green food hygiene stickers

[Annie.]

Any idea why Alib?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Tim Lund]

the fact that 'bad' marks are not amended as soon as the problem is rectified, is obviously a problem for the reputation of the business in question.

It's also a problem for the reputation of whoever is responsible for the system. The information is published on the FSA (Food Standards Agency) website, but I believe it is collected by environmental health officers working for local authorities.

An interesting parallel struck me this morning between such official websites and this, both of which I think serve the public by publishing sometimes uncomfortable information.

In neither case is it fair to demand that the names of the individuals making these reports be made public - all that is needed is some process whereby mis-information can be corrected, and those responsible for misinformation can be held to account. On sites such as this, mis-information can be corrected by Amo coming on this thread and putting his case - and customers such as me restating our confidence in him. An anonymous individual such as tjc may inadvertently misinform, but if what he/she writes is backed up, then it's not his/her responsibility; this has to lie somewhere with: (1) the individuals making the reports, (2) their managers, (3) the politicians whose decisions affect the resources available to the managers; and (4) the FSA, as the authority commission and publishing this information.

Although individual environmental health officers may be partially responsible, it would be outrageous to expect them to be named publicly - nobody would then want to take on this difficult but essential job protecting the public. The same goes for people posting on this Forum; demanding that people always identify themselves will not serve the public. There must be ways to prevent abuse of anonymity - but there are:

So could we end this here before we enter the world of defamation which while it could damage a doctor - could wipeout this forum. There are more subtle ways of helping people guage the best of Sydenham's 3/4 medical practices.

I'll leave more on the inadequacies of local sites which insist on full disclosure of posters' identities - but not necessarily of those who run them - to another thread.

[Robin Orton]

I'll leave more on the inadequacies of local sites which insist on full disclosure of posters' identities - but not necessarily of those who run them - to another thread.

Can't wait, Tim. It'd be good to know precisely what's bugging you this time.

[Tim Lund]

An interesting parallel struck me this morning between such official websites and this, both of which I think serve the public by publishing sometimes uncomfortable information.

In neither case is it fair to demand that the names of the individuals making these reports be made public - all that is needed is some process whereby mis-information can be corrected, and those responsible for misinformation can be held to account.

This does strike me as, shall I say “odd”. So someone, with the force of government coercion, regulation, punishment, demand for entry, being paid by the public purse and insured against many contingencies has a right to anonymity in the same way as somebody with no such accoutrements. There are many reasons for wanting privacy, but so that you can hide from the implications of doing your job is not one. I think you must see that. Maybe you feel that junior staff might not be able to handle the heat from the implications of their reports – fine – get them signed by a supervisor. But to leave everything as impersonal – the product of Leviathan - is contrary to the standards of natural justice – the ability to confront one’s accuser is important.

The difference between an official act and someone opining on a website is enormous. That both may serve the public is not a sufficient commonality

[Tim Lund]

I'll leave more on the inadequacies of local sites which insist on full disclosure of posters' identities - but not necessarily of those who run them - to another thread.

Can't wait, Tim. It'd be good to know precisely what's bugging you this time.

What's bugging me is people with power who want to 'own' local sites such as this. You can run into them at conferences, and listen in to them tweeting about them with the hash tag #hyperlocal. Local councillors and officers, who are accustomed to being able to control discussions, attend such conferences with the idea of learning how to keep up. They then find some budget to set up sites the way they think they should be done, or do it of their own initiative. But all the time there are sites such as this - but also nearby the East Dulwich Forum, SE23.com and Virtual Norwood, which are real, useful and public serving. If anyone wants to know how local sites can serve the public, they should listen into what their admins and active posters say on the matter. It is what any decent social scientist would do.

The only plausible reason why they do not is that it is about power. Here is a link to the web site of the group which organises the conference I am thinking of. Look at their list of 'clients and partners'. Why do they need them? Who are they trying to impress?

Google the people involved, and you eventually find out where they come from

founder of talk about local a unique public service project (funded by Channel4 and Screen West Midlands) to give people in deprived or isolated communities an online voice they own and run. He has a long track record of community action in London’s deprived Kings Cross neighbourhood. When in the UK civil service, William was Tony Blair’s technology policy advisor in Downing Street, co-authored the ‘Transformational Government’ strategy, commissioned the 2007 Power of Information Review with Fran, was Secretary to the Power of Information Taskforce, ran ‘Show us a Better Way’ one of the first open data competitions and was Chair of the OECD expert group on e-government.

As someone who used to work in the Cabinet Office, you must surely understand, Robin

[Tim Lund]

As if in gentle rebuke, I got an email this afternoon from the main man in 'Networked Neighbourhoods' about Olympic Travel Upheaval, with various bits of briefing and suggestions about how 'hyperlocal' sites could raise awareness of possible problems. Admin has probably also got it.

Probably worth doing something about it, and I have no problem accepting that this is a useful thing for 'Networked Neighbourhoods' to be doing.

[Robin Orton]

But all the time there are sites such as this - but also nearby the East Dulwich Forum, SE23.com and Virtual Norwood, which are real, useful and public serving.

Well, yes, but I don't what you've got against people with public service or charitable foundation (the Indigo Trust) background trying to encourage the growth of such sites in areas (geographical or social) where, for one reason or another, they haven't spontaneously sprung up in whatever (miraculous?) way this forum and the others you mention have. Trying to bridge 'the digital divide', if you like.

And what's all this got to do with local sites ' insist[ing] on full disclosure of posters' identities'?

And shouldn't this discussion be in the 'Town Asylum' anyway?

[Tim Lund]

But all the time there are sites such as this - but also nearby the East Dulwich Forum, SE23.com and Virtual Norwood, which are real, useful and public serving.

Well, yes, but I don't what you've got against people with public service or charitable foundation (the Indigo Trust) background trying to encourage the growth of such sites in areas (geographical or social) where, for one reason or another, they haven't spontaneously sprung up in whatever (miraculous?) way this forum and the others you mention have. Trying to bridge 'the digital divide', if you like.

Fair point - the background should have nothing to do with it, and it is a worthwhile endeavour. I guess it's just my judgment that they let their initiatives get captured by the powers that be, even as they come across as radical and challenging. I think it reasonable to be suspicious.

And what's all this got to do with local sites ' insist[ing] on full disclosure of posters' identities'?

We've been over this before. Many people, especially those not used to being in positions of power, feel inhibited about disclosing their names. Demanding that someone reveal their name can easily come across as bullying, and so works to keep the excluded that way. I go out of my way to make this point not because I think anonymity is a good thing - on balance I think it's not, which is why I use my own name - but because the people I describe who dominate discussions don't give a fair account of what case there is for anonymity.

And shouldn't this discussion be in the 'Town Asylum' anyway?

Possibly - Admin could move it over if he so judges, but I think it no bad thing for a somewhat abstract discussion to show its relationship to the original direct concern. It's also part of the charm of real forums with people communication naturally that threads do end up some way away from where they start.

[Annie.]

I think it good that topics move on, in " real" life you dont stop a conversation and say "stop" this is not the subject we started with!
Also if this board brought in real names only, I would leave it.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Annie.]

Just to get back on topic ;0))
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/webpage/moreabouten

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]