More evidence that those in charge are liars and completely round the twist

[Guest]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13364121

[Flosshilde]

Completely bonkers. I can imagine what 'call-me-Dave' would say about local govt or NHS staff who are supposed to wear name-badges wore ones with false names on them.

[teamsaint]

to be fair, if I worked for that lot, I wouldn't want anybody to know !!!

[Lateralthinking1]

It is sad and sinister. Was it authorised by Gus O'Donnell? Very possibly. Clearly the Senior Civil Service is now requiring its officials to misrepresent themselves to the Opposition and to the public as a part of their conditions of employment.

It appears that this began under Labour and continues under the Conservatives. Interestingly, it did not occur where I was employed until 2010 and I wasn't aware of it. So "protection for security reasons" applies to staff in Number 10. Nice.

Of course, it is to that "higher" level that many will appeal if they feel they want to escalate their concerns. The drawbridge rises at that point "purely coincidentally".

I would think that if there were a contract, the giving of a false name would be fraudulent. In the example highlighted, the communicators are frauds in the common sense of that word, if not the legal sense, and it is quite clear that there is no sense that there is any contract in the non-legal sense between them and the public.

Part-Soviet or Hitlerian, part 6 year olds playing make-believe, this to my mind is not a light bit of throwaway news. It is truly frightening. There is an insanity there for why not simply sign it "from No 10" if they want to be shadowy? This country in any of its previously recognisable senses is finished.

[french frank]

I like the description Direct Communications Unit . I once had a reply from them saying my letter was being forwarded to the relevant department. No surprise that I never got a further reply: the insubstantial presence was unable to carry out the action.

[Lateralthinking1]

frenchfrank - Your first sentence amused me on a week when I am almost incapable of amusement. I hope you are feeling better now.

To be all psychological about it, some of this hovers close to some recent Verby areas - the impacts of computer use and how it is blurring older notions of reality. It seems to me that they are sitting there thinking that they can be a character in a virtual reality game. Someone real gets on the phone and they just keep it going.

There is an argument that those managing the system are particularly susceptible to this peculiarity, particularly those who are not on the frontline. I note that security advised that they should not give their real names. They didn't say "invent an imaginary colleague". Am I getting ancient or are they all becoming more and more grimly immature, and downright weird, by the day?

[french frank]

'Grimly immature' is probably about right. Why couldn't they just sign it pp David Cameron? That should fend people off for a while.

But, then, you try getting in touch with the right person at the BBC to deal with anything. Or finding out who the right person is. I'm sure they've taken the line in the past that they won't tell you in the interests of security.

[scottycelt]

What a fuss about nothing!

I, for one, would be shocked if there were no such security precautions at No 10 for the protection of staff, especially after one member had already been threatened.

Only 'solid liberals' like the obviously mischievous Mr Kaufman would think there is anything particularly strange about such a sensible and necessary measure in today's world.

Quite unbelievable the reaction here ...

[Lateralthinking1]

You think Scotty that it is better for them to sign their letters "Mr Norman Wisdom" than "On behalf of David Cameron"?

[amateur51]

What a fuss about nothing!

I, for one, would be shocked if there were no such security precautions at No 10 for the protection of staff, especially after one member had already been threatened.

Only 'solid liberals' like the obviously mischievous Mr Kaufman would think there is anything particularly strange about such a sensible and necessary measure in today's world.

Quite unbelievable the reaction here ...

Matron, he's out of bed again with his broad brush!

[Ferretfancy]

scottycelt,

I agree with you for the most part. If a member of the public writes to No. 10 they should not be surprised to get an impersonal acknowledgement, and perhaps from an invented writer, but I do think it's different if the person is an MP. I'm not saying that MPs are over important,but they are usually questioning No. 10 on behalf of constituents, and surely deserve a proper reply. They should always have right of access to the executive, it's their job to question it.

[Lateralthinking1]

I obviously got it wrong. I should have signed my letters "Bono-Sting Arbunkle", protected my security, and assumed that no one would find it offensive.

[PatrickOD]

I obviously got it wrong. I should have signed my letters "Bono-Sting Arbunkle", protected my security, and assumed that no one would find it offensive.

Ah no, don't do that. I've got to know and love Lateralthinking1.

[Lateralthinking1]

PatrickOD - Thank you. Very kind. You must be as mad as the rest of us - Lat.

[Mr Pee]

A No 10 spokesman said real names had not been used on correspondence since 2005 for security reasons.

The policy was adopted after a member of the public traced a member of staff in the Direct Communications Unit, that handles letters from the public and MPs, and threatened her at her home address.

The Downing Street spokesman said: "The security team therefore recommended that staff no longer use their own names, as it was deemed to pose an unacceptable and unnecessary risk to their safety.

"In light of concerns raised in the House (of Commons) today, we will look into alternatives to the use of pseudonyms, but we are clear that our priority is the security of our staff."

I can't see the correlation between the quoted paragraph above, and the typically sensationalist and border-line slanderous title of the thread.

We all know there are nutters out there- just look at some of the contributors to these message boards- and this seems like a common-sense measure to protect civil servants at No.10 from possible attack and physical harm. After all, one member of staff was threatened at her home address- why shouldn't precautions be taken to prevent that happening again? Do you really think Jo Bloggs gives two hoots who signs his reply from No.10?

Which is the lesser evil? A false name on a letter, or an assault on a civil servant?

I fail to see why this is being viewed as anything sinister. But it does apparently give the paranoid lefties yet another excuse to trot out their neuroses.

They'll be blaming it on Murdoch next.