Freedom of Information.... gone mad?
Discussion
Here are 2 FOI requests amde to the BBC that I have found on the internet (just 2 examples of many many FOI that are somewhat unnecessary IMO).
Exhibit A
Dear British Broadcasting Corporation,
What tube station was Charlie Slaters departuree from the show
filmed at on the 13th january 2011?
Yours faithfully,
Mark
BBC Response:
I can confirm that the scene was filmed at East Finchley tube station.
Exhibit B:
Please tell me what episode of eastnders this was and the date:
It was an episode where Joe Macer and Jim Branning are in the Vic. Joe is already drunk and Dot
enters and starts asking about Jim. Joe and Dot have an argument and Joe gets rude to dot. I think
it was about an antique.
BBC Response:
We believe the episode you refer to is Ep c963 (tx: 06.03.2006)
Jim's taking Dot's old bric-a-brac to the church. Bert suggests flogging it to Deano instead. To their
surprise, Deano pays them good money for it. Jim and Bert head off to the dog track.
Dot finds out that Jim sold her valuables. As she gives Jim an earful, Joe pokes fun at her. Dot's
cross with him for interfering. She complains to Pauline, who takes her husband's side. Dot storms
off.
I find the level of detail in the second one amusing. The funny thing is it probably took someone 1 hour to process the requst, get the information and send it back to the requester - that time is valued at £25 in the FOI I believe.
What do you think - should there be an exemption in the FOI for piss takers?
Exhibit A
Dear British Broadcasting Corporation,
What tube station was Charlie Slaters departuree from the show
filmed at on the 13th january 2011?
Yours faithfully,
Mark
BBC Response:
I can confirm that the scene was filmed at East Finchley tube station.
Exhibit B:
Please tell me what episode of eastnders this was and the date:
It was an episode where Joe Macer and Jim Branning are in the Vic. Joe is already drunk and Dot
enters and starts asking about Jim. Joe and Dot have an argument and Joe gets rude to dot. I think
it was about an antique.
BBC Response:
We believe the episode you refer to is Ep c963 (tx: 06.03.2006)
Jim's taking Dot's old bric-a-brac to the church. Bert suggests flogging it to Deano instead. To their
surprise, Deano pays them good money for it. Jim and Bert head off to the dog track.
Dot finds out that Jim sold her valuables. As she gives Jim an earful, Joe pokes fun at her. Dot's
cross with him for interfering. She complains to Pauline, who takes her husband's side. Dot storms
off.
I find the level of detail in the second one amusing. The funny thing is it probably took someone 1 hour to process the requst, get the information and send it back to the requester - that time is valued at £25 in the FOI I believe.
What do you think - should there be an exemption in the FOI for piss takers?
Jasandjules said:
They probably did. Then charged for 1 hour.... 
FOI requests do have their uses of course, but yes, it is fair to say that many of them will be s**t..
FOI requests do have their uses of course, but yes, it is fair to say that many of them will be s**t..
Is it possible to get a list of every expense by a council in 1 month? Or is that stupid? I am sure savings can be made without cutting services. Actually, 1 year would be better as 24" LCD monitors for the mayor's bank of secretaries would be missed.
I'm not sure these are FOI. Certainly the second might be seen as part of the hype for these soaps.
There's a bit in Eye this issue, 1295, about FOI requests.
It has been suggested that the MPA hired, at the expense of the British and London taxpayers, Carter-Ruck, a group not known world wide for undercharging, to defend Yates of the Yard, he of the 'all reasonable steps' quote about informing the 'very small number of people' who were victims of phone hacking when addressing a committee. I'd like to know how much money was wasted on this.
Not only that but because these facts now reach the public, albeit only those who do are not put off by stonewalling, others about to waste my money might well hesitate before doing so.
The Eye asked for the information without going via FOI but the MPA refused. So they put in a request which was, remarkably, rejected by the MPA's spam filter. A new one has just been resubmitted. I await the report. I hope others with control over where my taxes go are also aware of the request.
There's a bit in Eye this issue, 1295, about FOI requests.
It has been suggested that the MPA hired, at the expense of the British and London taxpayers, Carter-Ruck, a group not known world wide for undercharging, to defend Yates of the Yard, he of the 'all reasonable steps' quote about informing the 'very small number of people' who were victims of phone hacking when addressing a committee. I'd like to know how much money was wasted on this.
Not only that but because these facts now reach the public, albeit only those who do are not put off by stonewalling, others about to waste my money might well hesitate before doing so.
The Eye asked for the information without going via FOI but the MPA refused. So they put in a request which was, remarkably, rejected by the MPA's spam filter. A new one has just been resubmitted. I await the report. I hope others with control over where my taxes go are also aware of the request.
Derek Smith said:
I'm not sure these are FOI. Certainly the second might be seen as part of the hype for these soaps.
There's a bit in Eye this issue, 1295, about FOI requests.
It has been suggested that the MPA hired, at the expense of the British and London taxpayers, Carter-Ruck, a group not known world wide for undercharging, to defend Yates of the Yard, he of the 'all reasonable steps' quote about informing the 'very small number of people' who were victims of phone hacking when addressing a committee. I'd like to know how much money was wasted on this.
Not only that but because these facts now reach the public, albeit only those who do are not put off by stonewalling, others about to waste my money might well hesitate before doing so.
