Freedom of Information Act (FOI)

[Specaircrew]

20041013-U-EVERYBODYSEYES-STAFF-Plopandpoo-OCTRIV-DRAFT-V1


As if we didn't have enough c*r*a*p to deal with!

[November4]

Lost me there Speccers

[Specaircrew]

So you're not aware that as from 1 Jan 05 any Tom, Dick or Harry has the right to see any of our data and we must produce it within 20 days! Therefore everything (files,emails etc) has to be titled or re titled:

Date(backwards)-Protective Marking-Caveat-Desriptor-Title-Signatory-Draft-Version

This applies to everthing you already have stored on your Hard Drive, not just new documents...........the delete button on my PC has worn out!!!

[BEagle]

It just keeps on getting better, eh Speccers?

Mind you, if that means open access to various things caveated under 'Management in Confidence', then some people might well be called to account....

[airmail]

As someone who has been out of the forces for a number of years, I obviously cannot comment on the current situation. However, the Act does contain the following caveat:

Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice-

(a) the defence of the British Islands or of any colony, or
(b) the capability, effectiveness or security of any relevant forces.
(2) In subsection (1)(b) "relevant forces" means-

(a) the armed forces of the Crown, and
(b) any forces co-operating with those forces,
or any part of any of those forces.

Which I believe could be construed as a convenient get out clause??;)

[Specaircrew]

The only 'get out' is info that would be covered by the Data Protection Act or data that is of such a sensitive nature that it wouldn't be in the public interest to release it. Unfortunately most of my one fingered typing stuff doesn't qualify!

[L J R]

Unfortunately we all have to get the organisation out of the '50s and into the '80s in order for us to prepare for the '90s and the new millenium, or we may be caught out by what the brave new world that beyond 2000 will hold.......


Realistically, society requires such legislation, and MoD has to embrace (nice buzz word...) such management issues, as do those in it from the low to those at the the highest management level. Yes, MoD must be a War Fighting orgnaisation, but in todays 'touchy-feely' world, it MUST conform to the demands of the time, and even though it may be a hassle to manage, IT MUST BE MANAGED....

If you are afraid of your inability to justify your management decisions, you might want to take a look at your management style or principles - or at least the training you received to put you there.

[Biggus]

What management training?

[L J R]

exactly......



Yet another example of lack of management

[FJJP]

Send a letter to OC TRIV asking when the team are visiting your section to convert all your file titles. When he writes back telling you to get on with it, write back saying NO.

What they going to do? Court martial you with all the attendant gutter press publicity?

In any case, by the time they find out that this task is at the bottom of your in tray, you'll have been posted/promoted/PVR'd/etc...

[soddim]

Does this mean that the Handicap Committee can demand to see the card last week that had three birdies and an eagle on it?

[Stan Bydike]

L J R,

You quoted:



"Realistically, society requires such legislation, and MoD has to embrace (nice buzz word...) such management issues, as do those in it from the low to those at the the highest management level. Yes, MoD must be a War Fighting orgnaisation, but in todays 'touchy-feely' world, it MUST conform to the demands of the time, and even though it may be a hassle to manage, IT MUST BE MANAGED...."

I'm sorry, but are we not meant to be a fighting force as you say above, so why do we have to sit by yet and let another piece of legislation which will do nothing other that shaft those presently serving who are trying to get (all) their jobs done. It really is time to bang out.:\

[outlaw51]

Let's face it, admin crap aside, there's a culture of secrecy pervading all three services which carries things to the ridiculous level. Most "classified" material is either available on the internet or in specialist mags given enough time, perserverance and computer time, or really doesn't matter all that much in the first place.

A former Flag Officer Submarines once told me that the only truly secret issues for the RN were missile targeting data, sub patrol box locations and the design of the unique, onboard reactors. The rest, he said wearily, was little more than bureacratic nonsense in place to make inadequate people feel important.

Whitehall will do what it does best when faced with having to put up a smokescreen against embarrassing public access to records. It will classify entire rainforests'-worth of bumf - needlessly - and stall, prevaricate and obstruct legitimate inquiries.

[Pontius Navigator]

I have my questions prepared.

One is the target list.

I hadn't thought of the SPAs but I will add that one too.

Any other secret squirrels ready to write?

[outlaw51]

Save yourself time, money and frustration, PN. Access your unit's by-service copy of the relevant volume of Jane's Fighting Drunks or nip down your local library if you're a civvie and you'll find the envelopes of most weapons' systems and platforms in public purview and as-near-as-damnit accurate.

It's the kind of information the Secret Sams love to protect, hostile countries already know, and terrorists don't really care about. But it keeps paranoid senior officers and Whitehall mandarins in employment.

The MoD has the ultimate get-out clause. It does not have to and will not be forced to disclose anything judged not to be in the national interest. Game of catch-all anyone? The rest, as they say, is unadulterated bullshi*.

[Pontius Navigator]

Outlaw 51, no the list I want starts Arkangeleski and goes down to Zhitomir.

BTW I have just sent all MY archives to the Old War Office Building. I understand the vaults there are empty at the moment and it is the perfect place to bury secrets.

[buoy15]

Outlaw51

Pretty spot on mate!

Love Many, Trust a few. Always paddle your own canoe!:D

[TheBeeKeeper]

The MoD has the ultimate get-out clause.

You'd think so wouldn't you, however, what you might find is that you have to have a seriously good reason not to give the information. Just because something is caveated, does not mean it is instantly undisclosed. Far from it, the owner of the document is to decide whether the information is still classified or not, given elapsed time and circumstances since the creation of the document. Also, even if the document is still classified, it would be sanitised by omitting words/dates etc that give the document its classification.

All in all, it is a potential nightmare, we have to respond to these requests within 20 working days. For the inquisitive out there, its not going to be an option, at a minimum of £600 per request (I believe), those people will possibly remain inquisitive...... but for another government lets say.... who could run a programme to generate automated requests. The whole of the MoD could grind to a halt (if it hasn't already).

On the bright side, some civil servants would actually have a job to do! :oh:

[JessTheDog]

Simple get out:

Arrange for the files to be "contaminated by asbestos!"

[Argus]

According to press reports in Oz today, the reason why information about George Bush's service in the Air National Guard was not fully disclosed is that "rat excrement in the storage boxes made it hard to review the files".

On a par with the "great flood of 1965", "the office move from Whitehall to Bath" and other excuses offered by Sir Humphrey in pursuading Jim Hacker not to release material!

We've had FOI legislation in Oz for almost 30 years. In opposition, politicians wax lyrical about its benefits. In government however, most politicians go out of their way to thwart the objectives of the legislation. One of our national papers maintains a journalist full time in pursuing FOI requests through the tribunals and courts - often with interesting results that are then published for all to see.

Welcome to 'Open Government'.

[BEagle]

Presumably the rat excrement was an accurate description of the person in question?

[Pontius Navigator]

There is a plume of smoke and local warming in my area. Come Nov 5th we shall be finished. We have already shredded two hard drives <vbg>.

[PhoenixDaCat]

I read that good old uncle Tone has blocked responses from being given to questions posed by MPs over his new gambling bill, and the involvement of American companies, even though MPs are entitled to ask any question they like of the Government.

So much for Freedom of Information.

[MAD Boom]

My good lady is a Data Protection Solicitor and somewhat of a whizz on FOI. By the sounds of what she said, it would take a VERY good reason not to disclose information and from my time served, the RAF is not VERY good at anything - Bugger.
Their opinion at work is that they are not after our secrets, they just want to know where all the money goes, and now they can.

Deep joy

[Jimlad]

From what I understand, the get out clause does exist, but you need to be able to justify WHY the information comes under the get out clause. You cant turn round and say "last weeks menu is Top Secret and won't be revealed", you have to provide a justification as to why that is the case. Makes my heart sink!

I bet large amounts of money that the only people that ask are the UFO/Conspiracy loonies who won't believe us when we say we have nothing to hide!

Incidentally, for those who are confused, DB learning are reportedly going to run a course on handling FOI which should be released shortly.

Finally, did anyone see the Zulu poster on FOI and the ensuing charge of RACISM in Paperclips??

[JessTheDog]

What about the Attorney-General's assessment of the legal case for war in Iraq??? I'd put money on that being the first high-profile request!

[Biggus]

First of all sorry if I am asking an obvious question answered elsewhere on this thread - but can somebody confirm that the FOI act ALREADY applies in the UK (outside the military)!!

I am in a position where I wish to request access to some information from my local council - are they already required to provide it under the FOI act, or does the 1st Jan date apply to them also!!

Assuming I get an answer - thanks!!


P.S In my case can the council try to get out of providing information by quoting possible breachs of "confidentiality".

[ImageGear]

This may answer some of your and others questions

http://www.ams.mod.uk/ams/content/docs/toolkit/gateway/guidance/discinf.htm

Ducks, grabs tin hat

Imagegear:uhoh:

[VoicesFromTheCreche]

Quoting from Dodgeball

"At least the hippies got something right..........."

[LoeyDaFrog]

FoI
All this FoI stuff is all well and good, but can someone please explain how I can sort out the conflict with that little piece of paper marked 'Official secrets act' that I signed when I joined, or does that not count anymore after Katherine Whatsherface decided to tell all to whoeveritwas.....

Just asking?

(reposted to the correct thread after my fat fingers got it wrong the first time)

[BigGrecian]

I've even got a nice little reminder on the bottom of my pay slip.

"Freedom of Information - 01 January 2005"

Not quite sure how it affects me apart from we let shareholders look at un-restricted information. Best I leave that to the experts then...

[Pontius Navigator]

FOI, no problem.

I got a long email on Monday from Sir Humphrey. Got another yesterday - same email. Just as obscurantist as the first. Full of unintelligible TLAs and jargon. It might be a draft response to an exercise FOI question or a real letter for any enquiry.

As someone in the FOI food chain I haven't a clue.

AIT BU EUID concatenation RLI DII FOI and so on.