[log in to unmask],Net writes:
>From: Ewan Davis <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Blockin Email: Was Somerset boost monopoly
>Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 07:30:11 +0100
>This is really about a sensible as burning your post in the morning
>unless you recognise the handwriting on the envelope and is quite on a
>par with the requirement for a man with a red flag walking in front of
>a car.
I agree.
The only cause of the slight (very slight) sympathy I had with the
approach by Cornwall and Scilly HA was that I recognise that it is a
logical consequence of the failure of thought which comes with working
in a HA.
The specific one is that here is an org proposing to use the global
facility of the Internet as a private facility.
(and it is time we stopped regarding NHS Net wires as being anything
other than
part of the Internet, even if they are crippled and mislabelled in
pursuit of
knighthoods and corner offices)
Naturally an anal-retentive bureacracy would wish to control
communication by taking control of who may speak to it, and impose upon
itself a large task of making and keeping such a list, however, both
Ewan and I spotted after a few seconds of thought that there are severe
consequences, perhaps leading toward inside offices without access to
the lightwell, and parliamentary bollockings, if a statutory org
declines to communicate with the rest of the world.
Oh - has it just been announced that MPs* will be on NHS Net? That
seems to be what happens usually when I point out the need for a new
sort of person to communicate with NHS orgs. (Except of course that
patients seem to be universally agreed not to need any facility to
communicate in a modern and efficient fashion with their GPs. Aaaargh!)
----------------
* and their agents, researchers, party secretaries, local party
committee members, local authority council members, lacm's secretaries
and officers.....
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|