Azrael - Board of Governors Nomination

[azrael]

I hereby officially put myself forward to stand for membership of the Board of Governors.

I welcome any questions from members that would help them gauge if I am the sort of person they feel would be a benefit to the Board (BoG).

Firstly though, I'd like to tell you about myself, and relate how I feel I have something to bring to the Board.

Who am I?

My name is Stephen, I am in my early-thirties (pleased to say I am NOT twice the age of any current younger candidate Edit: this claim is no longer accurate), and have been interested in politics all of my adult life, and quite a bit of my non-adult life too. The weight of my life experiences and maturity (hopefully not a liability!) would be part of what I have to offer on the board.

Political Position/Experience

While placing myself, politically, somewhere on the socialist/liberal part of the spectrum, and having voted in every election I have been able to, I have never been a member of a political party. I joined the PPUK however within hours of hearing of its existence.

I feel this goes some way towards indicating just how strongly the Pirate political movement resonates with me, as I am sure it does with all of you.

I would be the first to agree that I don't have a lot of active party political experience. I do, however, feel that I have a lot of experience and understanding of political processes.

I also recognise that the Board of Governors isn't a policy driving body, and should be focused internally on party governance. I do feel that the way in which the party governs itself should reflect the external policies of the party, focusing on fairness, and getting the right balance of privacy/openness where necessary.

Education, Employment, & Transferable Skills

I hold a BSc (hons) in Molecular and Cellular Biology, and an MSc in Computing Science. I have, I'd like to think, a more than layman's understanding of many of the issues surrounding pharmaceutical/software patents and this weird 'new' digital online environment that it feels like the last government only just noticed exists.

I've worked in two schools and four universities (one of which, just to name-drop, was Imperial), and while this has covered a range of different jobs, they've all had a very similar core. Dealing with staff to train and advise on the use of 'learning technologies'. In other words, taking something complicated, understanding it, and transferring that understanding to others. These sorts of comprehension and people skills are transferable to pretty much any situation where I need to work with complex issues and people.

Other aspects of my current job are:

• Keeping up to date with new technologies
• Applying new and existing technologies to the educational context
• Advising, training, and supporting University staff
• Sit in (seemingly) endless meetings discussing all sorts of things including educational theory, practical applications of technologies, planning of projects, formulating policies, etc.

This means:

• I'm always monitoring new physical and online technologies and trying to understand how they work
• I am able to look at a technology in one context and evaluate alternate uses
• I am practised at explaining technologies to a wide range of differently skilled/educated audiences
• I am skilled at working in project groups, understanding complex issues, writing and re-writing complicated documents
• I am used to working on strategy-level boards producing strategy, policy, and regulations documents.

My Core Beliefs

I know that many people can be drawn to the same thing for different reasons, so I want to share what is important about this party (and our ideal objectives/outcomes) from my perspective. These aren't necessarily directly relevant to the BoG, but it seems, to me, to be the best way of being clear about who I am and what I stand for.

In increasing order of importance (from my perspective):

A movement of rights and protections from corporate group entities to individuals.

I believe that personal and individual freedoms are important. It is vital to redress the balance between individuals and greedy faceless corporate entities.

Rights of society and information commons

More important that personal freedoms, to me anyway, is a desire to shift the balance back towards society. Over time laws (copyright in particular) have changed to take more and more intellectual output/creativity/ingenuity away from society and given to individuals. I see the value in encouraging creativity with limited protections for commercial exploitation, but LIMITED is the key word.

I liken what has happened to a form of creative inclosure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclosure) with corresponding loss of the creative and intellectual commons. Laws that were designed to stimulate creativity specifically to deliver, for free, creative and intellectual output to society have mutated to do their damnedest to lock up the intellectual output for commercial exploitation only. Society does not benefit from there being more information for society to pay for. Society benefits from the free exchange of ideas, and the ability to take someone else's idea and improve upon it.

Recognising new economies mean new economic models

Digital economies are radically different from (pained expression) the analogue economy from 'physical' economies, and society and business need to understand that and if need be radically shift they way they operate to accommodate it. The nature of information, digital works, ideas, and thoughts, are such that sharing them should not be hampered by all the restrictions they currently are. I listened to a speech from Eben Moglen a few years ago (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NorfgQlEJv8) and was struck by what he said:

And so we face, in the twenty-first century, a very basic moral question. If you could make as many loaves of bread as it took to feed the world, by baking one loaf and pressing a button, how could you justify charging more for bread than the poorest people could afford to pay? If the marginal cost of bread is zero, then the competitive market price should be zero too. But leaving aside any question of microeconomic theory, the moral question, 'What should be the price of what keeps someone else alive if it costs you nothing to provide it to them', has only one unique answer. There is no moral justification for charging more for bread that costs nothing than the starving can pay. Every death from too little bread under those circumstances is murder. We just don't know who to charge for the crime.

I struggle to openly express emotions (I'm so very British), but this moves me still. For anyone who hasn't watched his speech, do so now! You can always come and read what I've written later.

He is right, we are exactly there, now. It may sound trite to say "information wants to be free", but it is surely much worse to say "it is acceptable for people to suffer or live in inferior conditions to me because they can't afford to have access to information".

Random Trivia

I used to have a copy of the magna carta on my bedroom wall, and was fond of the clause 'No town or person shall be forced to build bridges over rivers except those with an ancient obligation to do so'. This demonstrates, perhaps, an early fondness for constitutions. If elected, I'll make sure PPUK members are never forced to build (physical) bridges (by the party), unless they have an ancient obligation to do so.

As a member of a particular University student society for many years (I am still eligible as an associate member as I am not a student any more), I have always been vociferous about us following our constitution to the letter, even if it was not in our best interests, taking the view point that if we want to do things differently we should make the effort to change our society constitution rather than just ignore it. It has frequently been joked, when anyone has wanted to know a particular society constitutional regulation, that I'm the person to ask as no-one else can be bothered to read it. I suppose this indicates a willingness to stick to the rules (even if sometimes that is a bad thing) although I hope it also shows a respect for constitutions people select for themselves and a willingness to be involved in both the understanding of them and the effort to change them where necessary. I think the relevance of this to the BoG speaks for itself.

Lastly

I want to be on the BoG (no sniggering there at the back!) because I think I can make a valuable contribution to it, and I am prepared to put in both the time and effort it requires. I want the PPUK to be a success, and through membership of the BoG I hope to be able to help make this happen.

Note I am also standing as RAO for the South East. I have noted other people putting themselves forwards make a point to say they won't take part in votes that deal with other official positions they hold. I am not sure if this is necessary or not. If I held both a BoG and a RAO position I feel this would give me a very good understanding of RAO issues and therefore I would want to take part in discussions and votes dealing with them - as I suspect real conflicts of interest won't be very common. Instead I would judge potential conflicts of interest on a case by case basis, and only exempt myself where there was one - importantly I would recognise and respect the views of other BoGs on the off-chance I was unable to spot a conflict of interest myself.

Edit: Seconded by tuoni (just for those who prefer seconds to not be also standing)

[AndrewTindall]

i second captain long-post here.

[tuoni]

From our many long conversations over beers and on trains back and forth between PPUK meetings, I (as someone who is not standing for a post) happily second Azrael for his application to sit on the BoG

[borgs8472]

Lastly

I want to be on the BoG (no sniggering there at the back!) because I think I can make a valuable contribution to it, and I am prepared to put in both the time and effort it requires. I want the PPUK to be a success, and through membership of the BoG I hope to be able to help make this happen.

Note I am also standing as RAO for the South East. I have noted other people putting themselves forwards make a point to say they won't take part in votes that deal with other official positions they hold. I am not sure if this is necessary or not. If I held both a BoG and a RAO position I feel this would give me a very good understanding of RAO issues and therefore I would want to take part in discussions and votes dealing with them - as I suspect real conflicts of interest won't be very common. Instead I would judge potential conflicts of interest on a case by case basis, and only exempt myself where there was one - importantly I would recognise and respect the views of other BoGs on the off-chance I was unable to spot a conflict of interest myself.

Edit: Seconded by tuoni (just for those who prefer seconds to not be also standing)

I'm sure you've be great. I would do the same but I have my web responsibilities and can't afford the time, best of luck for you for both though!

[borgs8472]

Yo

* Where do you see the party in 1 years time?
* What do you imagine as your role within the board and party within the same period?
* Assuming growth and success on our part, how do you plan of balancing the responsibilities and commitments of both South East RAO and Board member in the future?
* Do you have any contingency plan if you were unable to spend the same hours or less with the party in the future?
* Do you feel there any conflict of interest between your role as political pirate and that of your job in the educational environment?

[cabalamat]

I have some questions I'd like to ask of the candidates standing for the Board of Governors:

1. What level of autonomy should regions of the Pirate Party have? (I'm thinking particularly here of Scotland, but the same issues apply to other parts of the UK with devolved administrations -- Wales, London, and Northern Ireland.)

2. Regarding Scotland, if there is a devolved party, should there be a Scottish leader?

3. What about policies/manifestos for Scottish elections; should they be decided by the Scottish Party or the whole of PPUK?

4. Regarding our manifesto, the constitution says (2.1): "The principal aim of the Party is that the United Kingdom reforms its copyright and patent and privacy laws in a manner consistent with the opinions of the Party’s members." In your opinion, does this preclude us having policies outside these areas?

5. Does this part of the constitution need changing? If so, what to?

6. Should PPUK have policies outside our core policies?

7. What other constitutional changes, if any, would you like to see?

8. According to the constitution (8.3): "The Board may have other governance responsibilities which are as yet undefined in this constitution." what other responsibilities do you think the board should have?

[azrael]

* Where do you see the party in 1 years time?

A difficult question to answer, and I think it may be easier to answer by predicting events over the next twelve months. I worry that in the next few months the party will hit a rocky point. When the party officially launched nearly a year ago there was a large amount of media attention, and without access to stats I suspect that's when most of the members joined. As we approach the one year anniversary of those members how many of them will we see renew? I fear that when it comes to the inactive members many of them will not renew - and how we increase the conversion rate from year 1 members to year 2 members is something the party will need to strategise on. The board may have a small role in this, if the constitution needs amending. The constitution doesn't specify the level of member fees - but if the party wanted to move to eliminate membership fees the constitution would need alteration.

After passing this rocky patch, we may have less fee paying members (one way or another) and our finances may be hit, but I suspect as far as active membership goes there won't be a decline and so we'll rebound.

I fervently hope that the rest of the year sees increasing membership levels with a corresponding increase in active membership as we as a party increase our externally visible activities, promote and advertise ourselves, and engage members in useful party activities. I suspect this will require little to no Board intervention.

In parallel, over the year, I expect the Board to organise and formalise the party structures, so that in a year's time there is much greater administrative and organisational understanding of who does what, when, how, etc. I also anticipate the majority of the work done by the Board will be mind numbingly boring for the average member, yet rather important to ensure we have a robust infrastructure and governance.

* What do you imagine as your role within the board and party within the same period?

If I was elected to the Board, I would anticipate my role as a member would continue pretty much as it does now. I would hope I could have multiple hats and not wear more than one at a time

However I do realise that it is impossible to (going to try and stick with the metaphor) own a hat and not be assumed to be wearing it even when one isn't. Therefore I realise that every member of the Board (as indeed any elected member should realise) has to communicate with others in such a way so as not to bring the party into disrepute (as they will be seen, however unfairly, as speaking for the party) and also not to steamroller over the opinions of others (being elected doesn't make my opinions any more valid than anyone else's, especially on matters unrelated to the elected position!).

* Assuming growth and success on our part, how do you plan of balancing the responsibilities and commitments of both South East RAO and Board member in the future?

One thing I feel as RAO is that the position, duties, responsibilities, and lines of reporting are unclear. That's ok, as they will become clearer over time as all the RAOs undertake their duties. As such I would hope that this insight into the role of the RAO would feed into any decisions I made as part of the Board when it came to any additions to the constitution relating to the RAO position.

There is some cross-over with both roles that wouldn't require additional time. I wouldn't want members of the Board to be out of touch with the members. As RAO I will (and if not, I'll be failing in my duties!!) be out and about with the party members, socialising with them, discussion party matters with them, etc. By keeping in touch with other members in this way I would ensure that I am up to date with any concerns/worries that require consideration by the Board.

Finally, yes. The more responsibilities someone takes on, the more time they have to dedicate to them. I fully realise that the duties I have thrown my hat into the rings to undertake (rings that give me hats to wear in exchange for the hats I throw in?? metaphor stretching painfully now!) will require significant amounts of my time. By nominating myself I was making a commitment, and I stand by that.

* Do you have any contingency plan if you were unable to spend the same hours or less with the party in the future?

Short answer: If I find myself unable to put in the amount of time I regard as needed for the successful carrying out of my responsibilities, I will assess the reasons for this, the implications for my responsibilities, discuss with my colleagues, and then if necessary resign.

Not that much longer answer: If I am ill for a few weeks and am forced to neglect duties, then there ought to be enough other Board members to not miss me. As RAO I hope to find deputies as part of normal RAO expectations, and so such deputies would hopefully be able to continue regional activities and cover for my illness.

Part of self-assessing any such reduction in time available for party activities would require me to be both fair to myself and fair to the party. There's no sense falling on my sword and inconveniencing the party with elections if I'm going to be off on summer hols for a week. Also highly unfair to remain in post if I lose interest and decide to dedicate myself to growing toe fungi (or whatever - note, I have no such plans to lose interest).

* Do you feel there any conflict of interest between your role as political pirate and that of your job in the educational environment?

When I see the sheer amount of copyright infringement that goes on in the education sector, where it is sometime my job to give people a gentle tap (metaphorically) on the shoulder and make them correct things, it feels very much that I have not a conflict of interest, but am forced to act to enforce issues contrary to my political beliefs. But actually, it is just a perspective issue. Everyone knows that scanning in a few pages of that book for the students is illegal, but they do it anyway because it shouldn't be illegal, or they morally justify it as it is for non-commercial educational purposes. That is a perfect opportunity for me to say (when tapping on the shoulder) "what you are doing is illegal, but it shouldn't be. You have to stop it as I can not justify illegal activity, but if you, like I, believe it should be legal, then take a look at ... " and direct towards PPUK policies.

My job is to teach people to understand and to use technology. My job is to use, and help others use, technology to aid learning and teaching. This is perfectly compatible with being a political Pirate because it means I bring to my politics a real world understanding, and allows me to take to the world, from the party, my vision of how the world should be changed.

[azrael]

1. What level of autonomy should regions of the Pirate Party have? (I'm thinking particularly here of Scotland, but the same issues apply to other parts of the UK with devolved administrations -- Wales, London, and Northern Ireland.)

That's a tricky question, as it makes me want to ask autonomy from whom? and who are the 'they' in the region? I believe the party needs a single central leadership that guides the party forwards in the one direction, while the regions themselves work out how to best put that into practice for the region. I do think the regions ought to be able to operate regionally as 'they' think best, but I wouldn't want to see regional parties that looked different from one another. We want a member of the public to know that the PPUK South East is the same as the PPUK Scotland. We wouldn't want PPUK East Midlands advocating 5 years copyright and PPUK West Midlands advocating 20 years copyright.

We already seem to have a model where constituency candidates are allowed to have their own policies outside of the core, but the party core policies have to come first. Looking at a constituency that sits in a region, and a region that sits within the country, everything is nested, and each level needs to be consistent with the levels either side. So that means regions have to stick to the core policies (fairly sure that's a safe bet anyway). But does that mean regions can then have their own set of policies outside of the core in the way candidates can? I think not. Because then, for consistency, that means each candidate within that region has to match every core policy, every regional policy, before adding in their own policies that have not already been covered. As such a diverse party I do not think that is a practical approach as it balkanises the party across regional boundaries, and may lead to the party splitting up into separate entities.

With devolved regions*, yes there may be extra sets of elections you have to deal with, and yes you may need the regional party to be considered a cohesive semi-separate entity rather than just an off-shoot of some national party to have regional legitimacy. This might mean that the Board has to walk a very fine line when dealing with the constitution to make sure there is the right level of autonomy necessary to provide (devolved)regional legitimacy, without balkanising the party.

Beyond autonomy, I'm far more interested in the answer to the question "how can regions work with other to share best practice?" The answer I hope is "very well indeed!"

* Northern Ireland is in a slightly different position due to the legal aspects. I am not sure to what extent a PP in NI can be constructed that fully conforms to the necessary laws, while structurally and functionally manages to relate to the PPUK as any other region would.

2. Regarding Scotland, if there is a devolved party, should there be a Scottish leader?

I worry about getting bogged down with semantics. I also worry about asking more questions here than I answer. Is the RAO the leader of a region? Do regions have leaders? Do regions need leaders? If an officer is elected to 'administer/run' a region, is there a difference between administratively 'running' a region and politically leading in a region? Does the RAO have to stand for political office within their region? If they don't does that make someone who does the political leader of that region?

When there are elections for devolved parliaments the PPUK should put up candidates. Should more than 1 candidate get into office, should one of them be in authority over the others?

If PPUK win a by-election in random-place, with just one PPUK MP is that person suddenly the leader of something?

I suspect the Scottish electorate may want there to be a Scottish leader of a Scottish PP. As above, for fear of balkanising the party I would not want to see a regional party that didn't defer to the singular PPUK NEC.

3. What about policies/manifestos for Scottish elections; should they be decided by the Scottish Party or the whole of PPUK?

