Restrict the freedom of information act law

Councils have been bombarded with requests for information to appease the folly of certain individuals, or anyone with a grudge.  It has created full time jobs in certain establishments in order to co-ordinate and/or spend days getting information for some ridiculous requests.  It has also had the effect of allowing businesses to ask questions that they can use to pitch their services back to the organisations concerned. 

Why is this idea important?

Councils have been bombarded with requests for information to appease the folly of certain individuals, or anyone with a grudge.  It has created full time jobs in certain establishments in order to co-ordinate and/or spend days getting information for some ridiculous requests.  It has also had the effect of allowing businesses to ask questions that they can use to pitch their services back to the organisations concerned. 

Scrap the Digital Economy Act

To remove this bill altogether, it gives the Goverment too many powers to just turn off Broadband connections or even to block websites they do not like!

It takes away the freedom of access for Internet, and infringes upon our Human Rights.

Why is this idea important?

To remove this bill altogether, it gives the Goverment too many powers to just turn off Broadband connections or even to block websites they do not like!

It takes away the freedom of access for Internet, and infringes upon our Human Rights.

Scrap the Digital Economy Bill

To remove this bill altogether, it gives the Goverment too many powers to just turn off Broadband connections or even to block websites they do not like!

It takes away the freedom of access for Internet, and infringes upon our Human Rights.

Why is this idea important?

To remove this bill altogether, it gives the Goverment too many powers to just turn off Broadband connections or even to block websites they do not like!

It takes away the freedom of access for Internet, and infringes upon our Human Rights.

Charge market rates for ALL Freedom of Information requests by the media

The idea is that all organisations or individuals with a commercial interest or who obtain commerial reward who submit Freedom of Information requests are charged for the work involved in gathering that information.  They would be asked to declare their position when submitting the request and pay a registration fee.  On completion, they would be billed for the work done to generate the information with the appropriate limits and quotes to minimise excessive charges.

Why is this idea important?

The idea is that all organisations or individuals with a commercial interest or who obtain commerial reward who submit Freedom of Information requests are charged for the work involved in gathering that information.  They would be asked to declare their position when submitting the request and pay a registration fee.  On completion, they would be billed for the work done to generate the information with the appropriate limits and quotes to minimise excessive charges.

Correct the HRA and Data Protection Act so data can be kept indefinitely but not used unless authorised

The headlines about Russian spies recently shows that enemies of this country and our freedoms exist and can (and are?) be among us now.  That these "sleepers" were embedded decades ago emphasises the great need for us to be thorough in keeping and maintaining the records needed to enable us to track these people down.  The same is true for the non-government enemies; the terrorists and single issue extremists.

However, we as citizens need to be comfortable that our Government is not abusing this information to further its own ends; it is disgraceful that Local Government is abusing legislation regulating the Intelligence Services for such trivialities as dog fouling and car parking offences.  This is unacceptable and demeans both the Public and the Intelligence agencies protecting us – it must be stopped immediately.

My proposals are: 

1)that local government is immediately forbidden from using HRA/RIPA/ISA legislation

2) that Intelligence and suitable law enforcement agencies  are able to keep any quantity of data collected legally for unlimited periods

3) that Intelligence and suitable law enforcement agencies can only use this data when expressly authorised to do so in an auditable way and ensuring that the data they have is accurate and used in a proportionate fashion.

The intention is to remove the feeling that we the Public are being spied on for trivial purposes but that the organisations we expressly authorise, warrant and control have access to every piece of data they need to keep us safe, without any additional bureaurocratic overhead other than recording every use of that data and a justification for why it is being used.

Why is this idea important?

The headlines about Russian spies recently shows that enemies of this country and our freedoms exist and can (and are?) be among us now.  That these "sleepers" were embedded decades ago emphasises the great need for us to be thorough in keeping and maintaining the records needed to enable us to track these people down.  The same is true for the non-government enemies; the terrorists and single issue extremists.

However, we as citizens need to be comfortable that our Government is not abusing this information to further its own ends; it is disgraceful that Local Government is abusing legislation regulating the Intelligence Services for such trivialities as dog fouling and car parking offences.  This is unacceptable and demeans both the Public and the Intelligence agencies protecting us – it must be stopped immediately.

