<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: FOI request: Minutes from BBC Governor&#8217;s meetings post-Hutton</title>
	<atom:link href="http://heatherbrooke.org/2005/foi-request-minutes-from-bbc-governors-meetings-post-hutton/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://heatherbrooke.org/2005/foi-request-minutes-from-bbc-governors-meetings-post-hutton/</link>
	<description>Heather Brooke is an award-winning writer, journalist and activist</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:17:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Graham Edridge</title>
		<link>http://heatherbrooke.org/2005/foi-request-minutes-from-bbc-governors-meetings-post-hutton/comment-page-1/#comment-622</link>
		<dc:creator>Graham Edridge</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 May 2005 13:10:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yrtk.org/2005/foi-request-minutes-from-bbc-governors-meetings-post-hutton/#comment-622</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s pedantic, I know,and probably won&#039;t make any difference, but Mr Gray&#039;s response refers to S36(2)(b)(11) &quot;......PREJUDICE the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation&quot;, whereas the Act actually says &quot;...INHIBIT the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation&quot;. The two have completely different meanings, and the response did not acurately describe the exemption contained in the Act.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s pedantic, I know,and probably won&#8217;t make any difference, but Mr Gray&#8217;s response refers to S36(2)(b)(11) &#8220;&#8230;&#8230;PREJUDICE the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation&#8221;, whereas the Act actually says &#8220;&#8230;INHIBIT the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation&#8221;. The two have completely different meanings, and the response did not acurately describe the exemption contained in the Act.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: john greig</title>
		<link>http://heatherbrooke.org/2005/foi-request-minutes-from-bbc-governors-meetings-post-hutton/comment-page-1/#comment-621</link>
		<dc:creator>john greig</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2005 10:09:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yrtk.org/2005/foi-request-minutes-from-bbc-governors-meetings-post-hutton/#comment-621</guid>
		<description>Why the hell are the Governors having &#039;informal&#039; unminuted meetings for?

Were expenses claimed for this meeting?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why the hell are the Governors having &#8216;informal&#8217; unminuted meetings for?</p>
<p>Were expenses claimed for this meeting?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Phillip Bradshaw</title>
		<link>http://heatherbrooke.org/2005/foi-request-minutes-from-bbc-governors-meetings-post-hutton/comment-page-1/#comment-620</link>
		<dc:creator>Phillip Bradshaw</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2005 16:53:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yrtk.org/2005/foi-request-minutes-from-bbc-governors-meetings-post-hutton/#comment-620</guid>
		<description>Section 36 is a cop-out if used like this. It should never be used as a blanket exemption for minutes for the reasons  you set out.

There may be some specific things in the minutes which could legitimately attract the argument that if made public it would hinder discussion in future meetings but that is a case for redaction, not a refusal to disclose any minutes at all.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Section 36 is a cop-out if used like this. It should never be used as a blanket exemption for minutes for the reasons  you set out.</p>
<p>There may be some specific things in the minutes which could legitimately attract the argument that if made public it would hinder discussion in future meetings but that is a case for redaction, not a refusal to disclose any minutes at all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