I mentioned earlier that I didn't want regional parties to have their own policies outside of the core. This is reinforced by this question as if the region put a set of policies together for the regional election it would pretty much tie the hands of each candidate to follow that manifesto which is at odds with our practice so far. If each candidate at national election is allowed their own platform outside of the core policies, then so should each candidate at a devolved regional election. Where candidates all stand just as part of a regional list - well those candidates had better get together and agree a single manifesto that will be their manifesto as candidates, not the region's manifesto.

I feel as if this particular answer is also getting rather semantic ... where is the line between all the candidates as an entity for a list, and the region itself. There is a line, and I know where I want it drawn between these two - just not sure how visible the gap is in order to draw the line.

4. Regarding our manifesto, the constitution says (2.1): "The principal aim of the Party is that the United Kingdom reforms its copyright and patent and privacy laws in a manner consistent with the opinions of the Party’s members." In your opinion, does this preclude us having policies outside these areas?

No. This wording does not prevent the party having policies outside of reform to copyright/patent/privacy.

If you asked me if the party should have policies outside of these 3, I would lean towards the no.

If you asked me if the constitution should specifically preclude policies outside of the 3, I would say no. That might make it impossible for candidates to be compliant with our constitution and have their own manifesto.

I am inclined to rely on the assumption that the party as a whole won't agree on any other policies as a way to keep us on just the three core ones. If the party does overwhelmingly agree on other policies, who am I to stand in the party's way?

5. Does this part of the constitution need changing? If so, what to?

If there is confusion over what the constitution means, then yes, it needs changing to be clear. When it comes to other policy areas, as mentioned above if there are enough members wanting extra policies, the party should listen. So perhaps the constitution ought to have a specified means to agree on other policies with a sufficiently high threshold (as percentage of members rather than voters) to pass.

But rewording may be helpful to change from simply reflecting the will of the members, to reflecting the will of the members consistent with a particular defined set of fundamental beliefs (i.e. reducing copyright durations to increase and speed up the transition of creative works from privately exploitable to publicly and freely accessible, changing privacy laws to increase the privacy of people, reforming patent laws to reduce the timespan of these artificial monopolies to reflect the faster changing technologies blah blah). After all we don't want an influx of 5,000 members who then vote for 200 year copyright terms and in favour of software patents!!

6. Should PPUK have policies outside our core policies?

If every single member agrees, yes.
If a significantly high % of members agree, yes.
If only 30 members 'bother' to vote and more of them want them than not, no. (assuming a membership that is more than ... hand-wavey ... 40)

Reasons as given above. Diverse membership, don't want to drive away members by having policies very few can get behind. We want to appeal to more members, not less.

7. What other constitutional changes, if any, would you like to see?

I want the constitution to formalise and explain all officer roles (RAOs!) so that there is a clear organisation structure.

We've had quite a lot of elections - and yet we have no formal constitutional regulations on how these should take place. We probably should!

It would be nice if the Board could have something a little more robust than "The Board may have other governance responsibilities which are as yet undefined in this constitution." - I know this was always just a quick fix and specifically intended to be altered by the Board, so it should be!

I'd like to see guidelines in the constitution for how candidates are selected, and how they should operate (i.e. how much leeway they get with their manifestos).

I'd like to see the constitution contain a strong and motivating 'mission statement' so anyone reading it knows exactly what we stand for!

8. According to the constitution (8.3): "The Board may have other governance responsibilities which are as yet undefined in this constitution." what other responsibilities do you think the board should have?

The purpose of the Board needs to be clear. The purpose of the NEC needs to be clear. The two should not have conflicting roles.

I see the NEC as administering the party, and driving the party towards it's political goals. I see the Board as tweaking the constitution (might need a lot now, but shouldn't need much in the long term) and providing governance to ensure the party follows the constitution (freeing up the NEC from such petty matters). As such I could see 8.3 expanding to define what governance is, into which I would include disciplinary measures.

If I can shamelessly steal ... um ... copy from the labour party manifesto:

On the NEC:

The primary purpose of the NEC shall be to provide a strategic direction for the party as a whole and to maintain and develop an active party in the country ... to secure the party’s objectives.

On the NCC:

There shall be a National Constitutional Committee ... duties and powers ... to determine by hearing or otherwise such disciplinary matters as are presented to it

I should note that while I am happy to look at other parties for what and how they do things, I recognise that if we are to be a different sort of party we need to make sure we don't just copy other parties. That said, the three main parties are very successful at being parties, and I am not too proud to learn from how they work.

