Archive for January, 2006

Second edition of YRTK: Call for input

Monday, January 30th, 2006

A second edition of Your Right to Know is in the works, and I am keen to hear from any readers about improvements that can be made to make this next edition even better and more comprehensive. I will most likely be including an additional chapter on decisions made by the Information Commissioner and Information Tribunal and the way the law has been used in practice. I will also provide more detail about what is happening in Scotland. What else would you like to see?

  • Do you have any problems using the book?
  • Is there something you want to know that wasn’t addressed?
  • Have you found any changes to the FOI contact details listed in the book?

I’d particularly like to hear from anyone who has made requests under the Freedom of Information or Environmental Information Regulations. What was your experience? How would you rate the public authority’s response? Were they helpful and professional or obstructive and delaying?

You can either post your comments here or email me. Many thanks!

Article: Publish Sex Offenders Register

Monday, January 16th, 2006

The sex offenders register should be made public
The Independent, 16 January 2006
By Heather Brooke

After a week of sustained pressure, ministers have finally admitted that politicians may not be the best authority for deciding inclusion on the List 99 register of those banned from working in education. They concede that an outside body should make such decisions. I have just the thing and it won’t cost a penny. The outside body is already in existence – it is the general public.

Revelations that Ruth Kelly’s department cleared the Norfolk PE teacher Paul Reeve and William Gibson, 59, to work as teachers even though they were on the sex offender registry has once again laid bare the inadequacies of criminal records checks. What is most frightening is that Ms Kelly cannot provide an account of how many known sex offenders are working in schools. This is because the system, like so much of current policy, is chaotic, arbitrary and controlled by the patronage of politicians.

Firstly, there is the chaos of the register itself. Individual police forces maintain and feed information into the main sex offenders’ registry, while List 99 is a blacklist, drawn up by politicians at the Department for Education and Skills. Ms Kelly revealed last week that there are currently seven such blacklists barring people from working with children and vulnerable adults. Surely these lists would be more effective (both in terms of cost and operational effectiveness) if they were unified. If the lists were public then such needless duplication and cost-wasting would have been exposed years ago.

Keeping the lists secret from the public makes them less effective in other ways. The public are prevented from having a rational and informed discussion on the structure and composition of the sex offender register because we have no way of knowing who is on the list or why. Secrecy has created a register that has no consistency and is open to abuse by those who control the list, namely the police and politicians.

Reeve was put on the sex offender register after police cautioned him for accessing child pornography over the Internet. Gibson had a relationship with a 15-year-old pupil in 1980 and as a result was convicted of indecent assault of a minor. Many people, such as Reeves, are on the list even though they have not been charged or found guilty of any crime. Should this be so? It’s true that sexual crimes are difficult to prosecute, evidenced by the fact that Soham murderer Ian Huntley did not have criminal convictions although police were aware he was a danger to young girls. But this points out the desperate need to reform the criminal justice system in favour of the victims of sexual crime, not an opportunity to blacklist people who are innocent in law. Currently, we have no idea what sort of information leads to being placed on the sex offender register.
(more…)

The sad demise of the public convenience

Monday, January 2nd, 2006

The sad demise of the public convenience
The Independent, 2 January 2006
By Heather Brooke

So farewell then, public conveniences. It seems you are no longer convenient either to the general public in need of relief or local councils charged with your erection and maintenance. The Victorians made Britain the envy of the world for public toilets. Ever since, we’ve been sitting on our laurels.

This New Year I’ve become acutely aware of the lack of public toilets as I trawl department stores, supermarkets and high streets. It’s bad enough in London, but nationwide the situation is even worse. When John Prescott threatened councils with council tax cuts, Torbay and Shepway responded by shutting all their public toilets, to the outrage of their citizens.

A night out in London, and the abiding memory is of streets paved with golden showers. Yet even this is tame to what I’ve seen in some public parks and East London side streets. It can’t be long before this slide back to medieval hygiene culminates with us all throwing our waste out the window. Is this really acceptable in 21st century Britain?

The Greater London Authority has received so many complaints about the state of the capital’s public toilets it launched a study in October to assess the situation and makes its first report at a public meeting January 16th. The public is invited to submit comments, suggestions and complaints until January 31st. Comments on London’s public toilets can be sent to: Anna Malos, PP10, London Assembly, City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA or email: anna.malos@london.gov.uk

This consultation comes not before time, yet there is no such initiative coming from central government. While the Chinese are busy spending £25 million installing 5-star toilets in Beijing, Britain’s interest in crap is confined solely to the scatological titles available in bookshops. Discussion of the real thing is strangely muted.

The last survey of public toilets done by the Audit Commission for 1999/2000 showed a dramatic decline in the nation’s public toilets. Instead of taking action on the Commission’s results, the government ended the official audits. Since then, the number of public loos has dropped a further 40 per cent, according to Richard Chisnell, director of the British Toilet Association and Loo of the Year award.

This decline is a direct result of the current trend for viewing public services as money-making ventures. True, in the short-term, toilets don’t make money and the costs (such as attendants and cleaners) can only be recovered by charging. Some councils are doing just that. Westminster now leases three of its public loos to private company Carlisile Cleansing who charge 50p to use their ‘superloos’.

But to view the usefulness of public services only in terms of cash flow is wrong. (more…)