Quote:
Originally Posted by Kursk
If you read my posts, you'll find I have suggested for quite some time that the focus for action should not be on the PIA or Phorm. I am simply marking up that the Earl is an advisor to 80/20 Thinking who are as much up to their necks in this fiasco as Phorm itself. The Earl's advice therefore appears to have carried little weight when the decision was taken to accept a commission for this insidious venture and he is associated with 80/20 T whichever way it is dressed up.
|
In the same way that my advice was often ignored by the decision makers of the groups I had been co-opted to. My presence on a particular advisory group did not mean that I agreed with the final decisions, as I invariably did not. Advice can be followed or ignored, it is not a mandatory instruction.
As I've said before, judge the PIA
when it is published and not before. If it is as comprehensive a document as it should be then the names of all who contributed to it should be included.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff
I don't see any reason to keep rehashing the same thing over and over again when the issues we should be focusing on are stopping Phorm and holding BT to account for their covert trials in 2006/2007.
|
Seconded. So keep on pressuring MPs, challenging Phorm when its staff or PR posts distorted facts, pointing people to the videos from the public meeting and doing whatever you can to keep this campaign alive.