[Blue5]

Moondog,

Can you ask Ashley for what benefit and reason did Graham Bean, on behalf of the club, submit a FOI request to the original poster's employer? Can you also ask him, that given the state of play both on and off the pitch whether he considers this to be a priority and time well spent?

Can Ashley also concede the point that to the majority of supporters and other interested parties this looks like an attempt to put the wind up the original poster, who happens to be a customer and supporter of the club?

As always, thank you.

[Oldtimer]

 Goku, on 09 October 2019 - 02:03 PM, said:

Haha. You're an idiot.

May be I am. All you need do to prove that I definitely am is to show me proof of malicious intent regarding his FOI. Until you do so I'll keep my options open

[Oldtimer]

 calvin plummers socks, on 09 October 2019 - 02:05 PM, said:

Ah good to hear from you Ashley!
Not bitter and twisted at all- just glad one of us offering help have finally had a response (Stockholm and Misnomer- this may be the best thanks but no thanks we gonna get)!

Good to see the Club doing so well despite our help though 👏🏽

Jeez !! Ashley ?? I hate to say it but GOKU was nearer the mark as to my identity when he said idiot

[Goku]

 Oldtimer, on 09 October 2019 - 02:38 PM, said:

May be I am. All you need do to prove that I definitely am is to show me proof of malicious intent regarding his FOI. Until you do so I'll keep my options open

Your options being open always seem to coincide with defending the hierarchy

>'i'm not defending bean!'
> *defends bean*

[Oldtimer]

 Goku, on 09 October 2019 - 02:41 PM, said:

Your options being open always seem to coincide with defending the hierarchy

>'i'm not defending bean!'
> *defends bean*

Whoa !! I posted from the very beginning nearly a decade ago that DA would be the worse thing to happen to this club. That he was buying a stadium that happened to have a football team attached. I remember being pilloried and called an idiot about that too. Many of you guys at the time saw him as a knight bringing glory to the club and accordingly in your eyes he could do no wrong.

I was called an idiot at the end of last season when I said it best not to read too much into the upturn in results. Then went on to explain that quality of the starting squad this season would be little different to the rabble we finished last season with. Once again I was ridiculed by posters who were adamant we were at the least going to be play off contenders and quality players were going to be rushing to sign for Sheridan.

Unlike many on here. I never jumped onto the DA band wagon even when it was rolling in the right direction so I've never needed to jump off. I have my reasons for distrusting DA more than most however that doesn't mean that I see a conspiracy against supporters at every turning

[Sammy Spireite]

I'm gonna stick my neck and suggest Oldtimer is Alan Biggs

[warfey is a spireite]

 Sammy Spireite, on 09 October 2019 - 03:21 PM, said:

I'm gonna stick my neck and suggest Oldtimer is Alan Biggs

NO

[essexspireman]

sounds like Warfey knows

[Town_Fan]

Who does OP work for I'm going to submit an foi request to see the contents of the bean foi request.

[Town_Fan]

Unless it's on whatdotheyknow already? Just need to know who op works for if op is ok with us knowing.

[calvin plummers socks]

 Oldtimer, on 09 October 2019 - 12:19 PM, said:

I think you're still feeling a little bitter and twisted because we didn't reply to your employment request. So if you don't mind I'll disregard your opinion on this occasion.

Ah good to hear from you Ashley!
Not bitter and twisted at all- just glad one of us offering help have finally had a response (Stockholm and Misnomer- this may be the best thanks but no thanks we gonna get)!

Good to see the Club doing so well despite our help though 👏🏽

[Westbars Spireite]

NHS probably TF.

[timshorts]

My quote box is missing today, but someone above said:-
"My interpretation is that there can have only been two purposes:

a) To deliberately cause the OP grief at work
b) To identify if the OP had been in communications with anyone regarding his thoughts on bean/cfc. Presumably with the purposes of identifying them, which appears to be his M.O.

Neither sit well with me as neither are necessary considering all the OP had done was to raise legitimate concerns in a reasonable manner.

Ask yourself this. Are these the actions of man trying to build bridges with disenfranchised supporters? Not for me...as another poster mentions roll on the AGM when it will be us making the enquiries! "

Seems to me that there is a third option. If we assume that the original e-mail contained something about Mr. Bean that was untrue:-
c)To identify whether the incorrect/untrue statement had been shared with another third person, as if that were the case there may be a case for libel to answer. Or worse, he could allege that the company for whom the opening poster had worked was liable for slander - although in my opinion that would be a bit of a stretch as the opening poster would inevitably have been deemed to have been acting "on a folic of his own" and without any intent to show that the view was shared by his employer.

[Town_Fan]

 Westbars Spireite, on 09 October 2019 - 04:32 PM, said:

NHS probably TF.

If it was an nhs.net account then that's nhs digital in Leeds. Otherwise its the individual trust who manage the email accounts.

[warfey is a spireite]

Keep guessing winner gets a coconut

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

 isleaiw1, on 09 October 2019 - 01:16 PM, said:

As I am often told, I can find a contrary view to most things.... but I really struggle to see what valid basis Bean would have for checking with the employer about sending the email from a work address.

You can only speak for your company. Mine says its OK as long as you dont abuse it or send anything inappropriate that would be damaging to the business. I havent worked for the public sector but wouldnt be surprised if they had a similar approach to reflect it will happen but give an opportunity to discipline if needed.

So, what valid reason have you come up with on why he took the approach he did??

I had the joy of dealing with Bean over a Data Privacy Issue. He told me I was wrong. He told me they would not change. The ICO told him he was wrong and he had to change. I never did receive the apology that I asked for....so to my mind seeing him in a bad light is not unreasonable.

It should be an irrelevance to Bean where the email cam from. It makes no difference to any questions posed wether it be from the moon or mars. Asking someone’s employee if they know they are using a works email address has nothing to do with FOI

[Cactoise]

 warfey is a spireite, on 09 October 2019 - 06:18 PM, said:

Keep guessing winner gets a coconut

….or a free season ticket

[Goku]

 Oldtimer, on 09 October 2019 - 02:58 PM, said:

Whoa !! I posted from the very beginning nearly a decade ago that DA would be the worse thing to happen to this club. That he was buying a stadium that happened to have a football team attached. I remember being pilloried and called an idiot about that too. Many of you guys at the time saw him as a knight bringing glory to the club and accordingly in your eyes he could do no wrong.

I was called an idiot at the end of last season when I said it best not to read too much into the upturn in results. Then went on to explain that quality of the starting squad this season would be little different to the rabble we finished last season with. Once again I was ridiculed by posters who were adamant we were at the least going to be play off contenders and quality players were going to be rushing to sign for Sheridan.

Unlike many on here. I never jumped onto the DA band wagon even when it was rolling in the right direction so I've never needed to jump off. I have my reasons for distrusting DA more than most however that doesn't mean that I see a conspiracy against supporters at every turning

Crikey, what excellent foresight you have. You must make a fortune on the betting market. Why do you think Bean made the FOI request?

[dart in the crossbar]

The footer / banner of the public sector organisation email is relevant to some extent. Some go with a 'may not be the views of ****'. Some go with a something that is more along the lines that the email is 'official'. If it was the latter, the alleged comment about surprise at its use may follow -if the email wasn't likely to be an 'official' one from the organisation.

The FOI request would, by its very nature, seem likely to alert the organisation to the use of 'its' email.

It would be interesting to see the standard footer / banner from the relevant public sector organisation should the OP wish to share it.

[oldgoat]

[quote name='timshorts' timestamp='1570638956' post='1490395']
My quote box is missing today, but someone above said:-
"My interpretation is that there can have only been two purposes:

a) To deliberately cause the OP grief at work
b) To identify if the OP had been in communications with anyone regarding his thoughts on bean/cfc. Presumably with the purposes of identifying them, which appears to be his M.O.

Neither sit well with me as neither are necessary considering all the OP had done was to raise legitimate concerns in a reasonable manner.

Ask yourself this. Are these the actions of man trying to build bridges with disenfranchised supporters? Not for me...as another poster mentions roll on the AGM when it will be us making the enquiries! "

Seems to me that there is a third option. If we assume that the original e-mail contained something about Mr. Bean that was untrue:-
c)To identify whether the incorrect/untrue statement had been shared with another third person, as if that were the case there may be a case for libel to answer. Or worse, he could allege that the company for whom the opening poster had worked was liable for slander - although in my opinion that would be a bit of a stretch as the opening poster would inevitably have been deemed to have been acting "on a folic of his own" and without any intent to show that the view was shared by his employer.



Oops sorry about the messy reply - The third option c) is not the case so it must be a) or b) .

Mr Bean told me over the phone repeatedly that he had not seen any of my 3 e mails asking him to explain to me what he expected to achieve by his actions , as I assume the conversation was recorded I have no reason to believe he was being untruthful .

However as all three e mails were replies to communication from Mr Bean so were to the correct address and the when I sent first one , when he was away on holiday , I received an out of office response from Mr Beans e mail account - who did receive the e mails .

If I was CEO of a company and I was not in a position to receive e mails for whatever reason It would be assumed that I would delegate a responsible person to read and them and take the appropriate action , as my e mails went to his address and at least the first one got to his in box why were they ignored .

I would hope that the person delegated to deal with them would be aware of what to action and what to delete , also I would hope that e mails from someone who Mr Bean had made a complaint , or as he says a FOI request about would be acted on / referred to Mr Bean and not just deleted .

I just want the truth , is that to much to ask ?

This post has been edited by oldgoat: 09 October 2019 - 09:51 PM