http://heatherbrooke.org/2007/governments-foi-charging-plans-scrapped/ 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 http://heatherbrooke.org/2007/governments-foi-charging-plans-scrapped/comment-page-1/#comment-1358 REG HARGRAVE Fri, 09 Nov 2007 11:13:19 +0000 http://www.yrtk.org/2007/governments-foi-charging-plans-scrapped/#comment-1358 As you know I have an FoI hearing next week. Having got this far I am at a loss to understand why the appeal procedure is so clumsy and unwieldy especially for the layman such as myself. Why does the IC have to be involved in the procedure? The whole thing should be scrapped and replaced by a simple appeal mechanism whereby a dissatisfied person would be enabled to go directly to a tribunal with his/her appeal. There should be an entirely separate appeals procedure available for fat cats such as the Beeb which should be cost-effective. I have had to prepare my case without any financial help whilst the other parties - all three of them - are using legal services paid for out of the public purse. Is that equitable? Also, the idea of including the IC as a "respondent" is a total nonsense and disadvatages the lay appellant who is forced to deal with not one but two respondents. Why, I ask? Keep up the good work Reg As you know I have an FoI hearing next week. Having got this far I am at a loss to understand why the appeal procedure is so clumsy and unwieldy especially for the layman such as myself. Why does the IC have to be involved in the procedure? The whole thing should be scrapped and replaced by a simple appeal mechanism whereby a dissatisfied person would be enabled to go directly to a tribunal with his/her appeal. There should be an entirely separate appeals procedure available for fat cats such as the Beeb which should be cost-effective. I have had to prepare my case without any financial help whilst the other parties – all three of them – are using legal services paid for out of the public purse. Is that equitable? Also, the idea of including the IC as a “respondent” is a total nonsense and disadvatages the lay appellant who is forced to deal with not one but two respondents. Why, I ask? Keep up the good work
Reg

]]> http://heatherbrooke.org/2007/governments-foi-charging-plans-scrapped/comment-page-1/#comment-1357 Veed Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:56:19 +0000 http://www.yrtk.org/2007/governments-foi-charging-plans-scrapped/#comment-1357 Yes, but the matter doesn't end there. If anything, the gov has found a way around. check this out http://www.newstatesman.com/200711010018 Yes, but the matter doesn’t end there.
If anything, the gov has found a way around. check this out http://www.newstatesman.com/200711010018

]]>