Jump to content

DOI fails again


Two-lane

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Chris Thomas said:

I do want to know and I think I do know. Please send me any evidence and information about the legal arguments in this case that you think I might not know.

there's nothing to send you then ,  you probably 'know'  already,  what gets not done about things is the issue.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2023 at 8:01 PM, Chris Thomas said:

I do want to know and I think I do know. Please send me any evidence and information about the legal arguments in this case that you think I might not know.

Chris any idea why all the recent resurfacing was dug up and relaid again on the billown course. ? Any truth to the fact attempt 1 was a failure 2 month ago ? Another case of giving a skilled job to a labourer ?

Edited by potiron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, skins said:

Again the full Decision Notice is very revealing.  The DoI didn't even bother to look for the information requested properly and kept no records of what they did.  They were equally unhelpful when dealing with the Information Commissioner.  Just the same old DoI attitude that they above the law and could do whatever they wanted and certainly have no obligation to carry out what they are employed to do.

Edited to add:  This was actually going on at the same time as the FoI request discussed earlier in this topic, indeed it was submitted earlier, so it's clearly not a one-off.  Though it's possible things have changed, the resistance to letting the public know seems ongoing.

Edited by Roger Mexico
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You lot could make a TV program called "The DOI Files" 

Much the same as the old X Files TV series but in the islands case your government protects government "Secrets" even more than the USA does for Area 52 and the like.

That to me says a lot. 

Either the island has secrets that are bigger than aliens being a real thing, or they are just trying to cover up total incompetence.....

Answers on the back of a Postcard to-

Chris Thomas

C/O DOI HQ

"Area 69 " Sea Terminal IOM.

Now I think about it the top bit of the Sea Terminal (The Crown)  looks a lot like  UFO, it is round, it has lights shining out of it at night and it seems to hover at night over the main sea terminal building?

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

Again the full Decision Notice is very revealing.  The DoI didn't even bother to look for the information requested properly and kept no records of what they did.  They were equally unhelpful when dealing with the Information Commissioner.  Just the same old DoI attitude that they above the law and could do whatever they wanted and certainly have no obligation to carry out what they are employed to do.

Edited to add:  This was actually going on at the same time as the FoI request discussed earlier in this topic, indeed it was submitted earlier, so it's clearly not a one-off.  Though it's possible things have changed, the resistance to letting the public know seems ongoing.

I posted this screenshot before in the "DOI - more of the same" thread, with a query as to whether it was a pointer towards DOI culture...

Screenshot_20230330-194220_Samsung Internet.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

She isn't wrong though.

I think she probably is.  Her LinkedIn shows her as being the person responsible  for data protection and informationat DOI, (as well as running a bread bakery for many years).  It has not been updated to say she is no longer in that role, yet she has a spat on SM.  

Sure, he is likely a PITA and we don't know the history, or the earlier posts that gave rise to that response.  But really it is not her problem any more and she should not have engaged, and not in that fashion.  It does raise questions regarding the culture that seems to perpetuate after retirement. 

ETA if there were genuine posts from her. 

Edited by Gladys
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gladys said:

I think she probably is.  Her LinkedIn shows her as being the person responsible  for data protection and informationat DOI, (as well as running a bread bakery for many years).  It has not been updated to say she is no longer in that role, yet she has a spat on SM.  

Sure, he is likely a PITA and we don't know the history, or the earlier posts that gave rise to that response.  But really it is not her problem any more and she should not have engaged, and not in that fashion.  It does raise questions regarding the culture that seems to perpetuate after retirement. 

I know where you're coming from and it does seem like it's an attitude the DoI have prevailing through them, however, there is no getting away from the fact he is a pillock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...