More FOI Whitewash? - Mr Malarkey

[thesultanofsheight]

7 minutes ago, Grounds Keeper Willy said:

I don’t know, genuinely what do you mean? 

Don’t ask you’ll probably get it in the neck as we seem to have entered paranoid season early this year. 

[Uhtred]

4 hours ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

This.

FOI has just given a charter to bitter nutters to bombard government with requests.

One of the main perpetrators is sat on a fat tax payer funded pension isn't he?

The sort that'll be lurking around IoM new and politics page and here spewing the usual rambling cack.

You’re not wrong but there are many areas where the freedoms/opportunities offered by democracy are misused/wasted/distorted by ‘bitter nutters’. That, regrettably, is the price of democracy. But it doesn’t create a reason to remove or restrict those freedoms and opportunities. And in this case, whether one considers the FoI request to be an inconsequential waste of time, or not, it has revealed some very short-sighted thinking and lamentable (or uncaring) decision making by our Head of State’s representative on the Island, as ably articulated by some of the posts within this thread.
 

 

[quilp]

9 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

Don’t ask you’ll probably get it in the neck as we seem to have entered paranoid season early this year. 

Is that a 'royal' we?

[thesultanofsheight]

8 minutes ago, Uhtred said:

You’re not wrong but there are many areas where the freedoms/opportunities offered by democracy are misused/wasted/distorted by ‘bitter nutters’. That, regrettably, is the price of democracy. But it doesn’t create a reason to remove or restrict those freedoms and opportunities. And in this case, whether one considers the FoI request to be an inconsequential waste of time, or not, it has revealed some very short-sighted thinking and lamentable (or uncaring) decision making by our Head of State’s representative on the Island, as ably articulated by some of the posts within this thread.
 

You’re right we have to take the rough with the smooth but to suggest they’re all nutters is disingenuous as having an FOI mechanism is one more step towards accountability. One of the comments above seems to be a veiled reference to Trevor Cowin as some sort of aimless shit stirrer but like or loath the guy he’s actually a pretty clever guy and has exposed quite a lot that civil servants would like to have kept under the carpet unlike Busters clumsy and public attempts at it. It’s a price we all pay to ensure people are accountable. I thought the cost per request was only about £115 so it’s not bad really. 

[Uhtred]

3 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

You’re right we have to take the rough with the smooth but to suggest they’re all nutters is disingenuous as having an FOI mechanism is one more step towards accountability. One of the comments above seems to be a veiled reference to Trevor Cowin as some sort of aimless shit stirrer but like or loath the guy he’s actually a pretty clever guy and has exposed quite a lot that civil servants would like to have kept under the carpet unlike Busters clumsy and public attempts at it. It’s a price we all pay to ensure people are accountable. I thought the cost per request was only about £115 so it’s not bad really. 

I haven’t suggested that all FoI requesters are time wasters (clearly they aren’t) and I haven’t made reference to any individual. Other posters may have done, either directly or obliquely.

[thesultanofsheight]

Just now, Uhtred said:

I haven’t suggested that all FoI requesters are time wasters (clearly they aren’t) and I haven’t made reference to any individual. Other posters may have done, either directly or obliquely.

Yes sorry I was reading a post further back, not yours, that said something like being a waster on a massive government pension which I took to be a reference to one person. I should have put a full stop in before “but” to break the link to your post. 

[Manx Bean]

5 hours ago, gettafa said:

No financial cost, maybe, maybe not.

But a cost to the perception of good governance. The Governor might, for example,  have to look into the affairs of The Home Affairs Department. Which would be a bit difficult when his newly found pal had his wedding reception at his gaff.

Thank you! If nothing else, it smacks of a Minster being more interested in his own ego than what the public will think. He's not the first and won't be the last!

[Derek Flint]

The thing that is always missing in most practice is “How would the Daily Mail report this?” 

If, as an individual, you are uncomfortable with wit the answer, then it is best to quietly forget about it.

[thesultanofsheight]

1 hour ago, Manx Bean said:

Thank you! If nothing else, it smacks of a Minster being more interested in his own ego than what the public will think. He's not the first and won't be the last!

But then again it’s their own ego that gets them elected so are we surprised? 

[Roger Mexico]

7 hours ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

FOI has just given a charter to bitter nutters to bombard government with requests.

One of the main perpetrators is sat on a fat tax payer funded pension isn't he?

Well if he is, he's providing better value for it than most of the rest of them are.  But as I keep on repeating, it doesn't matter who asks something, but whether it is worth asking.  Those defending the Government by suggesting that it's who you are that is important, not what you do, are unwittingly illustrating something that may lie behind too many Government actions.

 

6 hours ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

A good FOI request would actually be - what is the annual cost in totality of all the staff and resources dedicated to the receiving, gathering, researching, checking, counter checking, replying etc etc  FOI requests.

Well no one's stopping you (though there is some information around anyway).  But this discussion on resources nearly always misses the point that most FoI requests are for information that, if the Government doesn't have it, it damn well ought to have.  Some of the most telling FoI (and Tynwald) questions result in a response where we are told that the information isn't held and you think "Why not?".  To some extent FoI means that the public acts like an Auditor General asking awkward questions.  And for free.  Civil servants and Ministers ought to among those using the answers to improve things - and not just because the results might be embarrassing.

So there' should be no real extra cost beyond looking the information up and writing a (mainly pro-forma) letter.  The Act includes all sort of provisions that mean frivolous questions or those requiring excessive work can be turned down if it is otherwise.

[Non-Believer]

Which minister was it that moaned in Tynwald about his CS having to spend time researching the answers to inconvenient Tynwald questions too? 

[Uhtred]

2 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

The thing that is always missing in most practice is “How would the Daily Mail report this?” 

If, as an individual, you are uncomfortable with wit the answer, then it is best to quietly forget about it.

A tangential comment I know but it could be argued that the DM doesn’t actually report anything; rather it offers bigoted, narrow-minded, shouty right wing dog-whistle comment on matters. I completely accept your point though.

(Actually, such has been the decline of the once respected, now cringeworthy, Daily Telegraph that it’s simply become the DM for people whose vocabulary includes words containing more than 6 letters).

[P.K.]

1 hour ago, Uhtred said:

A tangential comment I know but it could be argued that the DM doesn’t actually report anything; rather it offers bigoted, narrow-minded, shouty right wing dog-whistle comment on matters. I completely accept your point though.

(Actually, such has been the decline of the once respected, now cringeworthy, Daily Telegraph that it’s simply become the DM for people whose vocabulary includes words containing more than 6 letters).

Since 2004 the Torygraph has been running down the EU at every possible opportunity and making opportunities up if they need to. With brexit it's served it's purpose so the Barclay brothers no longer need it. Hence they have put it up for sale.

With sales of newsprint dropping as fast as the standard of reporting, with the UK rabid right wing press being the prime suspects for ignoring news that doesn't fit the agenda of the owner, it wouldn't surprise me at all if they just closed it down.

No loss....