This feels like more of a serving suggestion than a reprimand
I will use any opportunity to share double the fist 👊 #doublethefist
@firstname.lastname@example.org Voter Town Halls… fist style
2) @email@example.com & @firstname.lastname@example.org argue that THE VERY TERMS "engadine mcdonalds" & "engadine maccas" do not relate to official business and therefore wont search for them. scomo has made it official business. In addition, any assumed reasons for request are irrelevant per FOI guidelines.
You see, @email@example.com already put in a freedom of information request in 2019, and at the time there was no result. Now the story is, "if they exist", i can't have them because they're "not documents of a minister"
PS Cam, can you post the original FOI? 😁
I give them a prod again via email, because it's near deadline, FINALLY, A RESPONSE.
Oh wait it's almost identical to the first one.
Again, it asserts "the documents, *if they exist* are not documents of a minister"
This confirms that they do exist, I will explain why 1)
The phone number matches the other office. It appears that both departments may just be staffed by one person. who knows, all the email sigs are anonymous. "Adviser, Senior Adviser, FOI Adviser".
I am not convinced that it's not just the same guy changing hats.
more time passes. I get a reply from @firstname.lastname@example.org. I'm advised that the @email@example.com does FOI work for @firstname.lastname@example.org. So... if you've been following, when i emailed @email@example.com, they offered to refer the matter... to themselves? cool, not confusing at all.
So I asked @OAICgov@twitter.com if it was subject to a review - they advised no, they only prodded about the deadline. how misleading by @firstname.lastname@example.org! OAIC helpfully asked if i wanted a review, which I do! I really wish that the dept would just give me the documents in the first place :(
I found the @email@example.com office tried to confuse me by saying I'd already got the OAIC involved earlier and implied there was no further review. proves they only replied because they were prodded by an external agency.
Humans automating machines to write like humans to fool other humans into believing they received a personal letter from a human so that presumably they give a company money.
It's Friday, so I want to share one of the most fun projects I've ever worked on.
A few years ago, I built four eight-foot-long handwriting robots.
We wrote many thousands and thousands of addresses on our direct mail, and wrote personal messages for high value prospects.
So only after contacting @OAICgov@twitter.com and their 'early intake and resolution team' getting in contact with @firstname.lastname@example.org did i actually recieve any response, they said 'sorry for not replying earlier' but when push came to shove they tried to make out like i didn't make a valid request