House of Commons' staff insults and Parliamentary "rule"

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, House of Commons should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Anthony John Monks

Can you please supply any data which gives parliamentary staff the right to name call a member of the public and when the member of the public asks for an explanation as to why the parliamentary staff threw an insult; he is ignored by two members of House of Commons staff, one of whom is an alleged manager.

Please could you also provide all data relating to the "strict parliamentary protocol/rule/convention" which a great many MPs allege exists.

Some background information.

18/12/20 FOI response email from Information Rights Manager Abigail Richmond -

"Lastly, while we appreciate that you may be frustrated by the answers to your questions which have been provided by teams of the House of Commons, our staff do not have to tolerate rudeness or sexist comments from enquirers".

My 21/12/20 email in response to Abigail Richmond's 18/12/20 email -

"Please explain why you have accused me of sexism. Give examples of my "sexism".

19/01/21 FOI response email from Information Rights Manager Abigail Richmond -

"It may also help you to know that our Behaviour Code states that all people have the right to be treated with dignity, courtesy and respect".
(Clearly this does not apply to me as Abigail Richmond in refusing to respond to my request for examples of "my sexism" showed me literally no respect).

My 22/02/21 email complaining about Abigail Richmond -

"I asked Abigail Richmond for examples of "my sexism". I'm still waiting".

01/03/21 complaint response email from Sheila Mitchell of the Customer Team, Governance Office -

“I have asked the "manager" in question numerous times whether MPs can decide to help no constituents if they so choose but being female the "manager" views herself as special and above the Nolan principles, so simply ignores my emails.

In my opinion, the use of quotation marks around the word manager is disrespectful and the fact that the manager is female is not relevant and is a sexist statement. It is only to be expected that staff would find this statement offensive".

My 04/03/21 email in response to Sheila Mitchell's 01/03/21 email -

"In my opinion, the use of quotation marks around the word manager is disrespectful and the fact that the manager is female is not relevant and is a sexist statement".

"A manager who ignores emails isn't the finest example of an individual who is employed to "manage resources". All I know about Gwen Harrison is she ignores emails and she's female. By virtue of ignoring emails and the Nolan principles she clearly views herself as special. That's it! There's literally no sexism here apart from in the minds of parliamentary staff.

Please explain why you're of the opinion my pointing out Gwen Harrison being female is sexist!

You completely ignored this from my 22/02/21 email -

I asked Abigail Richmond for examples of "my sexism". I'm still waiting".

Regards

Anthony John Monks

FOI Commons, House of Commons

Dear Mr Monks,

 

Freedom of Information request F21-246

 

Thank you for your request for information dated 19 May 2021, received by
us on the same date, which is copied below.

 

We will endeavour to respond to your request promptly but in any case
within 20 working days i.e. on or before 16 June 2021.

 

If you have any queries about your request, please use the request number
quoted above and in the subject line of this email.

CORONAVIRUS UPDATE

We will work hard to answer your information rights requests during the
current COVID 19 situation in line with statutory requirements, however
some requests may be affected by access to collections and availability of
staff. We will keep you informed of any identified delays in answering
your request.

 

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Sarah Price

IRIS Support Officer
Information Rights and Information Security (IRIS) Service | House of
Commons

 

[1]www.parliament.uk | [2]@ukparliament | [3]@houseofcommons

[4]House of Commons Privacy Notice for the Public

[5]Supporting a thriving parliamentary democracy

 

 

 

From: Anthony John Monks <[FOI #756777 email]>
Sent: 19 May 2021 16:48
To: FOI Commons <[email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - House of Commons' staff insults
and Parliamentary "rule"

 

Can you please supply any data which gives parliamentary staff the right
to name call a member of the public and when the member of the public asks
for an explanation as to why the parliamentary staff threw an insult; he
is ignored by two members of House of Commons staff, one of whom is an
alleged manager.

Please could you also provide all data relating to the "strict
parliamentary protocol/rule/convention" which a great many MPs allege
exists.

Some background information.

18/12/20 FOI response email from Information Rights Manager Abigail
Richmond -

"Lastly, while we appreciate that you may be frustrated by the answers to
your questions which have been provided by teams of the House of Commons,
our staff do not have to tolerate rudeness or sexist comments from
enquirers".

My 21/12/20 email in response to Abigail Richmond's 18/12/20 email -

"Please explain why you have accused me of sexism. Give examples of my
"sexism".

19/01/21 FOI response email from Information Rights Manager Abigail
Richmond -

"It may also help you to know that our Behaviour Code states that all
people have the right to be treated with dignity, courtesy and respect".

(Clearly this does not apply to me as Abigail Richmond in refusing to
respond to my request for examples of "my sexism" showed me literally no
respect).

My 22/02/21 email complaining about Abigail Richmond -

"I asked Abigail Richmond for examples of "my sexism". I'm still waiting".

01/03/21 complaint response email from Sheila Mitchell of the Customer
Team, Governance Office -

“I have asked the "manager" in question numerous times whether MPs can
decide to help no constituents if they so choose but being female the
"manager" views herself as special and above the Nolan principles, so
simply ignores my emails.

In my opinion, the use of quotation marks around the word manager is
disrespectful and the fact that the manager is female is not relevant and
is a sexist statement. It is only to be expected that staff would find
this statement offensive".

My 04/03/21 email in response to Sheila Mitchell's 01/03/21 email -

"In my opinion, the use of quotation marks around the word manager is
disrespectful and the fact that the manager is female is not relevant and
is a sexist statement".

"A manager who ignores emails isn't the finest example of an individual
who is employed to "manage resources". All I know about Gwen Harrison is
she ignores emails and she's female. By virtue of ignoring emails and the
Nolan principles she clearly views herself as special. That's it! There's
literally no sexism here apart from in the minds of parliamentary staff.

Please explain why you're of the opinion my pointing out Gwen Harrison
being female is sexist!

You completely ignored this from my 22/02/21 email -

I asked Abigail Richmond for examples of "my sexism". I'm still waiting".

Regards

Anthony John Monks

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:

[6][FOI #756777 email]

Is [7][House of Commons request email] the wrong address for Freedom of
Information requests to House of Commons? If so, please contact us using
this form:

[8]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:

[9]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:

[10]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

show quoted sections

FOI Commons, House of Commons

1 Attachment

Restricted: Personal Data

Dear Mr Monks,

 

 

Freedom of Information Request F21-246

 

Thank you for your request for information as copied below.  You have
asked the House of Commons for information relating to a complaint, which
we have sought to address below.

 

 1. Can you please supply any data which gives parliamentary staff the
right to name call a member of the public and when the member of the
public asks for an explanation as to why the parliamentary staff threw
an insult; he is ignored by two members of House of Commons staff, one
of whom is an alleged manager.

and

 2. Please could you also provide all data relating to the "strict
parliamentary protocol/rule/convention" which a great many MPs allege
exists.

and

 3. Please explain why you're of the opinion my pointing out Gwen Harrison
being female is sexist!

 

Your request is refused in accordance with section 14 (1) of the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 because it is vexatious in nature.

 

In addition, I must inform you that any further requests for information
that you make to the House of Commons will be reviewed and, if we consider
that section 14(1) applies, we will not respond to them or enter into any
further correspondence with you on the request(s). 

 

The ICO produce guidance which explain the duties of a public body
here: [1]How to access information from a public body | ICO.

 

 

If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request you may ask the
House of Commons to conduct an internal review of this refusal. 
Complaints or requests for internal review should be addressed to:
Information Rights and Information Security Service, Research &
Information Team, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA or
[2][House of Commons request email].  Please ensure that you specify the full
reasons for your complaint or internal review along with any arguments or
points that you wish to make.