[tdobson]

Week to week administration and ongoing tasks to keep an organisation running is by no means glamorous and requires a good deal of stamina, patience and persistence - quite different from the cut and thrust [no pun intended] of an election campaign.
If you've not mentioned already, what experience do you have sitting on committees and boards in the past?

Not everyone on the board will always agree with your take on things.
What makes you think you have the patience and self restraint to be able to continue to work harmoniously with board members who hold different opinions?

Detailed and concise minutes are crucial to making sure the outcomes of any series of meetings are recorded and pushed out to those who attended as reminders.
Bearing this in mind, would you be willing to take minutes for meetings you have?

Lastly:
Do you have any opinions that this government or legal system has a conspiracy going on or anything?
and:
Are you on twitter or identi.ca?

If ever need advice about anything I can help with, my door/email is always open/td[at]tdobson[dot]net.

Best of luck!

[azrael]

Hi Tim,

Thank you for your questions!

Week to week administration and ongoing tasks to keep an organisation running is by no means glamorous and requires a good deal of stamina, patience and persistence - quite different from the cut and thrust [no pun intended] of an election campaign.
If you've not mentioned already, what experience do you have sitting on committees and boards in the past?

Firstly I'd like to challenge this question, as I don't believe the role of the Governors is to undertake week to week administration that keeps the party running. Rather that the Governors will put together a framework of rules and obligations that will provide understanding to all members of how the party runs, place constraints and obligations on those actively running the party (not to prevent them from doing those things that they ought to be), and perhaps place into being a lot of the administration and tasks that are undertaken by others to run the party.

Now, with that in mind, in practice this might take weeks and weeks of admin work, at least early days, and in my work life I am regularly used to attending decision and strategy making committees - so doing so for the party will not be a new experience for me.

Not everyone on the board will always agree with your take on things.
What makes you think you have the patience and self restraint to be able to continue to work harmoniously with board members who hold different opinions?

Personal experience tells me that I am a calm, relaxed, and easy to get on with person. Not to say that I'm the life and soul of a party and everyone wants to be my friend! More that I'm not a marmite type personality.

People have different opinions, and I have the ability to react to that in different ways. I pick and choose as appropriate. In the work place, which is the way I'd approach the Governors job, I am tolerant of the opinions of others, and I make the time to understand their position, their reasoning for it, and am prepared to let them sway my own opinion, or put in the work to try and sway them to mine.

Ultimately, sometimes it is necessary to agree to disagree, and I can do so without being personal about it.

Detailed and concise minutes are crucial to making sure the outcomes of any series of meetings are recorded and pushed out to those who attended as reminders.
Bearing this in mind, would you be willing to take minutes for meetings you have?

Unfortunately I have to regularly take minutes for one particular weekly meeting in which we rotate the minute taking. So I am used to minuting, and don't exactly enjoy it, but understand the importance. We have a policy (at this particular weekly meeting) to minute in a digital format, and send out minutes as the last in-meeting action. This guarantees the minutes are sent out promptly.

Lastly:
Do you have any opinions that this government or legal system has a conspiracy going on or anything?

I generally tend towards the view that once you put sufficient numbers of people together, they are incapable of efficiently undertaking the conspiracies that are sometimes rumoured. So many small things leak out, all sorts of scandals etc, that secret Illuminati century long conspiracies seem impossible. They can be a fun read though.

and:
Are you on twitter or identi.ca?

Yes. @roaminglt on Twitter

If ever need advice about anything I can help with, my door/email is always open/td[at]tdobson[dot]net.

Best of luck!

thank you, and thank you.

[azrael]

Lastly:
Do you have any opinions that this government or legal system has a conspiracy going on or anything?

I generally tend towards the view that once you put sufficient numbers of people together, they are incapable of efficiently undertaking the conspiracies that are sometimes rumoured. So many small things leak out, all sorts of scandals etc, that secret Illuminati century long conspiracies seem impossible. They can be a fun read though.[/quote]

I've just realised that this question was a cunning way to find out if your century long conspiracy has been discovered.

Cunning, very very very cunning!

[tdobson]

Lastly:
Do you have any opinions that this government or legal system has a conspiracy going on or anything?

I've just realised that this question was a cunning way to find out if your century long conspiracy has been discovered.

Cunning, very very very cunning!

Hehe, [seriously] question was designed to hopefully prise out any points of views that I might think were incompatible with guiding the party. Thankfully haven't come across anything but better safe than sorry!

P.S. Elvis is will always be PPUK divine spiritual leader for as long as he is alive, well and living in Price Charles's shoes! [/sarcasm]