Talk:Defence Science and Technology Laboratory

This article (the More Info section) infringes on Crown Copyright, as it is completely copied from the page: http://www.dstl.gov.uk/about_us/intro.htm (which states © Crown Copyright 2004 Dstl). I don't really claim to know anything about copyright law, so I may be incorrect. Whether it is an infringement or not though, should an entry really just be a copy of a webpage? --Thegraham 10:04, 17 December 2005 (GMT)

Moved from DSTL because Dstl is what they call themselves --Khendon 11:39, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can we not just skip the aggrieved employee rant, please? --Khendon 13:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, this;

Its status as an Executive Agency means that the Terms and Conditions of its staff are now significantly worse than those of the parent Department and DSTL has been the subject of much criticism regarding the high turnover and poor retention of its staff, particularly among its graduate intake.

...just isn't encyclopaedic. It's of interest to nobody except employees, who doubtless have their own opinions already. It's also inaccurate; its status as an executive agency is irrelevant. --Khendon 20:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This;

Although the Laboratory's publications proudly proclaim that 'Dstl is part of the Ministry of Defence', it is run along relatively commercial lines

has a negative POV. The implication is that this "proclamation" is dishonest or inaccurate because it's "run along relatively commercial lines". This latter fact is already covered earlier by the more precise statement that it's a trading fund that manages its own budget and is funded by contracts. --Khendon 06:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DSTL has also been the subject of much criticism regarding the high turnover and poor retention of its staff, particularly among its graduate intake.

This isn't information relevant to an enclyopaedia. As I said above, nobody except employees is likely to care about this. Also, much criticism from who? What are the thresholds for turnover to be considered "high"? Where's the evidence of it? Even if it is true, it can't be included in wikipedia unless it's verifiable. --Khendon 06:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

victimisation of Trade Union Representatives is both common and well documented

This is a fairly serious accusation! If it's "well documented", where's the evidence? Without it, it's just mudslinging. --Khendon 06:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many employees often cite the fact that new entry graduates usually receive higher salaries than existing staff, and there has been on-going concern over the high incidence of work-related stress with DSTL.

Same comments as above, essentially. Do you have an employee opinion survey of some kind, perhaps? Or some evidence of the incidence of work-related stress? Who other than current employees is likely to want to know that new entry graduates usually receive higher salaries than existing staff? --Khendon 06:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd back up everything Khendon has to say here. It doesn't look like different users as the text is always the same. Plus, there's no backup for it in the press that I'm aware of; for example, there's no press coverage of TU victimisation or graduate turnover. --da-rb 22:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]