Brexit: Now What? Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Planigale said:
I am not sure anyone has pointed out that under freedom of information legislation universities as public bodies are obliged to provide this information to anyone who requests it. Do people believe that MPs should be more restricted than the general public in access to information?

What would have been the response if he had requested the information on private note paper rather than House of Commons notepaper? Or got a researcher to request it on personal notepaper. Some people would argue that this was more suspicious as it was 'covert'.
Click to expand...

If the claim by his friend is true - it is academic research - then I would expect there to be an investigation into his misuse of resources etc and the whip withdrawn until such time it is completed.

If the information he required is available under FOI then why didn't he use such a mechanism?

Whichever way it is sliced he doesn't come out of this smelling of roses.
 
Craig B said:
I think it may be the other way round, and that the English government doubles as the government of The United Kingdom. The most celebrated study of the Constitution of the UK was published in 1867
[...]is a book by Walter Bagehot. First serialised in The Fortnightly Review between 15 May 1865 and 1 January 1867, and later published in book form in the latter year. It explores the constitution of the United Kingdom, specifically the functioning of Parliament and the British monarchy, and the contrasts between British and American government. The book became a standard work which was translated into several languages.​
I have omitted the name of this authoritative guide. Can you guess what it is called?
Click to expand...

It's 2017..... Anything written in 1867 is going to be out of date, no matter how authoritative it might have been when it was published....
 
quadraginta said:
Was he asking for some information which was not already freely available?

Was there something that couldn't have been looked up in public documents already offered by these schools. like their course schedules and faculty lists?

I don't think that freedom of information laws obligate those universities to respond to any question at all that they receive from anyone asking for information which is already publicly available and easily found by anyone who wants to bother to take a moment and look it up.

The question which seems to be evaded by those people trying to defend this letter is, "Why ask for this information this way?", when there was no need to ask for it at all.
Click to expand...

Yes, if an FOI request is for information that is already available elsewhere, a perfectly acceptable point is to indicate where that is. These days that usually involves pointing at a web page or pages, but it can also include providing a scan or hard copy of a printed source.
 
Planigale said:
I am not sure anyone has pointed out that under freedom of information legislation universities as public bodies are obliged to provide this information to anyone who requests it. Do people believe that MPs should be more restricted than the general public in access to information?

What would have been the response if he had requested the information on private note paper rather than House of Commons notepaper? Or got a researcher to request it on personal notepaper. Some people would argue that this was more suspicious as it was 'covert'.
Click to expand...

Are lecture materials open to FOI requests? Given they form a significant chunk of a university course which currently costs over £9k I'd have thought they'd be exempt for commercial reasons if nothing else. Maybe they are, I don't know, it just seems strange if they are.
 
Mid said:
Are lecture materials open to FOI requests? Given they form a significant chunk of a university course which currently costs over £9k I'd have thought they'd be exempt for commercial reasons if nothing else. Maybe they are, I don't know, it just seems strange if they are.
Click to expand...


The letter asked for names, syllabuses, and links to on-line courses.

I would think that all of that is already publicly available information.

Not the same as lecture materials.
 
quadraginta said:
The letter asked for names, syllabuses, and links to on-line courses.

I would think that all of that is already publicly available information.

Not the same as lecture materials.
Click to expand...

Well it's the bit about links to online courses that I'm wondering about. Back in the good old days of the mid 2000s when I lectured all the online stuff would only have been available to registered students we didn't provide anything online to the general public. But I suppose this may vary between universities and subjects and things will have moved on in the past decade.
 
Mid said:
Well it's the bit about links to online courses that I'm wondering about. Back in the good old days of the mid 2000s when I lectured all the online stuff would only have been available to registered students we didn't provide anything online to the general public. But I suppose this may vary between universities and subjects and things will have moved on in the past decade.
Click to expand...


Having the link doesn't mean you have access to the website or its contents.

It just means you have the address of the site.

Just because you can find 10 Downing St. doesn't mean you can wander in any time you want and take whatever you want to.
 
quadraginta said:
Having the link doesn't mean you have access to the website or its contents.

It just means you have the address of the site.

Just because you can find 10 Downing St. doesn't mean you can wander in any time you want and take whatever you want to.
Click to expand...

Well I suppose it depends how the stuff is made available online i.e. pw protected website, intranet etc. I'd still be surprised if what's available to a non student is beyond: here's a link to a website for which you need to be registered to see anything more than the intro. page.
 