My proposals are: 

1)that local government is immediately forbidden from using HRA/RIPA/ISA legislation

2) that Intelligence and suitable law enforcement agencies  are able to keep any quantity of data collected legally for unlimited periods

3) that Intelligence and suitable law enforcement agencies can only use this data when expressly authorised to do so in an auditable way and ensuring that the data they have is accurate and used in a proportionate fashion.

The intention is to remove the feeling that we the Public are being spied on for trivial purposes but that the organisations we expressly authorise, warrant and control have access to every piece of data they need to keep us safe, without any additional bureaurocratic overhead other than recording every use of that data and a justification for why it is being used.

Stop US and other countries from accessing personal data

Stop sharing excessive private data with other countries, such as the US (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/10549331.stm as an example). “Nothing to hide if you’ve done nothing wrong” does not wash – especially with data leaks, mismanagement of data, and data errors – all data begins life as a manual keyboard entry by a human being and becomes extremely difficult to find in a large dataset.

Why is this idea important?

Stop sharing excessive private data with other countries, such as the US (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/10549331.stm as an example). “Nothing to hide if you’ve done nothing wrong” does not wash – especially with data leaks, mismanagement of data, and data errors – all data begins life as a manual keyboard entry by a human being and becomes extremely difficult to find in a large dataset.

Freedom of Information requests

One of the most time wasting (and therefore costly) things I've experienced in my planning career in local government is that of repeated, detailed FoI requests relating to matters dealt with some years ago (ie not current or recent by any definition) usually by a single individual with a grievance and plenty of time on their hands (eg premature retirement) to pursue it.  My suggestion would be:
 
a) to limit the number and frequency of requests by an individual or what might be reasonably seen to be a group of individuals acting in unison (difficult to determine often I know but a definition could be made relating to the frequency of requests surrounding a given detailed topic);
 
b) to limit the ability of requests to go back more than, say, five years without a court order.
 
 

Why is this idea important?

One of the most time wasting (and therefore costly) things I've experienced in my planning career in local government is that of repeated, detailed FoI requests relating to matters dealt with some years ago (ie not current or recent by any definition) usually by a single individual with a grievance and plenty of time on their hands (eg premature retirement) to pursue it.  My suggestion would be:
 
a) to limit the number and frequency of requests by an individual or what might be reasonably seen to be a group of individuals acting in unison (difficult to determine often I know but a definition could be made relating to the frequency of requests surrounding a given detailed topic);
 
b) to limit the ability of requests to go back more than, say, five years without a court order.
 
 

Stop encouraging Snoopers

Several Government websites offer forms for people to anonymously report people for alleged crimes such as ta evasion or of being benefits chats.

This is a licence for malcontents and grudge-bearers to cause mischief with no comeback on themselves. In such cases, the cost of investigation and evaluation is high, and the potential damage to a victim's reputation is huge.

In Baghdad under Saddam, there were Baathist Party members on every street, and in Soviet Russia, nobody trusted anyone else, including family members, because of such a likelihood of being hauled in and interrogated.

Let us prevent the UK from splintering like this. If the authorities did their jobs properly, they wouldn't need to engage spies and tattle-tales on the cheap like this.

Why is this idea important?

Several Government websites offer forms for people to anonymously report people for alleged crimes such as ta evasion or of being benefits chats.

This is a licence for malcontents and grudge-bearers to cause mischief with no comeback on themselves. In such cases, the cost of investigation and evaluation is high, and the potential damage to a victim's reputation is huge.

In Baghdad under Saddam, there were Baathist Party members on every street, and in Soviet Russia, nobody trusted anyone else, including family members, because of such a likelihood of being hauled in and interrogated.

Let us prevent the UK from splintering like this. If the authorities did their jobs properly, they wouldn't need to engage spies and tattle-tales on the cheap like this.

ANPR

All ANPR data should be deleted immediatley if there is no legitimate reason (offences committed or person wnated etc) to keeo that information.

Why is this idea important?

All ANPR data should be deleted immediatley if there is no legitimate reason (offences committed or person wnated etc) to keeo that information.

