Public Sector or Not?

[breaktwister]

He hasn't got one. His read something somewhere and has decide to fart it on to the forum without thinking again so others have to clean the thread up again.

Just because you suck admins off you think you can get away with abuse while no-one can say anything back as they are then "warned by admins"? I guess the admins will warn or ban me now but you get away with insults and abuse with no consequence.

Teapot posted that RBS was not a public body without any analysis. All I was saying that that you need to look carefully at the OWNERSHIP of all companies to determine whether they fall within the meaning of a "public authority". I didn't see anyone else posting the info regarding being owned by the Crown.

[eek]

Just because you suck admins off you think you can get away with abuse while no-one can say anything back as they are then "warned by admins"? I guess the admins will warn or ban me now but you get away with insults and abuse with no consequence.

Teapot posted that RBS was not a public body without any analysis. All I was saying that that you need to look carefully at the OWNERSHIP of all companies to determine whether they fall within the meaning of a "public authority". I didn't see anyone else posting the info regarding being owned by the Crown.

I think that might be because we've discussed RBS 3 times already including with you last week and nothing has changed during the past 3 months.

RBS is not covered by the FoI act and therefore isn't affected by these changes.

[SueEllen]

I think that might be because we've discussed RBS 3 times already including with you last week and nothing has changed during the past 3 months.

RBS is not covered by the FoI act and therefore isn't affected by these changes.

Stop sucking off the admins.

[LondonManc]

Words fail me.

That's a first.

[northernladuk]

That's a first.

Ones that I can post without a ban then....

[MrMarkyMark]

Stop sucking off the admins.

I thought NAT seemed a lot happier these days

[LondonManc]

Just because you suck admins off you think you can get away with abuse while no-one can say anything back as they are then "warned by admins"? I guess the admins will warn or ban me now but you get away with insults and abuse with no consequence.

Teapot posted that RBS was not a public body without any analysis. All I was saying that that you need to look carefully at the OWNERSHIP of all companies to determine whether they fall within the meaning of a "public authority". I didn't see anyone else posting the info regarding being owned by the Crown.

Teapot explained why RBS wasn't subject to FOI. You backed it up. Not sure what your beef is because Teapot gave you the correct answer with a supporting statement.

[cojak]

Just because you suck admins off you think you can get away with abuse while no-one can say anything back as they are then "warned by admins"? I guess the admins will warn or ban me now but you get away with insults and abuse with no consequence.

Teapot posted that RBS was not a public body without any analysis. All I was saying that that you need to look carefully at the OWNERSHIP of all companies to determine whether they fall within the meaning of a "public authority". I didn't see anyone else posting the info regarding being owned by the Crown.

No, it does not require analysis - it simply requires reading the list of organisations that fall within the remit of the FOI Act.

That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Anything else is navel gazing.

And as we have returned to the original point of this thread I am now locking it.