George Tsigarides - The Stupid FOI archives

[longdog]

Do you have a link for that one Steve. I've searched for his name but that request isn't listed.

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

It looks like another one of those times where somebody with serious mental health issues has had their kids taken into care.

[SteveUK]

Well, I suppose if you're trying to overthrow the prince of darkness, these things might happen.

[#six]

George being obtuse as usual

Q: please tell give me all the information you have on such and such
A: we are unable to help as we do not hold this information
Request for FOI review: do you hold any information or not



https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... ing-818482

[#six]

More from my favourite waste of space

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... ing-548259

Dear Department for Culture, Media and Sport,

I will be grateful if you would confirm the following regarding the BBC TV License:

1. Is it under the jurisdiction of Common Law.

2. Is it under the jurisdiction of the international Admiralty Law of the Sea.

3. Does it apply to men and women living on the land of the United Kingdom under Common Law.

4. Does it apply to citizens under the international Admiralty Law of the Sea.

the reply

The legal framework for the TV licence fee is Part 4 of the Communications Act 2003 and the
Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 – and applies to anyone resident in
the UK, Channel Islands or the Isle of Man

So of course George being George he decides that this means

I note that the regulation is under Statute Law.

I also note that this is not therefore applicable to men and women living on the land of the United Kingdom; and the BBC (TV Licensing) should not therefore be asking men and women to pay for a TV License.

[SteveUK]

Duly noted George. Thanks!

[TheNewSaint]

I would think some of these agencies would start using the legal exemptions, so as not to have to waste their time on these crap requests:

A public authority can charge for the time taken by its staff on the activities included in communicating the information.

Regulation 7(5) indicates that staff time is to be charged at the flat rate of £25 per hour, irrespective of whether a higher rate is actually incurred by internal staff or charged by external contractor staff.

https://ico.org.uk/media/1635/fees_cost ... _limit.pdf

Or:

Section 21 states: Information which is reasonably accessible to the applicant otherwise than under section 1 is exempt information.

6. The purpose of the exemption is to ensure that there is no right of access to information via FOIA if it is available to the applicant by another route.

https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisati ... -sec21.pdf

[mufc1959]

And under section 14 ...

14 Vexatious or repeated requests.

(1)Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.

(2)Where a public authority has previously complied with a request for information which was made by any person, it is not obliged to comply with a subsequent identical or substantially similar request from that person unless a reasonable interval has elapsed between compliance with the previous request and the making of the current request.

[#six]

George has finally had some success... I'm sorry, I mean more abject failure.

HMRC

HMRC wrote to you on 13 May 2016 informing you that your requests do not seek or elicit
recorded information held by HMRC. Similarly, your new batch of requests do not
demonstrate any obvious intent to obtain recorded information and the requests are frivolous
in nature.

Our response also informed you that HMRC was concerned about the burden that your
requests are placing on the department and would actively consider the guidance that is
issued by the Information Commissioner’s Office on dealing with vexatious requests.

I have considered the nature of your requests and the volume of requests you have
submitted to HMRC. Consequently, HMRC considers your requests as vexatious and
decline to deal with them as provided by section 14(1) of the FOIA.

I draw your attention to section 17(6) FOIA which says that public authorities do not need to
issue further refusal notices if they have given the applicant a previous refusal notice for a
vexatious request and it would be unreasonable to issue another one.

[#six]

And another

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... ing-549449

Q:tell me about the Uniform Commercial Code and other bullshit
A: this does not fall under a valid FOI request.

So George decides that means

I note that the AGO has no recorded information regarding the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), nor any United Kingdom alternative; and the AGO is therefore not in a position to confirm or otherwise, the laws that govern the United Kingdom government

No George... it means you are an idiot

[#six]

And theres more

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... ing-821071

Q: I will be grateful if you would confirm that Southern Water is obliged to accept WeRe Bank cheques as payment for the provision of Water and Sewerage Services to British Households.
A: We will not accept WeRe Bank cheques as payment for the provision of Water and Sewerage Services

Q: Will you present the WeRe Bank cheque for clearing
A: we do not accept that the services are provided under the terms of any promissory note or WeRe bank cheque, or that these can be tendered as
payment of the statutory charges.

Q: Will Southern Water, as per Statute Law, when a WeRe Bank cheque is provided for payment of water services, present the WeRe Bank cheque for clearing, as per the process for all cheques
A: Southern Water does not accept WeRe Bank cheques as payment for water services because they cannot be processed for payment

Q: Will Southern Water, as per Statute Law, when a WeRe Bank cheque is provided for payment of water services, present the WeRe Bank cheque for clearing, as per the process for all cheques

...Still awaiting the response he desires

Jesus Christ - how many time does he have to be told

[Hercule Parrot]

Jesus Christ - how many time does he have to be told

They're being far too tolerant. As I have remarked previously, the major utilities, banks and public bodies should develop a standard web page/text "Accepted Methods of Payment" setting out in plain language exactly what is, and is not acceptable. Each one of them should publish a tailored version on their public website.

This should start with an explanation of Legal Tender, and then the additional methods of payment which that body chooses to accept. It should then have a Not Accepted section which lists all the mad ideas like A4V, werecheques, promissory notes, LLT's etc, briefly stating why each is not accepted. They could cut & paste most of it from here, and create a respectable text that would fit on one side of A4. Then when the psychonauts send in FOI's, the reply is "This information is already published, see <link>".

[littleFred]

They're being far too tolerant.

Yes.

Southern Water do have a page on Ways to pay your bill. This includes instructions on paying by cheque, which is easily understandable by people with ordinary bank accounts.

SW could complicate their instructions by explaining that they won't accept cheques written on the side of cows (even for ordinary banks), nor will they accept cheques drawn on banks other than those authorised by the FCA, nor will they ...

And if every supplier did this, life could get complicated for ordinary consumers who just want to pay their bills in ordinary ways.

[notorial dissent]

The big problem, is that the audience that material would be sent to have no concept of what those words mean, they are financial imbeciles if they thing WeReNotaChecks work to begin with. What they needed to have said, is that they accept checks ONLY at their discretion, and then ONLY IF they can be cleared through the regular bank clearing center, which WereNotaChecks and PN's can't be. As far as I know, there is NO statutory law requiring ANYONE to accept checks, and they should say that up front. Even that I fear would be wasted on the dim and clueless that make up footldumb.

[littleFred]

What they needed to have said ...

Yes, that might help. Except that Peter's LLT Notes are by definition (Peter's definition), Legal Tender and therefore payees are obliged to accept them.

Peter is being untruthful (if not also lying and committing fraud), but some suckers believe him.

[TheNewSaint]

I think any attempt to explain the problem to someone like George is just going to make the situation worse. At this point, if they're going to respond to him at all, he should get very short, specific answers. You could respond to all of his questions in less than a paragraph:

Southern Water is not obligated to accept WeRe Bank cheques.
Southern Water does not accept WeRe Bank cheques.
All your questions about the handling of WeRe Bank cheques are therefore moot.
If you have any further questions about WeRe Bank cheques, please re-read the above three sentences.

[notorial dissent]

Too simple and straight forward, he'll never get it.

[SteveUK]

The problem with people like George is they are beyond help.
As we've seen, when we see him get a truthful answer (we don't accept those garbage cheques), he takes this as greater proof of the conspiracy.

Even if they said, yeah right, post it in - he'd view it as some sort of conspiracy.

And that's the problem. The ability of rationale thinking has gone, regardless of the reply.

I get the sense George will provide lots of entertainment. I'm only surprised he hasn't washed up on the barren shores of goodfy land yet, like the rest of the financial flotsam and jetsam.

[Burnaby49]

Since this discussion seems to have acquire critical mass I changed the discussion name to get our star attraction in the header. It just doesn't seem fair for him to toil in obscurity.

[SteveUK]

He has been immortalised.......

Don't take that as license to start a new discussion;

Burnaby49 - Real Ale Swilling Pig

[Burnaby49]

A note in respect to my prior posting. It was made in response to a posting SteveUK made that none of you will see because I apparently accidentally deleted it while quoting it. How? Who knows? I'm a danger to all around me when I start editing. However if you want to read it just read my last post since I quoted it in its entirety.