Darat said:
It's 2017..... Anything written in 1867 is going to be out of date, no matter how authoritative it might have been when it was published....
Click to expand...
You might think so. But the thing that was being described in 1867 is still substantially in place, so it is not surprising that the description is believed to have retained some value. The name of the work, however, was not correct, and could easily be understood not to be correct, at the time it was composed.
 
Any kind of criticism of how things are is now being treated as treason.
 
Darat said:
If the claim by his friend is true - it is academic research - then I would expect there to be an investigation into his misuse of resources etc and the whip withdrawn until such time it is completed.

If the information he required is available under FOI then why didn't he use such a mechanism?
Whichever way it is sliced he doesn't come out of this smelling of roses.
Click to expand...

He did. he wrote and asked for it!
 
Planigale said:
Darat said:
If the claim by his friend is true - it is academic research - then I would expect there to be an investigation into his misuse of resources etc and the whip withdrawn until such time it is completed.

If the information he required is available under FOI then why didn't he use such a mechanism?
Whichever way it is sliced he doesn't come out of this smelling of roses.
Click to expand...

He did. he wrote and asked for it!
Click to expand...


I guess it must be different in the U.K.

In the U.S. a Freedom Of Information request is a distinct formal process which entails very specific channels and documentation. It isn't just a matter of sending a note saying, "Hey, how about telling me this.".
 
quadraginta said:
I guess it must be different in the U.K.

In the U.S. a Freedom Of Information request is a distinct formal process which entails very specific channels and documentation. It isn't just a matter of sending a note saying, "Hey, how about telling me this.".
Click to expand...

Well, in the sense that in the UK you have to specifically cite the FOI Act when putting the request in, I suspect it's not that different. This clearly wasn't an FOI request, notwithstanding the fact that it could have been.
 
That's not quite how FoI works in the UK but I'll not derail the thread.
 
Information Analyst said:
Well, in the sense that in the UK you have to specifically cite the FOI Act when putting the request in, I suspect it's not that different. This clearly wasn't an FOI request, notwithstanding the fact that it could have been.
Click to expand...

No you do not have to quote the FOI act; (though it may be more likely to get a response if you do).

"You should give:
your name (not needed if requesting environmental information)
a contact address
a detailed description of the information you want - for example, you might want all information held on a subject, or just a summary
You can ask for information in a particular format, such as:
paper or electronic copies of information
audio format
large print"
https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-information-request

"You do not have to:
mention the Freedom of Information Act or Environmental Information Regulations, although it may help to do so;
know whether the information is covered by the Freedom of Information Act or the Environmental Information Regulations; or
say why you want the information."
https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/official-information/
 
Planigale said:
No you do not have to quote the FOI act; (though it may be more likely to get a response if you do).

"You should give:
your name (not needed if requesting environmental information)
a contact address
a detailed description of the information you want - for example, you might want all information held on a subject, or just a summary
You can ask for information in a particular format, such as:
paper or electronic copies of information
audio format
large print"
https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-information-request

<snip>https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/official-information/
Click to expand...


And the letter in question asked for the names of instructors teaching certain subjects, syllabuses, and links to on-line lectures.

All of which is information which would be freely available and easily accumulated without having to send such a letter under the letterhead of an MP ... who has no connection with the government, of course :rolleyes:.
 
To sum up David Davis

* Claimed he will negotiate a deal directly with Berlin after the leave vote, then negotiate separate trade deals with individual EU member states

* Claimed we should have had trade deals with the US and China by now

* Does not know that Czechoslovakia doesn't exist

* Does not know the difference between Holland and the Netherlands

* Calls the Republic of Ireland "Southern Ireland"

* Is in charge of negotiating our future trading relationship with literally the entire world

What could possibly go wrong?
 
Hubert Cumberdale said:
To sum up David Davis

* Claimed he will negotiate a deal directly with Berlin after the leave vote, then negotiate separate trade deals with individual EU member states

* Claimed we should have had trade deals with the US and China by now

* Does not know that Czechoslovakia doesn't exist

* Does not know the difference between Holland and the Netherlands

* Calls the Republic of Ireland "Southern Ireland"

* Is in charge of negotiating our future trading relationship with literally the entire world
What could possibly go wrong?
Click to expand...

The highlighted bit is wrong, once we leave the EU that responsibility falls to Liam Fox. I'm sure that's as much a relief to you as it is to me
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom