Professional Advice

A place to discuss the issues relating to the proposed change in the national CTC’s structure.
thirdcrank
Posts: 28687
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Professional Advice

Postby thirdcrank » 5 Apr 2010, 6:58pm

Regulator

Sorry to be pedantic about this. Is what you refer to as the full report exactly that, or the edited version to which you referred earlier?

Regulator
Posts: 523
Joined: 27 Jan 2007, 10:13am

Re: Professional Advice

Postby Regulator » 5 Apr 2010, 7:04pm

thirdcrank wrote:Regulator

Sorry to be pedantic about this. Is what you refer to as the full report exactly that, or the edited version to which you referred earlier?


Sorry for the confusion - the report available on the CTC web-site is the edited version, which is what I linked to. I've also given the link for the 'Executive Summary' to the edited report.

The full report tht was received by Council has not been published.

thirdcrank
Posts: 28687
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Professional Advice

Postby thirdcrank » 5 Apr 2010, 7:11pm

Regulator

Thanks for the clarification.

It seems to me that while there may be all sorts of reasons why the CTC Council may feel it necessary to publish an edited version - and "redacted" seems to be the vogue word for this sort of thing - I do think we are entitled to be informed by the people making it public what they have done. (If that caveat was shown, I certainly missed it.)

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13897
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: Professional Advice

Postby gaz » 5 Apr 2010, 9:08pm

Regulator wrote:But I can see where the confusion might arise and will address it.


Thank you Regulator.

May I also thank both yourself and TC for clarifying that what I have previously considered to be the "full" report is in fact an edited version.
2020 : To redundancy ... and beyond!

Regulator
Posts: 523
Joined: 27 Jan 2007, 10:13am

Re: Professional Advice

Postby Regulator » 5 Apr 2010, 11:17pm

thirdcrank wrote:Regulator

Thanks for the clarification.

It seems to me that while there may be all sorts of reasons why the CTC Council may feel it necessary to publish an edited version - and "redacted" seems to be the vogue word for this sort of thing - I do think we are entitled to be informed by the people making it public what they have done. (If that caveat was shown, I certainly missed it.)



I have spent the last 10 years using just such language... and I couldn't remember it earlier... :oops:


:mrgreen: