<?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: Response to FOIA request for  Attorney General&#8217;s Iraq advice</title>
	<atom:link href="http://heatherbrooke.org/2005/response-to-foi-on-atty-generals-advice/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://heatherbrooke.org/2005/response-to-foi-on-atty-generals-advice/</link>
	<description>Heather Brooke is an award-winning writer, journalist and activist</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 Apr 2012 09:44:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: TD</title>
		<link>http://heatherbrooke.org/2005/response-to-foi-on-atty-generals-advice/comment-page-1/#comment-92</link>
		<dc:creator>TD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:32:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yrtk.org/?p=107#comment-92</guid>
		<description>How can members of the public engage in democracy when they are kept ignorant of such extremely important decisions?  The Attorney General advised the Government, not a private individual, and I believe this means the electorate has a right to know the content of his advice.

I can only conclude that if the advice was made public it would do some harm to the reputation of the people involved in the decision.

With regard to the Legal Secretariat&#039;s reasons for the exemption of the advice,  I would argue that, firstly, the clients are the British people.  Secondly, if a politician takes advice and is unwilling to stand or fall on decisions based on that advice, he is obviously unprincipled and it&#039;s not in the public interest to have such people in government.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How can members of the public engage in democracy when they are kept ignorant of such extremely important decisions?  The Attorney General advised the Government, not a private individual, and I believe this means the electorate has a right to know the content of his advice.</p>
<p>I can only conclude that if the advice was made public it would do some harm to the reputation of the people involved in the decision.</p>
<p>With regard to the Legal Secretariat&#8217;s reasons for the exemption of the advice,  I would argue that, firstly, the clients are the British people.  Secondly, if a politician takes advice and is unwilling to stand or fall on decisions based on that advice, he is obviously unprincipled and it&#8217;s not in the public interest to have such people in government.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Savva</title>
		<link>http://heatherbrooke.org/2005/response-to-foi-on-atty-generals-advice/comment-page-1/#comment-91</link>
		<dc:creator>John Savva</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Jan 2005 08:16:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yrtk.org/?p=107#comment-91</guid>
		<description>What is wrong if they should put black pen and removed all the names of &quot;confidential&quot; and show the letter! Simple as that! It is not a good excuse!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What is wrong if they should put black pen and removed all the names of &#8220;confidential&#8221; and show the letter! Simple as that! It is not a good excuse!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

