying to constituents and thus losing popularity because they weren't even aware of certain emails in the first place. Who controls the emails can control who gets to see what. groovydadad
  • Score: 7

2:10pm Sun 4 May 14

hobroW says...

Or the Executive in consultation with the ruling party finding excuses to prevent Councillors cross party learning that they had never been told that the Council has been paying large invoices without knowing what they were for, being unable to explain their content years later. For that is what happened with Working Neighbourhoods business start-up monies. It is unpalatable news that the WBC cannot find backing information for invoices up to £7,300 for business plans for community organizations which seem not to have been supported by time ledgers nor by any vetting of quality.

NOW Councillors NEED to know that after it has been hidden for so long
Or the Executive in consultation with the ruling party finding excuses to prevent Councillors cross party learning that they had never been told that the Council has been paying large invoices without knowing what they were for, being unable to explain their content years later. For that is what happened with Working Neighbourhoods business start-up monies. It is unpalatable news that the WBC cannot find backing information for invoices up to £7,300 for business plans for community organizations which seem not to have been supported by time ledgers nor by any vetting of quality. NOW Councillors NEED to know that after it has been hidden for so long hobroW
  • Score: 3

3:01pm Tue 6 May 14

naughtykitties says...

I'm not sure why this is such a shock. Any filtering applied to the mail server will be automatic, the systems administrator (person who runs the email box) will just give the server a list of words, email addresses and and other conditions to cause it to reject emails and it will do so without further human intervention, much like an anti-virus program will block dodgy attachments.

The truth is that the systems administrator and by extension anyone else they decide to allow to has always been able to read any emails received at the mail server because of the store and forward nature of email. All the emails are held there waiting for delivery. If the email is unencrypted (who encrypts their email, despite the fact you've all been screamed at about this?) the sysadmin can just browse through them. It has ALWAYS been so.
I'm not sure why this is such a shock. Any filtering applied to the mail server will be automatic, the systems administrator (person who runs the email box) will just give the server a list of words, email addresses and and other conditions to cause it to reject emails and it will do so without further human intervention, much like an anti-virus program will block dodgy attachments. The truth is that the systems administrator and by extension anyone else they decide to allow to has always been able to read any emails received at the mail server because of the store and forward nature of email. All the emails are held there waiting for delivery. If the email is unencrypted (who encrypts their email, despite the fact you've all been screamed at about this?) the sysadmin can just browse through them. It has ALWAYS been so. naughtykitties
  • Score: -2

3:39pm Tue 6 May 14

piermaster says...

hobroW wrote:
Or the Executive in consultation with the ruling party finding excuses to prevent Councillors cross party learning that they had never been told that the Council has been paying large invoices without knowing what they were for, being unable to explain their content years later. For that is what happened with Working Neighbourhoods business start-up monies. It is unpalatable news that the WBC cannot find backing information for invoices up to £7,300 for business plans for community organizations which seem not to have been supported by time ledgers nor by any vetting of quality.

NOW Councillors NEED to know that after it has been hidden for so long
Is this the same individual that was part of the system for over two years and never went public with these concerns till after he had parted company from his employment?if so one could beg the question "why not" no doubt you and your cohort are not best pleased because you have now lost your captive audience,the same audience that perhaps did not bother to answer any of your emails??
[quote][p][bold]hobroW[/bold] wrote: Or the Executive in consultation with the ruling party finding excuses to prevent Councillors cross party learning that they had never been told that the Council has been paying large invoices without knowing what they were for, being unable to explain their content years later. For that is what happened with Working Neighbourhoods business start-up monies. It is unpalatable news that the WBC cannot find backing information for invoices up to £7,300 for business plans for community organizations which seem not to have been supported by time ledgers nor by any vetting of quality. NOW Councillors NEED to know that after it has been hidden for so long[/p][/quote]Is this the same individual that was part of the system for over two years and never went public with these concerns till after he had parted company from his employment?if so one could beg the question "why not" no doubt you and your cohort are not best pleased because you have now lost your captive audience,the same audience that perhaps did not bother to answer any of your emails?? piermaster
  • Score: -5

3:54pm Tue 6 May 14

PaulCa says...

naughtykitties wrote:
I'm not sure why this is such a shock. Any filtering applied to the mail server will be automatic, the systems administrator (person who runs the email box) will just give the server a list of words, email addresses and and other conditions to cause it to reject emails and it will do so without further human intervention, much like an anti-virus program will block dodgy attachments.

