30th June 2006, 10:41 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Steve-BHmm. Steve, as I said on PASF before the thread disappeared, I disagree on several grounds with the decisions taken here - though understand the motives behind them. I also stated that I disagree with Gary's interpretation/presentation of the situation. But you must appreciate its very difficult discussing something like this in public when it refers to a third party's employment history and the results of an internal investigation by his employer etc. As far as I am concerned, at this stage this is primarily a matter between the person concerned and their employer and apart from drawing attenion to the perceived problem, actually none of Gary's business. I am perfectly willing to express my opinion while we remain within the bounds of propiety (and the AUP), but also as long as it does not involve me revealing privileged information. If the situation had been presented on Britarch in a manner allowing discussion of the aspects which I would wish to raise without me revealing such information, then I would not hesitate to do so. It was not, so I am not at liberty to say too much there or anywhere else, and its a shame that others do no take the same approach. On the other hand, on PASF on the basis of information presented there, I made a number of points about Gary's presentation which he studiously avoided answering.
I have to say Gary, that I have been very surprised not to see this being discussed there and based on some of Mr Barfords past criticisms of the PAS I am equally surprised that he has not jumped on this golden opportunity to dennounce the scheme... but then I guess that this a bit too close to home for comfort...
Gary asked here a question, it was answered, now we are getting off topic, back to UKDFD matters, the CoP etc etc, could this not be saved for the "Understanding Detecting" Section?
Paul Barford