URGENT! FOI Response from Home Office
Arron Fitzgerald, 03 Aug 2006 05:11:59
Dear All
Have recevied a response from the Home Office to my request to release all responses to the consultation (pasted below). They are claiming exemption on the grounds that the 'premature' release of this information might prejudice the future 'formulation or development of government policy". Obviously I consider this argument to be absurd, and will be appealing both through the Home Office's internal review process, but also directly and immediately to the Information Commisioner.
Arron
Dear Mr Fitzgerald
I refer to your email of 6 July in which you asked, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA), for
all responses to the consultation on the possession of extreme pornography
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
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Paul Tavener, 04 Aug 2006 05:06:54
You must appeal to the Home Office (interenal review) before you can appeal to the Information Commissioner and you should give them some reasons why release would very much be in the public interest and indeed why the retention of these responses is itself not in the public interest. I will try to go over this in more detail later for you.
"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."
This is palpable nonsense! The real risk is that consultees may be offended to think that there views are inconsequential and not being taken seriously because the Government is not following the established procedure - especialy since people were aware of the fact that the responses were to be made public.
The fact that the Home Office have refused to release the replies from a public consultation which they promised (I think) to publish should be a very powerful weapon against the Home Office in its own right.
I suggest that you send it to the papers. You don't even have to say which side of the fence you are on concerning this legislation! A clearly made point about open Government should prove fairly embarissing/damaging.
I would also suggest that you follow the appeals process to the letter - it will take ages but you will get there in the end.
Author wrote:
> Dear All
> Have recevied a response from the Home Office to my request to release all responses to the consultation (pasted below). They are claiming exemption on the grounds that the 'premature' release of this information might prejudice the future 'formulation or development of government policy". Obviously I consider this argument to be absurd, and will be appealing both through the Home Office's internal review process, but also directly and immediately to the Information Commisioner.
> Arron
> Dear Mr Fitzgerald
> I refer to your email of 6 July in which you asked, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA), for
> all responses to the consultation on the possession of extreme pornography
> 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
Teddy, 04 Aug 2006 06:18:40
To me, this indicates that they realise it will be easier to spin something out before the (largely negative) responses are made public...we'll see.
T.
Author wrote:
> Dear All
> Have recevied a response from the Home Office to my request to release all responses to the consultation (pasted below). They are claiming exemption on the grounds that the 'premature' release of this information might prejudice the future 'formulation or development of government policy". Obviously I consider this argument to be absurd, and will be appealing both through the Home Office's internal review process, but also directly and immediately to the Information Commisioner.
> Arron
> Dear Mr Fitzgerald
> I refer to your email of 6 July in which you asked, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA), for
> all responses to the consultation on the possession of extreme pornography
> 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
Graham Marsden, 04 Aug 2006 10:03:28
Hi there,
Arron Fitzgerald wrote:
> Have recevied a response from the Home Office to my request to release
> all responses to the consultation (pasted below).
Hmm, that looks very familiar!
"What's that? FOI Request? Oh send them stock denial letter #3 and fill
in the blanks as needed..."
Cheers,
Graham.
demolitionred, 05 Aug 2006 00:19:27
Can you contact mac_rame@yahoo.com who has had a similar response and has already written back. Paul Taverener of ofwatch andis also suggesting a concerted media attack to deal with this ludicrous development so should be contacted too.
Graham too made a FOIA request.
Author wrote:
> Dear All
> Have recevied a response from the Home Office to my request to release all responses to the consultation (pasted below). They are claiming exemption on the grounds that the 'premature' release of this information might prejudice the future 'formulation or development of government policy". Obviously I consider this argument to be absurd, and will be appealing both through the Home Office's internal review process, but also directly and immediately to the Information Commisioner.
> Arron
> Dear Mr Fitzgerald
> I refer to your email of 6 July in which you asked, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA), for
> all responses to the consultation on the possession of extreme pornography
> 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
snowflake, 05 Aug 2006 04:26:00
[ Attachment Removed: ]
deno, 05 Aug 2006 11:39:46
In a message dated 03/08/2006 14:31:43 GMT Standard Time,
arron_fitzgerald@hotmail.co.uk writes:
responses to the consultation (pasted below). They are claiming exemption on
the grounds that the 'premature' release of this information might prejudice
the future 'formulation or development of government policy". Obviously I
consider this argument to be absurd, and will be appealing both through the
Home Office's internal review process, but also directly and immediately to the
Information Commisioner.>
Hi Arron
Thanks for interesting information on latest development. It seems
significant that they require more time to consider replies to the consultation. As
we know it is not the simplistic
matter which 'nillas first envisaged and some of the responses gave
references which need to be researched. Maybe the longer they take in consideration
the more likely they are to
"let the matter drop" as the Bishop said in the pigsty (Private Eye).
You mention absurd arguement, but they quote the section of a Law which
allows them
more time. It seems, for once, they know what they are doing, especially as
they gave you details of how to appeal. Seems they will not be at all
bothered, and I am wondering supposing we did wins appeals for premature release
(according to them) how would it benefit backlash?
Obviously our best outcome would be for the proposals to die a natural
death. If we try, at this time, to kill it off (by asphyxiation!), or needle
them, will we provoke a backlash on us in the form of some cobbled up,
disasterous draft legislation?
deno
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Paul Tavener, 07 Aug 2006 01:42:57
I would agree that the best option would be to let the matter die a natural death, but unfortunately I don't think it's that likely. I think they are still trying to patch something together and our interests would be best served by keeping on at them. It might just be the straw that breaks the camels back.
I don't believe that even the HO would be prepared to re-introduce legislation purely for the purpose of spiteing Backlash.
Author wrote:
> In a message dated 03/08/2006 14:31:43 GMT Standard Time,
> arron_fitzgerald@hotmail.co.uk writes:
> > responses to the consultation (pasted below). They are claiming exemption on
> the grounds that the 'premature' release of this information might prejudice
> the future 'formulation or development of government policy". Obviously I
> consider this argument to be absurd, and will be appealing both through the
> Home Office's internal review process, but also directly and immediately to the
> Information Commisioner.>
> Hi Arron
> Thanks for interesting information on latest development. It seems
> significant that they require more time to consider replies to the consultation. As
> we know it is not the simplistic
> matter which 'nillas first envisaged and some of the responses gave
> references which need to be researched. Maybe the longer they take in consideration
> the more likely they are to
> "let the matter drop" as the Bishop said in the pigsty (Private Eye).
> You mention absurd arguement, but they quote the section of a Law which
> allows them
> more time. It seems, for once, they know what they are doing, especially as
> they gave you details of how to appeal. Seems they will not be at all
> bothered, and I am wondering supposing we did wins appeals for premature release
> (according to them) how would it benefit backlash?
> Obviously our best outcome would be for the proposals to die a natural
> death. If we try, at this time, to kill it off (by asphyxiation!), or needle
> them, will we provoke a backlash on us in the form of some cobbled up,
> disasterous draft legislation?
