ONE word, in everyday use, sent a council's computer into a spin.
The over-sensitive system blundered in its mission to block anything it thought offensive.
It misunderstood emails it was sent by a lawyer objecting to a neighbour's extension plans - and by the time the problem was sorted out it was too late.
Commercial lawyer Ray Kennedy sent three emails to Rochdale Council's planning department objecting to proposals to extend his next-door neighbour's home on Sunny Brow Road in Middleton.
Culprit
It later emerged the first two failed to reach the department because software on the town hall's computer system - designed to filter out obscene material - intercepted them because they contained the word "
erection".
Somehow a third email, which contained the same word, managed to reach a planning officer - but the plans had already been given the go-ahead.
The officer told Ray, 51, that a decision had already been made and the proposals had been agreed without his objections being heard. Now he is considering complaining to the local government ombudsman over the blunder - for which the council has apologised.
Stopped
Ray said: "They said it was because the emails had been stopped by their software because of the word `erection', which is a normal term they use every day in planning. But it was stopped because it had another meaning.
"I was shocked. It seems like political correctness gone wild. I couldn't believe that they didn't review emails that come in and are stopped in that manner. Mine was a perfectly legitimate letter dealing with my objections.
"I was told it was too late, that the decision had already been made and that the only way I could reverse it was by going to the courts to get a judicial review. That would be very expensive for myself and the council-tax payers of Rochdale and Middleton. If it didnét affect me then I would no doubt find it funny.
éBut ités a great shame because it puts me in a situation with my neighbours. I have very good neighbours and I donét want to fall out with them, but the council is making things between us difficult.
'Unfair'
éThis proposal was clearly passed without my objections being heard and ités not fair.é
A spokesman for Rochdale Council spokesman said: éThe software that protects the councilés email system from spam and other offensive material is not designed by the council and we do not control which words are blocked.
éWe will be writing to the resident to apologise for the failure of his emails to get through."
SHOULD the council change it's obscenity filters - or is this just the price to be paid for protecting staff from naughty emails? Have your say.
*Picture posed by model.
Showing comments 1 to 24 and replies | View All
mike, city centre Manchester (30/05/2006 at 09:21)
Dave Dutton, Atherton (30/05/2006 at 09:31)
P. Dorff, Manchester (30/05/2006 at 11:14)
Of course, certain words are profane, but there are ways and means around this - one of them being 'exceptions'.
This allows a person to use a word such as erections, but allows the mail through because one mail has already passed AND there's the mention of 'planning' or 'building'. See? it's THAT simple...
Training isn't just for those that know, it's there for ALL... and once you know how to look at emails that escape the filters MANUALLY, then you can call yourself someone in a position of trust.
Know what is out there and take note.
All e-mails should be treated with a reasonable amount of respect and regard.
If you fail to do that, then like the gentleman in the story, things go wrong. Retraining staff is always the key to good relations especially when dealing with matters of the technological. Without it, as things go, this sort of thing will carry on.
The simple rule is - train the staff better! and while you're at it, teach them how to manually delete spam and check ALL emails properly! Those emails that someone isn't sure of (manual checking is by far the BEST)should be either forwarded or removed by someone who has a better knowledge of computers.
So there you go.
And whats more, so many companies don't use Thunderbird - which in my own personal experience has cut down on the spam that comes in here by 90%! Why am I boasting? because using Outlook Depress, it wasn't blocking nearly as much as that. If only companies were more willing to use these 'other' non-M$ products sometimes... life would be so much better..
If I had my way, nobody working for a company would be allowed near a computer until they had undergone an intensive computer training course and passed.
Steven Gardner, Manchester (30/05/2006 at 13:18)
There are plenty of spam filters out there, many of them are free and can be configured or trained. It is particularly unacceptable that e-mail is simply deleted instead of being flagged as potential spam.
PJD, Mancester (30/05/2006 at 13:37)
doug, manchester (30/05/2006 at 13:53)
dave, oldham (30/05/2006 at 14:19)
Paul, London (30/05/2006 at 15:24)
Rochdale council needs this system, it has not choice. But it is oversensitive to filter a word like 'erection'.
Napoleon, Manchester (30/05/2006 at 17:49)
James, Manchester (30/05/2006 at 19:00)
When some of the names i were being called were extremely homophobic,and ill mannered, the council were not receiving any of the emails. i had to break the "offensive" words down with fullstops in between each letter to ensure the email was received!
Len, Manchester (30/05/2006 at 19:43)
Barb, Sussex (30/05/2006 at 19:52)
Matthew, Manchester (30/05/2006 at 20:33)
Dave, Spain (30/05/2006 at 22:38)
Gordon, Salford (31/05/2006 at 00:44)
JH, Cheshire (31/05/2006 at 08:20)
The council SHOULD be in control of everything they are responsible for, including their computers. Who's in charge of this council ? The computer or the councillors ?
Ricky G, Whitefield (31/05/2006 at 08:37)
Sorry boss - didnt get your e mail...you must have used the words "erection","hard" etc etc...
Pamela, Crumpsall (31/05/2006 at 08:53)
What is needed with this filters is some common sense written into the code. Computers only do what they are told but they could be told to ignore embedded words for example (a word within another word) but then there would still be the problem of perfectly innocent words that are standalone would still be filtered.
paul, wilmslow (02/06/2006 at 13:42)
Steve, Greenville, SC, USA (02/06/2006 at 15:03)
Ian, Spain (02/06/2006 at 15:05)
That would have saved a lot of heartache but equally would have wrecked a good story and some great responses!
malcolm, USA (Formally of salford ENG) (02/06/2006 at 22:08)
Mamadshah, France, London (31/07/2006 at 22:58)
James, Mystic CT USA (02/08/2006 at 06:03)