iGoogle - uGoogle

Sorry I have not been about much. Some of you may know I pull a muscle down down in the basement (as in bowels of Eland House). I was trying out a few new yoga moves - never again. Normal service will be resumed.

Latest Freedom of Information request:

Dear Chums

On my way home tonight I was listening to amazing Dr Hook and I was reminded that being in love with a beautiful woman and cutting the deficit have some similarities - they are both hard. So I am in favour of the many creative ways to cut spending at DCLG. I particularly want to applaud the way the Uncle Eric has done away with the need for robust research or evidence to support his policies.

We all know that conducting research costs money -all those boring planning meeting stating hypothesissesesses;  months going out doing field work speaking to loons and weeks writing it all up with a heavy heart knowing that no one is going to read it. Plus there is the real danger than findings come out wrong! Crazy waste of money I am sure you would agree.

So it is reassuring that DCLG Ministers as doing away with unnecessary costly primary research and happy to trot out the line from any old Tom, Nick or Harry with an axe to grind.

Recently we have had some amazing facts about rat populations (courtesy of a pest control firm), research of weekly waste collection which was more useful as bin liner and the amazing Opera report on procurement (which is still attracting lots of follow up FoIs).

I note that yesterday in Hansard Bob Neil provided a written answer on trade union activities. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111025/text/111025w0001.htm#11102556000004

Our Bobby quoted from reports from the Tax Payers Alliance and The Sunday Times. Both of these sources perhaps support Bob’s viewpoint but I wonder if this is a case of selection bias? Was there other research, that was conveniently cast aside? And is this research actually robust enough to be worth quoting?

Can you please answer the following to help me understand?

1)      Did anyone at DCLG actually read and attempt to fact check either of these reports? If so who?

2)      Did anyone at DCLG review the extrapolation method that the Tax Payer Alliance so skilfully applied?

3)      Was a wider literature reviews conducted? If so please provide results

Yours googling,

Derek

Alliance and Pester

I feel I may have to call upon the might of the Tax Payers of Alliance to help hold Uncle Eric Pickles and Department for Communities and Local Government to account - not sure they will have to stomach for a fight with the the great man though.

Below is my latest request.

Dear Chums,

I have always enjoyed reading the considered ramblings from the Tax Payers Alliance. The TPA appears to me to be akin to a paramilitary-drunken- arm of The Daily Mail. A lot of what they say has some truth to it but is often voiced in a slurring, slightly menacing way. I guess they are a extreme example of Armchair Auditors in action but one can’t but feel they are not seated comfortably in an armchair but are standing up brandishing a bar stool above their head. Also they differ from some other Armchair Auditors in that they have wealthy backers and have attracted some controversy about not paying tax in the UK but let’s not go there today.

I stumbled across a gem the other day on the TPA website. The TPA wrote a blog attacking Nottingham Council’s handling of Freedom of Information requests. As you may know Nottingham have for many months been attracting the wrath of Uncle Eric about their reluctance to publish expenditure data. Uncle Eric has been so angry with them I almost fear for his health as this spate cannot be good for his blood pressure.  Nottingham’s stance has led to the TPA exposing their inability to respond to FoI requests correctly.

See: http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/grassroots/2011/07/nottingham-city-council-fails-transparency.html

One paragraph in the blog particularly caught my beady eye:

“One instance of the latter tactic is the council’s attempt to silence a local blogger, Andy Platt, who uses FOI to scrutinise the council’s leadership and spending. When Platt asked for copies of internal reports on the housing allocations scandal in the council, the council invoked Section 14 of the Act, accusing Platt of making ‘vexatious’ requests. The basis for the ‘vexatious’ claim was that Platt had made twenty FOI requests in a year (which it classed as ‘obsessive’, despite the fact that they were on unrelated subjects), and that he often publishes findings from his requests on his satirical blog mocking NCC’s leadership (by some mysterious tenuous link his requests are thereby said to be ‘harassing the Authority and distressing its  colleagues’).

This contradicts FOI guidance, which clearly states that it must be the requests themselves which are vexatious, not the requester and not any use to which the information may be put. Unfortunately for the council, no sooner had it brushed off Platt than another – presumably less vexatious – requester asked for copies of the same internal reports. The council reverted to its default tactic for dealing with FOIs. It simply ignored the request.”

This seemed awfully familiar. As you may recall recently that Uncle Eric’s own department have declared me and others as vexatious. They described me as ‘obsessive’ even though I had submitted less than 2 requests a month. They decided to declare me as vexatious rather than my requests and they also claimed (but provided no evidence) that my requests causes distress to staff.

The cause of action that Nottingham are taking is uncannily similar to DCLG’s approach. I can only assume collusion.  So can you please provide the following:

1.       Any advice, guidance or endorsement that DCLG have provided to Nottingham in handling Freedom of Information requests.

2.       Any plans (including drafts) that DCLG have to encourage other local authorities to block FoI requests as they have done and now is being replicated by Nottingham?

3.       Any correspondence between DCLG and the Tax Payers Allowance relating to Nottingham Councils FoI request or expenditure data.

I fear I may have to write to the TPA and request they do a balanced piece on DCLGs handling of FoI requests like they have done on Nottingham. Now that would be fun.

Yours faeciously 

Derek