> deno
Hessie , Fri, 04 Aug 2006 23:36:07 +0100
Reply-To: hessie@lineone.net
References:
Arron,
Am I right in thinking that you requested all the consultation
responses, nothing more?
In which case they are talking crap; using that logic no consultation
responses would ever be released!
1. It's routine to release consultation responses, as implied in the
consultation document which emphasises that responses are not confidential.
2. Consultation responses are made freely available under the Home
Office's consultation scheme, so exemption does not apply. "
FOI: "19. - (1) It shall be the duty of every public authority-
(a) to adopt and maintain a scheme which relates to the publication of
information by the authority and is approved by the Commissioner (in
this Act referred to as a "publication scheme"),
(b) to publish information in accordance with its publication scheme,
and http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/ho-pubscheme.pdf
"Class: Public consultation
Description: Public consultation documents, supporting documents and
responses or summaries of responses from 2002"
3. The exemption used makes no sense:
"35. - (1) Information held by a government department or by the
National Assembly for Wales is exempt information if it relates to-
(a) the formulation or development of government policy,"
Consultation responses are factual information. They do not 'relate' to
formulation of policy, simply inform it.
Fourthly, any refusal letter under a qualified exemption of FOI has to
explain how the public interest test has been weighed up:
They must under 17(1)(c) "states (if that would not otherwise be
apparent) why the exemption applies." and also under 17(3) the authority
must "state the reasons for claiming-...(b) that, in all the
circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the
exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information."
And finally, the refusal notice must explain how you can appeal against
the decision:
"17 (7) A notice under subsection (1), (3) or (5) must-
(a) contain particulars of any procedure provided by the public
authority for dealing with complaints about the handling of requests for
information or state that the authority does not provide such a
procedure, and (b) contain particulars of the right conferred by section
50."
Please do write back to them pointing all this out, being very helpful
and offering to come in and look through the file yourself, etc. There's
no point writing to the IC at this stage - you do have to give the dept
a chance to sort it out first.(section 50)
It won't surprise you that the HO have more outstanding complaints than
any other. One problem is any employee with a brain cell is running away
ASAP...
If you would like any assistance in drafting a suitably snotty letter,
please email me direct.
Hessie
Arron Fitzgerald wrote:
> Dear All
>
> Have recevied a response from the Home Office to my request to release all responses to the consultation (pasted below). They are claiming exemption on the grounds that the 'premature' release of this information might prejudice the future 'formulation or development of government policy". Obviously I consider this argument to be absurd, and will be appealing both through the Home Office's internal review process, but also directly and immediately to the Information Commisioner.
>
> Arron
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Mr Fitzgerald
>
> I refer to your email of 6 July in which you asked, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA), for
>
> all responses to the consultation on the possession of extreme pornography
>
> 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 t
hat 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D5305
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Hessie , Fri, 04 Aug 2006 23:36:07 +0100
Reply-To: hessie@lineone.net
References:
Arron,
Am I right in thinking that you requested all the consultation
responses, nothing more?
In which case they are talking crap; using that logic no consultation
responses would ever be released!
1. It's routine to release consultation responses, as implied in the
consultation document which emphasises that responses are not confidential.
2. Consultation responses are made freely available under the Home
Office's consultation scheme, so exemption does not apply. "
FOI: "19. - (1) It shall be the duty of every public authority-
(a) to adopt and maintain a scheme which relates to the publication of
information by the authority and is approved by the Commissioner (in
this Act referred to as a "publication scheme"),
(b) to publish information in accordance with its publication scheme,
and http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/ho-pubscheme.pdf
"Class: Public consultation
Description: Public consultation documents, supporting documents and
responses or summaries of responses from 2002"
3. The exemption used makes no sense:
"35. - (1) Information held by a government department or by the
National Assembly for Wales is exempt information if it relates to-
(a) the formulation or development of government policy,"
Consultation responses are factual information. They do not 'relate' to
formulation of policy, simply inform it.
Fourthly, any refusal letter under a qualified exemption of FOI has to
explain how the public interest test has been weighed up:
They must under 17(1)(c) "states (if that would not otherwise be
apparent) why the exemption applies." and also under 17(3) the authority
must "state the reasons for claiming-...(b) that, in all the
circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the
exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information."
And finally, the refusal notice must explain how you can appeal against
the decision:
"17 (7) A notice under subsection (1), (3) or (5) must-
(a) contain particulars of any procedure provided by the public
authority for dealing with complaints about the handling of requests for
information or state that the authority does not provide such a
procedure, and (b) contain particulars of the right conferred by section
50."
Please do write back to them pointing all this out, being very helpful
and offering to come in and look through the file yourself, etc. There's
no point writing to the IC at this stage - you do have to give the dept
a chance to sort it out first.(section 50)
It won't surprise you that the HO have more outstanding complaints than
any other. One problem is any employee with a brain cell is running away
ASAP...
If you would like any assistance in drafting a suitably snotty letter,
please email me direct.
Hessie
Arron Fitzgerald wrote:
> Dear All
>
> Have recevied a response from the Home Office to my request to release all responses to the consultation (pasted below). They are claiming exemption on the grounds that the 'premature' release of this information might prejudice the future 'formulation or development of government policy". Obviously I consider this argument to be absurd, and will be appealing both through the Home Office's internal review process, but also directly and immediately to the Information Commisioner.
>
> Arron
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Mr Fitzgerald
>
> I refer to your email of 6 July in which you asked, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA), for
>
> all responses to the consultation on the possession of extreme pornography
>
> 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 t
hat 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D5305
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Hessie , Fri, 04 Aug 2006 23:36:07 +0100
Reply-To: hessie@lineone.net
References:
Arron,
Am I right in thinking that you requested all the consultation
responses, nothing more?
In which case they are talking crap; using that logic no consultation
responses would ever be released!
1. It's routine to release consultation responses, as implied in the
consultation document which emphasises that responses are not confidential.
2. Consultation responses are made freely available under the Home
Office's consultation scheme, so exemption does not apply. "
FOI: "19. - (1) It shall be the duty of every public authority-
(a) to adopt and maintain a scheme which relates to the publication of
information by the authority and is approved by the Commissioner (in
this Act referred to as a "publication scheme"),
(b) to publish information in accordance with its publication scheme,
and http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/ho-pubscheme.pdf
"Class: Public consultation
Description: Public consultation documents, supporting documents and
responses or summaries of responses from 2002"
3. The exemption used makes no sense:
"35. - (1) Information held by a government department or by the
National Assembly for Wales is exempt information if it relates to-
(a) the formulation or development of government policy,"
Consultation responses are factual information. They do not 'relate' to
formulation of policy, simply inform it.
Fourthly, any refusal letter under a qualified exemption of FOI has to
explain how the public interest test has been weighed up:
They must under 17(1)(c) "states (if that would not otherwise be
apparent) why the exemption applies." and also under 17(3) the authority
must "state the reasons for claiming-...(b) that, in all the
circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the
exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information."
And finally, the refusal notice must explain how you can appeal against
the decision:
"17 (7) A notice under subsection (1), (3) or (5) must-
(a) contain particulars of any procedure provided by the public
authority for dealing with complaints about the handling of requests for
information or state that the authority does not provide such a
procedure, and (b) contain particulars of the right conferred by section
50."
Please do write back to them pointing all this out, being very helpful
and offering to come in and look through the file yourself, etc. There's
no point writing to the IC at this stage - you do have to give the dept
a chance to sort it out first.(section 50)
It won't surprise you that the HO have more outstanding complaints than
any other. One problem is any employee with a brain cell is running away
ASAP...
If you would like any assistance in drafting a suitably snotty letter,
please email me direct.
Hessie
Arron Fitzgerald wrote:
> Dear All
>
> Have recevied a response from the Home Office to my request to release all responses to the consultation (pasted below). They are claiming exemption on the grounds that the 'premature' release of this information might prejudice the future 'formulation or development of government policy". Obviously I consider this argument to be absurd, and will be appealing both through the Home Office's internal review process, but also directly and immediately to the Information Commisioner.
>
> Arron
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Mr Fitzgerald
>
> I refer to your email of 6 July in which you asked, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA), for
>
> all responses to the consultation on the possession of extreme pornography
>
> 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 t
hat 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D5305
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Hessie , Fri, 04 Aug 2006 23:36:07 +0100
Reply-To: hessie@lineone.net
References:
Arron,
Am I right in thinking that you requested all the consultation
responses, nothing more?
In which case they are talking crap; using that logic no consultation
responses would ever be released!
1. It's routine to release consultation responses, as implied in the
consultation document which emphasises that responses are not confidential.
2. Consultation responses are made freely available under the Home
Office's consultation scheme, so exemption does not apply. "
FOI: "19. - (1) It shall be the duty of every public authority-
(a) to adopt and maintain a scheme which relates to the publication of
information by the authority and is approved by the Commissioner (in
this Act referred to as a "publication scheme"),
(b) to publish information in accordance with its publication scheme,
and http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/ho-pubscheme.pdf
"Class: Public consultation
Description: Public consultation documents, supporting documents and
responses or summaries of responses from 2002"
3. The exemption used makes no sense:
"35. - (1) Information held by a government department or by the
National Assembly for Wales is exempt information if it relates to-
(a) the formulation or development of government policy,"
Consultation responses are factual information. They do not 'relate' to
formulation of policy, simply inform it.
Fourthly, any refusal letter under a qualified exemption of FOI has to
explain how the public interest test has been weighed up:
They must under 17(1)(c) "states (if that would not otherwise be
apparent) why the exemption applies." and also under 17(3) the authority
must "state the reasons for claiming-...(b) that, in all the
circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the
exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information."
And finally, the refusal notice must explain how you can appeal against
the decision:
"17 (7) A notice under subsection (1), (3) or (5) must-
(a) contain particulars of any procedure provided by the public
authority for dealing with complaints about the handling of requests for
information or state that the authority does not provide such a
procedure, and (b) contain particulars of the right conferred by section
50."
Please do write back to them pointing all this out, being very helpful
and offering to come in and look through the file yourself, etc. There's
no point writing to the IC at this stage - you do have to give the dept
a chance to sort it out first.(section 50)
It won't surprise you that the HO have more outstanding complaints than
any other. One problem is any employee with a brain cell is running away
ASAP...
If you would like any assistance in drafting a suitably snotty letter,
please email me direct.
Hessie
Arron Fitzgerald wrote:
> Dear All
>
> Have recevied a response from the Home Office to my request to release all responses to the consultation (pasted below). They are claiming exemption on the grounds that the 'premature' release of this information might prejudice the future 'formulation or development of government policy". Obviously I consider this argument to be absurd, and will be appealing both through the Home Office's internal review process, but also directly and immediately to the Information Commisioner.
>
> Arron
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Mr Fitzgerald
>
> I refer to your email of 6 July in which you asked, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA), for
>
> all responses to the consultation on the possession of extreme pornography
>
> 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 t
hat 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D5305
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Hessie , Fri, 04 Aug 2006 23:36:07 +0100
Reply-To: hessie@lineone.net
References:
Arron,
Am I right in thinking that you requested all the consultation
responses, nothing more?
In which case they are talking crap; using that logic no consultation
responses would ever be released!
1. It's routine to release consultation responses, as implied in the
consultation document which emphasises that responses are not confidential.
2. Consultation responses are made freely available under the Home
Office's consultation scheme, so exemption does not apply. "
FOI: "19. - (1) It shall be the duty of every public authority-
(a) to adopt and maintain a scheme which relates to the publication of
information by the authority and is approved by the Commissioner (in
this Act referred to as a "publication scheme"),
(b) to publish information in accordance with its publication scheme,
and http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/ho-pubscheme.pdf
"Class: Public consultation
Description: Public consultation documents, supporting documents and
responses or summaries of responses from 2002"
3. The exemption used makes no sense:
"35. - (1) Information held by a government department or by the
National Assembly for Wales is exempt information if it relates to-
(a) the formulation or development of government policy,"
Consultation responses are factual information. They do not 'relate' to
formulation of policy, simply inform it.
Fourthly, any refusal letter under a qualified exemption of FOI has to
explain how the public interest test has been weighed up:
They must under 17(1)(c) "states (if that would not otherwise be
apparent) why the exemption applies." and also under 17(3) the authority
must "state the reasons for claiming-...(b) that, in all the
circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the
exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information."
And finally, the refusal notice must explain how you can appeal against
the decision:
"17 (7) A notice under subsection (1), (3) or (5) must-
(a) contain particulars of any procedure provided by the public
authority for dealing with complaints about the handling of requests for
information or state that the authority does not provide such a
procedure, and (b) contain particulars of the right conferred by section
50."
Please do write back to them pointing all this out, being very helpful
and offering to come in and look through the file yourself, etc. There's
no point writing to the IC at this stage - you do have to give the dept
a chance to sort it out first.(section 50)
It won't surprise you that the HO have more outstanding complaints than
any other. One problem is any employee with a brain cell is running away
ASAP...
If you would like any assistance in drafting a suitably snotty letter,
please email me direct.
Hessie
Arron Fitzgerald wrote:
> Dear All
>
> Have recevied a response from the Home Office to my request to release all responses to the consultation (pasted below). They are claiming exemption on the grounds that the 'premature' release of this information might prejudice the future 'formulation or development of government policy". Obviously I consider this argument to be absurd, and will be appealing both through the Home Office's internal review process, but also directly and immediately to the Information Commisioner.
>
> Arron
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Mr Fitzgerald
>
> I refer to your email of 6 July in which you asked, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA), for
>
> all responses to the consultation on the possession of extreme pornography
>
> 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 t
hat 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D5305
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Hessie , Fri, 04 Aug 2006 23:36:07 +0100
Reply-To: hessie@lineone.net
References:
Arron,
Am I right in thinking that you requested all the consultation
responses, nothing more?
In which case they are talking crap; using that logic no consultation
responses would ever be released!
1. It's routine to release consultation responses, as implied in the
consultation document which emphasises that responses are not confidential.
2. Consultation responses are made freely available under the Home
Office's consultation scheme, so exemption does not apply. "
FOI: "19. - (1) It shall be the duty of every public authority-
(a) to adopt and maintain a scheme which relates to the publication of
information by the authority and is approved by the Commissioner (in
this Act referred to as a "publication scheme"),
(b) to publish information in accordance with its publication scheme,
and http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/ho-pubscheme.pdf
"Class: Public consultation
Description: Public consultation documents, supporting documents and
responses or summaries of responses from 2002"
3. The exemption used makes no sense:
"35. - (1) Information held by a government department or by the
National Assembly for Wales is exempt information if it relates to-
(a) the formulation or development of government policy,"
Consultation responses are factual information. They do not 'relate' to
formulation of policy, simply inform it.
Fourthly, any refusal letter under a qualified exemption of FOI has to
explain how the public interest test has been weighed up:
They must under 17(1)(c) "states (if that would not otherwise be
apparent) why the exemption applies." and also under 17(3) the authority
must "state the reasons for claiming-...(b) that, in all the
circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the
exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information."
And finally, the refusal notice must explain how you can appeal against
the decision:
"17 (7) A notice under subsection (1), (3) or (5) must-
(a) contain particulars of any procedure provided by the public
authority for dealing with complaints about the handling of requests for
information or state that the authority does not provide such a
procedure, and (b) contain particulars of the right conferred by section
50."
Please do write back to them pointing all this out, being very helpful
and offering to come in and look through the file yourself, etc. There's
no point writing to the IC at this stage - you do have to give the dept
a chance to sort it out first.(section 50)
It won't surprise you that the HO have more outstanding complaints than
any other. One problem is any employee with a brain cell is running away
ASAP...
If you would like any assistance in drafting a suitably snotty letter,
please email me direct.
Hessie
Arron Fitzgerald wrote:
> Dear All
>
> Have recevied a response from the Home Office to my request to release all responses to the consultation (pasted below). They are claiming exemption on the grounds that the 'premature' release of this information might prejudice the future 'formulation or development of government policy". Obviously I consider this argument to be absurd, and will be appealing both through the Home Office's internal review process, but also directly and immediately to the Information Commisioner.
>
> Arron
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Mr Fitzgerald
>
> I refer to your email of 6 July in which you asked, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA), for
>
> all responses to the consultation on the possession of extreme pornography
>
> 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 t
hat 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D5305
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Hessie , Fri, 04 Aug 2006 23:36:07 +0100
Reply-To: hessie@lineone.net
References:
Arron,
Am I right in thinking that you requested all the consultation
responses, nothing more?
In which case they are talking crap; using that logic no consultation
responses would ever be released!
1. It's routine to release consultation responses, as implied in the
consultation document which emphasises that responses are not confidential.
2. Consultation responses are made freely available under the Home
Office's consultation scheme, so exemption does not apply. "
FOI: "19. - (1) It shall be the duty of every public authority-
(a) to adopt and maintain a scheme which relates to the publication of
information by the authority and is approved by the Commissioner (in
this Act referred to as a "publication scheme"),
(b) to publish information in accordance with its publication scheme,
and http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/ho-pubscheme.pdf
"Class: Public consultation
Description: Public consultation documents, supporting documents and
responses or summaries of responses from 2002"
3. The exemption used makes no sense:
"35. - (1) Information held by a government department or by the
National Assembly for Wales is exempt information if it relates to-
(a) the formulation or development of government policy,"
Consultation responses are factual information. They do not 'relate' to
formulation of policy, simply inform it.
Fourthly, any refusal letter under a qualified exemption of FOI has to
explain how the public interest test has been weighed up:
They must under 17(1)(c) "states (if that would not otherwise be
apparent) why the exemption applies." and also under 17(3) the authority
must "state the reasons for claiming-...(b) that, in all the
circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the
exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information."
And finally, the refusal notice must explain how you can appeal against
the decision:
"17 (7) A notice under subsection (1), (3) or (5) must-
(a) contain particulars of any procedure provided by the public
authority for dealing with complaints about the handling of requests for
information or state that the authority does not provide such a
procedure, and (b) contain particulars of the right conferred by section
50."
Please do write back to them pointing all this out, being very helpful
and offering to come in and look through the file yourself, etc. There's
no point writing to the IC at this stage - you do have to give the dept
a chance to sort it out first.(section 50)
It won't surprise you that the HO have more outstanding complaints than
any other. One problem is any employee with a brain cell is running away
ASAP...
If you would like any assistance in drafting a suitably snotty letter,
please email me direct.
Hessie
Arron Fitzgerald wrote:
> Dear All
>
> Have recevied a response from the Home Office to my request to release all responses to the consultation (pasted below). They are claiming exemption on the grounds that the 'premature' release of this information might prejudice the future 'formulation or development of government policy". Obviously I consider this argument to be absurd, and will be appealing both through the Home Office's internal review process, but also directly and immediately to the Information Commisioner.
>
> Arron
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Mr Fitzgerald
>
> I refer to your email of 6 July in which you asked, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA), for
>
> all responses to the consultation on the possession of extreme pornography
>
> 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 t
hat 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D5305
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Hessie , Fri, 04 Aug 2006 23:36:07 +0100
Reply-To: hessie@lineone.net
References:
Arron,
Am I right in thinking that you requested all the consultation
responses, nothing more?
In which case they are talking crap; using that logic no consultation
responses would ever be released!
1. It's routine to release consultation responses, as implied in the
consultation document which emphasises that responses are not confidential.
2. Consultation responses are made freely available under the Home
Office's consultation scheme, so exemption does not apply. "
FOI: "19. - (1) It shall be the duty of every public authority-
(a) to adopt and maintain a scheme which relates to the publication of
information by the authority and is approved by the Commissioner (in
this Act referred to as a "publication scheme"),
(b) to publish information in accordance with its publication scheme,
and http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/ho-pubscheme.pdf
"Class: Public consultation
Description: Public consultation documents, supporting documents and
responses or summaries of responses from 2002"
3. The exemption used makes no sense:
"35. - (1) Information held by a government department or by the
National Assembly for Wales is exempt information if it relates to-
(a) the formulation or development of government policy,"
Consultation responses are factual information. They do not 'relate' to
formulation of policy, simply inform it.
Fourthly, any refusal letter under a qualified exemption of FOI has to
explain how the public interest test has been weighed up:
They must under 17(1)(c) "states (if that would not otherwise be
apparent) why the exemption applies." and also under 17(3) the authority
must "state the reasons for claiming-...(b) that, in all the
circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the
exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information."
And finally, the refusal notice must explain how you can appeal against
the decision:
"17 (7) A notice under subsection (1), (3) or (5) must-
(a) contain particulars of any procedure provided by the public
authority for dealing with complaints about the handling of requests for
information or state that the authority does not provide such a
procedure, and (b) contain particulars of the right conferred by section
50."
Please do write back to them pointing all this out, being very helpful
and offering to come in and look through the file yourself, etc. There's
no point writing to the IC at this stage - you do have to give the dept
a chance to sort it out first.(section 50)
It won't surprise you that the HO have more outstanding complaints than
any other. One problem is any employee with a brain cell is running away
ASAP...
If you would like any assistance in drafting a suitably snotty letter,
please email me direct.
Hessie
Arron Fitzgerald wrote:
> Dear All
>
> Have recevied a response from the Home Office to my request to release all responses to the consultation (pasted below). They are claiming exemption on the grounds that the 'premature' release of this information might prejudice the future 'formulation or development of government policy". Obviously I consider this argument to be absurd, and will be appealing both through the Home Office's internal review process, but also directly and immediately to the Information Commisioner.
>
> Arron
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Mr Fitzgerald
>
> I refer to your email of 6 July in which you asked, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA), for
>
> all responses to the consultation on the possession of extreme pornography
>
> 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 t
hat 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D5305
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Hessie , Fri, 04 Aug 2006 23:36:07 +0100
Reply-To: hessie@lineone.net
References:
Arron,
Am I right in thinking that you requested all the consultation
responses, nothing more?
In which case they are talking crap; using that logic no consultation
responses would ever be released!
1. It's routine to release consultation responses, as implied in the
consultation document which emphasises that responses are not confidential.
2. Consultation responses are made freely available under the Home
Office's consultation scheme, so exemption does not apply. "
FOI: "19. - (1) It shall be the duty of every public authority-
(a) to adopt and maintain a scheme which relates to the publication of
information by the authority and is approved by the Commissioner (in
this Act referred to as a "publication scheme"),
(b) to publish information in accordance with its publication scheme,
and http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/ho-pubscheme.pdf
"Class: Public consultation
Description: Public consultation documents, supporting documents and
responses or summaries of responses from 2002"
3. The exemption used makes no sense:
"35. - (1) Information held by a government department or by the
National Assembly for Wales is exempt information if it relates to-
(a) the formulation or development of government policy,"
Consultation responses are factual information. They do not 'relate' to
formulation of policy, simply inform it.
Fourthly, any refusal letter under a qualified exemption of FOI has to
explain how the public interest test has been weighed up:
They must under 17(1)(c) "states (if that would not otherwise be
apparent) why the exemption applies." and also under 17(3) the authority
must "state the reasons for claiming-...(b) that, in all the
circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the
exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information."
And finally, the refusal notice must explain how you can appeal against
the decision:
"17 (7) A notice under subsection (1), (3) or (5) must-
(a) contain particulars of any procedure provided by the public
authority for dealing with complaints about the handling of requests for
information or state that the authority does not provide such a
procedure, and (b) contain particulars of the right conferred by section
50."
Please do write back to them pointing all this out, being very helpful
and offering to come in and look through the file yourself, etc. There's
no point writing to the IC at this stage - you do have to give the dept
a chance to sort it out first.(section 50)
It won't surprise you that the HO have more outstanding complaints than
any other. One problem is any employee with a brain cell is running away
ASAP...
If you would like any assistance in drafting a suitably snotty letter,
please email me direct.
Hessie
Arron Fitzgerald wrote:
> Dear All
>
> Have recevied a response from the Home Office to my request to release all responses to the consultation (pasted below). They are claiming exemption on the grounds that the 'premature' release of this information might prejudice the future 'formulation or development of government policy". Obviously I consider this argument to be absurd, and will be appealing both through the Home Office's internal review process, but also directly and immediately to the Information Commisioner.
>
> Arron
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Mr Fitzgerald
>
> I refer to your email of 6 July in which you asked, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA), for
>
> all responses to the consultation on the possession of extreme pornography
>
> 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 t
hat 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D5305
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Hessie , Fri, 04 Aug 2006 23:36:07 +0100
Reply-To: hessie@lineone.net
References:
Arron,
Am I right in thinking that you requested all the consultation
responses, nothing more?
In which case they are talking crap; using that logic no consultation
responses would ever be released!
1. It's routine to release consultation responses, as implied in the
consultation document which emphasises that responses are not confidential.
2. Consultation responses are made freely available under the Home
Office's consultation scheme, so exemption does not apply. "
FOI: "19. - (1) It shall be the duty of every public authority-
(a) to adopt and maintain a scheme which relates to the publication of
information by the authority and is approved by the Commissioner (in
this Act referred to as a "publication scheme"),
(b) to publish information in accordance with its publication scheme,
and http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/ho-pubscheme.pdf
"Class: Public consultation
Description: Public consultation documents, supporting documents and
responses or summaries of responses from 2002"
3. The exemption used makes no sense:
"35. - (1) Information held by a government department or by the
National Assembly for Wales is exempt information if it relates to-
(a) the formulation or development of government policy,"
Consultation responses are factual information. They do not 'relate' to
formulation of policy, simply inform it.
Fourthly, any refusal letter under a qualified exemption of FOI has to
explain how the public interest test has been weighed up:
They must under 17(1)(c) "states (if that would not otherwise be
apparent) why the exemption applies." and also under 17(3) the authority
must "state the reasons for claiming-...(b) that, in all the
circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the
exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information."
And finally, the refusal notice must explain how you can appeal against
the decision:
"17 (7) A notice under subsection (1), (3) or (5) must-
(a) contain particulars of any procedure provided by the public
authority for dealing with complaints about the handling of requests for
information or state that the authority does not provide such a
procedure, and (b) contain particulars of the right conferred by section
50."
Please do write back to them pointing all this out, being very helpful
and offering to come in and look through the file yourself, etc. There's
no point writing to the IC at this stage - you do have to give the dept
a chance to sort it out first.(section 50)
It won't surprise you that the HO have more outstanding complaints than
any other. One problem is any employee with a brain cell is running away
ASAP...
If you would like any assistance in drafting a suitably snotty letter,
please email me direct.
Hessie
Arron Fitzgerald wrote:
> Dear All
>
> Have recevied a response from the Home Office to my request to release all responses to the consultation (pasted below). They are claiming exemption on the grounds that the 'premature' release of this information might prejudice the future 'formulation or development of government policy". Obviously I consider this argument to be absurd, and will be appealing both through the Home Office's internal review process, but also directly and immediately to the Information Commisioner.
