Fake news on NBW

[mayalld]

10 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

You placed your request in the public domain. Are you now saying that you refuse to disclose if you have made a complaint to ICO?

 

I made use of a useful facility for submitting FOI requests. That facility places the request in the public domain, and places any answer in the public domain.

 

I did that, because I feel that the answer to the question is of general use (and if it were not, I would consider the request vexatious).

 

Where there is no answer, the public is denied something useful, but does not acquire the right to participate in any ongoing process as to whether the refusal was appropriate or not.

 

I will disclose the information to anybody who has a right to know, and to anybody I choose. The representatives of the pseudo-press who have an overtly anti-CRT stance, I choose not.

 

If you want to call it a refusal to disclose, then call it that. However, you might instead describe it as choosing not to engage with those who peddle a dogmatic stance on CRT

[rowland al]

2 minutes ago, mayalld said:

If you want to call it a refusal to disclose, then call it that. However, you might instead describe it as choosing not to engage with those who peddle a dogmatic stance on CRT

 

I commend anyone who tries to get to the bottom of the truth. C&RT are experts at withholding information, you only need to see the blacked out sections of past minutes to see that. Why withold information which is of interest to the same public who fund C&RT?

 

The recent PR in the ‘Boaters Update’ which implied C&RT spent £132 million last year on boating related maintenence still hasn’t been backed up with a proper breakdown of costs. 

 

Ok, sometimes mistakes are made but isn’t it better to probe than to let the C&RT machine wreck all the good work people have done over the years to renevate and maintain the system? It’s out of control. 

 

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

4 minutes ago, rowland al said:

 

I commend anyone who tries to get to the bottom of the truth. C&RT are experts at withholding information, you only need to see the blacked out sections of past minutes to see that. Why withold information which is of interest to the same public who fund C&RT?

 

The recent PR in the ‘Boaters Update’ which implied C&RT spent £132 million last year on boating related maintenence still hasn’t been backed up with a proper breakdown of costs. 

 

Ok, sometimes mistakes are made but isn’t it better to probe than to let the C&RT machine wreck all the good work people have done over the years to renevate and maintain the system? It’s out of control. 

 

 

This is not for want of trying. Some time back, I was sent sent emails and screenshots from a boater showing how over a three month period he had tried to get a breakdown of this £132m. 

 

The reason he can't get a straight answer is that C&RT's claim is totally misleading. 

 

Edited October 31, 2018 by Allan(nb Albert)

[mayalld]

40 minutes ago, rowland al said:

Ok, let me explain why I think this question is relevant. 

 

If certain members here do not regularly go out in a boat and explore the system, how can they have an accurate opinion about the state of the system with respect to being a boater? 

 

Ok, they can base their opinion on heresay, but don’t you think that it’s better to ‘see it for yourself’.

 

I suppose I got a bit peeved about the ‘attack’ on Allan, but I think he handled it much better than me.

 

By the way Dave, it seems I incorrectly assumed you hadn’t got a boat to explore in, hence my offer. Sorry about that. 

I regularly go out in a boat. Whilst out, I see things that CRT do that I think are good, I see things that I think are bad, and I see others that are indifferent.

 

I have regularly expressed opinions both favourable and unfavourable about CRT as I see it at the time.

 

Quite why you would imagine that I have no boat, when its name is in my profile, and I have posted accounts of some previous cruises is somewhat mysterious.

 

If you were to create a poll with those options, I wouldn't participate, because it doesn't include an option that I can support.

 

Indeed, I might create a poll with more sensible options.

[Graham Davis]

12 hours ago, rowland al said:

Excellent answer,except, what has it got to do with you? 

This is a DISCUSSION forum, so any member can join in any discussion.

Perhaps you hadn't realised that.

[rowland al]

3 minutes ago, mayalld said:

I regularly go out in a boat. Whilst out, I see things that CRT do that I think are good, I see things that I think are bad, and I see others that are indifferent.

 

I have regularly expressed opinions both favourable and unfavourable about CRT as I see it at the time.

 

Quite why you would imagine that I have no boat, when its name is in my profile, and I have posted accounts of some previous cruises is somewhat mysterious.

 

If you were to create a poll with those options, I wouldn't participate, because it doesn't include an option that I can support.

 

Indeed, I might create a poll with more sensible options.

I think everyone will have good and bad views and experiences regarding C&RT (I do!). The poll idea was really to gauge how people really feel C&RT are doing from a boaters perspective after 6 years of management. 

