Freedom of Information requests about SEEN and Mumsnet

[carpety]

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/laura_brown_4

Dozens of requests to various public sector bodies asking about SEEN Networks and MN posts made by employees.

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1hobn9b/seen_network/

"There's been discussion here previously of the Sex Equality and Equity Network (SEEN). I've been using Freedom of Information requests to investigate this group's activities, particularly in the Civil Service (where they seem to have originated), and thought people might be interested in what I've learned."

Seems that this requestor is on a mission to unmask heretics.

Fuck me, the Stasi isn't dead.

On one level this is just so ridiculous, that I dont even want to have to think about this person, who I am sure thinks they are a true crusader.

But on the other had, mumsnet is not a proscribed organisation.

Why shouldn't employees of any number of organisation post on mumsnet.

Obviously if the employer has some agreed restrictions of the right of employees to post on public forums, I suppose you could request how the employer monitors that.

But I do think the inference (which some employers have accepted as being valid) that somehow it is crossing the line to post on mumsnet should be bought to the attention of @MNHQ.

ie it is not only the asking of the question, but it being taken as credible to do that, infers that posting on mumsnet is some sort of act of treason.

On the Reddit post:

"^Unfortunately, Defra have now declared my requests about SEEN to be vexatious and say they won't answer any more. I'm challenging this but must await the outcome: www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/intranet_posts_on_gender_and_tra#outgoing-1779171^"

I wonder what you need to do to be considered vexatious? That person must have put in a lot of requests.

I love that website its amazing what people ask - check out a search for your local council.

This just demonstrates how #nodebate has never gone away.
The totalitarian nature and Victorian attitudes of those who think that women should be silenced for knowing that sex is real, that children shouldn't be mutilated and sterilised in the name of transactivism and that women objecting to men sharing spaces when they are undressed and vulnerable are bigots - not victims of flashing and voyeurism.

Still - I suppose it gives managers / employers a sense of which staff are a threat to democracy and free speech

Interesting post about what it takes to be categorised as a querulant complainant:

What's essential is dealing with reports and complaints of any kind is discerning between a usual, a persistent and a querulant (unusually persistent) complainant.

The persistent complainants’ pursuit of vindication and retribution fits badly with complaints systems established to deliver reparation and compensation. Extract from a report on Unusually Persistent Complainants against the Police in Scotland:

The research on which this report is based arose from my view, shared by many others, that increasingly organisations are required to manage people who make persistent complaints. This small group of individuals can consume a disproportionate amount of an organisation’s resources, pursuing what they believe are legitimate complaints, for longer and with more intensity than the majority of the population would consider reasonable.

The key to managing unacceptable complainant conduct is to manage your own response to it (New South Wales Ombusdman, 2009A) and the importance of adequate training, supervision and managerial support for complaints handlers can not be overstated.

They used the term ‘querulousness’ to refer to a constellation of behaviours and attitudes, which may, or may not, arise secondary to a major mental disorder. The key is that it is a problem behaviour, the causes of which can be many and varied. The behaviour involves “the unusually persistent pursuit of a personal grievance in a manner seriously damaging to the individual’s economic, social, and personal interests, and disruptive to the functioning of the courts and/or other agencies attempting to resolve the claims” (Mullen and Lester, 20)

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3241727-Weaponising-of-the-Complaints-Process

Over 80.

Thankfully they've mostly received 'offyoufuck' responses. What a loon.

They can ask about mn posts all they want but there never going to get any answers for a couple of reason but predominantly because the foi act doesn't cover private companies and the civil service isn't a data handler when it comes to mn posts or users info.

I think they are asking about internal (or internal to civil service) complaints about posts here.
Civil servants are presumably not supposed to discuss internal matters on public social media like mumsnet - same as employees of any organization.
Agree however that this feels sinister, vindictive and designed to have a chilling effect. So much has started here. Would the SEENs exist without mumsnet?

And employers would have to “do an Aston” and data scrape MN in pursuit of conducting attempted surveillance of their employees’ anonymous social media activity.

This is what one of the replies says:

“You asked us to supply copies of all correspondence,
minutes or other documentation held by our Human Resources department,
dating from 7 February 2024 till today, regarding posts made on Mumsnet by
DfT staff.

Before we can answer your request, we need you to clarify your request
further by specifying which posts on Mumsnet you are referring to and/or
any additional information that would allow us to try and respond. We are
not aware, from our initial searches, of any posts made on Mumsnet by DfT
staff.”

The FOI requester didn’t ask about complaints received by HR about posts on Mumsnet. The requester seemed to be assuming that HR would already be monitoring employees’ mumsnet activity, regardless of any complaints / lack of complaints. Or perhaps the motivation behind the request was to prompt HR to start searching MN.

The requester then responds with a link to a mumsnet post.

Querulant (n)

In the legal profession and courts, a querulant (from the Latin querulus - "complaining") is a person who obsessively feels wronged, particularly about minor causes of action. In particular the term is used for those who repeatedly petition authorities or pursue legal actions based on manifestly unfounded grounds.

An unusually persistent complainer, obsessively driven in pursuit of justice to the extent of morbidity (illness), who plagues complaints bodies ...

A new word learnt today - thanks!

Are some on FWR ie the "usual suspects" querulent (adj) posters?

80 FOIs!!! Presumably when the first few applications didn’t yield what they were looking for (I presume they hoped to uncover hate-filled anti-trans rants) they had to keep going.

I have submitted a stack of FOIs on that site in my real name.

Her definition of "success" is rather weaker than mine was (the person submitting the request decides the outcome)

I'm sure there will be another complaint about MN incoming any minute now.

Looks like some people don't have enough work to fill their days.

The FOI rules are really clear
internal bulletin board posts are outside the scope definitely

Ha this “Laura Brown” is very persistent. Hard to imagine a life of such consuming self righteousness.

To honestly believe that any public body would be monitoring mumsnet, (to what end?) or even if they were, that they would admit to it.

And to honestly believe that personal data of individuals would be released is beyond imagination.

Psychopath does not even cover it.

And then the Reddit thread, thanks for your sterling work gleaning fuck all

Just bloody bonkers innit.

Surprisingly, the employer has provided copies of the internal bulletin board posts, but redacted names.

Presumably, that principle having been established by LB’s FOI request, anyone could now ask for copies of the a:gender network’s posts about SEEN.

People aren't on here under their real names. How would any company, or department, have any clue about their employees being on Mumsnet?

I am trying to carefully word this but I suspect this relates to historic threads alerting MN posters that the allotment needs some gardening.

I'm really shocked at this. One of the FOIs lists a bunch of specific MN usernames.

And even where people say "I work for X civil service department and am in SEEN", mumsnet isn't verifying posters' identities, let alone jobs.
It would be easy for a malicious poster to claim a CS job/SEEN membership and then post all sorts, including apparently identifying information about a person known to them.

And there's this

Yes. It opens up real potential for abuse.

It’s only the latest one to Defra (the tenth that Defra have received) which has prompted a “no, because we’ve decided you’re vexatious” response. (And yes, I’m bored enough to have done a quick scan to count them!!)

All the others (that I’ve read) have dealt with the request according to the rules, either ‘we don’t hold the info’, or ‘digging through our files to locate the info would exceed the cost limit’, or ‘we hold the info but disclosing it would breach data protection rules’ or ‘here’s the info’.

The requester has been treated fairly, imo.

I’ll be interested to see whether Defra try to hold their “no, cos: vexatious” line in the New Year. Having read the ICO’s finding on the rail company’s case, my guess is the “vexatious” argument won’t hold and Defra will have to disclose the info if doing so doesn’t breach the cost limit.