Bending the rules regarding FOI?
Discussion
http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/993739...
I don't hold with Marianne Birkby's actions - she is also an anti nuclear activist, and often spouts miss truths to garner support, but I do feel this response is not right.
Anyone have any legal arguments to support this?
There is history attached to this tree, aside from Thomas Mawson not liking it. A few years ago, somebody applied for a preservation order on it, and the LDNPA refused saying it "was not under threat" but now several years later (and 110 years after it was planted) say it does not belong!
The former Brockhole head gardner - now at Kew Gardens says it should stay, and there is strong local support for it to remain.
So are there any legal means to save a tree that would save the sensitive lumberjacks from being scarred for life by tree huggers?
Westmorland Gazette said:
Tree protesters are left puzzled
NATIONAL park bosses have been accused of hiding behind Freedom of Information (FOI) rules to thwart a protest against the felling of an iconic tree.
Campaigners trying to save the 110-year-old monkey puzzle at Brockhole claim the Lake District National Park Authority (LDNPA) is using Section 38 of the FOI Act to prevent them finding out when the tree will be chopped down.
Leading campaigner Marianne Birkby wrote to the authority asking officials to reveal the date the tree would be felled so she could stage ‘a peaceful protest’.
However, in his reply Brockhole development manager Adam Thomas told Mrs Birkby: “Section 38 states that an exemption is permissable in the event that disclosure is likely to endanger the mental or physical health of an individual. Due to the nature of the operation we believe that this would be the case for public, staff and contractors.
“Having considered the public interest, the authority’s decision is, therefore, to withhold the information.”
Mrs Birkby said she wanted to know the felling date so she and other campaigners could go along and ‘hold hands around the tree’.
Could protesters holding hands around a tree REALLY threaten the physical and mental well being of a lumberjack?NATIONAL park bosses have been accused of hiding behind Freedom of Information (FOI) rules to thwart a protest against the felling of an iconic tree.
Campaigners trying to save the 110-year-old monkey puzzle at Brockhole claim the Lake District National Park Authority (LDNPA) is using Section 38 of the FOI Act to prevent them finding out when the tree will be chopped down.
Leading campaigner Marianne Birkby wrote to the authority asking officials to reveal the date the tree would be felled so she could stage ‘a peaceful protest’.
However, in his reply Brockhole development manager Adam Thomas told Mrs Birkby: “Section 38 states that an exemption is permissable in the event that disclosure is likely to endanger the mental or physical health of an individual. Due to the nature of the operation we believe that this would be the case for public, staff and contractors.
“Having considered the public interest, the authority’s decision is, therefore, to withhold the information.”
Mrs Birkby said she wanted to know the felling date so she and other campaigners could go along and ‘hold hands around the tree’.
I don't hold with Marianne Birkby's actions - she is also an anti nuclear activist, and often spouts miss truths to garner support, but I do feel this response is not right.
Anyone have any legal arguments to support this?
There is history attached to this tree, aside from Thomas Mawson not liking it. A few years ago, somebody applied for a preservation order on it, and the LDNPA refused saying it "was not under threat" but now several years later (and 110 years after it was planted) say it does not belong!
The former Brockhole head gardner - now at Kew Gardens says it should stay, and there is strong local support for it to remain.
So are there any legal means to save a tree that would save the sensitive lumberjacks from being scarred for life by tree huggers?
I suspect that the Council's argument is that there may be a risk to physical safety if the protesters turn up on time, tree felling being a hazardous operation. This is pushing the meaning of section 38 a bit. The argument could be defeated, I think, by saying that possibility is not the same as likelihood.
Edit: I said the Council, but I meant the Park Authority.
Edit: I said the Council, but I meant the Park Authority.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 20th September 10:21
Breadvan72 said:
I suspect that the Council's argument is that there may be a risk to physical safety if the protesters turn up on time, tree felling being a hazardous operation. This is pushing the meaning of section 38 a bit. The argument could be defeated, I think, by saying that possibility is not the same as likelihood.
Edit: I said the Council, but I meant the Park Authority.
Exactly what is meant by danger to safety though?Edit: I said the Council, but I meant the Park Authority.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Thursday 20th September 10:21
Having the information itself does not endanger any particular persons safety. Its not the same as naming someone specifically or anything. It is not until the tree huggers turn up that safety could be compromised. If they set up camp at the bottom of the tree to 'wait it out' the same level of danger would be present at the time of felling that would be if the authority gave them the date and they didn't arrive until then. On that basis is there any real good reason not to comply with the request?
I would imaging their argument would be that by supplying the date, the protesters are likely to turn up and create a harmful situation. The counter would be that there is no evidence that the protesters would do anything likely to put anyone at risk of harm, only a suspicion on behalf of the National Park Authority.
10 Pence Short said:
I would imaging their argument would be that by supplying the date, the protesters are likely to turn up and create a harmful situation. The counter would be that there is no evidence that the protesters would do anything likely to put anyone at risk of harm, only a suspicion on behalf of the National Park Authority.
But they know its going to happen anyway, so could chose to turn up today and wait.Hence my question on what is meant by the danger to safety (I don't know how to word it to get the point across), by not telling them they are not reducing the potential for danger to safety, since they could be there anyway.
Is there any means to get legal judgement on a tree?
The LDNPA only took over the property after the tree had been there years - and have only just come to this stupid decision to fell it!
Would the previous request for a preservation order amount to anything - the Authority in this case are owners AND judges, being the planning authority - hardly impartial!
Is there an ombudsman?
The LDNPA only took over the property after the tree had been there years - and have only just come to this stupid decision to fell it!
Would the previous request for a preservation order amount to anything - the Authority in this case are owners AND judges, being the planning authority - hardly impartial!
Is there an ombudsman?
Section 38 requires that a public interest test is undertaken and communicated to the requestor.
Section 38 also covers harm to any individual including the protestors.
As the protest is said to be peaceful then harm is not likely nor is it difficult to prevent.
This information is not, in my opinion, exempted by section 38.
The problem is the requestor has to ask for the decision to be reviewed by the authority then make a complaint to the ICO. In my opinion and experience of FoI I would say with confidence the ICO would order the release of the date. By the time that happens the tree will be down...no great loss there in any case.
The LDNPA seem to be taking the 'p' as well as the tree.
Section 38 also covers harm to any individual including the protestors.
As the protest is said to be peaceful then harm is not likely nor is it difficult to prevent.
This information is not, in my opinion, exempted by section 38.
The problem is the requestor has to ask for the decision to be reviewed by the authority then make a complaint to the ICO. In my opinion and experience of FoI I would say with confidence the ICO would order the release of the date. By the time that happens the tree will be down...no great loss there in any case.
The LDNPA seem to be taking the 'p' as well as the tree.
pitmansboots said:
The LDNPA seem to be taking the 'p' as well as the tree.
And dare I suggest will know the process and what is likely to happen, but even so is banking on the time scales making the release of the date pointless when they are finally ordered to do so.In such an event there should be more that can be done than just ordering the release (such as imposition of some form of penalty).
This particular Authority are of course entirely unaccountable. They are appointed, not elected - and have been accused several times of not serving the interests of the people who live in the National Park, and instead of serving the interests of pressure groups such as the Friends of the Lake District - many of who do not live in the district - or in some cases, even the UK.
At present, in partnership with the County Council and the Cumbria Tourist Board, they are spending £6.9 million on promoting a green transport initiative - making transport in the district sustainable.
So far this policy has seen a couple of buses with seats removed to make way for cycles on the bus - and electric cars available for hire - that simply plug into the grid - not charged by wind turbines! Talk of new bike paths to bypass busy rural lanes have so far NOT materialised.
This latest issue over the tree follows their arrogant stance on many other issues - they seem to think they know best, and that nobody else should have a say! Then after they run out of funding, or under pressure from funding bodies - they change their policy to suit some new agenda!
This is NOT the only National Park - so how do the others do things?
How can the PEOPLE of the Lake District take control of their own environment?
At present, in partnership with the County Council and the Cumbria Tourist Board, they are spending £6.9 million on promoting a green transport initiative - making transport in the district sustainable.
So far this policy has seen a couple of buses with seats removed to make way for cycles on the bus - and electric cars available for hire - that simply plug into the grid - not charged by wind turbines! Talk of new bike paths to bypass busy rural lanes have so far NOT materialised.
This latest issue over the tree follows their arrogant stance on many other issues - they seem to think they know best, and that nobody else should have a say! Then after they run out of funding, or under pressure from funding bodies - they change their policy to suit some new agenda!
This is NOT the only National Park - so how do the others do things?
How can the PEOPLE of the Lake District take control of their own environment?
Breadvan72 said:
Indeed, this fails the test on likelihood.
does it?to me it seems quite likely that they will turn up on the day and try and block the tree being cut down
whether this wil lactually endager anyone - i dunno - but it may well lead to tensions if the contractors want the tree down and the protestors kick off.
Just read yet another story of the LDNPA speaking with forked tongues!
http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/993787...
What were those legal challenges again...?
http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/993787...
Westmorland Gazette said:
TV NATURALIST Chris Packham has criticised the Lake District National Park Authority for scuppering plans to open a red squirrel education centre at Brockhole.
The presenter is a supporter of the Wildlife Ark Trust, a charity set up to protect the endangered animal, which wanted to lease a part of the LDNPA’s visitor centre.
Members say the education centre, with a research centre and captive breeding programme facility, could have provided at least 12 full-time jobs. It would have had a an exhibition hall, mini cinema, an animatronics display, shop and a red squirrel enclosure.
The LDNPA says that it is still open to working with the charity, and it had looked at negotiating over the use of a smaller building on the site, known as the ‘lodge’.
But in emails seen by The Westmorland Gazette from director of park services, Bob Cartwright, the LDNPA told the Wildlife Ark Trust that tenders would instead be invited for the lease of Brockhole as a hostel.
“The authority has decided at this stage not to pursue other potential partnering options such as an alternative visitor attraction or the sort of concept you had in mind,” read the email.
It would appear that the LDNPA are saying one thing, and all the while, pursuing an altogether different agenda!The presenter is a supporter of the Wildlife Ark Trust, a charity set up to protect the endangered animal, which wanted to lease a part of the LDNPA’s visitor centre.
Members say the education centre, with a research centre and captive breeding programme facility, could have provided at least 12 full-time jobs. It would have had a an exhibition hall, mini cinema, an animatronics display, shop and a red squirrel enclosure.
The LDNPA says that it is still open to working with the charity, and it had looked at negotiating over the use of a smaller building on the site, known as the ‘lodge’.
But in emails seen by The Westmorland Gazette from director of park services, Bob Cartwright, the LDNPA told the Wildlife Ark Trust that tenders would instead be invited for the lease of Brockhole as a hostel.
“The authority has decided at this stage not to pursue other potential partnering options such as an alternative visitor attraction or the sort of concept you had in mind,” read the email.
What were those legal challenges again...?
Breadvan72 said:
That is far too vague. The LNPA is abusing FOIA to limit protest.
of coursethey want the tree gone and they dont wnat protestors getting in there way - you can hardly blame them
whether there is a likelyhood it would kick off is a seperate point though and one worth considering.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff