Another FOI waste of time?
 

For anyone with a few spare minutes, on the MOD home page, recent FOI request are listed. This one caught my eye of a complete waste of time and abuse of the system - 'who provides RAF braid?'

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...icer_Braid.pdf

It's probably just someone who makes / sells braid and want's to see what the market is, find out who the incumbent suppliers are etc etc. It's hardly a complex or vexatious request compared to some you see come up on "what do they know" .

Edit to add, here's a cracker...

Probably came with a self addressed envelope to Kim, N Korea.

Daysleeper, presumably the FAST Museum at Farnborough was closed on the day our NK friends tried to visit, otherwise they would have seen the Chevaline there.

http://fas.org/nuke/guide/uk/slbm/chevaline1.jpg

Yes, that is a bit more interesting that RAF Officers' Braid; granted!

But even so, such a mundane enquiry would have consumed several hours of staff time of several different people within the MOD.

The principle is when taxpayers money is being used, the taxpayer has a "right" to know some of the details around that. If the FOI system was filtered on someone's view of usefulness of the the inquiry, not much would get done. As suggested above, somebody might be seeing if there is a business opportunity, or checking the existing deal is fair and transparent. Once you let someone filter on a whim, the dark corners of Government abuse become even darker.

I appreciate the right to know principle, but the issue is trying to get the balance right (between the relative importance of the information in the Public domain vs the expenditure of Public money to obtain it), and how that balance is determined

I put a request to my local council on the cost of installation, cost of policing, and expected revenue for the parking meters they were proposing to install. Essentially their business plan. The answer was staggering; they said they did not have the information.

The meters were duly installed on the stated date. SIX WEEKS LATER all the meters were changed for solar powered ones where you have to enter your vehicle registration. I should ask the cost of that operation.

FOI's are the only tool the taxpayer has for uncovering the way those in bureaucracy spend OUR money.

Perhaps more importantly they are the only way to uncover the wanton wasting of our money.

The real problem though is, having determined that, getting anything done about it. The direct result of the introduction of FoI has been the closing of ranks among the upper echelons.

PN, that is a classic example of the most bizarre part of the legislation. The answer does not have to be truthful.

Initially, when MoD answered questions, they would include a statement outlining what to do if you thought the answer contained;

1. Errors of fact
2. Subjective comments
3. Opinion or comment based on factually incorrect information

However, once the Information Commissioner ruled there was no need to do this, they stopped.

In many ways this worked against MoD, because one way round it is to have more than one person submit precisely the same question. MoD "classifies" the originator and will have different parts of MoD answer the question depending on ones status. The best example is the Mull of Kintyre case, when D/ Air Staffs lied to a family member, but a Sqn Ldr at Yeovilton provided a truthful answer to the same question when submitted by a member of the public. The information he provided formed the basis of the evidence that cleared the pilots.

This one caught my eye of a complete waste of time and abuse of the system - 'who provides RAF braid?' - Whenurhappy

There's always the possibility that it could be another FOI request from Typhoon93 , looking ahead....:rolleyes:

Jack

The answer to the OP is both obvious and simple.

It is supplied either by the station tailor or a military tailor. The station tailor may well source it from Stores aka Supply, aka Logistics.

Should it be a controversy? The OP apparently feels it was an unreasonable question. There will be instances where secrecy is necessary but surely, in general, taxpayers have a right to know where their money is spent?

That's the same answer that I got when I asked Merseyside Police how much they were paying for Air Support under the new National Police Air Support set up. :ugh:

I refer you to my comments at post No 6: I appreciate the right to know principle, but the issue is trying to get the balance right (between the relative importance of the information in the Public domain vs the expenditure of Public money to obtain it), and how that balance is determined


That thought had crossed my mind, too!

Typhoo-93
 

D'you mean looking ahead to when he needs to buy his own, or in order to set up a business to supply it since he can't be a Pilot?

Tread drift, but my old school used to use FO braid for the upper sixth. Braid was sewn on each lapel.

Cheaper that a school shop special blazer or badge.

No idea where they got the idea from.

Whenurhappy, re getting the balance right, why should this be a big cost? Why can't spending details -of OUR money be published on a website?

I agree there will be instances where official secrecy or commercial confidentiality may intervene but surely the default setting ought to be openness?

Typhoo-93

D'you mean looking ahead to when he needs to buy his own, or in order to set up a business to supply it since he can't be a Pilot? - Airpolice

Not really my cup of tea!:D

Jack

Some while ago I was asked by an MP to prepare a report into an accident.

As required under the OSA, I immediately advised MoD of this to give them the opportunity to comment/object. Their only comment was that should I wish to quote from a very specific investigative report I should formally seek a copy under FOI. This was done, and they denied all knowledge of it, despite me naming the author and 6 main recipients! I sought legal advice and was assured I could quote the report (or, to be precise, the evidence to the investigator) as MoD had dug a hole for themselves by lying.

Upon completion, I submitted the complete report expecting extensive demands for redaction or removal; especially relating to this investigation. But no, not a single request, despite it naming staffs who had committed grave offences, including withholding details of the above investigation from both BoI and Coroner.

Make of this what you will. My conclusions were (a) the FOI system is in disarray to a laughable extent, (b) MoD are primarily concerned with protecting certain individuals, yet (c) wholly unconcerned over it being revealed publicly that their staff commit serious offences, directly linked to deaths of Servicemen.

Oh what fun it is to......