[Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
On Tuesday 07 May 2002 8:09 am, Damian Counsell wrote:
Frank Shute wrote:
On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 09:34:15AM +0100, Damian wrote:
(This document also gives lie to the lazy belief that all politicians are stupid, selfish and corrupt. Many people in government around the World are talented and dedicated to public service, and I'd say these attributes were more common in UK politicians than in most of the people who criticize them and yet can't be bothered to vote---65% of the British population at the last count.)
If our politicians are more `talented & dedicated' than most people, why does it take a Peruvian politician to understand open source software, nail the MS FUD & save his taxpayer's money & confidentiality?
I have dealt with at least two UK politicians who have given an intelligent, fair and sympathetic hearing to my open source advocacy and many civil servants who haven't. In fact, of two civil servants I met who *were* sympathetic, one is in the process of retiring and one has gone to work for an open source company.
I have dealt with my local MP, Yvette Cooper, who is supposed to be both intelligent and open-minded, on two seperate occasions. Firstly on the RIP bill, and secondly on the NHS handing over _70M and total control of the IT infrastructure to burgler Bill.
You really shouldn't be calling him a "burglet", he's far more of a "racketeer"...
On both occasions she simply forwarded my letter to the appropriate person - probably without even slightly digesting the contents - and then forwarding the reply back to me.
In the case of the latter one, the reply was actually worded to Yvette and not me. The very first paragraph started by *branding* me stating that I am 'obviously an Open Source Advocate', and then proceeded throughout the
No doubt the same person would ask why such a large proportion of the population appear to feel disenfrancised...
remainder of the letter stating that because of this, my opinions arn't worth the paper they're written on; while totally failing to answer any of the points I made out.
His crowning glory was towards the end where he stated that 'anyway, the contract is only for three years', which to me does not sound like a good justification for the contract, when, at the end of the contract we will either have to WIPE all MS software from all PC's or pay MS again. One thing's for sure, we won't get the same (supposed) discount that we got this time.
If the contract has any value to the health service in the first place is questionable. Let alone having a contract for "only 3 years" which covers data which needs to be kept for something like 150 years. This is where, IMHO, proprietary software just does not cut it. Governments need to hold on to data for a long time...
He couldn't even prove that the figures quoted in the press release were correct, or even state where they came from!
At a guess an episode of "Yes Minister" seen on UK Gold :)
I'm not aware of anybody in our parliament who has the remotest concept of any of the issues involved and could address the issues with the ability the Peruvian congressman has.
*I* am aware of people in our parliament have the remotest concept of these issues. This is because I have exercised my democratic right and written to them directly.
Probably because 90% of our politicians are stupid, selfish, lazy and/or corrupt.
There *are* stupid, selfish, lazy and/or corrupt politicians in Britain. They are a minority and it's our job to vote them out. If we don't take our chances to do so then we deserve everything we get.
While I never tar everyone with the same brush, you only have to look at the state of the country to see that something drastic has to be done.
As far as MS are concerned, they're on an up escalator with this country. Every new contract published is bigger than the last.
And with Tony 'pull-my-string' Blair stating that all departments HAVE to be
Does the man have any credibility left? Even members of his own party noticed the latest "string pulling" going on.
on the Government Gateway by 2005, he's practically eliminated *any* chance of a proper evaluation of alternatives to the MS/DELL DIS box. Surely that's agains the law?
I am also saying that there are A) a lot of British MPs who work hard and are good at their jobs and that B) there are millions of Britons who can't be bothered to put an 'X' on a piece of paper. That there are MPs who don't work hard and aren't good at their jobs might have something to do with the millions of people who don't care enough to do something about it.
As one of the millions of Brittons who don't vote as a rule, I will state my reasons here.
1) there is no significant difference between any of the mainstream parties
At least this isn't quite as bad as in the US, where they have the utter minimum of "mainstream parties"
2) labour is now more conservative than conservative ever was 3) there is not one party that I have any faith, or belief in.
While I know that my apathy will not improve but only increase the problem, I will in principle not vote for someone I have no faith in.
Maybe all ballot papers should include a "none of these"/ "hold a new election with different candidates" type box. -- Mark Evans St. Peter's CofE High School Phone: +44 1392 204764 X109 Fax: +44 1392 204763