FOI - exemptions
Discussion
Have just been reading the Northumbria SCP website (to see if I could volunteer 
) and found this on freedom of information
) and found this on freedom of information
NSCP said:So, under section 43, if giving us information will reduce their revenues, they don't have to tell us anything....
The Freedom of Information Act requires all public bodies to provide a general right of public access to the information they hold. This right becomes effective on 1st January 2005. The basic premise is that all information should be releasable unless it can be clearly demonstrated that it is not in the public interest to release it. The Act provides for exemptions, of which the following may apply to Northumbria Safety Camera Partnership: Section 30 - Investigations; Section 31 - Law enforcement; Section 36 - Prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs; Section 38 - Health and safety; and Section 43 - Commercial interests.
@ spindrift. 
Change the record dear!spindrift said:
They are NOT there to make money, they are saving lives.
So why do SCP's make a profit then? Why isnt the money raised re-invested into programmes of driver development, road engineering and other such benefits?
Can you answer that one? Or are you going to resort to sound bites and petty manipulation of the english language?
Robbem & Floggem SCP said:
"We are not here to make money!"
Flashem & Graball SCP
weren't available for comment as they are all presently on hols in the Bahamas whilst their new head office is furnished and before "motorist open season" starts.
....
But, their spokesman told us by telephone: "Think of the sheep!"
>> Edited by 8Pack on Friday 6th May 13:33
"We are not here to make money!"
Flashem & Graball SCP
weren't available for comment as they are all presently on hols in the Bahamas whilst their new head office is furnished and before "motorist open season" starts.
.... But, their spokesman told us by telephone: "Think of the sheep!"
>> Edited by 8Pack on Friday 6th May 13:33
kevinday said:
They are NOT there to make money, they are saving lives.
Prove it - Give us the name of just ONE person whose life has been proved to have been saved by a camera?
It cannot.
Und if this ist so.. perhaps he would explain how come deaths are up in Cumbria? Steviebabes quite naturally gets upset about this .. in fairness - website does contain tips on rural driving und there are tips for bikers - which are not bad (There Steviebabes - can give you a brownie point once in rare while
) But he knows ist true - Ks are up all over the place und he will persist in evading Aussie Ross's question regarding 5% due to speed per se incidents - as he has no answer.
Each accident ist unique to itself und ist due to whatever chance events occurred at same time. Accident can occur below speed limit und still be fatal.
Accident will never reach zero as humans are accident prone. Und death will occur according to chance of where impact hit und chance over victim weight, health and so on.
einion yrth said:
spindrift said:
They are NOT there to make money, they are saving lives.
You are a stupid, gullible, and almost infinitely annoying waste of oxygen, please go away.
Hey come on guys, this is a fair minded Forum and he is entitled to his opinion just as you are to yours.
You might not agree - fair enough but onto insults...please.
Conversley then can anyone give absolute concrete evidence that a camera has been the sole causation factor of a fatal?
...and don't lambast me for I have been lambasted by experts..
DVD
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Friday 6th May 15:58
Dwight VanDriver said:
spindrift said:
They are NOT there to make money, they are saving lives.
You are a stupid, gullible, and almost infinitely annoying waste of oxygen, please go away.
Hey come on guys, this is a fair minded Forum and he is entitled to his opinion just as you are to yours.
You might not agree - fair enough but onto insults...please.
Conversley then can anyone give absolute concrete evidence that a camera has been the sole causation factor of a fatal?
...and don't lambast me for I have been lambasted by experts..
DVD
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Friday 6th May 15:58
I refer you to others of spindrift's contributions to this site DVD, frankly I think I was being fairly mild about it.
Dwight VanDriver said:
spindrift said:
They are NOT there to make money, they are saving lives.
You are a stupid, gullible, and almost infinitely annoying waste of oxygen, please go away.
Hey come on guys, this is a fair minded Forum and he is entitled to his opinion just as you are to yours.
You might not agree - fair enough but onto insults...please.
Conversley then can anyone give absolute concrete evidence that a camera has been the sole causation factor of a fatal?
...and don't lambast me for I have been lambasted by experts..
DVD
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Friday 6th May 15:58
Dwight - this ist not someone mit opinion... take look-see at the other threads here... und look up Bimblyfimblywimbly on C+ und compare mit spindrift post on Paul's site. Und look at th other links posted on here.
Person ist not debating - one off comment - not backed up.
When challenged - it resorts to insult.
Have merely referred to things posted by this person under other names as well as this one. Ist same person - und it even talks to itself mit its other creations - see link...thinks it ist on streaky's thread? But so many relating to this strange creature - I forget Und even Steviebabes ist hard pressed to give a tangible example -as he has not got one either. He has stats - but we are just playing figures again. No before und after- und no source data to re-work it und prove the slant. Und they will not give as not within scope of FOI .....
