The problem is that the frontline volunteers have been lied to and ignored on so many occasions that even when people are honest and open now they don’t believe them.
Plenty of scandals have been revealed through FOI’s (although in my experience it’s more subject access requests that have done so). People aren’t just taking things at face value anymore.
This organisation has become one mass of utterly pointless, nonsensical, time wasting paperwork. FOI’s are literally a tiny percentage of that mass.
So why stick with it?
Plenty of us aren’t, someone share the graph again please.
I left the organisation for a job overseas, but I was already looking to go when the job offer came through. It was the last push I needed.
As @daws1159 says, plenty of us have already returned our kit and walked.
I previously wrote on the dire retention thread that I was giving it until the end of summer for things to improve. That doesn’t appear to be happening, so each day is a day closer to banging out.
There’s one on there asking for the new draft Safeguarding Policy.
The response was “no such policy exists” paraphrasing ofc.
I thought this was funny since I had an email from Safeguarding saying they were using the draft policy not ACP4. Would happily have passed that email on if I’d known who the person doing the FOI was.
If that had been my FOI, I wonder what the consequences of an outright lie would have been…
Anyone is able to add clarification notes to someone else’s FOI on What Do They Know.
There’s nothing to stop you including the clarification yourself on that system, including a note that you have been told the draft policy is being used despite the respondent saying it doesn’t exist.
Failing that, a complaint can be made to the ICO for deliberate misinformation following an FOI. There are sanctions, but I can’t remember what they are; it’s been a decade since I’ve submitted any FOI and none of them were to RAFAC or indeed anything related to the military.
Yep, successful complaint to ICO against Home Office Head of Firearms - huge smack on their wrist!
There are sanction but not really that effective
RAFAC should refuse all initial & then let ICO get involved even just to get breathing room.
Another one?
More reputational damage - would be seen as hiding information away (oh, wait! 
) & the FOIs would flood in!
Purposely put the organisation potentially in contempt of court? What a great idea…
That’s been on the cards for a while, IIRC ACP25
Wrong thread??
Not quite - put the organisation in a situation where they get an enforcement notice which if they don’t comply that could then potentially could put them in contempt of court.
But It would put a big delay & grant breathing room particularly for trivial requests.
As long as they do not delete anything to deliberate avoid but push everything to appeal it would cause things to settle down.
