Government open standards advisor works for Microsoft

Stitch up

Well, I may use Macs but I do support Open Standards and having a Microsoft supported sympathiser as the 'neutral' chair to 'steer' the discussions can only mean one thing: he wanted to make people think Microsoft was the best, the cheapest, and that nothing else came close. Now he's sown the FUD, it's a case of job done really, isn't it?

The govt really should have looked this gift horse in the mouth.

By SwissMac on 27 Apr 2012

Stitch up

Well, I may use Macs but I do support Open Standards and having a Microsoft supported sympathiser as the 'neutral' chair to 'steer' the discussions can only mean one thing: he wanted to make people think Microsoft was the best, the cheapest, and that nothing else came close. Now he's sown the FUD, it's a case of job done really, isn't it?

The govt really should have looked this gift horse in the mouth.

By SwissMac on 27 Apr 2012

Stitch up

Well, I may use Macs but I do support Open Standards and having a Microsoft supported sympathiser as the 'neutral' chair to 'steer' the discussions can only mean one thing: he wanted to make people think Microsoft was the best, the cheapest, and that nothing else came close. Now he's sown the FUD, it's a case of job done really, isn't it?

The govt really should have looked this gift horse in the mouth. And Microsoft wonders why people don't trust them!

By SwissMac on 27 Apr 2012

Oh dear...

Well, I may use Macs but I do support Open Standards and having a Microsoft supported sympathiser as the 'neutral' chair to 'steer' the discussions can only mean one thing: he wanted to make people think Microsoft was the best, the cheapest, and that nothing else came close. Now he's sown the FUD, it's a case of job done really, isn't it?

The govt really should have looked this gift horse in the mouth.

By SwissMac on 27 Apr 2012

@SwissMac

You seem to be having trouble getting your wording right this morning. Let me help you with your first sentence. I think the first part should read;

"I like the idea of Open Standards but I like flashy expensive toys even more, so I've bought into Apple's closed and walled garden..."

:-))

By rjp2000 on 27 Apr 2012

Example set by govt itself

Secretary of State, Jeremy Hunt, is responsible (according to Parliamentary code of conduct) for his Special Adviser's actions. He has been backed by the Prime Minister over the direct advice given to News Corp about the Sky bid.
So what's different here? Both scream corruption, but only one involves cronyism.

By dubiou on 27 Apr 2012

Correction

Jeremy Hunt is Culture Secretary, not Secretary of State, as I'm sure you all know.
>_

By dubiou on 27 Apr 2012

Correction to correction

Jeremy Hunt is actually Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. So the statement that he is secretary of state is not entirely false.This according to Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Hunt_%28politi
cian%29

By curiousclive on 27 Apr 2012

@dubiou

The difference is that this guy was paid by Microsoft and working pro bono for us. Hunt's special advisor by contrast was paid for by us and working pro bono for News International!

By JohnAHind on 28 Apr 2012

@JohnAHind

Well thanks for clearing THAT up! :-)

I'm sure its entirely down to today's 'networking' culture which is Harvard Business School-speak for 'Its not WHAT you know, but WHO you know'.

UK government will always be hampered as a consequence of decisions long-past, by someone now forgotten that it would be a great (cost-saving) wheeze to outsource UK Government IT.
Consequently HMG is seriously lacking in the expertise necessary objectively to analyse anything more technically complex than the color[sic] of th pouches for the ministerial iPads.....

Hence this kind of SNAFU hapopens on regular basis....

By wittgenfrog on 30 Apr 2012