 

Maybe a score between 0 to 10 might be more appropriate. 0 being “terrible” and 10 “Excellent”.  I’m not sure you can do that with the poll tool here though. 

 

It would be interesting at least. 

[mayalld]

Just now, rowland al said:

I think everyone will have good and bad views and experiences regarding C&RT (I do!). The poll idea was really to gauge how people really feel C&RT are doing from a boaters perspective after 6 years of management. 

 

Maybe a score between 0 to 10 might be more appropriate. 0 being “terrible” and 10 “Excellent”.  I’m not sure you can do that with the poll tool here though. 

 

It would be interesting at least. 

I have done a poll.

 

do feel free to answer

[rowland al]

4 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

This is a DISCUSSION forum, so any member can join in any discussion.

Perhaps you hadn't realised that.

Yes, but surely discussion can also include pointing out that someone’s view on a subject is more valid if you have first hand experience (rather than it being based on heresay). 

7 minutes ago, mayalld said:

I have done a poll.

 

do feel free to answer

Thanks Dave, your poll is well thought out. 

[Graham Davis]

5 minutes ago, rowland al said:

Yes, but surely discussion can also include pointing out that someone’s view on a subject is more valid if you have first hand experience (rather than it being based on heresay). 

So members who walk, cycle, visit, hire or have share boats on the canals are not entitled to a view or be members of this forum?

[rowland al]

14 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

So members who walk, cycle, visit, hire or have share boats on the canals are not entitled to a view or be members of this forum?

Well obviously this is a canal forum, not a canal boat forum. 

 

I have never suggested that anyone is not entitled to an opinion, I’m just suggesting that opinions are more meaningful if they are based on first hand experience. 

 

For example, if you have a boat and only take it out a few times a year, are you in the same position to comment about the state of the system as someone who spends most of the time cruising a lot of the system?

 

If you regularly walk a certain patch of the towpath, then you may be the expert on that part of the towpath. 

 

I think these days we tend to base too much of our opinion on what we read on social media rather than getting out there and doing it ourselves. 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 31, 2018 by rowland al

[Alan de Enfield]

12 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

So members who walk, cycle, visit, hire or have share boats on the canals are not entitled to a view or be members of this forum?

But at what point do you take consideration of a persons view, and when do you ignore it ?

 

Cyclists, dog walkers, visitors, & fisherfolk are unlikely to be reliable sources of information on how close the bottom is to the top, stiff or broken lock gates, leaking locks, unemptied bins, blocked toilets, etc etc etc.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

2 hours ago, mayalld said:

I made use of a useful facility for submitting FOI requests. That facility places the request in the public domain, and places any answer in the public domain.

 

I did that, because I feel that the answer to the question is of general use (and if it were not, I would consider the request vexatious).

 

Where there is no answer, the public is denied something useful, but does not acquire the right to participate in any ongoing process as to whether the refusal was appropriate or not.

 

I will disclose the information to anybody who has a right to know, and to anybody I choose. The representatives of the pseudo-press who have an overtly anti-CRT stance, I choose not.

 

If you want to call it a refusal to disclose, then call it that. However, you might instead describe it as choosing not to engage with those who peddle a dogmatic stance on CRT

Translation - I am bullshitting because I never made the complaint.

Dave made a FOI request on whatdotheyknow.com
C&RT responded
Dave was not happy with the response and requested a review 
C&RT failed to carry out the review  within the appropriate timescale
Dave threatened to make a complaint.
C&RT apologised for the delay saying the reviewing officer would be contacted to give an estimated response date

If Dave had carried out his threat the Information Commissioner would have ordered C&RT to carry the review and respond within a certain timescale (usually three weeks).
... and the response would be on whatdotheyknow.com for all to see

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/costs_of_rebranding

[mayalld]

10 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Translation - I am bullshitting because I never made the complaint.

Dave made a FOI request on whatdotheyknow.com
C&RT responded
Dave was not happy with the response and requested a review 
C&RT failed to carry out the review  within the appropriate timescale
Dave threatened to make a complaint.
C&RT apologised for the delay saying the reviewing officer would be contacted to give an estimated response date

If Dave had carried out his threat the Information Commissioner would have ordered C&RT to carry the review and respond within a certain timescale (usually three weeks).
... and the response would be on whatdotheyknow.com for all to see

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/costs_of_rebranding

Accurate translation:

 

It is none of your business what I have and have not done.

 

You and your rabid anti-CRT mates may see it as necessary to grandstand all the time. I do not. Some things I do privately, and sometimes I explore other avenues. At all times, I avoid sharing information about what I might do next with those who might publish it to my detriment.

