Comments on: Second edition of YRTK: Call for input http://heatherbrooke.org/2006/book-update/ Heather Brooke is an award-winning writer, journalist and activist Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:17:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: John Cross http://heatherbrooke.org/2006/book-update/comment-page-1/#comment-878 John Cross Wed, 01 Feb 2006 18:23:55 +0000 http://www.yrtk.org/2006/book-update/#comment-878 I am enjoying your book, it is very interesting. My suggestion is that you could take the template letters in the previous edition and upload them. This would make it quicker for people to write requests. I found it difficult to know how to be specific in my request without the risk of missing out on information that would interest me, guidance on this would be good. So far I have made two requests and got one acknowledgement of receipt. Regards and thanks, John Cross I am enjoying your book, it is very interesting. My suggestion is that you could take the template letters in the previous edition and upload them. This would make it quicker for people to write requests.
I found it difficult to know how to be specific in my request without the risk of missing out on information that would interest me, guidance on this would be good.

So far I have made two requests and got one acknowledgement of receipt.
Regards and thanks,

John Cross

]]> By: Rod http://heatherbrooke.org/2006/book-update/comment-page-1/#comment-877 Rod Tue, 31 Jan 2006 09:32:09 +0000 http://www.yrtk.org/2006/book-update/#comment-877 I'd like to see discussion of the amount of time the IC should be allowed to review a case and come to a decision. My own request for disclosure of the Wells Report into the NHS University was turned down by the dpartment of health (& at internal review) under section 33 of the act & sent to the IC in April 2005. I still haven't got a ruling. As far as I can find out very few refusals were under section 33 -it might be interesting to see how different sections of the act are being used to refuse requests? Rod I’d like to see discussion of the amount of time the IC should be allowed to review a case and come to a decision. My own request for disclosure of the Wells Report into the NHS University was turned down by the dpartment of health (& at internal review) under section 33 of the act & sent to the IC in April 2005. I still haven’t got a ruling.

As far as I can find out very few refusals were under section 33 -it might be interesting to see how different sections of the act are being used to refuse requests?

Rod

]]> By: N Louis http://heatherbrooke.org/2006/book-update/comment-page-1/#comment-876 N Louis Mon, 30 Jan 2006 18:07:52 +0000 http://www.yrtk.org/2006/book-update/#comment-876 In the second edition of Your Right to Know you could say something about how requests are actually looked upon by Civil Servants when they arrive in the various departments. Because although laws may change or be brought in. The attitude of Civil Servants both in local and central government towards being helpful and accommodating when a request arrives, leaves a lot to be desired. The very fact that so many people have to take decisions to the Information Commissioner, only for him to either fail to make decisions quickly or protect the secrecy status quo shows that the whole FOI Act needs strengthening in favour of the public not the public authority. It’s no use just highlighting experiences where requests made under the Freedom of Information or Environmental Information Regulations. Then rating the public authority’s response if they were helpful, professional or obstructive and delaying, as this doesn’t get to the very essence of the attitudes behind information being hidden by the civil service. You may also want to look and include something about the outcome of the current Freedom of Information - Costs Exercise that the big central departments are going to carryout. As its was agreed by ministers that following the first year of implementation, there's some evidence of the costs the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act has placed on government departments is needed. In the second edition of Your Right to Know you could say something about how requests are actually looked upon by Civil Servants when they arrive in the various departments. Because although laws may change or be brought in. The attitude of Civil Servants both in local and central government towards being helpful and accommodating when a request arrives, leaves a lot to be desired.

The very fact that so many people have to take decisions to the Information Commissioner, only for him to either fail to make decisions quickly or protect the secrecy status quo shows that the whole FOI Act needs strengthening in favour of the public not the public authority.

It’s no use just highlighting experiences where requests made under the Freedom of Information or Environmental Information Regulations. Then rating the public authority’s response if they were helpful, professional or obstructive and delaying, as this doesn’t get to the very essence of the attitudes behind information being hidden by the civil service.

You may also want to look and include something about the outcome of the current Freedom of Information – Costs Exercise that the big central departments are going to carryout. As its was agreed by ministers that following the first year of implementation, there’s some evidence of the costs the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act has placed on government departments is needed.

]]>