Remove the right to commercial confidentiality for all contracts entered into by national, reagional and local government

Remove the right to commercial confidentiality for all contracts entered into by national, reagional and local government and publish the contract in full.

Redaction of a private individuals contact details will be allowed.

Implimenting this change would not allow access to contracts that where still in negotiation or access to contracts that where not accepted, only to the winning bid. However a full history of changes to the winning contract from its acceptence untill the project is finished, including but not limited to, the date of the change, who proposed it and who authorised it must also be kept.

Why is this idea important?

Remove the right to commercial confidentiality for all contracts entered into by national, reagional and local government and publish the contract in full.

Redaction of a private individuals contact details will be allowed.

Implimenting this change would not allow access to contracts that where still in negotiation or access to contracts that where not accepted, only to the winning bid. However a full history of changes to the winning contract from its acceptence untill the project is finished, including but not limited to, the date of the change, who proposed it and who authorised it must also be kept.

Freedom of Information requests

A number of Freedom of information requests have been turned down because the information also contains personal information on a 3rd party.       

A simple solution would be to redact any personal information with a black magic marker.   Thereby allowing information to be obtained by anyone. 

The Freedom of Information act should be amended to allow for this, and stop the withholding of publicly owned information.

Why is this idea important?

A number of Freedom of information requests have been turned down because the information also contains personal information on a 3rd party.       

A simple solution would be to redact any personal information with a black magic marker.   Thereby allowing information to be obtained by anyone. 

The Freedom of Information act should be amended to allow for this, and stop the withholding of publicly owned information.

Allow appeals against BBC Freedom of Information decisions

Currently, if the BBC refuses to answer a Freedom of Information Act request, there is no appeal mechanism (I believe that this is unique among public bodies).

My idea is to remove this exemption from appeals.

Why is this idea important?

Currently, if the BBC refuses to answer a Freedom of Information Act request, there is no appeal mechanism (I believe that this is unique among public bodies).

My idea is to remove this exemption from appeals.

Time For Disclosure On UFO’s And Extra Terrestrial Life

The people of this country have had enough of being duped on so called government cover ups and misleads, on unidentified flying objects and extra terrestrial life.

There is now too much evidence to suggest that the government ignores this, and it is time we had disclosure on the matter and a new law in place that enables the public to have the right to know.

At a campaign meeting in 2009, newly elected British Prime Minister David Cameron promised to disclose any information the government had about the existence of Aliens/UFO's if he was elected as Prime Minister.

Now that he has been elected I think the British public should hold him to his promise and he should make a statement on whether the government or any of it's intelligence agencies are holding any information on UFO's/Aliens, and if so, he should make steps to release ALL of that information to the public.

David Cameron said at the meeting in 2009:

 


"I think we should be as open as possible, so I would be quite happy to give you a guarantee that if I became prime minister I would always be entirely open and frank about these things.

"I don't think any of us have any clue whether there's intelligent life out there and it is certainly not something that any Government should seek to hide from anyone."

So David Cameron believes he has a moral obligation to release any information the government may have. Since he has been elected he has apparently been working to make government more transparent by publishing more information to the public about spending, etc. Let's hope he does the same with any information the government or the MOD may have.

Disclosure soon?

Lets get this out in the open and lets do it for our country, not the USA or anyone else, just us.

We have the right to know, and we need to know now!
 

Why is this idea important?

The people of this country have had enough of being duped on so called government cover ups and misleads, on unidentified flying objects and extra terrestrial life.

There is now too much evidence to suggest that the government ignores this, and it is time we had disclosure on the matter and a new law in place that enables the public to have the right to know.

At a campaign meeting in 2009, newly elected British Prime Minister David Cameron promised to disclose any information the government had about the existence of Aliens/UFO's if he was elected as Prime Minister.

Now that he has been elected I think the British public should hold him to his promise and he should make a statement on whether the government or any of it's intelligence agencies are holding any information on UFO's/Aliens, and if so, he should make steps to release ALL of that information to the public.

David Cameron said at the meeting in 2009:

 


"I think we should be as open as possible, so I would be quite happy to give you a guarantee that if I became prime minister I would always be entirely open and frank about these things.

"I don't think any of us have any clue whether there's intelligent life out there and it is certainly not something that any Government should seek to hide from anyone."