 

If you remain dissatisfied, you may appeal to the Information Commissioner
at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF,
[3]https://ico.org.uk/.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Information Rights Manager 
Information Rights and Information Security (IRIS) 
House of Commons, Palace of Westminster, London SW1A 0AA 
[4]parliament.uk
[5][IMG]

[6]House of Commons Privacy Notice for the public

[7]Supporting a thriving parliamentary democracy

 

 

 

From: Anthony John Monks <[8][FOI #756777 email]>
Sent: 19 May 2021 16:48
To: FOI Commons <[9][email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - House of Commons' staff insults
and Parliamentary "rule"

 

Can you please supply any data which gives parliamentary staff the right
to name call a member of the public and when the member of the public asks
for an explanation as to why the parliamentary staff threw an insult; he
is ignored by two members of House of Commons staff, one of whom is an
alleged manager.

Please could you also provide all data relating to the "strict
parliamentary protocol/rule/convention" which a great many MPs allege
exists.

Some background information.

18/12/20 FOI response email from Information Rights Manager Abigail
Richmond -

"Lastly, while we appreciate that you may be frustrated by the answers to
your questions which have been provided by teams of the House of Commons,
our staff do not have to tolerate rudeness or sexist comments from
enquirers".

My 21/12/20 email in response to Abigail Richmond's 18/12/20 email -

"Please explain why you have accused me of sexism. Give examples of my
"sexism".

19/01/21 FOI response email from Information Rights Manager Abigail
Richmond -

"It may also help you to know that our Behaviour Code states that all
people have the right to be treated with dignity, courtesy and respect".

(Clearly this does not apply to me as Abigail Richmond in refusing to
respond to my request for examples of "my sexism" showed me literally no
respect).

My 22/02/21 email complaining about Abigail Richmond -

"I asked Abigail Richmond for examples of "my sexism". I'm still waiting".

01/03/21 complaint response email from Sheila Mitchell of the Customer
Team, Governance Office -

“I have asked the "manager" in question numerous times whether MPs can
decide to help no constituents if they so choose but being female the
"manager" views herself as special and above the Nolan principles, so
simply ignores my emails.

In my opinion, the use of quotation marks around the word manager is
disrespectful and the fact that the manager is female is not relevant and
is a sexist statement. It is only to be expected that staff would find
this statement offensive".

My 04/03/21 email in response to Sheila Mitchell's 01/03/21 email -

"In my opinion, the use of quotation marks around the word manager is
disrespectful and the fact that the manager is female is not relevant and
is a sexist statement".

"A manager who ignores emails isn't the finest example of an individual
who is employed to "manage resources". All I know about Gwen Harrison is
she ignores emails and she's female. By virtue of ignoring emails and the
Nolan principles she clearly views herself as special. That's it! There's
literally no sexism here apart from in the minds of parliamentary staff.

Please explain why you're of the opinion my pointing out Gwen Harrison
being female is sexist!

You completely ignored this from my 22/02/21 email -

I asked Abigail Richmond for examples of "my sexism". I'm still waiting".

Regards

Anthony John Monks

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:

[10][FOI #756777 email]

Is [11][House of Commons request email] the wrong address for Freedom of
Information requests to House of Commons? If so, please contact us using
this form:

[12]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:

[13]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:

[14]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

show quoted sections

Anthony John Monks

"Your request is refused in accordance with section 14 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 because it is vexatious in nature.

In addition, I must inform you that any further requests for information that you make to the House of Commons will be reviewed and, if we consider that section 14(1) applies, we will not respond to them or enter into any further correspondence with you on the request(s)".

You are literally making this up as you go along Abigail Richmond! Why didn't you provide your name in your response of earlier today? Didn't think someone would call you out on marking your own homework?

For your information "Information Rights Manager"; a request for information isn't vexatious because a Southerner on a power trip claims it to be.

Why are MPs lying about there being a rule/protocol/convention when no such rule/protocol/convention exists?

Do your job and provide the data I have requested.

Anthony John Monks

Anthony John Monks

12/03/21 email from Harriet Harman MP -

"I note that you did not provide your residential address in your email. Unfortunately there is a strict Parliamentary Convention that prohibits a Member of Parliament from making representations on behalf of another Member's constituent. A Member of Parliament can only take up cases on behalf of those who live in their constituency, and must refer people who live outside the constituency to their own MP".

As requested on 19/05/21 -
"Please could you also provide all data relating to the "strict parliamentary protocol/rule/convention" which a great many MPs allege exists".

