MrMoran Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Just read this article & find this quite astonishing......... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16380862 More proof you cant trust the poilce. Im not in the least bit suprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lab-rat Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 The media do tend to make FOI requests just to see what non-story they can make out of things like this. Wonder how much taxpayers' money is wasted answering them? There are strict criteria that have to be met when making FOI requests......to stop spurious time wasting / fishing for nothing. The media pretty much have to know what the info is held before it will be released. This pretty much negates most 'fishing for info exercises'!!! Section 8 subsection 1 c) of the FOI act 2000 actually requires you to more or less describe the information you think they have before they will release it! Section 9 allows fees to be charged for gathering / collating & releasing of such info. It's all down to the experience & efficiency of the Data Controller on what data will be released. End of day don't **** up......no data to release.......no story! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lolli_pop Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 There are strict criteria that have to be met when making FOI requests......to stop spurious time wasting / fishing for nothing. The media pretty much have to know what the info is held before it will be released. This pretty much negates most 'fishing for info exercises'!!! ... End of day don't **** up......no data to release.......no story! With the proviso that this is the internet and anyone can claim to be anything ... I've had to answer some extremely spurious FOI requests in the past and it was just fishing, there was no story whatsoever, no **** ups, just the media trying to find something to be outraged about. Of course the request could be denied - and they would then do a story on it being denied. I think FOI is a very good thing, overall, but it does get abused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lab-rat Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 With the proviso that this is the internet and anyone can claim to be anything ... I've had to answer some extremely spurious FOI requests in the past and it was just fishing, there was no story whatsoever, no **** ups, just the media trying to find something to be outraged about. Of course the request could be denied - and they would then do a story on it being denied. I think FOI is a very good thing, overall, but it does get abused. Oh.....lucky you..... are you the Data Controller then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lolli_pop Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Oh.....lucky you..... are you the Data Controller then? Oh that takes me right back to the very tedious Data Protection training As far as I remember it the organisation is the Data Controller but I could be wrong, it's been a while. I provided the substance of the response, dug up the stats etc. Some things were genuine requests, others were plainly fishing expeditions and a waste of time and taxpayers' money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InigoMontoya Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Just read this article & find this quite astonishing......... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16380862 Not as astonishing as the hotbed of criminality that is the South Yorkshire Police… http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/944-police-officers-have-criminal-record-6284098.html Most of the convictions are for traffic offences such as speeding and drink-driving, but the records also include a South Yorkshire Police officer convicted of fishing without a licence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Ha ha ha. To think an editor actually published that line. Ohhh god. fishing without a licence. Get them struck off right away. I rest my case about non stories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RicadoTubbs Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Non-story is right. put it into perspective: 944 have criminal records, that includes both officers and pcsos - GB and NI have 140000(ish) police officers and 16000(ish) PCSO, so a pool of 150,000. That makes the 944 = 0.6% of that population Some 10% of the public have proper criminal records (for recordable offences) The list provided seems to include speeding and fishing licence(!) offences which are non-recordable offences, so I hate to imagine what % of the general population has fallen foul of one of those. Remove those "non-recordable" offences from the 944 and I doubt you are left with many "proper" criminal offences making the proportion infinitesimal. When looked at in perspective, the police seem like a fairly honest lot to me. In fact, i would suggest that if one of their number falls foul of the law they are punished disproportionately harshly owing to the breach of trust angle. (i.e getting prison for an offence joe public would have got a caution for - that's fact, not opinion). Anyway, don't let the facts or considered analysis get in the way of a good whinge. Gross generalisations make for good bar room "opinions" spouted by people with little of no capacity to grasp the full complexities of the issue at hand. Pass me that copy of The Sun / Star / Mirror / Daily Mail, (errr, pretty much any "news"paper publication these days) I need to be told what to think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.