Tuesday
Sep132011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill ICO calls to extend FOI-case time-limits
Sep 13, 2011 FOI The Information Commissioner's Office has just tweeted that the Commissioner himself has just told the parliamentary Justice Committee that the time limit for s77 prosecutions should be extended - this was what let UEA officials off the hook for their Climategate-related FOI breaches.
The commissioner also called for custodial sentences for breaches of the Data Protection Act. In fact, I think custodial sentences should be required for breaches of FOI too. At the moment public bodies don't take the Act very seriously.
Reader Comments (16)
Hey - I like the sound of the Information Commissioner..!
Six months is way too short for a FOI request - it should be two years at least - or, why have a limit anyway..?
Agree that there should be custodial sentences for failure to comply with FOI - you can finish up in clink for a lot less...
Hmm. More regulation. More criminalisation. This is the New Labour way.
Whilst I share your concern at the apparently very underhand tactics of the UEA (does this statement warrant a libel case?). I think their reputation has been very much reduced by what they seem to have done (and apparently continue to do). This in itself is sufficient punishment - after all, what has a University got if, it hasn't got a reputation for scientific integrity?
UEA's "brand" elicits guffaws amongst the cognoscenti - what more do you want, or need?
J.O.E
"...after all, what has a University got if, it hasn't got a reputation for scientific integrity?"
Well, there is the 'green' score;
http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?o=Green
JoE - sorry I disagree. Properly punishing breaches of DPA/FOI isn't regulation - it is the opposite.
SSAT - since the ultimate 'green score' can only be attained by the non-existence of the institution in question, looking at the failing/failed 'universities' accompanying UEA in scoring highly in this metric suggests that this state of, er, purity won't be delayed for long.
Simpleseekeroftruth
Interesting link
How come the University of Creative Arts, comes bottom without a "green" score? You would have thought they would have found it easiest to concoct something
Back to te ICO
Don't suppose they could make the law change retrospective?
@golf charley
"Don't suppose they could make the law change retrospective"
HMRC can .........and do.
@ssat
I Googled "UEA climate academic standing" and came up with this: -
http://www.thegwpf.org/uk-news/2783-climategate-university-of-east-anglia-v-the-daily-telegraph.html
"The Commission was satisfied that readers would be aware of the context of the columnist’s robust views – clearly recognisable as his subjective opinion – that the scientists were “untrustworthy, unreliable and entirely unfit to write the kind of reports on which governments around the world make their economic and environmental decisions”, and that their work was “shoddy” and “mendacious”. In the circumstances, it did not consider that there had been a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code."
I can only concur with this summary.
The columnists comments seem to get to the heart of the matter. Why bother with the courts when free speech is still available?
JoE - let's say you are of a criminal bent.
What do you think would discourage you more strongly from wrongdoing?
Somebody saying "JoE is corrupt" or somebody proving it in a court of law and the court imposing penalties on you?
JoE,
We live in a world where the moral high ground can be claimed by some measure of 'greenness' leaving that claimant seemingly immune from the need to apologise for transgressions. UEA escaped prosecution because of a time limitation only and which they grasp as innocence proven. Others of the same bent accept that while society (law) is poorly served. If extending the time period will assist in catching them next time then so be it.
Gentlemen(?),
It is a "fine" point and in my heart of hearts I am tempted to agree with you.
Nothing would please the grumpy part of me more, than to see these "mendacious" people punished for their ways.
But when asked by @nby which would deter ME the most, the answer is my loss of reputation.
I think that "The Team" is already of such ill-repute that honourable people must already avoid them like the plague in their professional lives. How can you pursue a career as a scientist and not have a shred of honesty? I was educated as a scientist (I went into industry after graduating) at a redbrick university. There was no concept of fiddling the figures - of not publishing your results (and your computer code - and that was in 1966!). There was absolutely no point - because you would make no progress towards reality - the truth. And everything had to be reproduce-able by some one else.
A reputation as an honest man (or scientist) is far far more valuable than what happens in court.
Do you think that ANY member of the Team will end up being a famous scientist?. Much more likely is that they will become known as the capitalist versions of Lysenko. Infamy awaits them. They come across as pathetic figures already.
And - as I know from experience - the only real winners in court are the lawyers.
Sensible blogs like this, where debate is open & honest and courteous, will win in the end. It has certainly helped me understand the idiocy of AGW and the IPCC. The machinations, twisting and turning of the UEA makes me roar with laughter.
I don't need any lawyers to help me see through them.
JoE - loss of reputation only really matters to the honourable. To the dishonest it is just an inconvenience, because it is actually only the loss of a useful illusion.
I think you are arguing the general point from a personal perspective rather than what is effective for society and I'm afraid I don't share your optimism that truth will out.
I agree with NBY.
I've lived with and worked with dishonest brokers. Truth is elusive with them. It forms a useful illusion, but that is all it is.
I don't really know what motivates them, but I do know they work diligently toward whatever goal they've set for themselves. Truth is useful but not mandatory. They are impervious to rebuttal and scorn. It affects them not. Very much similar to a sociopath mentality, but with a different goal and outcome.
simpleseekeraftertruth - Wonderful! My old Uni came stone motherless last in the Green Score column
Example of successful ICO prosecution:
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/9249370.Bank_cashier_snooped_on_sex_attack_victim/
//Langridge was prosecuted by the Information Commission. Information Commissioner Christopher Graham said: “The details of the case are truly shocking. The victim had a harrowing enough experience at the hands of her attacker.
“The revelation that her attacker’s wife was then rooting through all her personal details, for whatever purpose, would have caused even further distress.
“It beggars belief that – in an age when our personal information is being stored and accessed by more organisations than ever – the penalties for seriously abusing the system still do not include the possibility of a prison sentence, even in the most serious cases.”//