Response to FOI request from Home Office
Arron Fitzgerald, 07 Jul 2006 18:16:43
Dear All,
I received a reply today (pasted below) to my request yesterday under the FOI act for the consultation responses to be released. I am concerned that it originated from the 'National Offender Management Unit'
Arron
Open Government Unit
National Offender Management Service
Room 330, Abell House, John Islip Street
London SWIP 4LH
Direct Tel: 020 7217 1836.
Facsimile:020 7217 5150 .
Email: opengovernment@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
www.noms.homeoffice.gov.uk
David Stokes
Adminstrative Officer
Ref 3831
Mr Arron Fitzgerald
E-Mail Address:arron_fitzgerald@hotmail.co.uk
7th July 2006
Dear Mr Fitzgerald
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Thank you for your e-mail dated 6th July 2006 sent to the CLPU Unit which has been passed to us for attention and in which you ask
I hereby request, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, that all responses to the consultation on the possession of extreme pornography be released.
Your request is being handled in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as a request for information.
We aim to send you a full response within 20 working days of our receiving your request. You should receive this response by 3rd August 2006
If you have any queries about the handling of your information request please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely
David Stokes
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Teddy, 08 Jul 2006 21:03:59
Indeed. Who knows what machinations are happening...
T.
>I am concerned that it originated from the 'National Offender >Management Unit'
> Arron
Graham Marsden, 08 Jul 2006 21:40:55
Hi there,
Arron Fitzgerald wrote:
> I received a reply today (pasted below) to my request yesterday under
> the FOI act for the consultation responses to be released.
Hmm, that looks familiar! I presume they have one "stock" reply that
they send out with the appropriate blanks filled in.
> I am concerned that it originated from the 'National Offender
> Management Unit'
It is a bit unusual, isn't it?
Cheers,
Graham.
deno, 08 Jul 2006 22:36:58
In a message dated 08/07/2006 20:58:05 GMT Standard Time,
Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk writes:
Indeed. Who knows what machinations are happening...
T.
>I am concerned that it originated from the 'National Offender >Management
Unit'
> Arron
Maybe they are dusting off the rack, thumbscrews, cato'nine tails, etc.
At least that's what they would like to do to us! Wonder if there is such a
thing as a non erotic sadist? If so, they can probably be found in the Home
Office fantasising that their's is an effective and well organised arm of
government!
d
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
SnowdropExplodes, 09 Jul 2006 22:45:57
In the online files of Hansard, a quick search revealed 61 mentions of "masochism" in Parliament (including committees, expert advice, etc), and only 40 mentions of sadism. It transpires that a lot of MPs seem to think that their job involves a large element of masochism, the phrase "political masochism" being popular!
Unfortunately, mentions of sadism tended to be in conjunction with such things as dictatorship, gun crime, terrorism, etc.
CORODENCO@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 08/07/2006 20:58:05 GMT Standard Time, Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk writes:
Indeed. Who knows what machinations are happening...
T.
>I am concerned that it originated from the 'National Offender >Management Unit'
> Arron
Maybe they are dusting off the rack, thumbscrews, cato'nine tails, etc.
At least that's what they would like to do to us! Wonder if there is such a thing as a non erotic sadist? If so, they can probably be found in the Home Office fantasising that their's is an effective and well organised arm of government!
d
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a questionnaire
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/backlash
To leave the group, email: backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Photos – NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 7p a photo.
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
deno, 10 Jul 2006 18:40:31
In a message dated 10/07/2006 09:50:41 GMT Standard Time,
snowdrop-explodes@talk21.com writes:
In the online files of Hansard, a quick search revealed 61 mentions of
"masochism" in Parliament (including committees, expert advice, etc), and only 40
mentions of sadism. It transpires that a lot of MPs seem to think that
their job involves a large element of masochism, the phrase "political masochism"
being popular!
Unfortunately, mentions of sadism tended to be in conjunction with such
things as dictatorship, gun crime, terrorism, etc.
