Talk:Dstl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At what point does this stop being a stub, there is obviously lots more information that could be here, but it is quite comprehensive at the moment. --Thegraham 23:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well apparently now, because I've removed the stub :p --Thegraham 23:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The Chief Executive is no longer Martin Earwicker but I don't know how to change that part of the page, sorry. bluebear 20:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

now fixed Nuttah68 20:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

The British often decapitalize acronyms which are pronounced as words rather than letters, e.g. Nasa and Aids, but UFO and KGB. So to my friends across the pond I ask, does the decapitalization of DSTL reflect such shift in its pronunciation (and if so, how exactly is "Dstl" pronounced?), or is the style of capitalization merely a stylistic decision by the agency? -- a Yank who's never had the pleasure of hearing the word/acronym read aloud, AKA Severinus 06:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It's merely a stylistiv decision. The acronym is pronounced with each of the four letters voiced individually. JH 08:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks. --Severinus 22:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)