The truth is that the systems administrator and by extension anyone else they decide to allow to has always been able to read any emails received at the mail server because of the store and forward nature of email. All the emails are held there waiting for delivery. If the email is unencrypted (who encrypts their email, despite the fact you've all been screamed at about this?) the sysadmin can just browse through them. It has ALWAYS been so.
What's exactly "dodgy" about emails sent from members of the public reporting 3 year old unaddressed council fraud?

Are such messages deserving of the censor's actions?

In my opinion, the notion of Hillsborough is an extremely bad taste red herring.
[quote][p][bold]naughtykitties[/bold] wrote: I'm not sure why this is such a shock. Any filtering applied to the mail server will be automatic, the systems administrator (person who runs the email box) will just give the server a list of words, email addresses and and other conditions to cause it to reject emails and it will do so without further human intervention, much like an anti-virus program will block dodgy attachments. The truth is that the systems administrator and by extension anyone else they decide to allow to has always been able to read any emails received at the mail server because of the store and forward nature of email. All the emails are held there waiting for delivery. If the email is unencrypted (who encrypts their email, despite the fact you've all been screamed at about this?) the sysadmin can just browse through them. It has ALWAYS been so.[/p][/quote]What's exactly "dodgy" about emails sent from members of the public reporting 3 year old unaddressed council fraud? Are such messages deserving of the censor's actions? In my opinion, the notion of Hillsborough is an extremely bad taste red herring. PaulCa
  • Score: 4

4:50pm Tue 6 May 14

hobroW says...

piermaster wrote:
hobroW wrote:
Or the Executive in consultation with the ruling party finding excuses to prevent Councillors cross party learning that they had never been told that the Council has been paying large invoices without knowing what they were for, being unable to explain their content years later. For that is what happened with Working Neighbourhoods business start-up monies. It is unpalatable news that the WBC cannot find backing information for invoices up to £7,300 for business plans for community organizations which seem not to have been supported by time ledgers nor by any vetting of quality.

NOW Councillors NEED to know that after it has been hidden for so long
Is this the same individual that was part of the system for over two years and never went public with these concerns till after he had parted company from his employment?if so one could beg the question "why not" no doubt you and your cohort are not best pleased because you have now lost your captive audience,the same audience that perhaps did not bother to answer any of your emails??
Piermaster-

I left my employment in March 2012

I blew the whistle as far back as April 2011 re BIG and uneasiness re ISUS became clear in that fateful month.

One has to be certain of malpractice before one whistleblows as it is a serious matter.

I hope you are not overly disappointed with these facts.

As to a captive audience quite a number have corresponded with me to express their interest in what has been revealed to them.

Perhaps you yourself have put your livelihood on the line when you have come across malpractice?
[quote][p][bold]piermaster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hobroW[/bold] wrote: Or the Executive in consultation with the ruling party finding excuses to prevent Councillors cross party learning that they had never been told that the Council has been paying large invoices without knowing what they were for, being unable to explain their content years later. For that is what happened with Working Neighbourhoods business start-up monies. It is unpalatable news that the WBC cannot find backing information for invoices up to £7,300 for business plans for community organizations which seem not to have been supported by time ledgers nor by any vetting of quality. NOW Councillors NEED to know that after it has been hidden for so long[/p][/quote]Is this the same individual that was part of the system for over two years and never went public with these concerns till after he had parted company from his employment?if so one could beg the question "why not" no doubt you and your cohort are not best pleased because you have now lost your captive audience,the same audience that perhaps did not bother to answer any of your emails??[/p][/quote]Piermaster- I left my employment in March 2012 I blew the whistle as far back as April 2011 re BIG and uneasiness re ISUS became clear in that fateful month. One has to be certain of malpractice before one whistleblows as it is a serious matter. I hope you are not overly disappointed with these facts. As to a captive audience quite a number have corresponded with me to express their interest in what has been revealed to them. Perhaps you yourself have put your livelihood on the line when you have come across malpractice? hobroW
  • Score: 5

5:13pm Tue 6 May 14

hobroW says...

As to ISUS two senior Invest Wirral employees openly visited me at work to interview me in July 2011 and point-blank refused to discuss anything other than BIG whether or no I wanted to volunteer information re ISUS.

Piermaster you want to be correct but unfortunately you are not correct in levelling any suspicion of moral cowardice.

As to James he marked himself out for removal less than 40 days after joining BECAUSE he refused to compromise his principles. So he is not guilty of moral cowardice neither.

Neither of us was in the system- we were shouting openly about it but no-one believed that ISUS should be any better than the A4e schemes which themselves have led to prosecutions.

