"We Generate Revenue" - official
Discussion
I've been reading up on the FoI act and how it will affect public bodies.
Looking at the FOI policy for Speed Camera Partnerships, there's a classic line. Amongst the information that they say they will not release is some information that's specific to a particular camera site such as number of offences detected; hours of enforcement; and finally "REVENUE GENERATED ON A SITE-SPECIFIC BASIS"
Which I thought was an interesting statement !
See this link, towards the end:
[url]www.saferroads.org/docs/foi/policies/foi/FOI%20policy%20for%20SCPs.pdf[/url]
does the FOI act not specify the information that can be "retained" as "commercialy sensitive" or "not in the wider public interest"? (I'm not sure, I'm only very vaguely affected by the FOI act)
How does the information on number of offences, or revenue raised, fit into either of the above two categories (after all, they are safety cameras and not commercial businesses, eh?) I would have thought they would be trumpeting their success in detecting nasty speeders, to show their effectiveness, no?
How does the information on number of offences, or revenue raised, fit into either of the above two categories (after all, they are safety cameras and not commercial businesses, eh?) I would have thought they would be trumpeting their success in detecting nasty speeders, to show their effectiveness, no?
That document is just opinion, not fact or law. For instance the number offences detected at each site is deemed to be exempt. If a person was to request the information and it was denied they could appeal to the Information Commissioner and a tribunal could be held where the IC could decide whether it should be released.
However there is PLENTY more information that cannot be witheld and will provide for many interesting news stories during the year.
Gareth
However there is PLENTY more information that cannot be witheld and will provide for many interesting news stories during the year.
Gareth
g_attrill said:
If a person was to request the information and it was denied they could appeal to the Information Commissioner and a tribunal could be held where the IC could decide whether it should be released.
And that would seriously irritate them, as pointed out here www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=146008&f=10&h=0
And, if unsuccessful, a campaign to demand such info, via MP's, would really irritate them and maybe get a result.....
8Pack said:
And the Information Commissioner(who has been specially chosen) has a brother who is Chief Constable and sits on the board of the Scamera Gang. Heard it all before. 
From reading previous things about him he seems to be up to the job:
"Previously Thomas was director of public policy at law firm Clifford Chance. He has also worked at the National Consumer Council and served as a director of consumer affairs at the Office of Fair Trading."
g_attrill said:
...and it was denied they could appeal to the Information Commissioner and a tribunal could be held where the IC could decide whether it should be released.
To which the commissioner would be forced to conclude that the SCP are not a public body and are not covered by the act. Therefore he has not authority to rule on the release of the information.
Its a classic scam. You think you have the FOI but you don't really.
>> Edited by bluepolarbear on Tuesday 4th January 10:46
tvrgit said:
SCP not a public body? Then what is it? I'm sure it's not private!
My thought exactly!
Second paragraph of the document
"Safety Camera Partnerships are not public bodies but are constituted of public bodies and as
such, whilst complying with the specific policies of individual parent organisations, recognise the
need to embrace the legislation."
Its classic spin tactics
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff