“Further to your suspension of @UKJCP I am writing directly as I have not had any personal replies to my email based suspension appeal submissions against your stark “instructions” to change [expunge] the @UKJCP user name, profile, background and avatar. Predicated on a complaint(s) that, to quote you “may” have violated your rules, including those on impersonation.” – 1st 16 page Fax to twitter ‘Trust and Safety’ 6th Feb 2014
(This 16 page fax contains copies of tweets and articles about the @DWPgovUK inspired suspension of @UKJCP)
“Further to your suggestion that the user name @UKJCP have the words “not” or
“parody” appended to @UKJCP as in @UKJCPnot or @UKJCPparody please
see below details of how this issue was resolved by Twitter Inc in 2013, which
allowed the continued use of @UKJCP and use of the “Job Centre Pluss”
Avatar. Please advise whether today’s suggestions (below) take account of the
FOI response from the 2013 DWP, appended below?
It is also apparent that any DWP inspired complaint is part of it’s desire to use @UKJCP for itself, as the documents below clearly state.
To quote: “Our company [DWP] would like to use this username [@UKJCP] on Twitter” – 2nd 6 page Fax to twitter ‘Trust and Safety’ 6th Feb 2014
“Further to my email below, please accept all the new settings of @UKJCP and remove the suspension.” – 3rd 1 page Fax to twitter ‘Trust and Safety’ 7th Feb 2014
4th 1 page fax to twitter ‘Trust and Safety’ 8th Feb 2014