The nonjob (Information Rights Manager) Abigail Richmond deemed this genuine request of mine as vexatious. As it is easier to claim my request is vexatious than confirm a great many of the United Kingdom's MPs are liars.

Could you provide all data relating to the "strict parliamentary protocol/rule/convention" which a great many MPs allege exists.

Anthony John Monks

Anthony John Monks

05/04/21 email from Henry Smith MP's office -

"To comply with parliamentary protocol please would you provide your postal address".

As requested on 19/05/21 -
"Please could you also provide all data relating to the "strict parliamentary protocol/rule/convention" which a great many MPs allege exists".

The nonjob (Information Rights Manager) Abigail Richmond deemed this genuine request of mine as vexatious. As it is easier to claim my request is vexatious than confirm a great many of the United Kingdom's MPs are liars.

Could you provide all data relating to the "strict parliamentary protocol/rule/convention" which a great many MPs allege exists.

Anthony John Monks

Anthony John Monks

19/01/21 email from Maria Eagle MP -

"Unfortunately, because you are not my constituent, I am unable to raise it with the Government on your behalf. Only your own MP can do that. There is a longstanding Parliamentary convention which is very clear about this".

As requested on 19/05/21 -
"Please could you also provide all data relating to the "strict parliamentary protocol/rule/convention" which a great many MPs allege exists".

The nonjob (Information Rights Manager) Abigail Richmond deemed this genuine request of mine as vexatious. As it is easier to claim my request is vexatious than confirm a great many of the United Kingdom's MPs are liars.

Could you provide all data relating to the "strict parliamentary protocol/rule/convention" which a great many MPs allege exists.

Anthony John Monks

Anthony John Monks

05/05/21 email from Deborah Scott, Office of Ian Lavery MP -

"Ian has asked me to thank you for your email. Due to strict Parliamentary protocol Ian is only able to take up issues for his own constituents can I ask therefore for your full postal address for our records".

As requested on 19/05/21 -
"Please could you also provide all data relating to the "strict parliamentary protocol/rule/convention" which a great many MPs allege exists".

The nonjob (Information Rights Manager) Abigail Richmond deemed this genuine request of mine as vexatious. As it is easier to claim my request is vexatious than confirm a great many of the United Kingdom's MPs are liars.

Could you provide all data relating to the "strict parliamentary protocol/rule/convention" which a great many MPs allege exists.

Anthony John Monks

R Wright left an annotation ()

The House of Commons Library has written a briefing note on "Members and Constituency Etiquette" that discusses the conventions in relation to constituents and casework: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/res...

Anthony John Monks

25/02/21 email from Niall Hopkinson, Office of Lee Rowley MP -

"Please note that due to strict parliamentary protocol, Lee can only assist on queries raised by constituents of North East Derbyshire, and it is therefore important that we are able to verify your address".

As requested on 19/05/21 -
"Please could you also provide all data relating to the "strict parliamentary protocol/rule/convention" which a great many MPs allege exists".

The nonjob (Information Rights Manager) Abigail Richmond deemed this genuine request of mine as vexatious. As it is easier to claim my request is vexatious than confirm a great many of the United Kingdom's MPs are liars.

Could you provide all data relating to the "strict parliamentary protocol/rule/convention" which a great many MPs allege exists.

Anthony John Monks

Anthony John Monks

Thank you "R Wright" for your annotation.
"The conventions dealing with these matters are not the subject of formal parliamentary rules".
Nothing more to add.

Anthony John Monks

Anthony John Monks

29/01/21 email from Steve Baker MP -

"I'm unsure why I have been copied into your correspondence. Please let me know if you are a constituent, and we can take it from there".

As requested on 19/05/21 -
"Please could you also provide all data relating to the "strict parliamentary protocol/rule/convention" which a great many MPs allege exists".

The nonjob (Information Rights Manager) Abigail Richmond deemed this genuine request of mine as vexatious. As it is easier to claim my request is vexatious than confirm a great many of the United Kingdom's MPs are liars.

Could you provide all data relating to the "strict parliamentary protocol/rule/convention" which a great many MPs allege exists.

