UPDATE: (an anon comment has pointed out that) The Register story has been updated and now finishes with:
According to the Greens: "There have been inaccuracies in reporting. The Party did not make the allegations indicated in The Register, nor was Mr Killock suspended by the Party." We accept that any allegations concerning the leadership referendum were not made by the Green Party, and accept its assurances that Mr Killock has not been suspended.
What's the nettiquette here? Do I leave the original posting as is:
Norfolk Blogger has been covering the recent spate of murky goings in the Green Party and in this post he talks about the curious case of the misuse of a membership list to aid one side of an internal campaign. Well, it turns out that the executive member who was thrown out of the party for five years for leaking personal data, Jim Killock is now the chief executive of the Open Rights Group (ORG) which campaigns for digital rights and against the...er...misuse of personal data!
When this unfortunate coincidence was put to the ORG, their response appeared to be:
"la, la, la, I'm not listening"
The Register has the full story here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I thik you should check the register story they have updated it. The Greens have said the story is incorrect.
QUOTE
According to the Greens: "There have been inaccuracies in reporting. The Party did not make the allegations indicated in The Register, nor was Mr Killock suspended by the Party." We accept that any allegations concerning the leadership referendum were not made by the Green Party, and accept its assurances that Mr Killock has not been suspended.
QUOTE
The Register has retracted the accusations.
Post a Comment