>
> Arron
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Mr Fitzgerald
>
> I refer to your email of 6 July in which you asked, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA), for
>
> all responses to the consultation on the possession of extreme pornography
>
> 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 t
hat 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D5305
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Hessie , Fri, 04 Aug 2006 23:36:07 +0100
Reply-To: hessie@lineone.net
References:
Arron,
Am I right in thinking that you requested all the consultation
responses, nothing more?
In which case they are talking crap; using that logic no consultation
responses would ever be released!
1. It's routine to release consultation responses, as implied in the
consultation document which emphasises that responses are not confidential.
2. Consultation responses are made freely available under the Home
Office's consultation scheme, so exemption does not apply. "
FOI: "19. - (1) It shall be the duty of every public authority-
(a) to adopt and maintain a scheme which relates to the publication of
information by the authority and is approved by the Commissioner (in
this Act referred to as a "publication scheme"),
(b) to publish information in accordance with its publication scheme,
and http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/ho-pubscheme.pdf
"Class: Public consultation
Description: Public consultation documents, supporting documents and
responses or summaries of responses from 2002"
3. The exemption used makes no sense:
"35. - (1) Information held by a government department or by the
National Assembly for Wales is exempt information if it relates to-
(a) the formulation or development of government policy,"
Consultation responses are factual information. They do not 'relate' to
formulation of policy, simply inform it.
Fourthly, any refusal letter under a qualified exemption of FOI has to
explain how the public interest test has been weighed up:
They must under 17(1)(c) "states (if that would not otherwise be
apparent) why the exemption applies." and also under 17(3) the authority
must "state the reasons for claiming-...(b) that, in all the
circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the
exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information."
And finally, the refusal notice must explain how you can appeal against
the decision:
"17 (7) A notice under subsection (1), (3) or (5) must-
(a) contain particulars of any procedure provided by the public
authority for dealing with complaints about the handling of requests for
information or state that the authority does not provide such a
procedure, and (b) contain particulars of the right conferred by section
50."
Please do write back to them pointing all this out, being very helpful
and offering to come in and look through the file yourself, etc. There's
no point writing to the IC at this stage - you do have to give the dept
a chance to sort it out first.(section 50)
It won't surprise you that the HO have more outstanding complaints than
any other. One problem is any employee with a brain cell is running away
ASAP...
If you would like any assistance in drafting a suitably snotty letter,
please email me direct.
Hessie
Arron Fitzgerald wrote:
> Dear All
>
> Have recevied a response from the Home Office to my request to release all responses to the consultation (pasted below). They are claiming exemption on the grounds that the 'premature' release of this information might prejudice the future 'formulation or development of government policy". Obviously I consider this argument to be absurd, and will be appealing both through the Home Office's internal review process, but also directly and immediately to the Information Commisioner.
>
> Arron
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Mr Fitzgerald
>
> I refer to your email of 6 July in which you asked, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA), for
>
> all responses to the consultation on the possession of extreme pornography
>
> 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 t
hat 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D5305
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Hessie , Fri, 04 Aug 2006 23:36:07 +0100
Reply-To: hessie@lineone.net
References:
Arron,
Am I right in thinking that you requested all the consultation
responses, nothing more?
In which case they are talking crap; using that logic no consultation
responses would ever be released!
1. It's routine to release consultation responses, as implied in the
consultation document which emphasises that responses are not confidential.
2. Consultation responses are made freely available under the Home
Office's consultation scheme, so exemption does not apply. "
FOI: "19. - (1) It shall be the duty of every public authority-
(a) to adopt and maintain a scheme which relates to the publication of
information by the authority and is approved by the Commissioner (in
this Act referred to as a "publication scheme"),
(b) to publish information in accordance with its publication scheme,
and http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/ho-pubscheme.pdf
"Class: Public consultation
Description: Public consultation documents, supporting documents and
responses or summaries of responses from 2002"
3. The exemption used makes no sense:
"35. - (1) Information held by a government department or by the
National Assembly for Wales is exempt information if it relates to-
(a) the formulation or development of government policy,"
Consultation responses are factual information. They do not 'relate' to
formulation of policy, simply inform it.
Fourthly, any refusal letter under a qualified exemption of FOI has to
explain how the public interest test has been weighed up:
They must under 17(1)(c) "states (if that would not otherwise be
apparent) why the exemption applies." and also under 17(3) the authority
must "state the reasons for claiming-...(b) that, in all the
circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the
exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information."
And finally, the refusal notice must explain how you can appeal against
the decision:
"17 (7) A notice under subsection (1), (3) or (5) must-
(a) contain particulars of any procedure provided by the public
authority for dealing with complaints about the handling of requests for
information or state that the authority does not provide such a
procedure, and (b) contain particulars of the right conferred by section
50."
Please do write back to them pointing all this out, being very helpful
and offering to come in and look through the file yourself, etc. There's
no point writing to the IC at this stage - you do have to give the dept
a chance to sort it out first.(section 50)
It won't surprise you that the HO have more outstanding complaints than
any other. One problem is any employee with a brain cell is running away
ASAP...
If you would like any assistance in drafting a suitably snotty letter,
please email me direct.
Hessie
Arron Fitzgerald wrote:
> Dear All
>
> Have recevied a response from the Home Office to my request to release all responses to the consultation (pasted below). They are claiming exemption on the grounds that the 'premature' release of this information might prejudice the future 'formulation or development of government policy". Obviously I consider this argument to be absurd, and will be appealing both through the Home Office's internal review process, but also directly and immediately to the Information Commisioner.
>
> Arron
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Mr Fitzgerald
>
> I refer to your email of 6 July in which you asked, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA), for
>
> all responses to the consultation on the possession of extreme pornography
>
> 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 t
hat 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D5305
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Hessie , Fri, 04 Aug 2006 23:36:07 +0100
Reply-To: hessie@lineone.net
References:
Arron,
Am I right in thinking that you requested all the consultation
responses, nothing more?
In which case they are talking crap; using that logic no consultation
responses would ever be released!
1. It's routine to release consultation responses, as implied in the
consultation document which emphasises that responses are not confidential.
2. Consultation responses are made freely available under the Home
Office's consultation scheme, so exemption does not apply. "
FOI: "19. - (1) It shall be the duty of every public authority-
(a) to adopt and maintain a scheme which relates to the publication of
information by the authority and is approved by the Commissioner (in
this Act referred to as a "publication scheme"),
(b) to publish information in accordance with its publication scheme,
and http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/ho-pubscheme.pdf
"Class: Public consultation
Description: Public consultation documents, supporting documents and
responses or summaries of responses from 2002"
3. The exemption used makes no sense:
"35. - (1) Information held by a government department or by the
National Assembly for Wales is exempt information if it relates to-
(a) the formulation or development of government policy,"
Consultation responses are factual information. They do not 'relate' to
formulation of policy, simply inform it.
Fourthly, any refusal letter under a qualified exemption of FOI has to
explain how the public interest test has been weighed up:
They must under 17(1)(c) "states (if that would not otherwise be
apparent) why the exemption applies." and also under 17(3) the authority
must "state the reasons for claiming-...(b) that, in all the
circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the
exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information."
And finally, the refusal notice must explain how you can appeal against
the decision:
"17 (7) A notice under subsection (1), (3) or (5) must-
(a) contain particulars of any procedure provided by the public
authority for dealing with complaints about the handling of requests for
information or state that the authority does not provide such a
procedure, and (b) contain particulars of the right conferred by section
50."
Please do write back to them pointing all this out, being very helpful
and offering to come in and look through the file yourself, etc. There's
no point writing to the IC at this stage - you do have to give the dept
a chance to sort it out first.(section 50)
It won't surprise you that the HO have more outstanding complaints than
any other. One problem is any employee with a brain cell is running away
ASAP...
If you would like any assistance in drafting a suitably snotty letter,
please email me direct.
Hessie
Arron Fitzgerald wrote:
> Dear All
>
> Have recevied a response from the Home Office to my request to release all responses to the consultation (pasted below). They are claiming exemption on the grounds that the 'premature' release of this information might prejudice the future 'formulation or development of government policy". Obviously I consider this argument to be absurd, and will be appealing both through the Home Office's internal review process, but also directly and immediately to the Information Commisioner.
>
> Arron
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Mr Fitzgerald
>
> I refer to your email of 6 July in which you asked, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA), for
>
> all responses to the consultation on the possession of extreme pornography
>
> 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 t
hat 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D5305
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Hessie , Fri, 04 Aug 2006 23:36:07 +0100
Reply-To: hessie@lineone.net
References:
Arron,
Am I right in thinking that you requested all the consultation
responses, nothing more?
In which case they are talking crap; using that logic no consultation
responses would ever be released!
1. It's routine to release consultation responses, as implied in the
consultation document which emphasises that responses are not confidential.
2. Consultation responses are made freely available under the Home
Office's consultation scheme, so exemption does not apply. "
FOI: "19. - (1) It shall be the duty of every public authority-
(a) to adopt and maintain a scheme which relates to the publication of
information by the authority and is approved by the Commissioner (in
this Act referred to as a "publication scheme"),
(b) to publish information in accordance with its publication scheme,
and http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/ho-pubscheme.pdf
"Class: Public consultation
Description: Public consultation documents, supporting documents and
responses or summaries of responses from 2002"
3. The exemption used makes no sense:
"35. - (1) Information held by a government department or by the
National Assembly for Wales is exempt information if it relates to-
(a) the formulation or development of government policy,"
Consultation responses are factual information. They do not 'relate' to
formulation of policy, simply inform it.
Fourthly, any refusal letter under a qualified exemption of FOI has to
explain how the public interest test has been weighed up:
They must under 17(1)(c) "states (if that would not otherwise be
apparent) why the exemption applies." and also under 17(3) the authority
must "state the reasons for claiming-...(b) that, in all the
circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the
exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information."
And finally, the refusal notice must explain how you can appeal against
the decision:
"17 (7) A notice under subsection (1), (3) or (5) must-
(a) contain particulars of any procedure provided by the public
authority for dealing with complaints about the handling of requests for
information or state that the authority does not provide such a
procedure, and (b) contain particulars of the right conferred by section
50."
Please do write back to them pointing all this out, being very helpful
and offering to come in and look through the file yourself, etc. There's
no point writing to the IC at this stage - you do have to give the dept
a chance to sort it out first.(section 50)
It won't surprise you that the HO have more outstanding complaints than
any other. One problem is any employee with a brain cell is running away
ASAP...
If you would like any assistance in drafting a suitably snotty letter,
please email me direct.
Hessie
Arron Fitzgerald wrote:
> Dear All
>
> Have recevied a response from the Home Office to my request to release all responses to the consultation (pasted below). They are claiming exemption on the grounds that the 'premature' release of this information might prejudice the future 'formulation or development of government policy". Obviously I consider this argument to be absurd, and will be appealing both through the Home Office's internal review process, but also directly and immediately to the Information Commisioner.
>
> Arron
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Mr Fitzgerald
>
> I refer to your email of 6 July in which you asked, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA), for
>
> all responses to the consultation on the possession of extreme pornography
>
> 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 t
hat 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D5305
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Hessie , Fri, 04 Aug 2006 23:36:07 +0100
Reply-To: hessie@lineone.net
References:
Arron,
Am I right in thinking that you requested all the consultation
responses, nothing more?
In which case they are talking crap; using that logic no consultation
responses would ever be released!
1. It's routine to release consultation responses, as implied in the
consultation document which emphasises that responses are not confidential.
2. Consultation responses are made freely available under the Home
Office's consultation scheme, so exemption does not apply. "
FOI: "19. - (1) It shall be the duty of every public authority-
(a) to adopt and maintain a scheme which relates to the publication of
information by the authority and is approved by the Commissioner (in
this Act referred to as a "publication scheme"),
(b) to publish information in accordance with its publication scheme,
and http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/ho-pubscheme.pdf
"Class: Public consultation
Description: Public consultation documents, supporting documents and
responses or summaries of responses from 2002"
3. The exemption used makes no sense:
"35. - (1) Information held by a government department or by the
National Assembly for Wales is exempt information if it relates to-
(a) the formulation or development of government policy,"
Consultation responses are factual information. They do not 'relate' to
formulation of policy, simply inform it.
Fourthly, any refusal letter under a qualified exemption of FOI has to
explain how the public interest test has been weighed up:
They must under 17(1)(c) "states (if that would not otherwise be
apparent) why the exemption applies." and also under 17(3) the authority
must "state the reasons for claiming-...(b) that, in all the
circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the
exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information."
And finally, the refusal notice must explain how you can appeal against
the decision:
"17 (7) A notice under subsection (1), (3) or (5) must-
(a) contain particulars of any procedure provided by the public
authority for dealing with complaints about the handling of requests for
information or state that the authority does not provide such a
procedure, and (b) contain particulars of the right conferred by section
50."
Please do write back to them pointing all this out, being very helpful
and offering to come in and look through the file yourself, etc. There's
no point writing to the IC at this stage - you do have to give the dept
a chance to sort it out first.(section 50)
It won't surprise you that the HO have more outstanding complaints than
any other. One problem is any employee with a brain cell is running away
ASAP...
If you would like any assistance in drafting a suitably snotty letter,
please email me direct.
Hessie
Arron Fitzgerald wrote:
> Dear All
>
> Have recevied a response from the Home Office to my request to release all responses to the consultation (pasted below). They are claiming exemption on the grounds that the 'premature' release of this information might prejudice the future 'formulation or development of government policy". Obviously I consider this argument to be absurd, and will be appealing both through the Home Office's internal review process, but also directly and immediately to the Information Commisioner.
