Quatloos!

Given the goldmine of lunacy that is the UK and EU freedom of daft questions database, it seems fitting that we have something dedicated to them.

In years to come our children will find this and wonder what we were smoking.....

This one tickled me. I've missed out the majority of the request as it's only Georges usual lunacy, but instead I've included the titbit at the bottom
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... ing-815349

Please addiotional note that the link you FCA provided me is incorrect:

[1]http://ico.org. – as this link is to the ‘International Coffee Organization. ]

I wonder if they are trolling George or just wanting him to wake up and smell the coffee

Another from who else but George

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... ing-545029

Summary
George: Please answer this question
OoC: Heres your answer
George: Wheres my answer

I will be grateful if you would confirm if WeRe Bank cheques should be accepted as payment by BT, Virgin Media, Sky etc for consumers telephony and telecommunications services (including broadband services and television broadcasting services).

Regarding your query, there is not an Ofcom regulation saying that a
communications provider has to accept WeRe Bank cheques for payment of
bills

Dear Steven Parker

Consumer Contact Team

I will be grateful if you would kindly now provide the response from your Consumer
Contact Team.

Let us all raise our hats to the indomitable and hard-done-by campaigner Elizabeth O-T-F Watson and her idiot ramblings which succeed only in making her public jailing for contempt of court even more public.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... ing-198681

Of course you should keep in mind that the application to purge her contempt must be a forgery (as indeed is every other bit of evidence that she's a lying sack of crap) because she told me on YouTube (that well known source of all that's true and reliable) that she never begged to be released and the judge realised his 'treasonous' error and let her go without a stain on her character.

One of my personal favourites, master Stuart

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/master_stuart

Stuart actually comes into one our FB pages and has a bit of banter, so full credit to him.

longdog wrote:Let us all raise our hats to the indomitable and hard-done-by campaigner Elizabeth O-T-F Watson and her idiot ramblings which succeed only in making her public jailing for contempt of court even more public.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... ing-198681

Of course you should keep in mind that the application to purge her contempt must be a forgery (as indeed is every other bit of evidence that she's a lying sack of crap) because she told me on YouTube (that well known source of all that's true and reliable) that she never begged to be released and the judge realised his 'treasonous' error and let her go without a stain on her character.

Another forgery, surely not!

May I also offer the inimitable Sarah 'Lioness' Goldsmith and her 105 wastes of time, bandwidth and electricity all "without ill will, vexation or frivolity".

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/i_a ... _fictional

I particularly like her scattergun request to DVLA... https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... ment-27852 ...in an attempt to prove that fictional strawmen weren't lawfully required to obey the law on vehicles and driving which followed the usual format of Question - Answer - Refusal to accept the answer but with the added bonus of DVLA, very politely, telling her to get stuffed.

Sarah Goldsmith
As previously advised in our e-mail of 25 February, your enquiry was not dealt with
under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This type of enquiry is
dealt with as routine day to day work, and therefore as advised, we responded under
‘Business as Usual’.
I note your comments that we have not answered any of your questions as you was
asking about lawful (not what we call legal) and that you emphasised this by very
carefully using capital letters on every single bullet point. However, you may wish to
be aware that the word lawful is a synonym (equivalent) of legal. Therefore, all your
questions have been answered.
No further correspondence will be entered into on this matter.
Yours sincerely
Policy and External Communications Directorate

...Which predictably prevoked this...

Dear FOI FOI,

You state in your letter to me today "you may wish to
be aware that the word lawful is a synonym (equivalent) of legal". IT IS NOT!!!

Your reply is vexatious and dishonourable.

As you refuse to answer ANY of my questions, and now say you will not enter into any further correspondence, WHO will answer my FOI questions....????

Yours sincerely, and without ill will, vexation or frivolity,

Sarah: Goldsmith

Obviously the Lioness doesn't understand the meaning of the expression... "No further correspondence will be entered into on this matter."

DVLA have not responded

Loving the requests from "I am the agent for the fictional strawman that was created with the name Sarah Goldsmith". What a hoot

Just been reading this one from Sarah

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

Dear HM Revenue & Customs,

Please send me the information that distinguishes the LEGAL AND FACTUAL DIFFERENCE between INCOME and TAXABLE INCOME for any living wo/man in the UK?

If you do not hold such information, please tell me who does.

She was given an answer she wasnt happy about so replied with this

Thank you for your reply, which did not in fact answer anything I asked. This seems to be par for the course with any de facto 'government' businesses.

All your documentation refers to the legal fiction 'Person' and not the living wo/man I asked about - hence my FOI request, as I can find NO documentation that refers to a living human being anywhere.