[haggis]

I must admit that I don't see much point in Freedom of Information requests etc  as if they are replied to, they only tell us what happened sometime in the past. Is that really relevant to what is happening today? Also, dealing with F of Is must take up time and resources within an organisation and as far as C & RT s concerned, I would be happier if they were able to spend all their money on actually maintaining the canal and not replying to sometimes vexatious questions. 

While some folk might feel it would "be nice to know" what difference does it make at the end of the day? 

For what it is worth, I think C&RT do somethings well and other things badly but being in Scotland and having to deal with Scottish Canals, I can see that things have been so much worse up here. However, with the appointment of a new CEO things might improve. 

 

Haggis

Edited October 31, 2018 by haggis

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, haggis said:

I must admit that I don't see much point in Freedom of Information requests etc  as if they are replied to, only tells us what happened sometime in the past

I guess it would be very difficult to produce information about what happened in the future (unless you had a DeLorean)

 

I was writing a book which involved securing some information from the various Police Forces around the country, the information was related to activities in the 70's.

 

Some of the forces replied "information no longer retained"

Some Police forces provided the requested information

Some Police forces said that it was confidential information and they did not legally have to divulge it

A couple of Police forces told outright lies as I had other evidence to the contrary.

 

The FoI act seems to be able to be 'wriggled around' if they are so inclined and can be evidenced by C&RT providing information in response to a question, then several years later, when another request is made, saying it is 'not available' and when 'pushed' saying it is 'on the list' of information that does not require publishing.

 

Hmmm - which way is the wind blowing today ?

[mayalld]

16 minutes ago, haggis said:

I must admit that I don't see much point in Freedom of Information requests etc  as if they are replied to, they only tell us what happened sometime in the past. Is that really relevant to what is happening today? Also, dealing with F of Is must take up time and resources within an organisation and as far as C & RT s concerned, I would be happier if they were able to spend all their money on actually maintaining the canal and not replying to sometimes vexatious questions. 

While some folk might feel it would "be nice to know" what difference does it make at the end of the day? 

For what it is worth, I think C&RT do somethings well and other things badly but being in Scotland and having to deal with Scottish Canals, I can see that things have been so much worse up here. However, with the appointment of a new CEO things might improve. 

 

Haggis

FOI is sometimes about the deterrent effect.

 

Knowing that their actions can be scrutinised, there is a school of thought that those subject to FOI might take better care what they decide to do.

 

Naturally that deterrent effect kicks in once they have been caught out once or twice.

 

Organisations that have something to hide will try to evade requests, so a failure to answer is often just as damning as the answer they are avoiding giving.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with the point around vexatious requests, and as such I make very few requests.

 

[Paul C]

That reminds me, how did the "vexatious requests off of Allan" issue be concluded? (Or is it still an ongoing saga?)

[alan_fincher]

7 minutes ago, Paul C said:

That reminds me, how did the "vexatious requests off of Allan" issue be concluded? (Or is it still an ongoing saga?)

An interesting question.

Last time I looked at "whatdotheyknow" CRT were effectively stone walling all Allan's requests, old and new. (I'm happy to be corrected if that were not the case).

I'd be interested to hear any update that he (or the Information Commissioner) has managed to persuade them that they have a liability to do otherwise.

[rowland al]

16 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

An interesting question.

Last time I looked at "whatdotheyknow" CRT were effectively stone walling all Allan's requests, old and new. (I'm happy to be corrected if that were not the case).

I'd be interested to hear any update that he (or the Information Commissioner) has managed to persuade them that they have a liability to do otherwise.

The ‘vexatious’ card is one thing, but accusing someone of harassment to avoid being open with information is another.

 

This is a registered charity being mainly paid for by public money, surely no place for creative accounting, withheld information and hidden minutes.

[Paul C]

I'm not sure whether the "harassment" angle has been duly considered or judged upon - as I understand it, it was because Allan chose to name members of CRT staff and make it a personal attack of sorts, rather than sticking to the main issues - please remind me of some details if I've got this aspect terribly wrong. 

[rowland al]

3 minutes ago, Paul C said:

I'm not sure whether the "harassment" angle has been duly considered or judged upon - as I understand it, it was because Allan chose to name members of CRT staff and make it a personal attack of sorts, rather than sticking to the main issues - please remind me of some details if I've got this aspect terribly wrong. 

I guess Allan is the only one who can truly clarify that. I understood he only used information already in the public domain.

 

Also, I don’t beieve C&RT followed through their threat. Maybe because it’s unfounded or maybe they are a just a kind organisation. 

Edited October 31, 2018 by rowland al

[Paul C]

44 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

Last time I looked at "whatdotheyknow" CRT were effectively stone walling all Allan's requests

 

4 minutes ago, rowland al said:

 

 

Also, I don’t beieve C&RT followed through their threat. 

This is why I am keen to understand the underlying facts, although of course I appreciate the opinions as expressed above - but they kinda contradict each other.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

2 hours ago, Paul C said:

 

This is why I am keen to understand the underlying facts, although of course I appreciate the opinions as expressed above - but they kinda contradict each other.

 

2 hours ago, Paul C said:

I'm not sure whether the "harassment" angle has been duly considered or judged upon - as I understand it, it was because Allan chose to name members of CRT staff and make it a personal attack of sorts, rather than sticking to the main issues - please remind me of some details if I've got this aspect terribly wrong. 

 

3 hours ago, Paul C said:

That reminds me, how did the "vexatious requests off of Allan" issue be concluded? (Or is it still an ongoing saga?)

It's an ongoing saga, Paul.

With regards to refusal of two requests as vexatious and non-compliance with statutory and advisory timescales -

 A 'test' complaint regarding one, together with supporting evidence, has been lodged with the Information Commissioners Office - 

I have asked -
 

• That the Information Commissioner rules that C&RT failed to respond within appropriate timescales both to this request and its subsequent request for review.

• That the Information Commissioner takes note of C&RT’s general delay in responding to requests and requests for review and takes appropriate action (I quoted Dave Mayall's request and others in the public domain as examples).

• That the Information Commissioner overturns C&RT’s decision to refuse this request.

• That C&RT be required to provide the information requested in part 3 and part 4 information.

• That the Information Commissioner rules that C&RT may not use the reviewing officers decision as a reason to refuse any other request (I think that answers Alan Fincher's earlier question).

 

I am not expecting a decision from ICO until the new year.
 

With regards to the allegations of "harassment of many staff"  made by Tom Deards, (C&RT's Head of Legal & Governance Services and Company Secretary), his threat of legal action and his demands that I remove articles, Mr Deards refuses to say which staff or which articles .

Thus, Mr Deards accusations remain vague and I am put in the position of being unable to comply even if I chose to do so ...

I have put this to him and the silence is deafening.

Edited October 31, 2018 by Allan(nb Albert)
spelling and punctuation

[rowland al]

16 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

 

 

It's an ongoing saga, Paul.

With regards to refusal of two requests as vexatious and non-compliance with statutory and advisory timescales -

 A 'test' complaint regarding one, together with supporting evidence, has been lodged with the Information Commissioners Office - 

I have asked -
 

• That the Information Commissioner rules that C&RT failed to respond within appropriate timescales both to this request and its subsequent request for review.

• That the Information Commissioner takes note of C&RT’s general delay in responding to requests and requests for review and takes appropriate action (I quoted Dave Mayall's request and others in the public domain as examples).

• That the Information Commissioner overturns C&RT’s decision to refuse this request.

• That C&RT be required to provide the information requested in part 3 and part 4 information.

• That the Information Commissioner rules that C&RT may not use the reviewing officers decision as a reason to refuse any other request (I think that answers Alan Fincher's earlier question).

 

I am not expecting a decision from ICO until the new year.
 

With regards to the allegations of "harassment of many staff"  made by Tom Deards, (C&RT's Head of Legal & Governance Services and Company Secretary), his threat of legal action and his demands that I remove articles, Mr Deards refuses to say which staff or which articles .

Thus, Mr Deards accusations remain vague and I am put in the position of being unable to comply even if I chose to do so ...

I have put this to him and the silence is deafening.

I suspect false accusations of harassment against individuals is a criminal offence, or at the very least a form of slander or defamation (civil matters). So it’s probably wise that C&RT are cautious before going down that route (not to mention the bad PR they’d get). 

[Athy]

1 hour ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

 

 

 

With regards to the allegations of "harassment of many staff"  made by Tom Deards, (C&RT's Head of Legal & Governance Services and Company Secretary), his threat of legal action and his demands that I remove articles, Mr Deards refuses to say which staff or which articles .

Thus, Mr Deards accusations remain vague and I am put in the position of being unable to comply even if I chose to do so ...

I have put this to him and the silence is deafening.

Hilarious!

After "You must move your boat the approved distance every 14 days but we aren't telling you how far that is" comes "You have harassed our staff but we aren't telling you which ones".

I am certainly not anti-CART, but risible antics such as those do them no favours.