Backlash - did the Home Office read any of your responses?
Jon Fuller, 27 Feb 2006 22:12:02
1. I posed 3 Freedom of Information questions in my response to the HO
consultation paper. Obviously, I've not received a reply within the required
period. I'm not surprised - because I don't think the HO has any interest in
the views of the private individual. But, that's why I posed 3 FoI requests
- to demonstrate that they DON'T read responses to consultation material !
This is another critical factor in the case to be presented to the European
Court of Human Rights (Strasbourg).
2. Please make sure the smart group receives this e-mail (I've suffered IT
problems before).
Here is the letter I have today issued to the Information Commissioner: -
J Fuller, 27 Feb 2006 22:12:02
Address deleted in this e-mail
27 February 2006
FOI/EIR Complaints Resolution
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Dear Sir/Madam,
Freedom of Information
Consultation on Possession of Extreme Pornography
On 14 November 2005 I issued a FoI request to the Home Office as part of my
investigation into, and response to, the consultation process on the
possession of extreme pornography.
I inserted a freedom of information request for two reasons – one of them to
establish whether the Home Office actually reads responses from the private
citizen.
I submitted a particularly detailed paper which seriously undermined the
Home Office proposals outlined in the consultation paper. My paper supported
the legislation approved by all European Union states - encompassed within
UK legislation in the HRA 1998. My FoI questions sought to tease out
elements in the incompatibility between the HRA and the proposals outlined
in the consultation process.
The Home Office initially acknowledged my response. Then the Minister (Paul
Goggins) wrote to an MP on 20 December, who forwarded me his letter,
providing a very brief outline of his approach following the consultation
process. This response demonstrated to me that he had little understanding
of the complexity of the issues I had raised within the consultation period.
I was convinced that the Home Office had not read my paper. I fear that the
Home Office may have concluded its approach to the consultation process
without examining the detailed reasons why those, opposed to the legislation
proposed, held the views they do.
This issue goes to the core of the purpose of your organisation.
I have been patient, I do not wish to overly embarrass the Home Office, but
I wrote in detail on 14 November, posing my questions, and on 29 January, I
sent a reminder to Mr Goggins. It is expensive photocopying lengthy
documents, so I summarise here the questions posed in my paper of 14
November: -
3. Freedom of Information Requests.
3.1 Request for information which demonstrates that a request has been
issued to a foreign government to investigate an alleged sexual assault or
rape.
3.2 An attempt has been made to find on the Internet an example of a real
time rape video which appears to be a genuine rape. It may be that Home
Office staff have devoted some time to this and have found some material. No
money was spent on pornographic sites during the research undertaken in
support of this response, which may explain why the writer has been unable
to find a convincing example of a real rape. There is therefore some concern
in case the Home Office has claimed material exists which doesn’t (for some
years an “urban myth” was in circulation of the existence of “snuff
videos”).
3.3 Given that the consultation paper suggests that virtually all such sites
are based abroad, it seems reasonable to expect that, if such a site had
been found, and the Home Office had reasonable grounds to suspect that a
real rape had occurred, the Home Office would have asked a foreign
government to investigate. Please would you let me have a copy of any letter
to a foreign government which demonstrates that you have asked it to
investigate an allegation of rape?
3.4 Request for any legal advice which confirms that the possession of
consensual sado-masochistic violent sex can successfully be prosecuted and
that Article 8 does not apply.
3.5 It seems extremely unlikely that violent sado-masochistic sex, which is
consensual, and which is not life threatening, can be deemed to be criminal
(See: 9.1, 9.3 & 9.4 below: Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000:
definition). Furthermore, it seems unlikely that the possession of real
images depicting such acts could also be criminalised – because of the
provisions of Article 8 of the Convention. I would therefore like to see any
legal advice you have received with regard to this specific category of
material.
3.6 Request for sight of any research which demonstrates that children may
be more harmed by access to explicit Internet based material, that is:
material more explicit than that which is permissible within the R18
category (for example “fisting”).
3.7 Would you please direct me to or show me any research you have which
demonstrates that children may be more harmed by viewing extreme material on
the Internet than by seeing R18 material? Or harmed at all by any such
material? (There is a belief that if any harm does occur it may be due to
expressions of adult assumed abhorrence.)
3.8 For your convenience I also provide notice of my intention to make a
further FoI request in 6 months time (see paragraph 5.18 below).
If you insist that I provide a full copy of my paper I will, of course, do
so. But, it is available on the Backlash website. (Campaign group set up to
oppose the proposals intended to determine what consenting adults can, and
cannot do, in the privacy of the bedroom.)
I ask that you seek a response from the Home Office to these FoI requests,
that you investigate the reasons for the delay in replying, and you also
press your obligations to the full - to establish whether the Home Office
actually reads responses received to consultation papers.
While I expect little sympathy from your office to the underlying theme of
my response (the right of consenting adults to enjoy bizarre sex in
private), I do ask that you recognise that Government Departments must read
responses to consultation papers. An objective observer will, of course,
recognise that this has huge implications for issues of mass interest.
Yours faithfully,
J Fuller
demolitionred, 28 Feb 2006 13:19:20
Given that they have responded to Spanner and SM Pride, have pointed out there have been many responses raising similar points I think its safe to say they have read sone of the responses.
How thouroughly and how much attention they have paid may become clearer when Spanner and SM Pride meet with the Home Office representative in the coming weeks.
Jon Fuller, 28 Feb 2006 18:15:36
I'm pretty sure they will read the responses from rep bodies and campaign
groups, but I seriously
wonder if they read the material from individuals.
Good luck at the meeting.
Jon
demolitionred@yahoo.com, 28 Feb 2006 18:15:36
>Subject: [backlash] RE: Backlash - did the Home Office read any of your
>responses?
>
>Given that they have responded to Spanner and SM Pride, have pointed out
>there have been many responses raising similar points I think its safe to
>say they have read sone of the responses.
>
>
>How thouroughly and how much attention they have paid may become clearer
>when Spanner and SM Pride meet with the Home Office representative in the
>coming weeks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
>visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
>To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
>Report abuse
>http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D4390
Hessie, 28 Feb 2006 23:17:14
Jon,
Consultation responses are all filed and analysed. A list of respondees
and a summary of responses should be made available once the analysis
has got that far. If they haven't made such a list and a summary (about
4 pages is typical) online, then feel free to ask them when it will be
done. However, the answer is likely to be "when we can keep a literate
admin person long enough to do it"!
Given the amount of responses, and there's likely two people working on
this entire topic as a small part of their jobs, it's entirely
reasonable that so far they've only been sorted into piles and their
efforts have been concentrated on writing submissions saying "Er
Minister, you know how you wanted this pushed through by Easter, well
actually there's some significant opposition so you're going to have to
think a lot harder, we'll get back to you once we've analysed it all."
OK, I haven't read all the responses sent to me yet for a much smaller
consultation that ended at Christmas, so I would say that, but there is
a limit to what you can expect.
Sticking my FoI hat on, it's arguable that words in a consultation
response, ie not a letter that has to be responded to, don't count as a
'legible' request and/or that the authority has not yet 'received' the
request [see sections 8 and 10 of FOIA
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00036--b.htm]
Write or email them asking the same questions. Mention that you already
asked these questions in a consultation response and haven't had any
acknowledgement.
Bear in mind that if you don't get joy from them, the required next step
is for an internal review (under the s45 Code of Practice), and the IC
won't consider your complaint if you haven't tried that. Don't bother
with Goggins - it's the HO FOI team you need. They do have the worst
stats of any Govt dept...
You've asked for a lot of material, which would probably cost the HO
over £600 (the 'appropriate limit') to dig out, so they are likely to
have to get in touch to ask you to narrow down your request. If you can
be specific about your priorities, this will help them give you what you
want. Another point to bear in mind is that 'info for future
publication' can be withheld under s22 of FOIA, which the HO may make
use of.
If you chase the HO, you should be able to find out what you want to
know - phoning them up and asking may well give you some background into
what research has been done. But adding yet another to the huge backlog
of the ICO is unlikely to get you what you want and may just get you
added to the 'person taking the piss with FoI' pile.
Hessie
Jon Fuller wrote:
> 1. I posed 3 Freedom of Information questions in my response to the HO
> consultation paper. Obviously, I've not received a reply within the
> required
> period. I'm not surprised - because I don't think the HO has any
> interest in
> the views of the private individual. But, that's why I posed 3 FoI requests
> - to demonstrate that they DON'T read responses to consultation material !
>
> This is another critical factor in the case to be presented to the European
> Court of Human Rights (Strasbourg).
>
> 2. Please make sure the smart group receives this e-mail (I've suffered IT
> problems before).
>
>
>
> Here is the letter I have today issued to the Information Commissioner: -
>
>
: J Fuller, 28 Feb 2006 23:17:14
>
> Address deleted in this e-mail
>
> 27 February 2006
>
>
> FOI/EIR Complaints Resolution
> Information Commissioner's Office
> Wycliffe House
> Water Lane
> Wilmslow
> Cheshire
> SK9 5AF
>
>
>
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> Freedom of Information
> Consultation on Possession of Extreme Pornography
>
> On 14 November 2005 I issued a FoI request to the Home Office as part of my
> investigation into, and response to, the consultation process on the
> possession of extreme pornography.
>
> I inserted a freedom of information request for two reasons \x{2013} one of
> them to
> establish whether the Home Office actually reads responses from the private
> citizen.
>
> I submitted a particularly detailed paper which seriously undermined the
> Home Office proposals outlined in the consultation paper. My paper
> supported
> the legislation approved by all European Union states - encompassed within
> UK legislation in the HRA 1998. My FoI questions sought to tease out
> elements in the incompatibility between the HRA and the proposals outlined
> in the consultation process.
>
> The Home Office initially acknowledged my response. Then the Minister (Paul
> Goggins) wrote to an MP on 20 December, who forwarded me his letter,
> providing a very brief outline of his approach following the consultation
> process. This response demonstrated to me that he had little understanding
> of the complexity of the issues I had raised within the consultation
> period.
> I was convinced that the Home Office had not read my paper. I fear that the
> Home Office may have concluded its approach to the consultation process
> without examining the detailed reasons why those, opposed to the
> legislation
> proposed, held the views they do.
>
> This issue goes to the core of the purpose of your organisation.
>
> I have been patient, I do not wish to overly embarrass the Home Office, but
> I wrote in detail on 14 November, posing my questions, and on 29 January, I
> sent a reminder to Mr Goggins. It is expensive photocopying lengthy
> documents, so I summarise here the questions posed in my paper of 14
> November: -
>
> 3. Freedom of Information Requests.
>
> 3.1 Request for information which demonstrates that a request has been
> issued to a foreign government to investigate an alleged sexual assault or
> rape.
>
> 3.2 An attempt has been made to find on the Internet an example of a
> real
> time rape video which appears to be a genuine rape. It may be that Home
> Office staff have devoted some time to this and have found some
> material. No
> money was spent on pornographic sites during the research undertaken in
> support of this response, which may explain why the writer has been unable
> to find a convincing example of a real rape. There is therefore some
> concern
> in case the Home Office has claimed material exists which doesn\x{2019}t (for some
> years an \x{201C}urban myth\x{201D} was in circulation of the existence of \x{201C}snuff
> videos\x{201D}).
>
> 3.3 Given that the consultation paper suggests that virtually all
> such sites
> are based abroad, it seems reasonable to expect that, if such a site had
> been found, and the Home Office had reasonable grounds to suspect that a
> real rape had occurred, the Home Office would have asked a foreign
> government to investigate. Please would you let me have a copy of any
> letter
> to a foreign government which demonstrates that you have asked it to
> investigate an allegation of rape?
>
> 3.4 Request for any legal advice which confirms that the possession of
> consensual sado-masochistic violent sex can successfully be prosecuted and
> that Article 8 does not apply.
>
> 3.5 It seems extremely unlikely that violent sado-masochistic sex,
> which is
> consensual, and which is not life threatening, can be deemed to be criminal
> (See: 9.1, 9.3 & 9.4 below: Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000:
> definition). Furthermore, it seems unlikely that the possession of real
> images depicting such acts could also be criminalised \x{2013} because of the
> provisions of Article 8 of the Convention. I would therefore like to see
> any
> legal advice you have received with regard to this specific category of
> material.
