As some of you are aware, the Information Commission Office found that provisions of the UK FOI statutes were violated with regard to David Holland’s requests made in 2007 and 2008. However, they also reported a statute of limitations prevented them from filing charges. Today, Christopher Booker suggests that interpretation of the statue of limtations is incorrect, writing:
Careful examination of the Act, however, shows that it says nothing whatever about a time limit. The Commission appears to be trying to confuse this with a provision of the Magistrates Act, that charges for an offence cannot be brought more than six months after it has been drawn to the authorities’ attention – not after it was committed. In this case, the Commission only became aware of the offence two months ago when the emails were leaked – showing that the small group of British and American scientists at the top of the IPCC were discussing with each other and with the university ways to break the law, not least by destroying evidence, an offence in itself.
The Commission is thus impaled on a hook of its own devising. By admitting that serious offences were committed, it is now legally obliged to bring charges. And if these were brought under the 1977 Criminal Law Act, alleging that the offences amounted to a conspiracy to defy the law, there is no time limit anyway
I don’t know whether Booker’s interpretation is correct. Does anyone know any attorney’s familiar with UK’s FOI provisions?
The 6 months statute of limitations just never made sense to me. Now we are finding out that this was confused and misreported (perhaps purposely). Booker’s been at this for quite some time, and I imagine he knows what he’s reading. Booker seems sure they (the Commission) misinterpreted it. This opens everything back up. Like he now says, rather than being off the hook, they are now impaled in the hook.
No one ought to be above the law. Embarassment cannot be a defence.
Booker seems to be quoting this source here:
http://foia.blogspot.com/
See 5th paragraph
Responding to the amendment, the minister Lord Bach said:
“The Freedom of Information Act 2000 came into force only in 2005, and I have to tell my noble friend that we have no evidence at present that the current six-month time limit presents a systemic problem for the Information Commissioner or any other prosecutor in taking action under Section 77.”
Re: P Gosselin (Jan 31 10:48),
Hhmmm… all Lord Bach might mean is that he doesn’t see the limitation as causing any real problem. It doesn’t mean he think it doesn’t have legal force. He might simply be observing that since the rules were new, they had not yet been presented with any evidence that any agencies actually violated the FOI’s and then used the statute of limitations to shield themselves.
The argument would be that we don’t need to modify a the statute of limitations because we all know all agencies, knowing the rules, will all eagerly comply with rules never breaking them (except possibly by total accident.) In contrast those who wished to change the rule were anticipating agencies that had been reluctant to give out information prior to the existance of FOI, might not jump to fill their obligations. The FOI officers would jolly well know about the statute of limiations (because that’s their area of expertise.)
Violations would happen.
Well… it appears that if the 6month statute does shield them, the evidence that did not previously exist now does exist!
According to the a.m. link, Booker may be talking about a “PROPOSED AMENDMENT”.
“The proposed amendment would have allowed a prosecution to be brought within 6 months of the evidence of the offence coming to the Commissioner’s knowledge, rather than within 6 months of the offence being committed.
The proposed amendment appears to have have been rejected.
“The amendment was tabled to the Coroners and Justice Bill by Lord Dubs. However, the government rejected this opportunity to close the obvious loophole – though it was clear then that if an authority deliberately shredded records it would almost certainly avoid punishment.”
But I can’t figure out or find anywhere that the amendment was actually put into effect.
Lucia, you’re right – it’s be great if a legal expert looked at this.
There’s no way I’m going to dive into this.
I see my previous post is confusing. Let me fix it up. (Sorry)
According to the a.m. link, Booker is talking about a PROPOSED AMENDMENT, which I’m not sure can be applied.
“The proposed amendment would have allowed a prosecution to be brought within 6 months of the evidence of the offence coming to the Commissioner’s knowledge, rather than within 6 months of the offence being committed.”
The proposed amendment appears to have been rejected. The blog link goes on:
“The amendment was tabled to the Coroners and Justice Bill by Lord Dubs. However, the government rejected this opportunity to close the obvious loophole – though it was clear then that if an authority deliberately shredded records it would almost certainly avoid punishment.â€
Now we will have to see if they can be charged. (As old as the English legal system is, you’d think this would have been worked out already years ago.)
I found the law:
http://www.swarb.co.uk/acts/1980Magistrates_CourtAct.shtml
The OR is key, it specifically can be read by removing the first option before the or as:
Nice.
I think Holland should just file a complaint and see what happens.
Further he should just re submit his request.
I found the law
and the law won
good find jeff1
Jeff Id:
Katherine Gundersen of the FOIA blog site seems to interpret it differently and saw 127 as being flawed and thus they pushed to amend it.
She then clearly states that nothing was amended and thus seems to imply that nothing can be done, She wrote:
“The amendment was tabled to the Coroners and Justice Bill by Lord Dubs. However, the government rejected this opportunity to close the obvious loophole – though it was clear then that if an authority deliberately shredded records it would almost certainly avoid punishment.”
But as you point out, she seems to have missed (or at least didn’t mention) the “or” part of 127.
Is this why Booker thinks they can be prosecuted?
Be careful with the swarb site.
It has a disclaimer at the top.
C. Booker thinks it can be tried, the minister Lord Bach implies the same and 127 (unless it has change) also says it clearly.
My question then is why did Katherine Gundersen of the FOIA blog site think it needed to be amended and that punishment could be avoided?
Did she and the UK Freedom of Information Blog misread 127, or have we missed something?
here is an official UK source of section 127
127 Limitation of time.(1)Except as otherwise expressly provided by any enactment and subject to subsection (2) below, a magistrates’ court shall not try an information or hear a complaint unless the information was laid, or the complaint made, within 6 months from the time when the offence was committed, or the matter of complaint arose..
(2)Nothing in—.
(a)subsection (1) above; or.
(b)subject to subsection (4) below, any other enactment (however framed or worded) which, as regards any offence to which it applies, would but for this section impose a time-limit on the power of a magistrates’ court to try an information summarily or impose a limitation on the time for taking summary proceedings,.
shall apply in relation to any indictable offence.
(3)Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (b) of subsection (2) above, that paragraph includes enactments which impose a time-limit that applies only in certain circumstances (for example, where the proceedings are not instituted by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions or some other specified authority)..
(4)Where, as regards any indictable offence, there is imposed by any enactment (however framed or worded, and whether falling within subsection (2) (b) above or not) a limitation on the time for taking proceedings on indictment for that offence no summary proceedings for that offence shall be taken after the latest time for taking proceedings on indictment.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1980/cukpga_19800043_en_19#pt7-pb4-l1g163
Katherine Gundersen of the FOIA blog
I sent her an email asking her to comment here regarding “or the matter of complaint arose”
windansea (Comment#31565)
I read it four times… I think it is impossible to draw a clear meaning from the wording, which was probably the original intent.
I just got an Email from
Sean Baker
Detective Constable
Joint Major Investigation Team
Norfolk Constabulary
Lowestoft Police Station
Old Nelson Street
Lowestoft
Suffolk
NR32 1PE
Asking about my FOI request. Maybe something is happening.
My question then is why did Katherine Gundersen of the FOIA blog site think it needed to be amended and that punishment could be avoided?
Did she and the UK Freedom of Information Blog misread 127, or have we missed something?
she is citing s 77 of UK FOI act, we are citing 127 of Magistrates Act.
wish we had a UK lawyer commenting here, I posted invitation at Bishop Hill’s blog
here is section 77 of UK FOI act
77
Offence of altering etc. records with intent to prevent disclosure .(1)
Where— .
(a)
a request for information has been made to a public authority, and .
(b)
under section 1 of this Act or section 7 of the [1988 c. 29.] Data Protection Act 1998, the applicant would have been entitled (subject to payment of any fee) to communication of any information in accordance with that section, .
any person to whom this subsection applies is guilty of an offence if he alters, defaces, blocks, erases, destroys or conceals any record held by the public authority, with the intention of preventing the disclosure by that authority of all, or any part, of the information to the communication of which the applicant would have been entitled.
(2)
Subsection (1) applies to the public authority and to any person who is employed by, is an officer of, or is subject to the direction of, the public authority. .
(3)
A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. .
(4)
No proceedings for an offence under this section shall be instituted— .
(a)
in England or Wales, except by the Commissioner or by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions; .
(b)
in Northern Ireland, except by the Commissioner or by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.
I just read through section 77 and found nothing citing a statute of limitations. I searched for “months” Not that anything is proven but I can’t find any reference to it.
me too Jeff
in this thread someone ask the same question we are in the comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/01/climate_data_why_ministers_ref.html#comments
no answer
maddening!
Windansea,
Gundersen writes:
“Section 77 of the Act makes it an offence for any person to deliberately destroy, alter or conceal a record after it has been requested with the intention of preventing its disclosure. ”
and
“The offence is triable only in the magistrate’s court. However, under section 127(1) of the Magistrates Court Act 1980, proceedings for all such offences must be brought within 6 months of the offence occurring.”
Clearly she is citing 127, and not 77 as you claim.
Seems to me 77 makes it an offence, and 127 says when and who can prosecute.
Something is really starting to stink to high heaven here.
ok I understand, section 77 FOI is the law, 127 of magistrates act is how law is prosecuted, but it appears no one is noticing those words after “or”
maybe Susan will accept my email invitation to comment here
I sent an e-mail to Ms Gundersen as well, asking her why she did not fully quote 127, leaving out the all important “, or the matter of complaint arose”. That’s weird. You’d think a legal activist would not screw up like that. Who knows, maybe she did it purposely.
Well, it certainly looks like some people out there think we’re too stupid, or lazy, to read laws in a book. They all left out the all important “, or the matter of complaint arose” part.
Gee, does anyone think that they all just simply forgot to mention it?
Now if FOIA activist group aids and abets an FOIA scandal, then that would just blow my mind away. I can think of some non-mainstream media that are going to love this story!
Maybe my imagination is running wild…
P Gosselin (Comment#31583) January 31st, 2010 at 2:07 pm
it seems you’ve found the correct text but again, the rule says ‘OR when the matter of complaint arose’ so it’s basically a done deal that this is a prosecutable offense which has not exceeded its statute.
Nice job
Hi guys,
I’m a UK environmental lawyer; 9 years as a prosecutor and longer on the other side of the fence. I’m familiar with FOI and the Environmental Information Regulations.
Some statutes make explicit provision for time limits to be measured from the discovery of facts by the regulators. There is no such provision in this case. The “matter of comlpaint” under s.77 of FOI would be, for example, the act of erasing, destroying or concealing records with the intention of preventing disclosure. In the circumstances being discussed, this is more than 6 months ago, and therefore no prosecution under s.77 is possible. Period.
As has been pointed out, however, if the facts supported it, a prosecution for conspiring with others to breach s.77 would be possible, since there is no time limit for conspiracies.
And I agree, six months is an impossibly short time period for offences like this to be discovered and prosecuted. There is a clear case for these offences to be upgraded to “either way” offences, to which no time limit would apply.
thanks for commenting Angus
can you show us where this 6 month limit is written?
Angus,
Your interpretation seems to make this statement redundant because both clauses of the OR would refer to the same time:
within 6 months from the time when the offence was committed, OR the matter of complaint arose
What subtly I am missing?
This post certainly casts some light:
http://www.climategate.com/prosecutor-humiliated-in-climategate-u-turn-charges-tainted#more-3167
Windansea: the time limit is in s.127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, as noted above by other posters. It’s common to all low grade “summary only” offences, i.e. Offences that can only be dealt with by magistrates’ courts.
Raven:OK, you asked for it! The more technical explanation is this. Section 127 says the court shall not “try an Information or hear a complaint” unless proceedings are started within 6 months from when the offence was committed or the matter of complaint arose. Note the use of the word “complaint” throughout s.127. Now, in the Magistartes’ Court, an Information is not information and a Complaint is not a complaint. What I mean by this is that they are technical terms with specific, legal meanings. A Magistrates’ Court deals mainly with criminal cases, but also has some civil jurisdiction. Criminal cases are started by laying an Information. Civil cases by issuing a Complaint. So in s.127, the words “or the matter of complaint arose”, in effect mean exactly the same as the date of the offence, except it is referring to civil cases rather than criminal. Because it’s talking about civil cases, referring to the date of offence would not be apt, hence “or the matter of complaint arose.”
Sorry that’s a bit long winded, but you did ask!
Angus,
Thanks – that cleared it up. Plucking random phrases from laws and assuming they mean what they say is a risky proposition.
AngusPangus (Comment#31615) February 1st, 2010 at 3:50 am
Thanks Angus, That’s the bit we needed to hear. The FOI law has no teeth.
As I read the UK FOI statute, it is more like toothless administrative procedural law than a regulatory regime. The FOI commission has no enforcement power. It can only refer the matter to a magistrate at which time any sanctions are in the form of contempt citations from the court not criminal penalties.
I infer that the statute was designed to give FOI authorities the right to go to court to force information holders to conform with their (the FOI commissioners) findings as to the nature of compliance required.
But the if the FOI authorities agree with the refuseniks, I don’t see that there is any meaningful redress in the form of independent judicial review. And if the FOI authorities decide belatedly that compliance is required, the would-be refusenik(s) would still get to argue their case before the magistrate and sanctions would not be imposed unless they defy the court after a ruling in the matter.
It’s a very weak law, certainly much weaker than US federal FOIA law. The only legal jeopardy I can see is that if criminal law enforcement types want to charge that the concerted effort to effect an unlawful refusal constituted criminal conspiracy and fraud. However, why anyone would want to bother to do the creative prosecuting necessary to try to make a rather harmless-looking, tweedy academic like Phil Jones into some kind of criminal is beyond me. I don’t see that happening nor should it.
I think the investigation(s) and the noises coming from it are merely the traditional butt-covering kabuki dance that bureaucrats and politicians do until the last of brown stuff has all been flung from the fan. Harrumphs, disapproval noises and calls for legal reform and more harrumphs. That’s it.
Jeff,
Agreed. The process of making an FOI request, waiting for a decision/refusal, asking for a review of the refusal, waiting for the review decision, appealing to the Information Commisioner, is almost guaranteed to exhaust the 6 month time limit. Then there’s the rather obvious question of if data has been destroyed, how is that to be discovered? It is almost self-evident that any cover-ups will not come to light until long after they are perpetrated. Generally, my experience of FOI requests has been that public authorities take them seriously and do provide the information that has been asked for (could have something to do witht what the headed paper says, of course!). But what this case shows is that if a public body acts irresponsibly and sets itslef up to defeat FOI requests, there is no effective sanction, other than adverse publicity.
The great danger is that now it is widely known that there is no comeback for shredding files as long as you can conceal discovery of the deed for 6 months,those hitherto compliant public sector organisations will be encouraged to adopt the same strategy in order to prevent embarassing information becoming published. That cannot be right.
Some background on the time limit.
Back in the 1970’s there were a series of cases where people had been held on remand for long periods of time prior to having their cases heard in a Magistrates Court.
This resulted in people being held in prison awaiting trial for a longer period than the maximum possible sentence for the offense. As result of this the time limit was introduced for offenses that could be heard by a Magistrates Court.
No references as this is based entirely upon my recollection.
Re:AngusPangus (Feb 1 07:55),
I suspect a fair number of public sector groups who will remain complaint even though their employees learn of the 6 month limitation. In many cases, the agencies like to have a formal method that permits people to make requests, and then the agency can assign someone the task of filling the request. It’s not quite like a librarian, but in quite a few instances, the agency has no particular desire to hide information. They just don’t know what specific information someone might want and as a practical matter can’t always make 100% of everything readily available from a web search. (For example, I was able to FOI some information on the results of models used to estimate the flooding potential in a new development in DuPage county. The engineer wasn’t concealing these, but by the same token, no one was mounting every single new modeling run for every single lot in the county the instant a modeling run was completed! By the way: My friend did not buy the lot. 🙂 )
This use of FOI is very common. No one complains that citizens use FOI to learn stuff of interest this way.
In contrast, the people at CRU and the Met office specifically wished to keep information out of the public’s hands. The Climategate letters provide an example where the statute of limitations shields those who really, truly intentionally wish to thwart FOI.
Re: TerryS (Feb 1 08:04),
Interesting. Too bad they didn’t pick the alternative remedy of not holding people in prison while they awaited trial. Let them post a bond. Also, starting the clock for the statute of limitations from after the time when all appeals had been filed and processed through the system would make more sense for the FOI’s. That way, the insiders trying to thwart FOI couldn’t use their position as insiders to basically delay the process and thereby avoid prosecution for having thwarted FOI.
I’m pretty sure that AngusPangus is wrong. Concealment is not an event, but an ongoing action. If you conceal a gun in your jacket 1 year ago and the police find it today, you are going to be prosecuted for concealment even though the “action” took place a long time ago. Even the CPS recognizes this fact with regard to the action of harassment:
“As the s.2 offence is summary only, it is subject to the limitation of time imposed by s.127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. This requires informations or complaints to be heard within 6 months from the time when the offence was committed, or the mater of complaint arose. Arguably, as the offence under s.2 is a course of conduct, the offence is completed with the final act complained of, and the six months’ limitation should run from this date. Prosecutors should be ready to argue this point, as it is anticipated that some magistrates may prefer a stricter interpretation, that all of the acts complained of should be within 6 months of charge.”
http://cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/harrasment/
“The great danger is that now it is widely known that there is no comeback for shredding files as long as you can conceal discovery of the deed for 6 months,those hitherto compliant public sector organisations will be encouraged to adopt the same strategy in order to prevent embarassing information becoming published.”
In other words, some public sector organizations are detaching from, and setting themselves in opposition to, the people they are supposed to serve.
Happy Days
Andrew
As has been pointed out, however, if the facts supported it, a prosecution for conspiring with others to breach s.77 would be possible, since there is no time limit for conspiracies.
thanks for the help Angus
do you have any cites for what constitutes “conspiring to breach s.77?
here is one example from the emails:
From: Phil Jones
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tom Wigley
Subject: Re: Schles suggestion
Date: Wed Dec 3 13:57:09 2008
Cc: mann , Gavin Schmidt , Karl Taylor , peter gleckler
Ben,
When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide
by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince
them otherwise
showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were
dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school
– the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI
person quite well and the Chief Librarian – who deals with appeals
http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=940&filename=1228330629.txt
there’s lots more
Hey Lucia,
Here’s one for you
http://biggovernment.com/2010/02/01/leake-and-the-london-times-climate-scientists-thwarted-foia/
Mosh, your link led to a link on UK conspiracy law
Gracias!
Offence: Statutory Conspiracy. Criminal Law Act 1977
Statutory conspiracy is defined by section 1 of the criminal law act 1977
Under section 1(1) if a person agrees with any other person or persons that a course of conduct shall be pursued which, if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their
intentions, either –
(a) will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences by one or more of the parties to the agreement, or
(b) would do so but for the existence of facts which render the commission of the offence or any of the offences impossible,
He is guilty of conspiracy to commit the offence or offences in question.
Accordingly, it is an offence to agree to commit any criminal offence even one which is tryable only summarily. However, by section 4 a conspiracy to commit a summary only offence can only be prosecuted by or with the consent of the director of public prosecutions.
http://www.fact-uk.org.uk/site/criminal_justice/statact.htm
I don’t see a serious conspiracy charge here.
FOI: As I read the UK FOI statute, it is more like toothless administrative procedural law than a regulatory regime. The FOI commission has no enforcement power. It can only refer the matter to a magistrate at which time any sanctions are in the form of contempt citations from the court not criminal penalties.
I infer that the statute was designed to give FOI authorities the right to go to court to force information holders to conform with their (the FOI commissioners) findings as to the nature of compliance required.
But the if the FOI authorities refuse to act, I don’t see that there is any meaningful redress in the form of independent judicial review by a requestor. And if the FOI authorities decide (belatedly in this instance) that compliance is required, the would-be refusenik(s) would still get to argue their case before the magistrate and sanctions would not be imposed unless they defy the court after a ruling in the matter.
It’s a weak law, certainly much weaker than US federal FOIA law.
Conspiracy: The only (remote) legal jeopardy I can see is criminal law enforcement types deciding to charge that the concerted effort to effect an unlawful refusal to disclose (including destruction) constituted criminal conspiracy and fraud. People have alluded to that already in this thread. But it is a stretch.
However, why anyone in authority would want to bother to do the creative prosecuting necessary to put a rather harmless-looking, tweedy academic like Phil Jones in the dock to make him out to be some kind of criminal is beyond me. I don’t see that happening nor should it. Unless there is an email we missed about grant money diverted to a Swiss account, there is nothing here.
I think the investigation(s) and the noises coming from it are merely the traditional butt-covering kabuki dance that bureaucrats and politicians do until the last of brown stuff has all been flung from the fan. Harrumphs, disapproval noises and calls for legal reform and more harrumphs. That’s it.
Re: steven mosher (Feb 1 11:38),
Cool! Are you a regular contributor to biggovernment now? 🙂
George
you may be correct that the UK law is weak and that a conspiracy charge would be a stretch
However, when you say:
why anyone in authority would want to bother to do the creative prosecuting necessary to put a rather harmless-looking, tweedy academic like Phil Jones in the dock to make him out to be some kind of criminal is beyond me.
harmless looking tweedy guys that compile secretive temperature databases that are manipulated and adjusted and then used to produce studies that supposedly prove CO2 warming theory which is then used by policy makers to enact
continuing above post:
harmless looking tweedy guys that compile secretive temperature databases that are manipulated and adjusted behind closed doors and then used to produce studies that supposedly prove CO2 warming theory which is then used by policy makers to enact drastic laws and taxes that change energy usage and costs are not so harmless, especially if said harmless tweedy guys appear to have an agenda.
As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
Cheers
Phil
Anguspangus, I agree that there are no general time limitations on conspiracy charges as a result of the Criminal Law Act 1977 but Section 4 of the Act specifies restrictions on the implementation of proceedings.
Specifically, in this case, Section 4(4) provides:
So, although the ICO has said that an offence appears to have been committed, that offence can’t be prosecuted because of the 6 month time limit imposed on most summary offences. S.4(4) above states that proceedings for conspiracy are also, therefore, not possible.
I must admit I’m not convinced that any prosecutions would neccessarily be productive in any case. Maybe better to push for improved process (which is what actually matters) than risk appearing vengeful!
“an offence appears to have been committed”
lol Quite.
Andrew
ya Lucia,
I’m an irregular regular on Big government.
most funny thing is the number of conservatives shouting for stringer FOI and FOIA laws.
most of them are simply too stupid to understand, that such things would backfire big times.
there are people who commited real crimes. not “conspiring” to delete an irrelevant e-mail.
i ll have the big pot of pop corn. this is fun to watch…
windansea (Comment#31641) February 1st, 2010 at 11:48 am
Mosh, your link led to a link on UK conspiracy law
Gracias!
the night before the memo hit last week I was trying to scrunch down what I had to say into 800 words. And then some little birdy suggested the conspiracy angle. arrg. I didnt have time to follow up, glad what I found was helpful
“there are people who commited real crimes”
sod,
Who?
What?
When?
Where?
How?
Spill the beans! 😉
Andrew
It’s not the lie, it’s the cover-up, as Scooter Libby and Martha Stewart can attest. The cover-up has extended up until this very day. The investigators just need to ask the right people the right questions. Or is lying to investigators also not a crime?
Aside from the conspiracy angle, there doesn’t seem to be any means of charging a public entity with a violation of the FOI. Any response to a request can simply be “postponed” for 5 months or so and the complaint period will lapse before a complaint can be issued. The requester won’t know there are being stiffed until it is too late.
I wonder if there is a means to issue a complaint with the FOI request. It would serve a similar function as a lien notice which puts the served on record with the courts. Then after 90 days or so, if still no response, the complaint can be acted on.
Sod,
I’m not a fan of bigotry in any shape or form. To declare conservatives to be stupid is certainly bigoted and distasteful.
Re: sod (Feb 1 14:34),
Wot Keith H said.
Plus, for the record, I’m about as socialist as they come outside the Kremlin and resent being stereotyped as conservative (with any sized C) just because I’m willing to assess the evidence for myself 🙁
Then again, watching the Warmists having to resort more & more to name-calling is great entertainment. Pass some of that popcorn……..
*** edited for spelking ***
sod (Comment#31654)
February 1st, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Actually, sod, conservatives are doing what they usually do: Expect that one enforce the laws that are on the books before running off and passing a whole bunch of asinine new ones.
And if your going to pass a bunch of useless “feel good” legislation, either get rid of it, or fix it so that it doesn’t read like a sophomore political science undergraduate wrote it.
If anyone’s getting bitten in the behind, it’s the activist academic and poltical types that insisted on FOI laws in the first place in order to catch “The Powers that Be” in wrongdoing, presumably with the expectation that the law would never, ever, ever, apply to them.
I’m a stupid conservative, but at least I figured out that socialism don’t work.
Darn, I forgot what else i were gonna say.
Andy Krause (Comment#31658)
Actually what got them was lying about it after the fact (the same thing Clinton did).
Any time limit in the FOI law is referring to FOI act violations.
There may be violations of other rules involved in these events. Is it illegal in the UK if an employee wastes government resources by not doing the work which they are supposed to do, to falsely claim in human resources paperwork to have done work properly, or if they conspire to violate laws?