That is very interesting and obviously so called political masochism is very
different from the real thing some of us practise!
Saw in today's Times, lead on page 2, "Staff are fleeing Home Office as
morale collapses."
Seems the so called government is now ruled by the tabloid press. Of
particular concern is Reid's statement that he would consider introducing a version
of "Megan's Law" following a campaign by that awful rag "News of the World"
Child protection groups have cautioned that this could result in more
children being abused by offenders driven underground.
As futile and counterproductive as proposed legislation to ban possession of
so called extreme porn. Good that 'nillas have given us this label, "so
called" as we can use it to describe their pathetic approach and proposals.
deno posted 10 July
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
doulos, 11 Jul 2006 16:06:44
How long can they delay replying before breaking the data protection act?
On 7/10/06, CORODENCO@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 10/07/2006 09:50:41 GMT Standard Time, snowdrop-explodes@talk21.com writes:
> In the online files of Hansard, a quick search revealed 61 mentions of "masochism" in Parliament (including committees, expert advice, etc), and only 40 mentions of sadism. It transpires that a lot of MPs seem to think that their job involves a large element of masochism, the phrase "political masochism" being popular!
>
> Unfortunately, mentions of sadism tended to be in conjunction with such things as dictatorship, gun crime, terrorism, etc.
>
>
> That is very interesting and obviously so called political masochism is very different from the real thing some of us practise!
> Saw in today's Times, lead on page 2, "Staff are fleeing Home Office as morale collapses."
> Seems the so called government is now ruled by the tabloid press. Of particular concern is Reid's statement that he would consider introducing a version of "Megan's Law" following a campaign by that awful rag "News of the World" Child protection groups have cautioned that this could result in more children being abused by offenders driven underground.
> As futile and counterproductive as proposed legislation to ban possession of so called extreme porn. Good that 'nillas have given us this label, "so called" as we can use it to describe their pathetic approach and proposals.
>
> deno posted 10 July
>
>
>
>
>
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a questionnaire
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/backlash
>
>
> To leave the group, email: backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
>
>
>
snowflake, 11 Jul 2006 17:15:14
On 11/07/06, doulos wrote:
> How long can they delay replying before breaking the data protection act?
It wouldn't be the DPA they'd break here, it'd be the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. I don't know for sure how long they have
off-hand but I'll look it up at work if I get a minute.
Zoë
Paul Tavener, 11 Jul 2006 19:57:29
20 working days, and all that is required is for them to reply not to answer the question. They may say it will take more time and string it out for a few more weeks but they will respond in the end. Don't expect anything before the 21st July. This is when the Government will publish there proposals.
Why the 21st July? Because thats the last day of Parliament before the summer recess and they will want to throw the new proposals to the press and run for home.
Author wrote:
> On 11/07/06, doulos wrote:
> > How long can they delay replying before breaking the data protection act?
> It wouldn't be the DPA they'd break here, it'd be the Freedom of
> Information Act 2000. I don't know for sure how long they have
> off-hand but I'll look it up at work if I get a minute.
> Zoë
demolitionred, 12 Jul 2006 12:22:45
the house rises on the 25th.
http://www.parliament.uk/what_s_on/recess.cfm
*** This message has been edited by demolitionred on 12 Jul 2006 12:17:59 ***
Paul Tavener, 13 Jul 2006 06:21:53
My mistake - 25th it is (I was looking at 2005!)
Author wrote:
> the house rises on the 25th.
> http://www.parliament.uk/what_s_on/recess.cfm
Graham Marsden, 02 Aug 2006 23:50:43
Hi there,
I've just got the response to my FOI request.
And guess what. It turns out to be a weasel...
* * * * *
Dear Mr Marsden
I refer to your email of 6 July in which you asked, under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (FoIA), for the full disclosure of all individual
replies [in the consultation on extreme pornography] before the
publication of the Home Office?s response
Perhaps I could start by explaining that the deadline for responding to
the proposals announced by Paul Goggins on 31 August 2005 was 2nd
December 2005 and approximately 400 responses were received from
organizations and private individuals. The Home Office is currently
analysing the responses, and the result of the consultation exercise
will be announced in due course. The intention is to make publicly
available as many of the responses as possible, anonymized where
necessary, at that time.
Turning to your FoIA request, we do hold the material you requested but
I cannot release it as it is exempt from disclosure under s.35(1)(a) of
the Act, i.e. information held for ?the formulation or development of
government policy?. As you know, this is a ?qualified? exemption
subject to a ?public interest test?. The argument for disclosure is
that the public are entitled to see behind decisions so that they are
confident that these have been taken only after full consultation and
consideration of the issues involved. The counter-argument is that
there are stages in the formulation of policy when it would not assist
the process to disclose the information on which options are being
formulated and decisions taken. Also there is the risk that consultees
may be reluctant to contribute if they thought that their responses
would be put into the public domain outside the established procedures
for publishing the results of consultation exercises. In this case, I
consider that the public interest in maintaining an effective
consultation process is best served by not releasing the responses at
this point. However, we are committed to releasing this information
once the exercise has been completed.
I am sorry that we were unable to answer your request for information on
this occasion. If you are not satisfied that your request has been
handled in accordance with the requirements of the FoIA, you may ask for
an independent internal review by writing to:
Home Office
Information Policy Team
4th Floor
Seacole
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
or by emailing to: info.access@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
The review will be carried out by staff who were not involved in
providing you with this response. Should you remain dissatisfied after
this internal review, you have the right, under s.50 of the Act, to
refer the matter to the Information Commissioner:
http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/
Yours sincerely
Bernard McGinley
* * * * *
The relevant part is the statement:
"The counter-argument is that there are stages in the formulation of
policy when it would not assist the process to disclose the information
on which options are being formulated and decisions taken. Also there
is the risk that consultees may be reluctant to contribute if they
thought that their responses would be put into the public domain outside
the established procedures for publishing the results of consultation
exercises. In this case, I consider that the public interest in
maintaining an effective consultation process is best served by not
releasing the responses at this point."
And my response is "Bullshit!"
I would not expect, nor should they release any details that people have
requested be kept confidential, but that's not "putting them into the
public domain outside the established procedures", that's simply hiding
behind the letter of the law and playing "passive/ aggressive" by saying
"you asked for them all, but I can't give you them all, so I'm not going
to give you any!" So ner!.
So I'm going to write requesting a review and explaining this point (as
if they needed it explained).
Although I don't doubt that it will take ages...
Cheers,
Graham.
Graham Marsden, 15 Aug 2006 11:46:17
Hi there,
With regard to the weaselly response I got from the Home Office, here is
the letter of complaint I have sent objecting to it.
Cheers,
Graham.
* * * * *
Dear Sirs,
On the 6th of July I made a request under Freedom of Information Act
with regard to the Home Office's Consultation on Extreme Pornography,
where I requested the full disclosure of all individual replies before
the publication of the Home Office's response, instead of, as they had
stated, at some unspecified time afterwards.
On the 1st of August I received a reply from Bernard McGinley stating that:
"I cannot release it as it is exempt from disclosure under s.35(1)(a) of
the Act, i.e. information held for ?the formulation or development of
government policy?. As you know, this is a ?qualified? exemption
subject to a ?public interest test?. The argument for disclosure is
that the public are entitled to see behind decisions so that they are
confident that these have been taken only after full consultation and
consideration of the issues involved. The counter-argument is that
there are stages in the formulation of policy when it would not assist
the process to disclose the information on which options are being
formulated and decisions taken. Also there is the risk that consultees
may be reluctant to contribute if they thought that their responses
would be put into the public domain outside the established procedures
for publishing the results of consultation exercises. In this case, I
consider that the public interest in maintaining an effective
consultation process is best served by not releasing the responses at
this point. However, we are committed to releasing this information
once the exercise has been completed."
I have to say that I consider this statement to be nonsense and it seems
to simply be an attempt to fob me off with a lot of "officialese".
As far as I am aware, consultation responses are not "information held
for "the formulation or development of government policy", but are
intended to inform the decision making process and express the views of
those who have an opinion on the subject, as such, I believe this
statement to be, at best, a creative interpretation of the regulations.
The claim that "there is the risk that consultees may be reluctant to
contribute if they thought that their responses would be put into the
public domain outside the established procedures for publishing the
results of consultation exercises" is also ridiculous.
Contributions to any consultation, including this one, will be made
available at some point unless there is a specific reason to keep them
confidential, so this implies that if their contributions are released
"early" it will somehow cause people to decide that they will not
contribute at all, which I think is a completely fallacious conclusion.
Even if some contributors requested their responses be kept
confidential, such as, for instance, if they would reveal personal
information, this is not a reason for a "blanket denial" of access to
all responses, it would have been perfectly acceptable for a somewhat
limited set of replies to be released excluding these ones, however
unfortunately Mr McGinley seems to have assumed a "passive/ aggressive"
stance and is saying "you can't have some of these, so I'm not going to
let you have any at all!"
Given that this is a contentious subject and that, as Mr McGinley says,
decisions should be made "only after full consultation and consideration
of the issues involved", if those of us who wish to argue against the
proposals are to be able to make an effective rebuttal of them and the
points raised by those who are in favour of them (or vice versa), it
would only be fair and reasonable and in the public interest for
responses to be released and subjected to scrutiny and peer review to
ensure they are factually accurate before any decisions are made based
upon them.
By the way, I have also been made aware that another person who made a
similar Freedom of Information request in this matter received a letter
which was virtually identical to the one I was sent, so it seems that Mr
McGinley simply has a stock "refusal letter" where he fills in the
blanks as appropriate and dispatches it to anyone he wishes to fob off.
I trust you will look into this matter and take the appropriate action.
Yours Faithfully,
Graham Marsden.
Paul Tavener, 16 Aug 2006 06:04:37
I have just sent in a complaint that I have not recieved a response in the allotted 20 day time frame. Unless they are going to claim that they sent it and I didn't recieve it, it looks like they are in a bit of a mess.
Author wrote:
> Hi there,
> With regard to the weaselly response I got from the Home Office, here is
> the letter of complaint I have sent objecting to it.
> Cheers,
> Graham.
Graham Marsden, 27 Sep 2006 17:36:17
Hi there,
graham wrote:
> With regard to the weaselly response I got from the Home Office, here is
> the letter of complaint I have sent objecting to it.
And here is the response I've just received:
* * * * *
Dear Mr Marsden
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: INTERNAL REVIEW
I write further to my acknowledgement of 15 August in relation to your
request that I reconsider Mr McGinley\x{2019}s decision of 1 August to refuse
your request for disclosure of the responses to the Home Office
consultation on extreme pornography under section 35(1)(a) of the
Freedom of Information Act. I am now in a position to offer you a
substantive response.
As you are probably aware, the Home Office\x{2019}s response to this
consultation has now been published and is available on the main Home
Office website at
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-extreme-porn-3008051/. That
page of our website also indicates that the responses to the
consultation are also now available and therefore that the Home Office
no longer considers the bulk of this information exempt.
We can supply the majority of this information to you in one of two
formats, either electronically on a CD or in hard copy. Given that we
have around 600 pages of information to disclose to you and a number of
other applicants the most cost effective way of transmitting this
information to you would be by CD rather than in hard copy. I would be
grateful if you could supply me with a postal address so that I can send
this information to you.