>
> 3.6 Request for sight of any research which demonstrates that
> children may
> be more harmed by access to explicit Internet based material, that is:
> material more explicit than that which is permissible within the R18
> category (for example \x{201C}fisting\x{201D}).
>
> 3.7 Would you please direct me to or show me any research you have which
> demonstrates that children may be more harmed by viewing extreme
> material on
> the Internet than by seeing R18 material? Or harmed at all by any such
> material? (There is a belief that if any harm does occur it may be due to
> expressions of adult assumed abhorrence.)
>
> 3.8 For your convenience I also provide notice of my intention to make a
> further FoI request in 6 months time (see paragraph 5.18 below).
>
>
>
> If you insist that I provide a full copy of my paper I will, of course, do
> so. But, it is available on the Backlash website. (Campaign group set up to
> oppose the proposals intended to determine what consenting adults can, and
> cannot do, in the privacy of the bedroom.)
>
> I ask that you seek a response from the Home Office to these FoI requests,
> that you investigate the reasons for the delay in replying, and you also
> press your obligations to the full - to establish whether the Home Office
> actually reads responses received to consultation papers.
>
> While I expect little sympathy from your office to the underlying theme of
> my response (the right of consenting adults to enjoy bizarre sex in
> private), I do ask that you recognise that Government Departments must read
> responses to consultation papers. An objective observer will, of course,
> recognise that this has huge implications for issues of mass interest.
>
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
>
>
> J Fuller
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D4388
>
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Teddy, 07 Mar 2006 01:44:34
Hi All,
I agree that a more focused approach to the FOI requests might maximise the discomfort felt by the HO from their deceptions and machinations.
Here are 2 suggested questions-
1. What evidence does the goverment have of the existence of even a single adult website which features REAL non-concensual activity? If so, what is being done in co-operation with other governments to bring the culprits to justice and remove the offending material at source?
2. To what extent have the actors/actresses involved in the production of "extreme" pornography been consulted or has evidence been gathered which suggests that these individuals either need or want protection from abuse? How was it concluded that there is a "human cost" involved in the production of this material?
Teddy
Author wrote:
> Jon,
> Consultation responses are all filed and analysed. A list of respondees
> and a summary of responses should be made available once the analysis
> has got that far. If they haven't made such a list and a summary (about
> 4 pages is typical) online, then feel free to ask them when it will be
> done. However, the answer is likely to be "when we can keep a literate
> admin person long enough to do it"!
> Given the amount of responses, and there's likely two people working on
> this entire topic as a small part of their jobs, it's entirely
> reasonable that so far they've only been sorted into piles and their
> efforts have been concentrated on writing submissions saying "Er
> Minister, you know how you wanted this pushed through by Easter, well
> actually there's some significant opposition so you're going to have to
> think a lot harder, we'll get back to you once we've analysed it all."
> OK, I haven't read all the responses sent to me yet for a much smaller
> consultation that ended at Christmas, so I would say that, but there is
> a limit to what you can expect.
> Sticking my FoI hat on, it's arguable that words in a consultation
> response, ie not a letter that has to be responded to, don't count as a
> 'legible' request and/or that the authority has not yet 'received' the
> request [see sections 8 and 10 of FOIA
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00036--b.htm]
> Write or email them asking the same questions. Mention that you already
> asked these questions in a consultation response and haven't had any
> acknowledgement.
> Bear in mind that if you don't get joy from them, the required next step
> is for an internal review (under the s45 Code of Practice), and the IC
> won't consider your complaint if you haven't tried that. Don't bother
> with Goggins - it's the HO FOI team you need. They do have the worst
> stats of any Govt dept...
> You've asked for a lot of material, which would probably cost the HO
> over £600 (the 'appropriate limit') to dig out, so they are likely to
> have to get in touch to ask you to narrow down your request. If you can
> be specific about your priorities, this will help them give you what you
> want. Another point to bear in mind is that 'info for future
> publication' can be withheld under s22 of FOIA, which the HO may make
> use of.
> If you chase the HO, you should be able to find out what you want to
> know - phoning them up and asking may well give you some background into
> what research has been done. But adding yet another to the huge backlog
> of the ICO is unlikely to get you what you want and may just get you
> added to the 'person taking the piss with FoI' pile.
> Hessie