Anthony John Monks

Anthony John Monks

05/03/21 email from Steve Baker MP -

"Please can you let me know if you are a constituent, Mr Monks, and I will answer more fully".

As requested on 19/05/21 -
"Please could you also provide all data relating to the "strict parliamentary protocol/rule/convention" which a great many MPs allege exists".

The nonjob (Information Rights Manager) Abigail Richmond deemed this genuine request of mine as vexatious. As it is easier to claim my request is vexatious than confirm a great many of the United Kingdom's MPs are liars.

Could you provide all data relating to the "strict parliamentary protocol/rule/convention" which a great many MPs allege exists.

Anthony John Monks

Anthony John Monks

I request an internal review of House of Commons's handling of my FOI request 'House of Commons' staff insults and Parliamentary "rule"'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/h...

Anthony John Monks

FOI Commons, House of Commons

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Monks,

 

 

Internal Review Request F21-232

 

Thank you for your further email requesting an internal review of our
response to your Freedom of Information request.

 

We will endeavour to respond within 20 working days, i.e. on or before 16
August 2021.  However, it may be necessary to extend this deadline by
another 20 working days, for example if the review is complicated and
requires the assistance of multiple resources. If this is the case, and
your review cannot be completed in the shorter timeframe, we will inform
you of this.

 

If you have any queries about the review, please contact me with the
reference in the subject line.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Information Rights Manager 
Information Rights and Information Security (IRIS) 
House of Commons, Palace of Westminster, London SW1A 0AA 
[1]parliament.uk
[2][IMG]

[3]House of Commons Privacy Notice for the public

[4]Supporting a thriving parliamentary democracy

 

 

 

From: Anthony John Monks <[FOI #756777 email]>
Sent: 18 July 2021 11:25
To: FOI Commons <[email address]>
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - House of
Commons' staff insults and Parliamentary "rule"

 

I request an internal review of House of Commons's handling of my FOI
request 'House of Commons' staff insults and Parliamentary "rule"'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on
the Internet at this address:
[5]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/h...

Anthony John Monks

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[6][FOI #756777 email]

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[7]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[8]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

show quoted sections

FOI Commons, House of Commons

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Monks,

 

 

Further to your request for an Internal Review of our FOI response, please
find our response attached. 

 

If you remain dissatisfied, you may appeal to the Information Commissioner
at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Information Rights Manager 
Information Rights and Information Security (IRIS) 
House of Commons, Palace of Westminster, London SW1A 0AA 
[1]parliament.uk
[2][IMG]

[3]House of Commons Privacy Notice for the public

[4]Supporting a thriving parliamentary democracy

 

 

 

From: Anthony John Monks <[FOI #756777 email]>
Sent: 18 July 2021 11:25
To: FOI Commons <[email address]>
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - House of
Commons' staff insults and Parliamentary "rule"

 

I request an internal review of House of Commons's handling of my FOI
request 'House of Commons' staff insults and Parliamentary "rule"'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on
the Internet at this address:
[5]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/h...

Anthony John Monks

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[6][FOI #756777 email]

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[7]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[8]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

show quoted sections

Anthony John Monks

..."regarding the conduct of parliamentary staff and the convention regarding MPs and constituency work".

The "convention" you refer to is little more than an excuse for work-shy MPs to do even less work.

Regarding Penny Young's feeble response of 12/08/21 (which must have taken her all of 30 seconds) she doesn't bother explaining what I have written for her and other HoC staff to deem my request "vexatious". I imagine this has something to do with ICO who will simply back up the HoC because of the cowardly Section 14(1) existing, which is obviously a get out of jail free card to be used when a member of the public requests something "too hot" and the (in it for the pension) public sector "worker" can excuse himself or far more likely herself from interrupting their card game by falsely claiming a request is "vexatious".

Information Rights Manager Abigail Richmond and her friend Sheila Mitchell of the Governance Office both commented on my "sexist comments" and "sexist statement" in emails. I've asked both to explain their insults and have been met by their ignorance; not surprising what with both being Southern. Evidently as a man, explanations are not deemed necessary by (female) HoC staff.

Anthony John Monks