Internal Audit seemed to believe that it was natural that all Service Providers would "cream" the Council, but neither myself nor James subscribed to that view.
As to ISUS two senior Invest Wirral employees openly visited me at work to interview me in July 2011 and point-blank refused to discuss anything other than BIG whether or no I wanted to volunteer information re ISUS. Piermaster you want to be correct but unfortunately you are not correct in levelling any suspicion of moral cowardice. As to James he marked himself out for removal less than 40 days after joining BECAUSE he refused to compromise his principles. So he is not guilty of moral cowardice neither. Neither of us was in the system- we were shouting openly about it but no-one believed that ISUS should be any better than the A4e schemes which themselves have led to prosecutions. Internal Audit seemed to believe that it was natural that all Service Providers would "cream" the Council, but neither myself nor James subscribed to that view. hobroW
  • Score: 3

5:47pm Tue 6 May 14

Growl Tiger says...

There is an article in the Echo – Wirral Council’s £1m bill for executive consultants in just one year. Apparently information gained under the FOI by Cllr Ian Lewis. Had been hoping Wirral Globe would have printed it. Perhaps Leigh is on holiday?
There is an article in the Echo – Wirral Council’s £1m bill for executive consultants in just one year. Apparently information gained under the FOI by Cllr Ian Lewis. Had been hoping Wirral Globe would have printed it. Perhaps Leigh is on holiday? Growl Tiger
  • Score: 6

6:20am Wed 7 May 14

naughtykitties says...

PaulCa wrote:
naughtykitties wrote:
I'm not sure why this is such a shock. Any filtering applied to the mail server will be automatic, the systems administrator (person who runs the email box) will just give the server a list of words, email addresses and and other conditions to cause it to reject emails and it will do so without further human intervention, much like an anti-virus program will block dodgy attachments.

The truth is that the systems administrator and by extension anyone else they decide to allow to has always been able to read any emails received at the mail server because of the store and forward nature of email. All the emails are held there waiting for delivery. If the email is unencrypted (who encrypts their email, despite the fact you've all been screamed at about this?) the sysadmin can just browse through them. It has ALWAYS been so.
What's exactly "dodgy" about emails sent from members of the public reporting 3 year old unaddressed council fraud?

Are such messages deserving of the censor's actions?

In my opinion, the notion of Hillsborough is an extremely bad taste red herring.
Nothing, I was using virus infected attachments as an example to help illustrate the concept. If you're complaining about email filters being "censorship", I trust you'll be asking your email service provider to remove their spam filter so you can receive all those messages from Nigerian princes and enlargement pill vendors? It's exactly the same technology involved.
[quote][p][bold]PaulCa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]naughtykitties[/bold] wrote: I'm not sure why this is such a shock. Any filtering applied to the mail server will be automatic, the systems administrator (person who runs the email box) will just give the server a list of words, email addresses and and other conditions to cause it to reject emails and it will do so without further human intervention, much like an anti-virus program will block dodgy attachments. The truth is that the systems administrator and by extension anyone else they decide to allow to has always been able to read any emails received at the mail server because of the store and forward nature of email. All the emails are held there waiting for delivery. If the email is unencrypted (who encrypts their email, despite the fact you've all been screamed at about this?) the sysadmin can just browse through them. It has ALWAYS been so.[/p][/quote]What's exactly "dodgy" about emails sent from members of the public reporting 3 year old unaddressed council fraud? Are such messages deserving of the censor's actions? In my opinion, the notion of Hillsborough is an extremely bad taste red herring.[/p][/quote]Nothing, I was using virus infected attachments as an example to help illustrate the concept. If you're complaining about email filters being "censorship", I trust you'll be asking your email service provider to remove their spam filter so you can receive all those messages from Nigerian princes and enlargement pill vendors? It's exactly the same technology involved. naughtykitties
  • Score: -2

1:00pm Thu 8 May 14

hobroW says...

Postmen have been jailed for intercepting mail.

Imagine were the story about the pigeon holes at the Town Hall.

Chief executive asks staff to steam open all mail delivered to Councillors' at the Town Hall and take out mail from "objectionable" correspondents. Mailbags stuffed with envelopes found in CEO's office, Police called in.
Postmen have been jailed for intercepting mail. Imagine were the story about the pigeon holes at the Town Hall. Chief executive asks staff to steam open all mail delivered to Councillors' at the Town Hall and take out mail from "objectionable" correspondents. Mailbags stuffed with envelopes found in CEO's office, Police called in. hobroW
  • Score: 2

7:05pm Thu 8 May 14

hobroW says...

Again to-day the Councils loose association with truth and addiction to spin appears in a response to two FOI requests of mine regarding "development" costs which first they replied they knew not what it was and subsequently returned a palpably false reply.

On the other where £240,000k was billed for promotion of a WBC scheme they thought it not reasonable to discover what had actually been disbursed on the provision of real services under the scheme. "Not reasonable" to consult what is an accounting database with Cost code and nominal analysis!!