Please advise accordingly.

and got this response

If, as I suspect, you are coming at this from the perception, put forward
at some length on the FMOTL website to which you contribute, that there is
a difference between `lawful' and `legal' and `statutory' and that
`person' does not equate with `Living Human Being' then I am afraid that
it will invariably be the case that HMRC will not hold the information
which you appear to be seeking.

now shes got her knickers in a twist

Please would you explain why you (or members of your team) are snooping into my private affairs and then publishing them publicly on the whatdotheyknow.com forum?

Is this behaviour in line with the Data Protection Act or the Information Act to which HM Revenue and Customs subscribes, perhaps?

Kindly send me the appropriate part of these Acts which have given you the right to do so...

As I have not mentioned that I use any particular website, please inform me which Big Brother entity or Organisation of the State is spending public money 'researching' the actions of a private woman requestion governmental FOI information?

Incidentally I do NOT sport a Ms, Mrs or any other legal fiction title.

The rest of the request is quite predictable

This is the goldmine of them all, neelu berry, queen fruitcake herself under her alter ego

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/lotus

This has it all
Satanism
Agents
Kesh foundation and it's stupid generator
Etc
Etc

In one great example.m, they dare to reply to her alias with her actual name. She then goes off on one about her they know her real name. Clearly she has used in a request, but if
Course, the NWO are out to get her!

Read it and weep

Please would you explain why you (or members of your team) are snooping into my private affairs and then publishing them publicly on the whatdotheyknow.com forum?

Is this behaviour in line with the Data Protection Act or the Information Act to which HM Revenue and Customs subscribes, perhaps?

Kindly send me the appropriate part of these Acts which have given you the right to do so...

As I have not mentioned that I use any particular website, please inform me which Big Brother entity or Organisation of the State is spending public money 'researching' the actions of a private woman requestion governmental FOI information?

I love it when people hold themselves out as gurus and spew their crap to the four corners of the internet and then get shitty and cry 'breach of privacy' when somebody who works for the government has heard of them... Or uses Google.

And then this...

I'm afraid it DOES breach the data protection act. You gave out MY personal information on a Public site: this one. I didn't say HMRC had breached the act, I said YOU have!!

What a fruitcake.

longdog wrote:May I also offer the inimitable Sarah 'Lioness' Goldsmith and her 105 wastes of time, bandwidth and electricity all "without ill will, vexation or frivolity".

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/i_am_the_agent_for_the_fictional

I particularly like her scattergun request to DVLA... https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/statutory_only_not_lawful#comment-27852 ...in an attempt to prove that fictional strawmen weren't lawfully required to obey the law on vehicles and driving which followed the usual format of Question - Answer - Refusal to accept the answer but with the added bonus of DVLA, very politely, telling her to get stuffed. :haha:

Sarah Goldsmith
As previously advised in our e-mail of 25 February, your enquiry was not dealt with
under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This type of enquiry is
dealt with as routine day to day work, and therefore as advised, we responded under
‘Business as Usual’.
I note your comments that we have not answered any of your questions as you was
asking about lawful (not what we call legal) and that you emphasised this by very
carefully using capital letters on every single bullet point. However, you may wish to
be aware that the word lawful is a synonym (equivalent) of legal. Therefore, all your
questions have been answered.
No further correspondence will be entered into on this matter.
Yours sincerely
Policy and External Communications Directorate

...Which predictably prevoked this...

Dear FOI FOI,

You state in your letter to me today "you may wish to
be aware that the word lawful is a synonym (equivalent) of legal". IT IS NOT!!!

Your reply is vexatious and dishonourable.

As you refuse to answer ANY of my questions, and now say you will not enter into any further correspondence, WHO will answer my FOI questions....????

Yours sincerely, and without ill will, vexation or frivolity,

Sarah: Goldsmith

Obviously the Lioness doesn't understand the meaning of the expression... "No further correspondence will be entered into on this matter."

DVLA have not responded :snicker:

I thought she rang a bell. She's the fo behind lioness law.
You send her some money, she gives you a cheap certificate to hand to the police when needed. It tells them to check against the certificate against the lioness register and you'll see the holder is immune from the law.

Naturally the list has been sent to th government, the un, the eu ....and into their recycling bins

Please would you explain why you (or members of your team) are snooping into my private affairs and then publishing them publicly on the whatdotheyknow.com forum?

Well, firstly, they chose to submit the FOIA request through an independent website which states that they will make all replies public. The respondent didn't do this. The website used to submit the request did it, and it had the requesters consent to do so. The majority of people submitting requests chose not to use whatdotheyknow.com, and that option was open to them as well.

Secondly, the whatdotheyknow.com information clearly states:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/privacy wrote:Why will my name and my request appear publicly on the site? #

We publish your request on the Internet so that anybody can read it and make use of the information that you have found. We do not normally delete requests (more details).

Your name is tangled up with your request, so has to be published as well. It is only fair, as we're going to publish the name of the civil servant who writes the response to your request. Using your real name also helps people get in touch with you to assist you with your research or to campaign with you.

