This is probably the best thread ever on CL and in tribute to the Gods of Redaction…
Well done to ############ on an absolutely ########### ######. # have seen some ########## ######## in ## time on this ####### but this ###### ####### ###.
And as for our gallant West ### #### well ####### for ######### around so ####### against all #### Thankyou
Look up Schedule 4 (page 120), and thank me later.
Link?
It;s part of the new version of the contract, Seth, schedules are towards the back.
I am afraid I have not lined up the new version of the contract as a favourite and would appreciate a link, especiàlly if it is gavros pointing me in the direction of the legacy definition as d3cided by these jokers.
Look up Schedule 4 (page 120), and thank me later.
Link?
It;s part of the new version of the contract, Seth, schedules are towards the back.
I am afraid I have not lined up the new version of the contract as a favourite and would appreciate a link, especiàlly if it is gavros pointing me in the direction of the legacy definition as d3cided by these jokers.
Seth. Go to my WDTK page, here. All my requests are there including this one, and you can download the contract from it. You can also follow the other live ones, as well as enjoying past ones such as re the Millwall home match policing fiasco:-). And use the facility while you can. This government wants to take the axe to the law. For sure I'll be writing more about that in the coming days. It's a ------ disgrace. Power corrupts, always and absolutely.
I accidentally skipped to the end, and found an 11 page addendum titled "Project Viper" with "worked examples", which is entirely printed on Rothschild headed paper. Since Rothschild were not one of the external providers used by the LLDC in their negotiations, it must be a West Ham commissioned report. Could this be the valuation of the club?
Sources at the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information meeting disclosed that the cross-party group will consider introducing charges for applications for information for the first time... Freedom of information commission not very free with its information
I accidentally skipped to the end, and found an 11 page addendum titled "Project Viper" with "worked examples", which is entirely printed on Rothschild headed paper. Since Rothschild were not one of the external providers used by the LLDC in their negotiations, it must be a West Ham commissioned report. Could this be the valuation of the club?
Ahh. Somebody else mentioned Rothschild, but never occurred to us that they are commissioned by West Ham. Ta.
Sources at the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information meeting disclosed that the cross-party group will consider introducing charges for applications for information for the first time... Freedom of information commission not very free with its information
It's an "independent" commission comprising entirely of people who have good reason to dislike, or hate, the FOI law. It is an even more shameless stitch up than the "advisory group" assisting the knife job on the BBC.
I plan an FOI asking for the criteria on which these people were selected.
Does anybody here who voted Conservative recall thinking, "Oh another reason to vote Con is because they will sort out that pesky FOI law"?
Sources at the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information meeting disclosed that the cross-party group will consider introducing charges for applications for information for the first time... Freedom of information commission not very free with its information
It's an "independent" commission comprising entirely of people who have good reason to dislike, or hate, the FOI law. It is an even more shameless stitch up than the "advisory group" assisting the knife job on the BBC.
I plan an FOI asking for the criteria on which these people were selected.
Does anybody here who voted Conservative recall thinking, "Oh another reason to vote Con is because they will sort out that pesky FOI law"?
I am even more depressed now since the general election night.
With one leap the Tories have got rid of those pesky Lib Dems.
Then Labour have given up any chance of power for several elections vacating the centre ground and giving Cameron the chance to come over all social liberal whilst at the same time they work to undermine the freedoms that have been hard won. .
I accidentally skipped to the end, and found an 11 page addendum titled "Project Viper" with "worked examples", which is entirely printed on Rothschild headed paper. Since Rothschild were not one of the external providers used by the LLDC in their negotiations, it must be a West Ham commissioned report. Could this be the valuation of the club?
Ahh. Somebody else mentioned Rothschild, but never occurred to us that they are commissioned by West Ham. Ta.
Well I say it must be commissioned by West Ham, as Rothschild were not one of the four external companies named by the LLDC. If it is the valuation of the club, that in itself would be interesting (even though the whole thing is redacted), though I don't know how "worked examples" would be relevant to that. I don't know if Rothschild would do the valuation though.
Prague I have problems navigating to the gavros suggested section from your link, it's not you its me, but gavros seems to suggest schedule 4 on page 120 explains or justifies the 'legacy' concept or notion. I am pretty chite at deep tech savvy stuff. What I want to do is discover how the concept of legacy is being spun, I know that one definition of legacy is something, usually money, left by the deceased, but I suspect the use of the notion of legacy in all this malarkey is defined on the hoof by those who want to justify their actions, much like the word 'professional' is also one that tends to be defined on the hoof by people.
PS on this thread we have so many acronyms, quite understandably, but if some nice soul created a glossary it would help.
Baroness Brady has been recruited by the PRO-EU group
Please tell me that's not true...
Karren and Stuart Rose [ Lord Rose ] to be announced next week. Both were made Tory peers by David Cameron.
Well Rose was announced today. If she is part of that team, well I might as well apply for Czech citizenship now (seeing as I wish to remain an EU citizen...)
Sources at the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information meeting disclosed that the cross-party group will consider introducing charges for applications for information for the first time... Freedom of information commission not very free with its information
I mentioned this on this thread a few weeks ago and probably about 40 pages ago. No-one responded. There was a "consultation" which few of the public were aware of, naturally. It's probably closed by now. They don't like the great unwashed having their say, really, but I was one of those who became aware of it and commented.
It's exactly the same approach they used when introducing fees for employment tribunal claims during the last Parliament: reduce accountability and opportunities for redress by stealth. If they were open and said, we're scrapping this and trashing that, there might be more concerted opposition to it. Instead, with 99% of the public blissfully unaware and under the cover of "necessary" austerity, they introduce charges that make it too much of a gamble for most people. It's a brilliant wheeze. They've certainly learned from past mistakes.
EDIT: the consultation closed on 18 Sep. At that time, they were talking of fees for appeals against refusals of FOI requests running into hundreds of pounds.
Sources at the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information meeting disclosed that the cross-party group will consider introducing charges for applications for information for the first time... Freedom of information commission not very free with its information
I mentioned this on this thread a few weeks ago and probably about 40 pages ago. No-one responded. There was a "consultation" which few of the public were aware of, naturally. It's probably closed by now. They don't like the great unwashed having their say, really, but I was one of those who became aware of it and commented.
It's exactly the same approach they used when introducing fees for employment tribunal claims during the last Parliament: reduce accountability and opportunities for redress by stealth. If they were open and said, we're scrapping this and trashing that, there might be more concerted opposition to it. Instead, with 99% of the public blissfully unaware and under the cover of "necessary" austerity, they introduce charges that make it too much of a gamble for most people. It's a brilliant wheeze. They've certainly learned from past mistakes.
EDIT: the consultation closed on 18 Sep. At that time, they were talking of fees for appeals against refusals of FOI requests running into hundreds of pounds.
Puzzled about what you've written above (because you and I are on the same page on this issue, for sure)
"Parties who wish to submit evidence with regards to the proposed charges for FoI requests have a deadline of 20 November to present their findings to the commission." That is not long enough, but it is open.
However the five people chosen are obviously biased against the current set up. Therefore I personally will be putting in an FOI request to see the documentation showing the criteria on which these people were chosen, and who else was considered. It is indeed a stitch up.
But we could also start a thread creating awareness of this issue, particularly now so many people are aware of how FOI has helped on the Olympic issue. Put simply, without the FOI law, the whole campaign would be dead in the water, and Brady and Gullivan would be proceeding smoothly towards their pot of gold, amassed from your pockets. Hopefully all of you who are in favour of what we are doing could write to this Commission, perhaps using the OS case as an example. I could write a template submission.
Comments
Well done to ############ on an absolutely ########### ######. # have seen some ########## ######## in ## time on this ####### but this ###### ####### ###.
And as for our gallant West ### #### well ####### for ######### around so ####### against all ####
Thankyou
Beeb on the case!
Freedom of information commission not very free with its information
http://gu.com/p/4d6d2?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
It's an "independent" commission comprising entirely of people who have good reason to dislike, or hate, the FOI law. It is an even more shameless stitch up than the "advisory group" assisting the knife job on the BBC.
I plan an FOI asking for the criteria on which these people were selected.
Does anybody here who voted Conservative recall thinking, "Oh another reason to vote Con is because they will sort out that pesky FOI law"?
With one leap the Tories have got rid of those pesky Lib Dems.
Then Labour have given up any chance of power for several elections vacating the centre ground and giving Cameron the chance to come over all social liberal whilst at the same time they work to undermine the freedoms that have been hard won. .
What I want to do is discover how the concept of legacy is being spun, I know that one definition of legacy is something, usually money, left by the deceased, but I suspect the use of the notion of legacy in all this malarkey is defined on the hoof by those who want to justify their actions, much like the word 'professional' is also one that tends to be defined on the hoof by people.
PS on this thread we have so many acronyms, quite understandably, but if some nice soul created a glossary it would help.
Acronyms ? Let's start with FUBAR ....
Both were made Tory peers by David Cameron.
It's exactly the same approach they used when introducing fees for employment tribunal claims during the last Parliament: reduce accountability and opportunities for redress by stealth. If they were open and said, we're scrapping this and trashing that, there might be more concerted opposition to it. Instead, with 99% of the public blissfully unaware and under the cover of "necessary" austerity, they introduce charges that make it too much of a gamble for most people. It's a brilliant wheeze. They've certainly learned from past mistakes.
EDIT: the consultation closed on 18 Sep. At that time, they were talking of fees for appeals against refusals of FOI requests running into hundreds of pounds.
I'm not sure which consultation you are talking about, but the main one has just started. It was launched by the ridiculous event which the Guardian was reporting last week "Freedom of information commission not very free with its information"
"Parties who wish to submit evidence with regards to the proposed charges for FoI requests have a deadline of 20 November to present their findings to the commission." That is not long enough, but it is open.
However the five people chosen are obviously biased against the current set up. Therefore I personally will be putting in an FOI request to see the documentation showing the criteria on which these people were chosen, and who else was considered. It is indeed a stitch up.
But we could also start a thread creating awareness of this issue, particularly now so many people are aware of how FOI has helped on the Olympic issue. Put simply, without the FOI law, the whole campaign would be dead in the water, and Brady and Gullivan would be proceeding smoothly towards their pot of gold, amassed from your pockets. Hopefully all of you who are in favour of what we are doing could write to this Commission, perhaps using the OS case as an example. I could write a template submission.