>
> Arron
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Mr Fitzgerald
>
> I refer to your email of 6 July in which you asked, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA), for
>
> all responses to the consultation on the possession of extreme pornography
>
> 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 t
hat 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D5305
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Hessie , Fri, 04 Aug 2006 23:36:07 +0100
Reply-To: hessie@lineone.net
References:
Arron,
Am I right in thinking that you requested all the consultation
responses, nothing more?
In which case they are talking crap; using that logic no consultation
responses would ever be released!
1. It's routine to release consultation responses, as implied in the
consultation document which emphasises that responses are not confidential.
2. Consultation responses are made freely available under the Home
Office's consultation scheme, so exemption does not apply. "
FOI: "19. - (1) It shall be the duty of every public authority-
(a) to adopt and maintain a scheme which relates to the publication of
information by the authority and is approved by the Commissioner (in
this Act referred to as a "publication scheme"),
(b) to publish information in accordance with its publication scheme,
and http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/ho-pubscheme.pdf
"Class: Public consultation
Description: Public consultation documents, supporting documents and
responses or summaries of responses from 2002"
3. The exemption used makes no sense:
"35. - (1) Information held by a government department or by the
National Assembly for Wales is exempt information if it relates to-
(a) the formulation or development of government policy,"
Consultation responses are factual information. They do not 'relate' to
formulation of policy, simply inform it.
Fourthly, any refusal letter under a qualified exemption of FOI has to
explain how the public interest test has been weighed up:
They must under 17(1)(c) "states (if that would not otherwise be
apparent) why the exemption applies." and also under 17(3) the authority
must "state the reasons for claiming-...(b) that, in all the
circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the
exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information."
And finally, the refusal notice must explain how you can appeal against
the decision:
"17 (7) A notice under subsection (1), (3) or (5) must-
(a) contain particulars of any procedure provided by the public
authority for dealing with complaints about the handling of requests for
information or state that the authority does not provide such a
procedure, and (b) contain particulars of the right conferred by section
50."
Please do write back to them pointing all this out, being very helpful
and offering to come in and look through the file yourself, etc. There's
no point writing to the IC at this stage - you do have to give the dept
a chance to sort it out first.(section 50)
It won't surprise you that the HO have more outstanding complaints than
any other. One problem is any employee with a brain cell is running away
ASAP...
If you would like any assistance in drafting a suitably snotty letter,
please email me direct.
Hessie
Arron Fitzgerald wrote:
> Dear All
>
> Have recevied a response from the Home Office to my request to release all responses to the consultation (pasted below). They are claiming exemption on the grounds that the 'premature' release of this information might prejudice the future 'formulation or development of government policy". Obviously I consider this argument to be absurd, and will be appealing both through the Home Office's internal review process, but also directly and immediately to the Information Commisioner.
>
> Arron
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Mr Fitzgerald
>
> I refer to your email of 6 July in which you asked, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA), for
>
> all responses to the consultation on the possession of extreme pornography
>
> 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 t
hat 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D5305
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
deno, 12 Aug 2006 20:20:13
In a message dated 08/08/2006 10:25:23 GMT Standard Time,
admin@ofwatch.org.uk writes:
death, but unfortunately I don't think it's that likely. I think they are
still trying to patch something together and our interests would be best
served by keeping on at them. It might just be the straw that breaks the camels
back.
I don't believe that even the HO would be prepared to re-introduce
legislation purely for the purpose of spiteing Backlash.>
Thanks, and you are probably right about their intent. Hopefully they have
a huge backlog
to try and clear so their plans fall by the wayside. Not easy to decide on
the best action plan
when it all seems in limbo and I see your point that if we keep on to them
it might be the last straw.
Really, if they have any perception, they should have taken notice of the
independant
professionals (not in our scene) who could see no merit in the Consultation
proposals.
Will we be able to highlight these if the responses are published? Seems
that may be our best move if matters proceed.
d
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Graham Marsden, 13 Aug 2006 23:03:04
Hi there,
graham wrote:
Graham wrote this on the 5th of August and it's just arrived on the
9th... :-(
Cheers,
Graham.
Teddy, 14 Aug 2006 07:32:33
Unfortunately, it does seem to take 12-24h for most messages to be posted at the moment. (I sent this at 23:23 on Sun 13/08/06)
T.
Author wrote:
> Hi there,
> graham wrote:
> Graham wrote this on the 5th of August and it's just arrived on the
> 9th... :-(
> Cheers,
> Graham.
Graham Marsden, 15 Aug 2006 14:06:21
Hi there,
graham wrote:
> graham wrote:
>
> Graham wrote this on the 5th of August and it's just arrived on the
> 9th... :-(
And this one has just appeared on the 15th!!!
Cheers,
Graham.
Paul C. Dickie, 22 Aug 2006 00:19:51
In message <44D9C3FB.1070905@affordable-leather.co.uk>, graham
wrote:
>Hi there,
>
>graham wrote:
>
>Graham wrote this on the 5th of August and it's just arrived on the
>9th... :-(
Graham wrote the above on the 9th and it's just arrived on the 15th.
Is the system constipated or is SmartGroups trying to compete with the
Post Office? ;-)
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie, 23 Aug 2006 02:18:28
In message , Paul C. Dickie sm@bozzie.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <44D9C3FB.1070905@affordable-leather.co.uk>, graham
> wrote:
>>graham wrote:
>>
>>Graham wrote this on the 5th of August and it's just arrived on the
>>9th... :-(
>
>Graham wrote the above on the 9th and it's just arrived on the 15th.
>
>Is the system constipated or is SmartGroups trying to compete with the
>Post Office? ;-)
And that arrived on the 22nd -- a week later.
Can't GCHQ process them faster? ;-)
--
< Paul >
Graham Marsden, 29 Aug 2006 23:48:36
Hi there,
Paul C. Dickie wrote:
>>>Graham wrote this on the 5th of August and it's just arrived on the
>>>9th... :-(
>
>> Graham wrote the above on the 9th and it's just arrived on the 15th.
>
> Is the system constipated or is SmartGroups trying to compete with the
> Post Office? ;-)
And Paul wrote that on the 15th and it arrived on the 22nd.
The only difference between SmartGroups and the Post Office is that at
least Smart Groups isn't charging you for taking ages (or for the length
of your messages!)
Cheers,
Graham.
> In message , Paul C. Dickie > sm@bozzie.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <44D9C3FB.1070905@affordable-leather.co.uk>, graham
>> wrote:
>>>graham wrote:
>>>
>>>Graham wrote this on the 5th of August and it's just arrived on the
>>>9th... :-(
>>
>>Graham wrote the above on the 9th and it's just arrived on the 15th.
>>
>>Is the system constipated or is SmartGroups trying to compete with the
>>Post Office? ;-)
>
> And that arrived on the 22nd -- a week later.
>
> Can't GCHQ process them faster? ;-)
>
> --
> < Paul >
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D5402
>