Well I just got the response to my revised FoI request to the DSA for the internal documents relating to the recent Highway Code for cyclists clauses.
"I am writing to advise you that the Driving Standards Agency does hold the information that is relevant to your request dated 9 May but I am sorry to inform you that it has been decided not to disclose this information.
The information you requested is being withheld in reliance on the exemption in Section 35(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 because release of this information could seriously impact on the policy making process between officials and Ministers. The attached annex A to this letter sets out the exemption in full.
In applying this exemption we have had to balance the public interest in withholding the information against the public interest in disclosure. The key public interest factors for and against disclosure are set out in the attached annex to this letter."
I feel an appeal to the Information Commissioner coming on! I wonder what they have to hide?
-- Tony
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
I feel an appeal to the Information Commissioner coming on! I wonder what they have to hide?
I suspect they don't want to set a precedent - I presume that all similar requests (about whatever bit of policy making) would be declined for the same reasons. Course, if similar FOI requests have worked in the past then that would help in the appeal.
Well I just got the response to my revised FoI request to the DSA for the internal documents relating to the recent Highway Code for cyclists clauses.
I got a similar response to my request for the legal advice they had received which indicated that 'whenever possible' gave greater clarity that 'when practicable'. It would have been nice to know what the clarity was .....
Strikes me that any information a government department has is going to potentially be used in the formulation of policy, and that the get out clause can virtually always be applied :-(
I feel an appeal to the Information Commissioner coming on! I wonder what they have to hide?
I suspect they don't want to set a precedent - I presume that all similar requests (about whatever bit of policy making) would be declined for the same reasons. Course, if similar FOI requests have worked in the past then that would help in the appeal.
I think it would be hard to hold their line. Its hardly major policy stuff, its clearly of great public interest as to how the wording was arrived at that had to be withdrawn. Its probably quite embarrassing but that is not a reason and the purpose is that there should be transparency on decision making. We shall see. I like a challenge!
-- Tony
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
Strikes me that any information a government department has is going to potentially be used in the formulation of policy, and that the get out clause can virtually always be applied :-(
Well of course, this way the government gets to point at their nice shiny Freedom of Information Act and is thus "seen to be doing something", without actually *having* to do anything ...
Cynical? Moi? -- These opinions might not even be mine ... Let alone connected with my employer ...
Well I just got the response to my revised FoI request to the DSA for the internal documents relating to the recent Highway Code for cyclists clauses.
"I am writing to advise you that the Driving Standards Agency does hold the information that is relevant to your request dated 9 May but I am sorry to inform you that it has been decided not to disclose this information.
Quoted message said:
I feel an appeal to the Information Commissioner coming on! I wonder what they have to hide?
If the Information Commissioner tells them to give you these documents, the government can override that decision.
When our current rulers brought this act in, it was advertised as being a very good thing. Yet recently they have been trying to curtail its powers with regards to MPs and the like. If you asked for a document about the previous tory rulers, you would probably get it sent recorded delivery the next day.
However you won't lose anything by appealing, and IMHO their refusal to supply all of these documents is newsworthy.
However you won't lose anything by appealing, and IMHO their refusal to supply all of these documents is newsworthy.
That was my thoughts for down the line especially as first time round they declined on it taking more than three days to gather for a project that was still in progress. First I have to go through their appeals procedure though before the Information Commissioner will take it on.
-- Tony
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
Its probably quite embarrassing but that is not a reason and the purpose is that there should be transparency on decision making. We shall see. I like a challenge!
Well it may not be a valid reason but I'd be astonished if it were not the actual reason. If you're up for the challenge then go for it. I somehow doubt you'll get to see those internal documents though.
Its probably quite embarrassing but that is not a reason and the purpose is that there should be transparency on decision making. We shall see. I like a challenge!
Well it may not be a valid reason but I'd be astonished if it were not the actual reason. If you're up for the challenge then go for it. I somehow doubt you'll get to see those internal documents though.
Fiver says I will.
-- Tony
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
On Jun 18, 8:35 pm, Tony Raven <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Its probably quite embarrassing but that is not a reason and the purpose is that there should be transparency on decision making. We shall see. I like a challenge!
Quoted message said:
Well it may not be a valid reason but I'd be astonished if it were not the actual reason. If you're up for the challenge then go for it. I somehow doubt you'll get to see those internal documents though.
Fiver says I will.
You're on!
I hope I lose; it will be well worth a fiver. Anyone else up for "Challenge Tony"?
I hope I lose; it will be well worth a fiver. Anyone else up for "Challenge Tony"?
Yeah, okay. Not particularly in either hope or expectation of wining, but if Tony needs any more reasons to be bloodymindedly persistent about succeeding I'm happy to provide 5 of them. If I win (and I hope I don't...), the money can go straight to the Cyclists Defence Fund.
Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
"dkahn400" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Tony Raven said:
dkahn400 wrote on 19/06/2007 14:32 +0100:
Quoted message said:
On Jun 18, 8:35 pm, Tony Raven <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted message said:
> Its probably quite embarrassing but that is not a reason and > the purpose is that there should be transparency on decision > making. We shall see. I like a challenge!
Quoted message said:
Well it may not be a valid reason but I'd be astonished if it were not the actual reason. If you're up for the challenge then go for it. I somehow doubt you'll get to see those internal documents though.
Fiver says I will.
You're on!
I hope I lose; it will be well worth a fiver. Anyone else up for "Challenge Tony"?
Yup, count me in for a fiver too. Bloody cheap at the price!
I'm in too. Tony knows his stuff and a fiver here is a glass of wine, justice is cheap after all!
burt said:
"dkahn400" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Tony Raven said:
dkahn400 wrote on 19/06/2007 14:32 +0100:
Quoted message said:
On Jun 18, 8:35 pm, Tony Raven <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted message said:
> Its probably quite embarrassing but that is not a reason and > the purpose is that there should be transparency on decision > making. We shall see. I like a challenge!
Quoted message said:
Well it may not be a valid reason but I'd be astonished if it were not the actual reason. If you're up for the challenge then go for it. I somehow doubt you'll get to see those internal documents though.
Fiver says I will.
You're on!
I hope I lose; it will be well worth a fiver. Anyone else up for "Challenge Tony"?
Yup, count me in for a fiver too. Bloody cheap at the price!
