Comments on: The latest ruse from Speaker Martin and his cronies http://www.yrtk.org/2009/the-latest-ruse-from-speaker-martin-and-his-cronies/ A guide to the Freedom of Information Act & other access laws Fri, 12 Mar 2010 12:01:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: David Payne http://www.yrtk.org/2009/the-latest-ruse-from-speaker-martin-and-his-cronies/comment-page-1/#comment-46955 David Payne Tue, 19 May 2009 22:46:50 +0000 http://www.yrtk.org/?p=754#comment-46955 Quote "This exemption is one of the more draconian and when it was passed it was supposed to be used for only the most sensitive of national security issues. Instead, it’s being rolled out for all and sundry" Unquote Expect this from your government. When the Serious Crime Bill was before parliament I pointed out to relevant parties that Section 2 - Encouraging or assisting crime / Inchoate offences does not mention 'serious' crime at all. The 2007 Act does not appear to be materially altered in any way. Section 3 of the Act is even more explicit: Other measures to prevent or disrupt serious and other crime. "Other crime" is anything those who decide what is or isn't criminal decide - including any protest you may care to make against government, be it a demonstration or witholding council tax. Entrepreneurial prosecutors will have a field day with this legislation, and doubtless many others of the 3,000 plus crimes enacted by the Bliar/Brown lawmongers. Regards David Payne Quote “This exemption is one of the more draconian and when it was passed it was supposed to be used for only the most sensitive of national security issues.

Instead, it’s being rolled out for all and sundry” Unquote

Expect this from your government. When the Serious Crime Bill was before parliament I pointed out to relevant parties that Section 2 – Encouraging or assisting crime / Inchoate offences does not mention ’serious’ crime at all. The 2007 Act does not appear to be materially altered in any way.

Section 3 of the Act is even more explicit: Other measures to prevent or disrupt serious and other crime.

“Other crime” is anything those who decide what is or isn’t criminal decide – including any protest you may care to make against government, be it a demonstration or witholding council tax.

Entrepreneurial prosecutors will have a field day with this legislation, and doubtless many others of the 3,000 plus crimes enacted by the Bliar/Brown lawmongers.

Regards

David Payne

]]> By: Gareth http://www.yrtk.org/2009/the-latest-ruse-from-speaker-martin-and-his-cronies/comment-page-1/#comment-46278 Gareth Wed, 13 May 2009 11:39:26 +0000 http://www.yrtk.org/?p=754#comment-46278 Regarding the British Council FOI requests: Presumably that relates to this Telegraph story from February. http://tinyurl.com/or2qr6 Regarding the British Council FOI requests: Presumably that relates to this Telegraph story from February.

http://tinyurl.com/or2qr6

]]> By: JP_Fife http://www.yrtk.org/2009/the-latest-ruse-from-speaker-martin-and-his-cronies/comment-page-1/#comment-46276 JP_Fife Wed, 13 May 2009 11:00:19 +0000 http://www.yrtk.org/?p=754#comment-46276 Dear God! All this trouble in the media and they're STILL coming up with excuses? You should try and get some of the media attention onto this right now. Dear God! All this trouble in the media and they’re STILL coming up with excuses? You should try and get some of the media attention onto this right now.

]]> By: Nick http://www.yrtk.org/2009/the-latest-ruse-from-speaker-martin-and-his-cronies/comment-page-1/#comment-46273 Nick Wed, 13 May 2009 10:24:26 +0000 http://www.yrtk.org/?p=754#comment-46273 It would be interesting if the people who received certificates under s.34(1) complained to the ICO on the basis that the House authorities had breached their duties under s.16 by failing to spell out what information was held. The ICO would have jurisdiction to consider that complaint. (Although no jurisdiction if a follow-up certificate under s.34(2) was issued.) It would be interesting if the people who received certificates under s.34(1) complained to the ICO on the basis that the House authorities had breached their duties under s.16 by failing to spell out what information was held. The ICO would have jurisdiction to consider that complaint. (Although no jurisdiction if a follow-up certificate under s.34(2) was issued.)

]]> By: heather http://www.yrtk.org/2009/the-latest-ruse-from-speaker-martin-and-his-cronies/comment-page-1/#comment-46250 heather Wed, 13 May 2009 05:52:07 +0000 http://www.yrtk.org/?p=754#comment-46250 Hi Alex, I seem to recall that in the Lords debate during the passage of the FOIA there was discussion about the use of s34. This would have been in 2000 I believe. And also I think the ICO had said he would keep track of how many certificates had been issued in this manner. I'll try and check into it - but if you find anything let me know. Hi Alex,
I seem to recall that in the Lords debate during the passage of the FOIA there was discussion about the use of s34. This would have been in 2000 I believe. And also I think the ICO had said he would keep track of how many certificates had been issued in this manner.
I’ll try and check into it – but if you find anything let me know.

]]> By: Alex Skene http://www.yrtk.org/2009/the-latest-ruse-from-speaker-martin-and-his-cronies/comment-page-1/#comment-46224 Alex Skene Tue, 12 May 2009 22:50:37 +0000 http://www.yrtk.org/?p=754#comment-46224 Hi Heather There have been a few s34 refusals on WhatDoTheyKnow too House of Commons - no certificates issued, it seems they only issue them when you ask for an internal review (which takes much longer than the recommended 20 working days) http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/home_secretary_jacqui_smith_parl http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/damian_green_arrest House of Lords - examples of their certificates included too - they would look nice framed http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/searches_of_offices_of_members http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/plans_for_digitisation_of_record The ICO are currently rewriting their "Awareness Guidance" note on S34 - there is a draft copy & related email correspondence on the site: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/guidance_re_foia_section_34 I looked back through the Hansard debates for the original FOI Bill, and there was no mention that it was designed for the most sensitive of information. Parliamentary privilege has been around for hundreds of years, it's their method of controlling what gets published out of Parliament: "Each House has the right to prohibit publication of its debates and proceedings. This right is an aspect of Parliament's general right to control its own affairs. Publication of debates, especially false or misleading reports, was in the past repeatedly declared to be a breach of privilege." http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt199899/jtselect/jtpriv/43/4312.htm#n399 Not that I agree with it... Cheers Alex Hi Heather

There have been a few s34 refusals on WhatDoTheyKnow too

House of Commons – no certificates issued, it seems they only issue them when you ask for an internal review (which takes much longer than the recommended 20 working days)
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/home_secretary_jacqui_smith_parl
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/damian_green_arrest

House of Lords – examples of their certificates included too – they would look nice framed
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/searches_of_offices_of_members
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/plans_for_digitisation_of_record

The ICO are currently rewriting their “Awareness Guidance” note on S34 – there is a draft copy & related email correspondence on the site: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/guidance_re_foia_section_34

I looked back through the Hansard debates for the original FOI Bill, and there was no mention that it was designed for the most sensitive of information. Parliamentary privilege has been around for hundreds of years, it’s their method of controlling what gets published out of Parliament:

“Each House has the right to prohibit publication of its debates and proceedings. This right is an aspect of Parliament’s general right to control its own affairs. Publication of debates, especially false or misleading reports, was in the past repeatedly declared to be a breach of privilege.”
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt199899/jtselect/jtpriv/43/4312.htm#n399

Not that I agree with it…

Cheers
Alex

]]>