|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 20, 2018 21:40:04 GMT
Playing the 'harassment' card is a reliable pointer to whoever plays it getting increasingly desperate to keep their wrongdoing under wraps.
Over the past 12 months numerous requests for sight of a copy of the Bill of Sale from C&RT in respect of 'selling' the "Planet" lightship to the proprietor of Sharpness Shipyard have resulted in cries of 'harassment' from both the Trust's 'legal team' and their co-conspirator.
In true C&RT style, however, this does score well in the comedy ratings, . . . someone styling themselves as an "Information Officer" publishing an ill-considered whinge about being asked for information. It obviously hasn't occurred to this stupid girl that FoI requests such as those Alan Richards is making are in fact keeping her in a job !
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on May 20, 2018 21:40:35 GMT
Oh look mrs tabby has got his handbag out and is using it on jenlyn again. I can't recall having had any interaction with jenlyn in the past TBH. If 24% of FOI requests to CRT are being made by the same person then this does suggest that the person in question has some type of monomania.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 20, 2018 21:54:54 GMT
Oh look mrs tabby has got his handbag out and is using it on jenlyn again. If 24% of FOI requests to CRT are being made by the same person then this does suggest that the person in question has some type of monomania. It suggests to me that this person is devoting a lot of time and effort to taking up the slack left by apathetic thickies who either haven't yet realised or simply don't care about the serious threat that C&RT present to the survival of our inland waterways.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on May 20, 2018 21:59:43 GMT
If 24% of FOI requests to CRT are being made by the same person then this does suggest that the person in question has some type of monomania. It suggests to me that this person is devoting a lot of time and effort to taking up the slack left by apathetic thickies who either haven't yet realised or simply don't care about the serious threat that C&RT present to the survival of our inland waterways. And bombarding CRT with vexatious FOI requests that take dozens of man-hours to respond to helps the survival of the inland waterways how exactly?
|
|
|
Post by kris on May 20, 2018 22:03:35 GMT
24% of how many? Would seem to be an important fact, before making judgment.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 20, 2018 22:30:44 GMT
It suggests to me that this person is devoting a lot of time and effort to taking up the slack left by apathetic thickies who either haven't yet realised or simply don't care about the serious threat that C&RT present to the survival of our inland waterways. And bombarding CRT with vexatious FOI requests that take dozens of man-hours to respond to helps the survival of the inland waterways how exactly? Are you using the word 'vexatious' simply because C&RT have successfully manipulated and conned you into so doing, or in the sense ascribed to it in the English dictionary, or under it's legal definition ? Neither of the latter two are in fact appropriate to any of the FoI requests referred to in this instance. Why would it, and how could it, take - "dozens of man hours" to invent a few pathetic excuses and lies about the likes of the minutes of routine Trustees meetings not being published as they should be, . . . and what useful contribution do you think this 'Information Officer' would be making if she, and her colleagues in 'Illegal and Obfuscation Services', weren't dealing with requests for information ?
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on May 21, 2018 7:10:24 GMT
It suggests to me that this person is devoting a lot of time and effort to taking up the slack left by apathetic thickies who either haven't yet realised or simply don't care about the serious threat that C&RT present to the survival of our inland waterways. And bombarding CRT with vexatious FOI requests that take dozens of man-hours to respond to helps the survival of the inland waterways how exactly? I think requests as to why the minutes of meetings which are meant to be published, are not. These meetings may (or may not) be deciding important matters that effect us directly or indirectly. ........ so why are they being kept secret ? An organisation that has made (ok, in my opinion) some pretty bad decisions needs to be monitored to try and prevent the same thing happening again. The fact that there is one individual who is more paranoid than I am keeping them on their toes, is for me a relief, as I don't want to spend half my life reading CRT's internal backslapping reports.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 21, 2018 7:20:16 GMT
In true C&RT style, however, this does score well in the comedy ratings, . . . someone styling themselves as an "Information Officer" publishing an ill-considered whinge about being asked for information. It obviously hasn't occurred to this stupid girl that FoI requests such as those Alan Richards is making are in fact keeping her in a job ! Perhaps she'd rather just be polishing her fingernails. Meanwhile, that hole in the Middlewich Branch is still there. Plenty of FoIs needed there to ask why no-one's got their arse in gear over that yet.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 21, 2018 7:21:30 GMT
24% of how many? Would seem to be an important fact, before making judgment. One of four = 25%
|
|
|
Post by kris on May 21, 2018 7:26:02 GMT
24% of how many? Would seem to be an important fact, before making judgment. One of four = 25% Exactly. So has he made a 1000 of 4000 foi requests which would seem a bit excessive. Or has he made 10 of 40 foi requests which doesn't seem excessive but still 25%. Is this cart being vague with the facts as usual? What's so wrong with publishing the minutes of the meetings?
|
|
|
Post by kris on May 21, 2018 8:16:00 GMT
Maybe someone should put a foi request in to see exactly how many foi requests he has actually made?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2018 8:23:22 GMT
Playing the 'harassment' card is a reliable pointer to whoever plays it getting increasingly desperate to keep their wrongdoing under wraps. Over the past 12 months numerous requests for sight of a copy of the Bill of Sale from C&RT in respect of 'selling' the "Planet" lightship to the proprietor of Sharpness Shipyard have resulted in cries of 'harassment' from both the Trust's 'legal team' and their co-conspirator. In true C&RT style, however, this does score well in the comedy ratings, . . . someone styling themselves as an "Information Officer" publishing an ill-considered whinge about being asked for information. It obviously hasn't occurred to this stupid girl that FoI requests such as those Alan Richards is making are in fact keeping her in a job ! Focusing on issues which are trivial to most of us, is a good way to distract everyone from more pertinent issues....like parts of the system being threatened with shutdown due to non-maintenance and boaters being harassed by more and more restrictions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2018 9:20:57 GMT
It's just a silly wannabe at CRT making the mistake of spouting off without grasping facts. She quotes the floater as being set up to protest against the creation of Canal and River Trust, when in fact it clearly states on the floaters website that the boaters manifesto was set up for that particular cause. These people at the trust do little to incur confidence in what they do, and that's of their own making.
The facts are, CRT have pitifully missed targets they have set themselves, and worse still, have then pitifully missed their adjusted targets. Wallowing around on Twitter with catch phrases and bullshit and claiming they hope to see the nhs inject money into crt is pathetically woeful, and shows just how ridiculous the management really are. They are an organisation completely lost.
|
|
|
Post by geoffm on May 21, 2018 9:34:07 GMT
Jenlyn/Steve
Did you get the message I sent you via 'what do they know' website?
Geoff (of Pearl).
|
|
|
Post by erivers on May 21, 2018 9:38:00 GMT
Most amusing of all is Melissa's whinge about Allan asking for internal reviews of their decisions ...... and then in the penultimate paragraph clearly explaining his right under the FoI Act to request an internal review!
|
|