It is not however possible to disclose all the responses to you at the
current time. As you may know Graham Coutts is to face a new trial for
the killing of Jane Longhurst. Some of the responses to the consultation
contain information relating to this case and consequently these
responses are currently being withheld under Section 31(1)(b) of the FOI
Act. This absolves us of our duty to disclose information where
disclosure would prejudice the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
This exemption is however subject to the public interest test and
therefore can only be applied where the public interest favours
withholding the information.
While there in a strong public interest in favour of openness in terms
of the increased degree of accountability it brings to policy
formulation, in this case in relation to the evidence base on which the
government response to the consultation is founded; this is outweighed
at the current time by the public interest in ensuring that there is no
risk that the trial could be prejudiced in any way. Once the trial has
taken place the public interest against disclosure will clearly diminish.
In addition the personal details of respondents have been redacted from
the versions available to you in accordance with section 40(3) of the
FOI Act, which states that personal data should not be released where
disclosure would represent a breach of the principles established by the
Data Protection Act. Of particular relevance is the part of the first
data protection principle that all disclosures of personal data should
be fair to the subject of that data.
I turn now to my review of Mr McGinley\x{2019}s earlier decision to withhold
this information under section 35(1)(a) of the FOI Act. After thorough
consideration I have concluded that Mr McGinley was correct, on 1
August, to withhold this information from you under this exemption.
While I will explain my reasons for coming to this conclusion below, you
will of course recognise that the exemption no longer applies now that
the government response to this consultation has been published.
As Mr McGinley\x{2019}s letter of 1 August made clear section 35(1)(a) of the
FOI Act absolves public authorities from disclosing information relating
to the formulation and development of government policy. The responses
to this consultation exercise clearly relate to the formulation and
development of new policy in this area and consequently fall within its
scope.
However this exemption is subject to the public interest test, and may
therefore only be invoked where the public interest in withholding the
information outweighs that in favour of releasing it. While I agree
that, on 1 August, the balance of the public interest favoured
withholding the information I am not entirely in agreement with the
arguments put forward.
I agree that there is a strong public interest in openness in the
interests of accountability, and also to enable the public to make an
informed contribution to debate. Indeed the purpose of the public
consultation exercise was to facilitate public contribution to debate.
In opposition to this Mr McGinley explained at there are times in the
process of policy formulation where it is not appropriate to disclose
information. I agree with this comment, which I believe to have been of
overriding importance and as such I think deserved a more detailed
explanation. The public consultation exercise gave people the
opportunity to contribute to policy development in this area, and the
responses to the consultation then had to be considered and analysed in
order to produce the published summary of responses and consider policy
options. It is important that once the evidence is collected, officials
have the space in which to consider the points made in private. This is
so that arguments can be weighed against each other fairly and
objectively, and conclusions reached within a reasonable timescale that
could be adversely affected by additional comments being submitted about
the responses already received.
I do not agree however with NOMS\x{2019} assertion that people would be less
likely to take part if they thought that their response would be
disclosed before the summary of responses was published. If they were to
be dissuaded from taking part through fear of disclosure I believe that
they would be put off contributing by the very thought of disclosure
occurring at any time in the near future, before or after the policy is
formulated or summary published.
Mr McGinley did of course inform you that the responses would be
available after publication of the government response to the
consultation. Although the information still relates to the formulation
and government policy, the public interest in giving officials the space
to consider the responses received in private is no more. Consequently
the majority of the information you requested can now be disclosed to
you, although I maintain that the reasons given previously for denying
you access in August were then largely correct.
Should you remain dissatisfied after this internal review, you have a
right of complaint to the Information Commissioner as established by
section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act. The contact address is:
Information Commissioner
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
I look forward with supplying you with the majority of the information
requested on receipt of a postal address.
Yours sincerely
Oliver Lendrum
Information Policy Manager
* * * * *
So, points....
1) Regarding the retrial, witholding of information to ensure fairness
is, of course, no problem.
2) Personal information witheld, again, no problem.
3) Review of decision to withold information prior to the Government's
response.
