Fabio, whilst we did indeed have a falling out over my portrayal of Cornelius Fudge in Going Postal, my recollection is that we'd actually patched that up (enough for you to email me with an offer of making a public apology for some of your remarks on FAP). I've still got the email somewhere in my archive and can dig it up.
The cause of our last falling out was because of an incident between you and FAP where you felt that I was siding with the administration because I intervened in an attempt to try and smooth things through. You felt that it was personal. I disagree but an exchange of emails was made.
That is not something on which I feel there is a lot of point in dwelling on now. However, if you are going to make a comment about it, I think you could at least be accurate in setting out the history here.
Now, to get to my main point in commenting here, I do admit that I was given a link to this entry in your LJ. The person who gave me it (who I am not going to name because there is frankly no point) did so because they know that I am an attorney with a speciality in infrastructure finance (that's a private practice solicitor, not a bureaucrat). My clients include public and private entities (so I have no prejudices either way and have seen deals run from both sides of the table).
I in turn forwarded the link to a friend of mine, D. who is currently engaged in post-doctoral public policy research which involves looking at the link between the community charge and the growing use of PFI in the UK. I did so because you comments appeared to epitomise how a lot of people feel about it in the UK and I figured that it would interest him.
I did not know that D. would come here and comment on your LJ.
For the record, I have not posed as D. for the purposes of commenting on your LJ.
I do not need to pose as someone else if there is a point that I wish to make or a misconception that needs to be addressed.
Whatever you may feel about me personally (and there is obviously a lot of hostility still there on your part) I have always been up front in my dealings with you, just as I would be with anyone. Believe that or disbelieve it - it's your choice. The only thing I'd point to is that your LJ has IP addresses logged. Check the anon's comments against mine if you're looking for some proof.
Speaking personally, I think that you over-react when someone makes a comment that you strongly disagree with. I have no problem with someone being passionate about their beliefs, but I do draw the line at someone being abusive. Looking at his comments here, I believe that D. crossed the line in some of the things that he said. I also think that you were abusive in some of your comments back. In other words, I think that you are equally bad as each other when it comes to this situation.
On my own political beliefs, whilst a proportion of the work that I do involves PFI, I am actually not someone who is strongly in favour of it as the only solution. In fact, I am more in favour of the current LIFT finance scheme which gives more of a 'say' to the public sector in terms of controlling the long-term operation of a project, although the cost effectiveness of this is something that will not be known for another 5 years or so. The articles that I produced during the course of my MSc were actually very much arguments against private involvement in the public sector (with special regard to the failures of the privatisation schemes instigated by the Tories in railways and water).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Given that my name has been mentioned (part 1).
Date: 2004-10-16 01:27 pm (UTC)The cause of our last falling out was because of an incident between you and FAP where you felt that I was siding with the administration because I intervened in an attempt to try and smooth things through. You felt that it was personal. I disagree but an exchange of emails was made.
That is not something on which I feel there is a lot of point in dwelling on now. However, if you are going to make a comment about it, I think you could at least be accurate in setting out the history here.
Now, to get to my main point in commenting here, I do admit that I was given a link to this entry in your LJ. The person who gave me it (who I am not going to name because there is frankly no point) did so because they know that I am an attorney with a speciality in infrastructure finance (that's a private practice solicitor, not a bureaucrat). My clients include public and private entities (so I have no prejudices either way and have seen deals run from both sides of the table).
I in turn forwarded the link to a friend of mine, D. who is currently engaged in post-doctoral public policy research which involves looking at the link between the community charge and the growing use of PFI in the UK. I did so because you comments appeared to epitomise how a lot of people feel about it in the UK and I figured that it would interest him.
I did not know that D. would come here and comment on your LJ.
For the record, I have not posed as D. for the purposes of commenting on your LJ.
I do not need to pose as someone else if there is a point that I wish to make or a misconception that needs to be addressed.
Whatever you may feel about me personally (and there is obviously a lot of hostility still there on your part) I have always been up front in my dealings with you, just as I would be with anyone. Believe that or disbelieve it - it's your choice. The only thing I'd point to is that your LJ has IP addresses logged. Check the anon's comments against mine if you're looking for some proof.
Speaking personally, I think that you over-react when someone makes a comment that you strongly disagree with. I have no problem with someone being passionate about their beliefs, but I do draw the line at someone being abusive. Looking at his comments here, I believe that D. crossed the line in some of the things that he said. I also think that you were abusive in some of your comments back. In other words, I think that you are equally bad as each other when it comes to this situation.
On my own political beliefs, whilst a proportion of the work that I do involves PFI, I am actually not someone who is strongly in favour of it as the only solution. In fact, I am more in favour of the current LIFT finance scheme which gives more of a 'say' to the public sector in terms of controlling the long-term operation of a project, although the cost effectiveness of this is something that will not be known for another 5 years or so. The articles that I produced during the course of my MSc were actually very much arguments against private involvement in the public sector (with special regard to the failures of the privatisation schemes instigated by the Tories in railways and water).