Home › content

More on the WY Chief Cuntstable's wikipedia egotripping

Wed, 23/04/2008 - 16:30 — Baht At

I have received the following response:

FOI Reference No: FOI-2008127/26

I write in connection with your request for information dated 06 Mar 2008 and listed below. Your request for information has now been considered and the information asked for under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is as follows:

I would like details of the staff resources spent attempting to turn a factual wikipedia entry into a hagiography of the Chief constable so that I can add that information to my blog entry concerning this crass stupidity.

West Yorkshire Police do not hold the information you seek. The Command Team Secretariat do not record or retain information in relation to specific workloads, duties or tasks assigned to staff, as a consequence we do not collate any information on resources spent, that is, time, costs, or numbers of staff involved with particular tasks. What I can be said, however, is that no person was given the task as a special duty as has been intimated in some of the press.

Police forces providing information do not use generic systems, nor are the procedures used for capturing the data the same. It should be noted that for these reasons this forces response to your questions should not be used for comparison purposes with any other response you may receive.

So they don't keep records of what the time-wasters at head office are up to - hardly surprising that, if they did the taxpayer might ask for them to be sacked. Fortunately wikipedia has an edit record that shows how many times they were altering the facts they seem to have used the handle webteam3 and later changed things unregistered using the IP 194.152.91.186, particularly amusing is the denial evident in the reason for the edit on 31/3/08.

Needless to say I'm not happy with the response and have sent back

The response is wholly unacceptable.

1. the server logs kept by your IT services department will clearly identify who accessed the site and when,
2. it contains a statement of opinion (in relation to the comment regarding press reports),
3. that statement of opinion contains a false statement (no paper alleged a single person was allocated to the the task, the reports were an entire team was given this responsibility.

Comments

Thu, 24/04/2008 - 11:46 — Pink Blob

More on the WY Chief Cuntstable's wikipedia egotripping

It will be interesting to see what their reponse to the weblog question is...

Thu, 01/05/2008 - 22:36 — Baht At

the response was: In

the response was:

In response to your recent e-mail, please note that our original Freedom of Information response to yourself made on the 23rd April still stands.

and my response was:

I'm sure it does because all you do is give lip-service* to the law.

I seem to remember that most of your officers like roughing up suspects if they can get away with it - http://www.bradfordvision.co.uk/node/12316

*I was going to equate this with a blowjob but the seat-jockey I was dealing with was female and I guessed she'd have a sense of humour failure if I did.