So David Cameron believes he has a moral obligation to release any information the government may have. Since he has been elected he has apparently been working to make government more transparent by publishing more information to the public about spending, etc. Let's hope he does the same with any information the government or the MOD may have.

Disclosure soon?

Lets get this out in the open and lets do it for our country, not the USA or anyone else, just us.

We have the right to know, and we need to know now!
 

More personal right to control DNA samples

The DNA database is expensive, and has little statistical support. The records on innocent people are retained, sometimes indefinitely on this database, and the right of removal of this data is entirely at the discretion of senior police officers. Requests to remove innocent people's DNA are refused without explanation.

An individual should have the same rights to view and modify all information that is held on them by the police or authorities, and if that information is incorrect or irrelevant, then it should be the individual's right to have it removed from the database.

The police, as a matter of course take DNA samples even if there is no case for an individual to answer to. This is an infringement of basic human rights and the practice should be stopped, with the police only having this right on conviction in serious offences. It would not be right for an individual's DNA to be retained, for instance, if they were convicted of a motoring offence for instance.

Why is this idea important?

The DNA database is expensive, and has little statistical support. The records on innocent people are retained, sometimes indefinitely on this database, and the right of removal of this data is entirely at the discretion of senior police officers. Requests to remove innocent people's DNA are refused without explanation.

An individual should have the same rights to view and modify all information that is held on them by the police or authorities, and if that information is incorrect or irrelevant, then it should be the individual's right to have it removed from the database.

The police, as a matter of course take DNA samples even if there is no case for an individual to answer to. This is an infringement of basic human rights and the practice should be stopped, with the police only having this right on conviction in serious offences. It would not be right for an individual's DNA to be retained, for instance, if they were convicted of a motoring offence for instance.

An Open Monarchy

The monarchy is an undemocratic institution costing the taxpayer millions of pounds per year. Any exemptions protecting the monarchy from Freedom of Information legislation must be overturned. The cost of the monarchy must be completely open to public scrutiny.

Why is this idea important?

The monarchy is an undemocratic institution costing the taxpayer millions of pounds per year. Any exemptions protecting the monarchy from Freedom of Information legislation must be overturned. The cost of the monarchy must be completely open to public scrutiny.

Amendment of Freedom of Information Act

There needs to be a review of the Freedom of Information Act with a particular emphasis upon the cost of the administrative burden that it is placing upon public authorities. There is a paradox inherent in the drive towards increased openness and transparency, in that the more one commits public authorities towards such aims, the more resource one needs to apply towards satisfying such aims. The conclusion is that one unintentionally creates more of what one is trying to do away with – complexity, bureaucracy and increased secrecy.

Why is this idea important?

There needs to be a review of the Freedom of Information Act with a particular emphasis upon the cost of the administrative burden that it is placing upon public authorities. There is a paradox inherent in the drive towards increased openness and transparency, in that the more one commits public authorities towards such aims, the more resource one needs to apply towards satisfying such aims. The conclusion is that one unintentionally creates more of what one is trying to do away with – complexity, bureaucracy and increased secrecy.

AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFOMATION ACT

To remove the governmental veto currently placed upon the freedom of information act.
The removal would mean the govt would not be able to block information passing into the public realm just because they deem it sensitive or controversial.
The removal of this block would have meant Jack Straw would not have been able to impede public access to the cabinet minutes relating to the run up to the Iraq war.
 

Why is this idea important?

To remove the governmental veto currently placed upon the freedom of information act.
The removal would mean the govt would not be able to block information passing into the public realm just because they deem it sensitive or controversial.
The removal of this block would have meant Jack Straw would not have been able to impede public access to the cabinet minutes relating to the run up to the Iraq war.
 

Freedom of information act.

To extend the freedom of information act to cover priviate companys, Housing associations ect.  It is difficult to gain access to stored information within these businesses which leads to wrong, ineffective and untrue information being stored and used to make decisions.

Why is this idea important?

To extend the freedom of information act to cover priviate companys, Housing associations ect.  It is difficult to gain access to stored information within these businesses which leads to wrong, ineffective and untrue information being stored and used to make decisions.