The Eye asked for the information without going via FOI but the MPA refused. So they put in a request which was, remarkably, rejected by the MPA's spam filter. A new one has just been resubmitted. I await the report. I hope others with control over where my taxes go are also aware of the request.
"MPA" = Met police authority ???There's a bit in Eye this issue, 1295, about FOI requests.
It has been suggested that the MPA hired, at the expense of the British and London taxpayers, Carter-Ruck, a group not known world wide for undercharging, to defend Yates of the Yard, he of the 'all reasonable steps' quote about informing the 'very small number of people' who were victims of phone hacking when addressing a committee. I'd like to know how much money was wasted on this.
Not only that but because these facts now reach the public, albeit only those who do are not put off by stonewalling, others about to waste my money might well hesitate before doing so.
The Eye asked for the information without going via FOI but the MPA refused. So they put in a request which was, remarkably, rejected by the MPA's spam filter. A new one has just been resubmitted. I await the report. I hope others with control over where my taxes go are also aware of the request.
RemainAllHoof said:
Is it possible to get a list of every expense by a council in 1 month? Or is that stupid? I am sure savings can be made without cutting services. Actually, 1 year would be better as 24" LCD monitors for the mayor's bank of secretaries would be missed.
Make the request.........
RemainAllHoof said:
Is it possible to get a list of every expense by a council in 1 month? Or is that stupid? I am sure savings can be made without cutting services. Actually, 1 year would be better as 24" LCD monitors for the mayor's bank of secretaries would be missed.
ninja-lewis said:
RemainAllHoof said:
Is it possible to get a list of every expense by a council in 1 month? Or is that stupid? I am sure savings can be made without cutting services. Actually, 1 year would be better as 24" LCD monitors for the mayor's bank of secretaries would be missed.
I took them from a FOI site and the BBC responded to them both formally as FOI requests as they were sent in from a FI request site.
I spose the oint is HSOULD they be FOI or general requests. There is a good blog that I found whilst looking at FOI where the bloke explains why some normal requests mmight be treated as FOI requests - I daresay they verge on the safeside - if they cannot answer a normal reuqest the perosn will probably get all arsey and demand the info under the FOI. The FOI can put onus of the organisation to spend a significant amoutn of time looking things up.
I spose the oint is HSOULD they be FOI or general requests. There is a good blog that I found whilst looking at FOI where the bloke explains why some normal requests mmight be treated as FOI requests - I daresay they verge on the safeside - if they cannot answer a normal reuqest the perosn will probably get all arsey and demand the info under the FOI. The FOI can put onus of the organisation to spend a significant amoutn of time looking things up.
Edited by Mojooo on Saturday 20th August 16:35
Mojooo said:
I took them from a FOI site and the BBC responded to them both formally as FOI requests as they were sent in from a FI request site.
I spose the oint is HSOULD they be FOI or general requests. There is a good blog that I found whilst looking at FOI where the bloke explains why some normal requests mmight be treated as FOI requests - I daresay they verge on the safeside - if they cannot answer a normal reuqest the perosn will probably get all arsey and demand the info under the FOI. The FOI can put onus of the organisation to spend a significant amoutn of time looking things up.
You are assuming that the BBC putting them all in a pile and stating requests for information is a formal FOI request.I spose the oint is HSOULD they be FOI or general requests. There is a good blog that I found whilst looking at FOI where the bloke explains why some normal requests mmight be treated as FOI requests - I daresay they verge on the safeside - if they cannot answer a normal reuqest the perosn will probably get all arsey and demand the info under the FOI. The FOI can put onus of the organisation to spend a significant amoutn of time looking things up.
Edited by Mojooo on Saturday 20th August 16:35
Realistically those 2 items will have taken a few moments to reply to.
There have been some daft FOI from all walks of life, but use those examples rather than these. These wouldn't be time consuming, they wouldn't be invasive and these requests have been going on since before you and I were born.
herewego said:
ninja-lewis said:
RemainAllHoof said:
Is it possible to get a list of every expense by a council in 1 month? Or is that stupid? I am sure savings can be made without cutting services. Actually, 1 year would be better as 24" LCD monitors for the mayor's bank of secretaries would be missed.
king point, otherwise. You could hide so much moronic stuff under the radar. elster said:
You are assuming that the BBC putting them all in a pile and stating requests for information is a formal FOI request.
Realistically those 2 items will have taken a few moments to reply to.
There have been some daft FOI from all walks of life, but use those examples rather than these. These wouldn't be time consuming, they wouldn't be invasive and these requests have been going on since before you and I were born.
Perhaps. I have taken them as FOI requests because they were replied as so.Realistically those 2 items will have taken a few moments to reply to.
There have been some daft FOI from all walks of life, but use those examples rather than these. These wouldn't be time consuming, they wouldn't be invasive and these requests have been going on since before you and I were born.
I currently work public service and with sensitive info which is rarely released to the public (not to do with spending). When we recieve a request for info we have to make a decision to class it as a FOI request or not. You can usually tell when the request will be refused but you should give them the chance to do it as a FOI request the first time because if it is refused informally they will almost certainly come back as an FOI request.
To address one of the other points:
I think some types of info should be routinley published including spending. The other one is use of RIPA - seems to be a very common FOI request.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff