Common Purpose redux

Today I got a response to my previously mentioned follow-up to Rother’s curiously worded “no payments in this respect” .

Astonishingly, rather than confirming that it was just a poor choice of words and there had been no payments in any other respect either, they have refused to answer my enquiry. This certainly doesn’t do much for the perception that the original wording was indeed very carefully chosen to mislead.

The grounds are a little confusing: they appear to still be attempting to claim that an email address is not a valid “address for correspondence” under the Act despite having been shown numerous times that it is. But, more puzzlingly, they also appear to be classing my request as “repeated or vexatious”. I explicitly noted that it was a follow-up to a previous enquiry from someone-else, which doesn’t seem repeated to me, and I’m rather concerned that seeking clarification on hugely ambiguous wording is classed as vexatious.

Even more bizarrely, as part of the response they make a strange claim about how a request from someone who doesn’t live in Rother and isn’t a professional journalist or researcher is less likely to have any serious purpose or value! So much for FoI being applicant blind…

There are no comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: