Taking Out The Trash

Burning your money (and drowning and tearing it)

I could do with a better hit rate on my Freedom of Information requests. It's pretty good but even the ones answered don't always reveal much. (Hopefuly this will improve my hit rate)
Below is a letter I got from the Bank of England after I asked them what kind of excuses people gave when they sent in damaged notes and asked for new ones. I thought it could lead to nice little diary story. Might still do.
Anyway, they couldn't answer properly because so many people sent in notes it would take them ages to go through the individual forms. So on the second page you see a breakdown by category and the value of money. This post also lets me roadtest Scribd.
There are a lot of careless people out there.
Bank of England

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Business & Economics Research information bank

Seven lessons for FoI

A dispassionate and comprehensive analysis of lessons to be drawn for Freedom of Information from the MPs' expenses row by Martin Rosenbaum.

Lesson 7 is:

On a more journalistic note, the Telegraph has placed an enormous quantity of data and level of detail in the public domain during this period, well in excess of what is normal even for a very big, long-running story.....The relevance of this for FOI-based journalism is that information requests can often extract large amounts of data, whose full significance is not immediately apparent. In the future, we may see more examples (although presumably on a much lesser scale) of the media publishing quantities of material without telling their audience what the "story" is

We may be feasting off this information for some time to come as the significance of every cheque stub and moat receipt becomes clear. And then there is the analysis which looks at claim by party, region, job or majority. For fans of computer assisted reporting there is more gold to be found.

Getting too close to the story

I posted at the weekend about how Freedom of Information campaigner Heather Brooke should be praised for her role in the MPs expenses scandal. (Long backgound piece by Heather in the Guardian today)

I also raised a brief concern about her motivation.

That appears confirmed by this post from Heather urging people to join her and the Taxpayers Alliance and sign a petition calling for full and immediate publication of all MPs expenses.

Linking up with the Taxpayers Alliance is, I believe, a mistake. Journalists do align themselves with protest groups when they become particularly close to a story. It's a tough call about how independent you wish to be. I'm all for journalists taking a stand because some things are just wrong.

However, the TPA , I believe, is a front for big business which has no interest in quality journalism. It does a superb job at getting lazy and/or incompetent journalists to reprint its poorly researched press releases which pursue an extreme ideological line.

Personally, I'd like to see Heather use her skills investigating who funds theTPA rather than give this astroturf campaign any credibility.

Have a look at this piece from Tax Justice Network for some background.

Update: Heather has responded on her blog to my comments there and I've reprinted below.

HI Phil,
I take your points, but this is just too big for one person and I need the help. I asked the Mysociety guys but they don’t have the manpower right now to set up a separate petition.
And I have to say the TPA have been assiduous users of the FOIA - more than almost anyone.
The issue of transparent accountable government is one that transcends party politics. It unites both left and right.

I don’t agree that we have a real choice in elections. Our choice is superficial and pre-determined. I would like to see a system that is more responsive and gives the chance for local leaders to move up the ranks into parliament rather than having a few elites parachuted into constituencies based on having worked in the strategy unit.

Update II: and this post from Heather adds some nice colour to her campaign.

MPs expenses and the FoI

Interesting post by Martin Rosenbaum over at the BBC's Open Secrets blog on the MPs expenses scandal (if that doesn't win scoop of the year for the Daily Telegraph then we might as well all go home).
Rosenbaum makes the point that, while the initial pressure to release came through FoI requests what has been published goes much further than the act allows. For instance the publishing of home addresses. In fact this is an old fashioned leak prompted by a very fat cheque.
As fast as things change they stay the same.
FoI campaigner Heather Brooke in particular deserves praise for her pursuit of this story. I get the impression that her motivation stems from a belief that all government is essentially corrupt so the smaller it is the better. Whatever pushes her buttons it's been pretty devastating for Parliament.

Update: Heather Brooke has posted briefly on the issue in between being very busy writing and commentating on it. See here for an updated comment by me on this.

Euro FoI

I'm not experienced in requesting documents from the European Parliament Commission (apologies for the schoolboy error and thanks to Philip Hunt for correcting me - post in haste, repent at leisure).

It's enough trying to winkle out info in this country but there's a useful resource from the NUJ about how to do this.
Hat tip: Tigmoo

Journalists last in the queue for MoD FOI responses

Thanks to FOI News for pointing out a report from an American academic which shows our Ministry of Defence is far from neutral when it responds to FOI requests.

Alasdair Roberts, from Suffolk University in Boston, looked at the data relating to 15,627 FOI requests made to the MoD.

He found that MPs and Peers had “Quick Response” stamped on 64% of their requests (the most of any category of requester) while bottom came journalists with a third getting a “Quick Response” stamp.

You can bet that those third came from the national media; your poor old freelancers and local reporters are unlikely to have been given preferential treatment.

FOI News says:

So much for the MoD being blind to who is making the request. ‘Quick Response’, who decides if a question gets that stamped on it? But I don’t want to attack the MoD as my experience is that of all the Government departments they are the fairest and most professional when it comes to FoI requests. Heaven knows what this study would have looked like if it had been using data from the National Offender Management Unit at the Ministry of Justice!

And I can second that comment about the National Offender Management Unit having spent two years trying to extract basic information from them. I currently have an appeal with the Information Commission about their abject failure to respond to requests in time.

You can read Prof Roberts report here.

You need the info to name and shame

The TUC sent me a press release welcoming a register naming and shaming those employers who refuse to cough up after being found guilty at employment tribunals.

TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said:

"Too many people are still hit by the double whammy of employers acting illegally and then refusing to pay when they are caught."

Except the naming and shaming bit isn't that straightforward.

I've just got round to reading the official government announcement. The Department of Justice says that:

"People who fail to pay awards made by employment tribunals will be publicly named and shamed from today, as the government clamps down hard on employers who disregard tribunal rulings.

"Justice Minister Bridget Prentice said offending individuals or companies who have been taken to court to enforce the award will now be entered onto the Register of Judgments, which can be searched by members of the public and credit reference agencies."

Oh look, there is that public naming and shaming bit again. Except the register can only be search for a fee and is generally used only by companies looking to carry out credit checks.

Sure it's good that this information is entered on a public database but the fees are prohibitive -far more so than on other databases such as those held by Companies House. If the purpose is naming and shaming then it should be far easier to get the info.

And finally: Unless I missed it, this story has been barely covered by any media despite the fact that it signals a large and deliberate attempt by businesses to dodge their financial punishments.

Maybe, considering the date it was announced, they thought it was an April Fool?