-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
____/ Homer on Sunday 25 May 2008 16:20 : \____
> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>> Newham refuses to reveal revised Microsoft MOU
> This is corrupt on so many levels, it's not even remotely funny.
> Since when is a local council allowed to engage in clandestine deals
> with taxpayers' money?
> What possible justification can a publicly accountable body give to
> withhold information about how they are spending public funds?
> Why should the public be reduced to begging for the truth using the FOI?
> Surely the local council should be /volunteering/ this information as a
> standard practice. Transparency should be the /rule/, not the exception.
> And what is this ridiculous "Commercial Interest exemption"? They are a
> /government body/ ... /not/ a bloody private corporation. They /have/ no
> "interest" beyond public accountability.
> How can this crap even be legal?
> Here's the ICO Guidance Notes on "commercial interests":
> It goes on at length about how the law protects boiler-room deals, but
> at no point does it actually offer any justification.
> Ask yourself this: Do you buy your computer equipment under cover of
> darkness? No? Why? Because you are presumably not doing anything wrong
> and therefore have nothing to hide.
> What are Newham Council and Microsoft hiding?
I'm just glad that The INQ has this new writer/contributor called Mark Ballard,
who has been investigating these corruptions for a while and then shared his
findings. People in the UK mail each other about this and I don't think
Richard Steele will be CIO of the year ever again in the future.
Gotta love the Internet!
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | #00ff00 Day - Basket Case
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 162 total, 1 running, 161 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----