"While I agree that, on 1 August, the balance of the public interest
favoured withholding the information I am not entirely in agreement with
the arguments put forward."
Hmm, a partial victory this, but not conclusive by any means.
Mr Ledrum agrees where "Mr McGinley explained at there are times in the
process of policy formulation where it is not appropriate to disclose
information. I agree with this comment, which I believe to have been of
overriding importance" but at least he says "as such I think deserved a
more detailed explanation"
He goes on to say: "It is important that once the evidence is collected,
officials have the space in which to consider the points made in
private. This is so that arguments can be weighed against each other
fairly and objectively, and conclusions reached within a reasonable
timescale that could be adversely affected by additional comments being
submitted about the responses already received."
The problem with this is that someone could post completely bogus claims
and arguments which would not be subject to scrutiny by those who may
know that they were bogus until *after* the conclusions were drawn.
He also says "I do not agree however with NOMS\x{2019} assertion that people
would be less likely to take part if they thought that their response
would be disclosed before the summary of responses was published."
IMO that claim by NOMS was completely bogus, so hopefully at least
they'll get their backsides kiced for that one.
So I can't claim a stunning victory, but hopefully (when we've seen the
responses) we might be able to make a case that we couldn't argue
against the "opposition" fairly or check to see if they were making
bogus claims, because we couldn't see those claims until it was too late.
Cheers,
Graham.
Graham Marsden, 27 Sep 2006 19:34:30
Hi there,
graham wrote:
> With regard to the weaselly response I got from the Home Office, here is
> the letter of complaint I have sent objecting to it.
And here's the response I've sent back, although it's unlikely to have
an effect now...
* * * * *
Dear Mr Lendrum,
Thank you for your letter.
I appreciate your comments and, in the main, I agree with what you have
said. Obviously, given the pending retrial of Graham Coutts and the need
to protect respondants anonymity, I can appreciate that some information
still needs to be witheld.
I cannot, however, necessarily agree with your statement where you say
"It is important that once the evidence is collected, officials have the
space in which to consider the points made in private. This is so that
arguments can be weighed against each other fairly and objectively, and
conclusions reached within a reasonable timescale that could be
adversely affected by additional comments being submitted about the
responses already received."
Yes, the points made need to be considered fairly and objectively and
within a reasonable timescale, however it is possible that some of those
points made could be completely bogus.
For instance even Martin Salter MP, in a recent statement, made
reference to so-called "Snuff Movies". It is a well known fact amongst
the BDSM community and many others that the existence of these films is
a complete Urban Myth. Despite thirty years of searching, law
enforcement agencies have never found an example of such a thing.
However if someone, in their response, was to make an argument based on
the existence of Snuff Movies and the people who were to make the
decision were ignorant of this fact, as Mr Salter appears to have been,
their judgement could have been clouded by an entirely fallacious claim.
As such, were I, or others, to have been able to see all responses and
were we to have found such a claim, we could have countered it *before*
any decisions were made, rather than afterwards.
Obviously, since the decisions have now been made, this point is moot,
however I suggest you may like to consider this in further cases of this
sort.
Yours Sincerely,
Graham Marsden.
* * * * *
Teddy, 27 Sep 2006 20:09:34
"As you may know Graham Coutts is to face a new trial for
the killing of Jane Longhurst. Some of the responses to the consultation contain information relating to this case and consequently these responses are currently being withheld under Section 31(1)(b) of the FOI Act."
What the hell is this about?! OK for the story to be plastered onto the tabloid pages, but it represents a state secret where consultation responses are comcerned? Did anyone forward new evidence relating to the case as part of their response, which needs concealment? I doubt it...more utter bollocks from the HO.
T.
Author wrote:
> Hi there,
> graham wrote:
> > With regard to the weaselly response I got from the Home Office, here is
> > the letter of complaint I have sent objecting to it.
> And here is the response I've just received:
> * * * * *