Ings? Crash occurred just outside the village - guy was taken ill at wheel und the other one... no sleep after potholing - injured as I recall.
Jewhoo said:
Have just been reading the Northumbria SCP website (to see if I could volunteer
NSCP said:
The Freedom of Information Act requires all public bodies to provide a general right of public access to the information they hold. This right becomes effective on 1st January 2005.
The basic premise is that all information should be releasable unless it can be clearly demonstrated that it is not in the public interest to release it. The Act provides for exemptions, of which the following may apply to Northumbria Safety Camera Partnership:
Section 30 - Investigations;
Section 31 - Law enforcement;
Section 36 - Prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs;
Section 38 - Health and safety; and
Section 43 - Commercial interests.
So, under section 43, if giving us information will reduce their revenues, they don't have to tell us anything....
I think you have misunderstood somewhat.
The commercial interests covered here would be something like:
1. A supplier gives a discount off equipment because of bulk buying but demands confidentiality regarding that discount. It's a standard business practice of most commercial suppliers.
2. Information may be supplied, e.g manuals and operational specification documantation that if passed on to rival suppliers would damage the commercial interest of the first supplier.
It has nothing to do with accounting as that is exempted by Section 20 and 21 as it is reasonably available elsewhere (i.e. DfT publish annual audited accounts) and is to be published in the future (for unaudited accounts).
A partnership wopuldn't be able to withold accounting information under Section 43, other than that information that gave specific information of the type in 1. above.
Thank you destroyer, a bit of clarification was what I was after. My implied question was that the exemptions seemed to indicate that SCPs could withhold any information if it affected their commercial interests ie collecting speeding fines, and was this the case.
I presume your answer is no?
I presume your answer is no?
One more question for you Destroyer, I want to make sure I have this correct. In deltafox vs. Essex scp, the SCP manager said that the criteria for siting cameras was that there had to be a certain amount of accidents, and that a speed study had to show that 20% of vehicles speed on that road.
Presumably this holds for other SCPs?
Anyway, the question is this - does the application of these criteria mean that a road with many accidents but few limit breakers will not get the attention of a van?
Presumably this holds for other SCPs?
Anyway, the question is this - does the application of these criteria mean that a road with many accidents but few limit breakers will not get the attention of a van?
Jewhoo said:
Thank you destroyer, a bit of clarification was what I was after. My implied question was that the exemptions seemed to indicate that SCPs could withhold any information if it affected their commercial interests ie collecting speeding fines, and was this the case.
I presume your answer is no?
It is No, you are correct. Information regarding the number of Fixed Panalty Notices collected, expenses incurred and grants paid to partnerships are published annually. The first publications were made by DfT earlier this year, I am pretty sure that this will continue. There is a delay in the publication as all accounts are subject to independent audit which must be complete before publication.
Jewhoo said:
One more question for you Destroyer, I want to make sure I have this correct. In deltafox vs. Essex scp, the SCP manager said that the criteria for siting cameras was that there had to be a certain amount of accidents, and that a speed study had to show that 20% of vehicles speed on that road.
Presumably this holds for other SCPs?
Anyway, the question is this - does the application of these criteria mean that a road with many accidents but few limit breakers will not get the attention of a van?
It's all in Rule 7 on page 30 at the document at the link below.
All SCP's in England and Wales are subject to these rules. These rules apply for operations commencing on 01 April 2005 but Rule 7 has always had the 20% rule in as far as I know.
Scotland have their own handbook and that is available on the Scottish Executive website.
If the road has accidents and not a significant amount of speeding motorists then it is unlikely that there is a link between speed and the accidents at that site. I rejected about 20 to 25 of these last year. All accidents at all accident clusters were evaluated for causation/contributory evidence in this review. If I found that there was only a few speeding motorists and a high incidence of speed related accidents it doesn't necessarily make the site suitable for speed enforcement by the safety camera system. Engineering or Police speed enforcement activity may be better suited to address this type of site.
We would pass on a thorough report that covered a speed profile of the site, a causation/contributory factor profile as well as driver types, vehicle types, accident time graph etc. This goes to the Traffic Management Office at the Police Headquarters and then onto local engineering teams. This has all been developed during the past few years and ensures that accident sites get treatment of a suitable type and in response to a thorough investigation.
Any exception to non-compliance with Rule 7 must be justified after exhasting all other avenues before a case is made to show that safety camera activity will have a benefit at that site.
[url]www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_032652.pdf[/url]
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff