This week openDemocracy revealed that the Cabinet Office runs a secretive unit that screens FOIs from journalists and researchers, even though requesters’ names are supposed to be kept private. It’s called the Clearing House and press freedom campaigners have branded it “Orwellian” – rightly so.
What is it that says that a requesters name chould be 'kept private'?
What is it that says that a requesters name chould be 'kept private'?
A good question, but it is not the relevant one.
The allegation appears to be that they are in effect saying "Don't tell her anything, she is a journalist".
What is it that says that a requesters name chould be 'kept private'?
I acknowledge that the English commissioner goes some way toward this, but the Scittish and Irish Commissioners, though both implementing the same rules, have no such squeamishness.
It is relevant because if, as it may be, the journalist is presenting facts against an invalid set of presumptions, her indignation might appear ill informed.
The relevant point is that she keeps fighting and winning long battles to be given information that ought to be freely given, if not freely available.
She is welcome to do so, but playing victim does not help.
Latest Post: Crime by an organisation. Our newest member: tintin Recent Posts Unread Posts
