Amusingly, the librarians started discussing by email how to get rid of me, while not noticing (for a while) that I was being copied on all the emails.
Research skills, FTW!
If academics were to set up their own peer review system, perhaps using an open source model, is there any reason more research could not be published online for all the world to see?
You're preaching revolution, madam!!
Yes, they could do this but, while the big publisher brands hold the international perceived kudos (because of their respective brand monopoly), our scientists feel the need to be published by the brands specific to their area of study because that's what their international counterparts see as being important. It's a vicious circle and I don't know what it will take to break it.
Jesus, that film made me angry. Inspired, but angry.
I don't often cry at movies, but that one made me well up.
The former SIS director has accepted he made significant errors of judgment. Perhaps the most surprising was his unawareness, according to the report, of the nature of Slater's blog. He thought the information request had come from a "private individual" and that was the reason it was dealt with in a different way from requests by news media for records of the Goff briefing. Those had been refused.
Please find me someone, anyone, other than Slater who has had an OIA turned around in by the SIS in anything less than 20 days. As someone in the comments says:
The former SIS director thought Slater was a private individual, which caused him to deal the request in a different way, different to the all the other requests he had declined?
They may make a mockery of the word intelligence, but they sure are funny buggers - that explanation is so stupid its hilarious.
In fact paras 130-150 cover the Ministerial/Parl Serv issue. In brief: they worked for both, and moved between the two depending on their specific role at the particular time they acted.
Thanks for clarifying that
I think this is (a) dodgy as hell in terms of evading retrospective accountability (i.e I don’t think you can just put your PS hat on to dodge the law) and also (b) really bad practice that should be stopped in future
No, I think Ede was parliamentary services – but, you’re right, this is what it turns on.
Officials in Ministerial offices are employed by Ministerial Services. They're employed by Parliamentary Services for non-Ministerial governmental MPs and opposition MPs.
Sorry to be a bit Graeme Edgeler about this, but I’m not sure Ede has personally done anything legally wrong. He worked for the Office of the Leader of the National Party, which is the same constitutionally as the Office of the Leader of the Labour Party etc so makes him a private citizen with a political job rather than an official.
Actually, I think he was paid by Ministerial Services, which is part of DIA, which is subject to both the OIA and PRA. He was de facto and de jure , as your little friend Farrar is wont to say, a bona fide public servant at the time these events occurred, and bound by the Code of Conduct as well as legislation. Not that I expect Lapdog Rennie to follow that up.
What a wonderfully bracing blast of fresh air and honesty has hit the land over the past week. There’s going to be quite a few people rushing to get a coat!
I suspect the agitator is still turning. Remember, Rawshark said he had turned the dump over to journalists...
Which raises the question, of course, of why he didn’t just use his parliament.govt.nz account.
a) Because he would not have been able to delete the emails from the system and b) that would have constituted "misuse of a computer system" if it could have been shown that the actions undertaken were against the law, which he was obviously concerned they were.
Just spotted this online Pomplamoose 2014 Tour Profits (or lack thereof)