By law, you must use your real name for the request to be a valid Freedom of Information request. See the next question for alternatives if you do not want to publish your full name.

[Emphasis mine]

I would assume that the requester has made the mistake that whatdotheyknow.com is a government operated website. It is, in fact, part of mySociety, an independent (though it has received government funding for some projects in the past) group that tries to do useful things with technology to connect people with the democratic process. While it can be quite depressing reading some of the tales on here, mySociety stands out as an example of the good things that people, acting independently of government, can do to try and ensure that the government is accountable and representative.

As a taxpayer I resent paying civil servants to compose personal replies to these loonies, even if they do manage to slip a few dry jokes into the text.

Public bodies like DVLA and Court Service should publish information to explain and rebut FMOTL nonsense. Then every stupid FoI could be responded to with "this information is in the public domain, please see (url)".

I also think that some of these replies uselessly engage with FMOTL debate, when there is no legal requirement to do so. The correspondence with Elizabeth Watson for example should have been "Details of an individual's legal proceedings are not disclosable under FoI. If you wish to make a Subject Access Request please see the form and fees here (url)"

Hercule Parrot wrote:As a taxpayer I resent paying civil servants to compose personal replies to these loonies, even if they do manage to slip a few dry jokes into the text.

Public bodies like DVLA and Court Service should publish information to explain and rebut FMOTL nonsense. Then every stupid FoI could be responded to with "this information is in the public domain, please see (url)".

I also think that some of these replies uselessly engage with FMOTL debate, when there is no legal requirement to do so. The correspondence with Elizabeth Watson for example should have been "Details of an individual's legal proceedings are not disclosable under FoI. If you wish to make a Subject Access Request please see the form and fees here (url)"

I suggest a FOI request to ask how much it costs to respond to nutters?

As a tax payer, I need to know this

What started as a good move, as usual, is being abused IMO.

Pox wrote:What started as a good move, as usual, is being abused IMO.

This is essentially the same issue as described by the tragedy of the commons.

It is somewhat ironic that it is the requests from people who are trying to achieve an unobtainable ultimate truth that are likely to result in limitations being placed on FOIA requests for everyone, which will enable the concealment of genuinely inconvenient information by future governments.

Forsyth wrote:It is somewhat ironic that it is the requests from people who are trying to achieve an unobtainable ultimate truth that are likely to result in limitations being placed on FOIA requests for everyone, which will enable the concealment of genuinely inconvenient information by future governments.

And do you think that perhaps certain public bodies are going along with protracted, wasteful and unnecessary FoI's in order to encourage politicians towards those limitations? Because we can be sure that Whitehall mandarins don't worry at all about FoI's from Nutty Neelu. They're just using people like her to obtain restrictions on FoI which can then be used against researchers and media.

Hercule Parrot wrote:

Forsyth wrote:It is somewhat ironic that it is the requests from people who are trying to achieve an unobtainable ultimate truth that are likely to result in limitations being placed on FOIA requests for everyone, which will enable the concealment of genuinely inconvenient information by future governments.

And do you think that perhaps certain public bodies are going along with protracted, wasteful and unnecessary FoI's in order to encourage politicians towards those limitations? Because we can be sure that Whitehall mandarins don't worry at all about FoI's from Nutty Neelu. They're just using people like her to obtain restrictions on FoI which can then be used against researchers and media.

I couldn't totally rule it out but I can say that it wasn't the case in my experience. In my former job I used to have to write responses to FOI requests. There was seldom any real concern about the subject of the enquiry and I cannot remember dealing with one that was of any real importance. However, there was strong pressure that we did not attract complaints about how we dealt with them . Inevitably the FOI process was measured within and outside our individual organisation and nobody wanted to attract attention through complaints about how they were dealt with. For that reason we tended to bend over backwards in trying to satisfy them irrespective of how "protracted, wasteful or unnecessary" they might be.

Let us not forget everybody's favourite bankrupt, jail-bird, common-law advisor, private-bank-owner (pending), McKenzie Friend and all-round gobshite Roger 'They jailed me because they are scared of me and not because I refused to pay my council tax' Hayes...

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/roger_hayes

Twelve somewhat dull examples of buffoonery from a leading buffoon.

longdog wrote:Let us not forget everybody's favourite bankrupt, jail-bird, common-law advisor, private-bank-owner (pending), McKenzie Friend and all-round gobshite Roger 'They jailed me because they are scared of me and not because I refused to pay my council tax' Hayes...

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/roger_hayes

Twelve somewhat dull examples of buffoonery from a leading buffoon.

There's a big problem with that site. The status of the requests is entirely dependant upon the ruquester to update it. I'm convinced that they update them incorrectly or don't update them at all in order to make the organisation look bad.