Saw this earlier, thought it was quite interesting.
Obama denying more FOI requests than George W.
Although last year he said he hoped his government would :
” encourage accountability through transparency. My administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government.”
In part two of the video we see how the legislation allows everyday Indian’s to combat corruption and apathy by offical bureacrats. It shows how the people are able to claw back power from one of the most corrupt government structures in the world. We also hear about the challenges still to be overcome.
I dont think there is a better example of how FOI has made an impact on a society than in India. FOI started in India as a grass roots movement and it is still with the coutrie’s poor that it makes the biggest difference. In the first video we see how it evolved through the fight against coruption and some of the key players involved.
Who may be exempt from FOIA requests, i’ll tell you who – Strange bizarre creatures from another planet and aliens. HoHoHo.
Well, a recent FOI request led to details about Princey Charles and his lack of financial nous. This may supposedly lead to Jackington of Straw changing the laws to protect Charlie, Queeny and Willsy.
And on a possibly unrelated note:
The MOD are planning on destroying reports of UFO sightings after 30 days, this would mean they are exempt from FOI requests .
‘The dedicated UFO hotline answerphone service and e-mail address serve no defence purpose, and merely encourage the generation of correspondence of no defence value. Accordingly, these facilities should be withdrawn as soon as possible,’ the memo dated November 11, 2009, states.
‘Reported sightings should be answered by a standard letter and … should be retained for 30 days and then destroyed, largely removing any future FoI liability and negating the need to release future files post- November 30, 2009.’
So, no defence value. Or this is all a cover up
Something we touched on in the presentation. There is the argument that journalists use the FOIA as a way of fishing for a story, thus potentially wasting peoples time.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2010/jan/20/council-freedom-of-information-requests
How frivolous some requests are may become more clear if other public bodies follow this example.
Another example of the FOI in the news.
The University of East Anglia / scientists + climate change + emails + FOI requests = News.
It’s November 2009 and some cheeky so and so has hacked into the computers of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, they’ve gone and copied documents and thousands of emails.
Well, it would seem most of the emails weren’t a particularly good read, as the only ones folk seem concerned with were sent from Mr Phil Jones. Monsieur Jones had said some not very nice things about climate change sceptics, more details here.
When oh when is he going to talk about the bloomin Freedom of Information Act i hear you cry, well, the answer is : now.
Well, the other thing which came from the emails was the fact that FOI requests had not been handled correctly by the department, which makes sceptical folk think you’re hiding stuff and being devious little blighters. Have a looksie here for a grammatically correct version of what i’m attempting to tell you.
Where do you think that the freedom of Information Act is going?
Should it be extended to include more types of organisation?
What about charities for example? They rely on the public for much of their income, yet we can ask for little more than a copy of their accounts…
Sarah White, who processes FOI requests for Cornwall Council, suggests some ways that the Act could be improved both in terms of its implementation, and the bodies encompassed by it.
Let’s not forget folks, the Freedom of Information Act is for everyone, not just journalists.
While we dig for scandal and forage for malpractice, there are thousands of members of the public out there who’ve benefited from the act.
And what do they ask?
Well I put that question to Sarah White who deals with FOI requests for Cornwall Council…
I also asked her what the most ridiculous requests she’d ever received were!
…Made me chuckle anyway…
Robin
I mentioned in our presentation that the government has said it will introduce a new absolute exemption for cabinet papers (plus a separate absolute exemption for communications with the royal family). That would have ruled out the release of any paper circulated to cabinet or a cabinet committee, even if there would be no harm to decision-making or collective responsibility.
Well, I am pleased to say it has dropped this proposal – at least for Cabinet papers. And there’s more good news.
There have also been changes to the thirty year rule; government records will now be made publicly available in The National Archives after 20 years. This means old records are more likely to emerge while the events they refer to are still remembered.
Sadly, there is to be a new absolute exemption. It will protect information about the monarch, the heir and second in line to the throne for 20 years while they are still alive and for up to five years after their death. this is not even subject to the FOI Act’s public interest test.
Emily
Emily of Wallis spoke about Jack of Straw during her part of the presentation.
I wrote a bit of a summary of it sometime ago but forgot to publish it, so i shall do so now. May update it later if Gordon Of Brown says anything interesting today, which means i probably won’t have to update it.
The war with Iraq was always a contentious issue and no doubt it would be unnecessary for me to start listing the reasons why that was the case, I suppose I could condense it into three letters WMD.
Why the Iraq war is of interest to us, is the fact that information leading up to the war was kept secret, and I’m not talking about information that would not usually be made available such as national security information etc.
Details of minutes of meetings were now being vetoed for publication, vetoed by the very man who introduced the FOI act in 2005, the then Home Secretary Jack Straw.
The particularly intriguing part is where Mr Straw decided to veto the publication of cabinet minutes. The former attorney general Lord Goldsmith who had been advising on the legality of the war, had up until the 13th of March been undecided and had been quoted as saying ‘the legal issues were finely balanced’. After returning from America where Mr Goldsmith had held talks with American officials and Mr Straw, he returned on the 12th March and had changed his mind. One could look at that suspiciously, any suspicions are then forced home by the fact that the home secretary decided to veto the minutes of the following cabinet meetings to be published.
Well, that doesn’t look good, we’re going to war but we don’t want the country to know what we were talking about a few days before the final decision was made.
Then, we do find out what happened during the meeting. Exciting stuff, or not, where some may have been hoping to hear MP’s decided that although Saddam posed no real threat we should go in anyway. The main point of interest during those cabinet meetings was the fact that Jack Straw turned down a request by Clare Short for a discussion. Which when you think about it is significant. Significant in as much that surely a discussion to discuss the legality of a possible war would be pretty important, so not allowing one then vetoing anyone knowing you didn’t allow one just adds to the dubious nature of the war.
Freedom of Information | rosssatron on It’s not all about … |
 | shalinpopat on Aliens and the Royal Fami… |
 | gjbherman on Barack |
 | smile2010 on Guilty of time wasting???… |
| smile2010 on Iraq Inquiry |