FOI's and emails flood in to WBC until they admit their woeful performance. Clean upo the act and the FOI's and emails stop ...simples. First step to clean up is Catholic-CONFESS TO PAST ERRORS.
Again to-day the Councils loose association with truth and addiction to spin appears in a response to two FOI requests of mine regarding "development" costs which first they replied they knew not what it was and subsequently returned a palpably false reply. On the other where £240,000k was billed for promotion of a WBC scheme they thought it not reasonable to discover what had actually been disbursed on the provision of real services under the scheme. "Not reasonable" to consult what is an accounting database with Cost code and nominal analysis!! FOI's and emails flood in to WBC until they admit their woeful performance. Clean upo the act and the FOI's and emails stop ...simples. First step to clean up is Catholic-CONFESS TO PAST ERRORS. hobroW
  • Score: 1

12:27am Fri 9 May 14

PaulCa says...

naughtykitties wrote:
PaulCa wrote:
naughtykitties wrote:
I'm not sure why this is such a shock. Any filtering applied to the mail server will be automatic, the systems administrator (person who runs the email box) will just give the server a list of words, email addresses and and other conditions to cause it to reject emails and it will do so without further human intervention, much like an anti-virus program will block dodgy attachments.

The truth is that the systems administrator and by extension anyone else they decide to allow to has always been able to read any emails received at the mail server because of the store and forward nature of email. All the emails are held there waiting for delivery. If the email is unencrypted (who encrypts their email, despite the fact you've all been screamed at about this?) the sysadmin can just browse through them. It has ALWAYS been so.
What's exactly "dodgy" about emails sent from members of the public reporting 3 year old unaddressed council fraud?

Are such messages deserving of the censor's actions?

In my opinion, the notion of Hillsborough is an extremely bad taste red herring.
Nothing, I was using virus infected attachments as an example to help illustrate the concept. If you're complaining about email filters being "censorship", I trust you'll be asking your email service provider to remove their spam filter so you can receive all those messages from Nigerian princes and enlargement pill vendors? It's exactly the same technology involved.
No. I'm not. Take your techie head off. Keywords are not relevant. You're completely wide of the mark. This story is purely about human intervention where it's not welcome... and of course our old friend "reputation management".
[quote][p][bold]naughtykitties[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PaulCa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]naughtykitties[/bold] wrote: I'm not sure why this is such a shock. Any filtering applied to the mail server will be automatic, the systems administrator (person who runs the email box) will just give the server a list of words, email addresses and and other conditions to cause it to reject emails and it will do so without further human intervention, much like an anti-virus program will block dodgy attachments. The truth is that the systems administrator and by extension anyone else they decide to allow to has always been able to read any emails received at the mail server because of the store and forward nature of email. All the emails are held there waiting for delivery. If the email is unencrypted (who encrypts their email, despite the fact you've all been screamed at about this?) the sysadmin can just browse through them. It has ALWAYS been so.[/p][/quote]What's exactly "dodgy" about emails sent from members of the public reporting 3 year old unaddressed council fraud? Are such messages deserving of the censor's actions? In my opinion, the notion of Hillsborough is an extremely bad taste red herring.[/p][/quote]Nothing, I was using virus infected attachments as an example to help illustrate the concept. If you're complaining about email filters being "censorship", I trust you'll be asking your email service provider to remove their spam filter so you can receive all those messages from Nigerian princes and enlargement pill vendors? It's exactly the same technology involved.[/p][/quote]No. I'm not. Take your techie head off. Keywords are not relevant. You're completely wide of the mark. This story is purely about human intervention where it's not welcome... and of course our old friend "reputation management". PaulCa
  • Score: 2

9:43am Fri 9 May 14

Moogos says...

Its in the Globe this week. Hillsborough is being used as a deflection by the Mr Burgess to give some credibility to his fatherly "Treating the councillors like children" approach. If the email is offensive its easy for the councillor to hit the delete key themselves and make their own grown-up decisions. But if the email is sensitive to the council's 'shortcomings' its also, in this filtering emails case, easy to have the inbox capturing these emails be called "Incompetence Inbox FNAO" For nobody's attention only.
Its in the Globe this week. Hillsborough is being used as a deflection by the Mr Burgess to give some credibility to his fatherly "Treating the councillors like children" approach. If the email is offensive its easy for the councillor to hit the delete key themselves and make their own grown-up decisions. But if the email is sensitive to the council's 'shortcomings' its also, in this filtering emails case, easy to have the inbox capturing these emails be called "Incompetence Inbox FNAO" For nobody's attention only. Moogos
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree