Text of a letter sent to the Chief Executive of DCC on 30 Sept 2002. A few paragraphs have been removed as they are not essential to the core arguments.  No reply was ever received.

For the personal attention of the Chief Executive                                                                                       intern24

LIBRARY DISPUTE

Introductory paragraphs omitted.

In respect of the 15 Sept letter from Gash in which he states that my survey of libraries is 'absurd'. I would be pleased to know on what he bases his opinion (apart from obvious arrogance and ignorance) as this initial survey produced information from as far afield as Lancashire and Essex, and has provided a sound preliminary basis for comparing the performance and abilities of library management teams across the UK. I am interested if you would consider forthwith either withdrawing the statement by Gash or confirming to me that it represents DCC policy to denigrate work that is in advance of your own.

I formally and without prejudice set out below the terms of my offer as publicised on 20 Sept to assist with resolution of problems with computer systems that my letters, articles and surveys since June of this year have highlighted.

Paragraphs outlining work that could be undertaken on computer systems to make them more acceptable for data protection purposes have been omitted for now.

I am not of course expecting DCC to have the good sense seriously to consider these offers despite that it must be clear to anyone who has bothered properly to read my letters that I have thought through these systems from an independent perspective and in some detail. The reaction of your staff to date has been to invoke the classic panic defence mechanisms of shooting the messenger and of attempting to avoid addressing issues by feigning lack of resources. In his nasty little letter of 15 Sept Gash goes one stage further and accuses me of being a public nuisance. This point has therefore been addressed in a letter published on 27 Sept (see sept27herald.htm )and will be pursued, as will the apparent predilection of Gash to condemn in sexual terms anyone who raises legitimate issues of sexual misuse of computer systems. In this connection I have re-read my letter intern2. I can only suppose that Gash became concerned by references to Mrs Spence's young daughter. For your information, and without prejudice, one of my contemporary recollections of 'XXXXXXXX' is of walking along Sidmouth sea front with one arm around her and the other around her mother. I suppose Gash might consider this to be perverted, but any such view could in itself be considered indicative of a deep seated problem.

I look forward to hearing from you on the above. An interim reply to the letter of Mr Sweeney dated 26 Sept will be with you shortly and will confirm that under Natural Justice and the Human Rights Act neither Mrs Osborne nor Mr Smith can equitably be concerned with invoking any banning order under bylaws or otherwise since both were personally criticised by me as a central theme of conversations in Exeter library and the transcripts confirm. My full response will be delayed beyond 4 Oct because of time away from home and the necessary complexity of reply. I suggest 11 Oct. Please confirm your agreement and any suggestions for arbitration.

next page  intern23.htm