1 Comment November 2nd, 2008 by ThunderDragon
These aren’t just any old ministerial papers that James Purnell left on a train. These were far worse things to lose: a letter from an MP referring to the presumably personal details of a constituent, with “attached correspondence” which one must assume was from the constituent themselves.
This is a worse breach than any “Top Secret” government paper because it is the personal details of an indiviudal, provided solely for one reason.
Even though they have been returned “within three days”, this is still a serious breach. I can see no problem with ministers working on their red boxes whilst on a train, but they should be damn certain that they don’t leave anything behind if they do so. This was a breach caused by stupidity rather than poor procedure.
Purnell should apologise personally to the constituent involved and pay a fine at least equal to that paid by a civil sevant for a similar breach.
I think the government seriosuly needs to rethink it’s data privacy and data protection protocols, as they’re obviously not working.
Add a comment September 18th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
At first I though that John Hutton might be the man behind the revolt, but now it seems more likely that James Purnell is the man who wants to be PM.
When asked, Purnell refused to condemn the rebel MPs and said:
I think it would be ridiculous to pretend that you can’t complain when you’re worried.
I mean, I’m worried that we’re 20 points behind*. I’m not going to condemn people or question their motives. [But] I don’t agree with what they did.
So he doesn’t “agree” with them. But he won’t say they’re wrong. He’s hardly fully supporting Brown then, is he?
Is it Purnell who is behind this revolt? After all, he is one of only two who are actually liked, and thus stands a good likelihood of doing well in any leadership election.
The only problem for him is that no leadership candidate can do anything except support Brown in public, or forever lose his chance of winning. So he has to resort to these half-truths.
Or maybe he an John Hutton are in on it together…?
* Nearer 30 points, actually…
Add a comment April 6th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
James Purnell is answering a question that wasn’t asked when he
said:
One word sums up these claims - ridiculous. We plan to get a million people off Incapacity Benefit by 2015 and we mean it.
Erm, James, no-one is suggesting that you don’t plan to do it or mean to do it - just that you will fail miserably to actually do it.
Add a comment August 8th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
So, gambling adverts now to be allowed to be shown on TV. Even though there are various restrictions that are going to be applied to them - such as not before 9pm except during sporting fixtures - surely gambling is worse than, say, junk food, which is banned during children’s shows, on children’s TV channels, and on general entertainment programmes watched by a “higher than average” number of under-16 year olds? It is fair to mention, however, that in return for this, no gambling-related adverts are allowed to be printed children’s replica football shirts.
The new gambling advertising code can be read here. Some of them are simple, such as no adverts before 9pm, but “[a]dverts must not link gambling to seduction, sexual success or enhanced attractiveness”? Does this mean that only ugly people can be used to advertise gambling? The trade-off that James Purnell, the Culture Secretary, “won” between allowing gambling TV ads for the removal of gambling ads from children’s replica football shirts is absurd. Children certainly don’t care about whose advert is on they shirt, and they are far more likely to be affected by a pro-gambling TV ad.
It is hypocritical to ban one type of TV advert because it promotes something that is bad for the individual, and then let another that can ruin entire families be shown. Personally, I think there shouldn’t be all that much restriction on any non-pornographic adverts, or adverts for pornographic services. People aren’t completely stupid. They know that junk food can make you fat if eaten in excess, and that gambling is a mugs game.
Source: The Times
