Freedom of Information requests in the London Borough of Barnet

There are some fascinating responses to Freedom of Informatin requests on the Barnet Council website currently.

I have been reviewing them and there are a few which caught my eye. Have you ever wondered how many dangerous animals licenses there are in Barnet? Well now you know

Dangerous Wild Animals More info


26 April 2017 Our ref: 3602996
Thank you for your request received on 21 April 2017, for the following information:
licensing under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 in your jurisdiction. Under the Freedom of Information Act, I would like to make the following request:

Please:
- 1. Provide details of how many animals of each species are covered under each licence.
- 2. For each licence, list all the species and the number of individuals covered. In each case, we will require as much information as possible to enable the species to be identified.
- 3. Any information you are able to provide us relating to applications which were made and subsequently refused, and the reasons or refusal.
- We do not require personal information such as names of licensees, addresses etc.

We have processed this request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Response
We do not have any Dangerous Wild Animal licensed premises.

Or what about Lord Buckethead?

'Lord Buckethead', of the 'Gremloids' Party, who stood at the 1987 General Election More info

I'm a TV producer researching the history of novelty candidates in UK General Elections for a new programme, and I would like to obtain any information you areable to share about the candidature of 'Lord Buckethead', of the 'Gremloids' Party, who stood at the 1987 General Election in the constituency of Finchley. In particular, we would like to discover the real name of the person who was given the right to  stand in the election, as we would very much like to contact with a   view to talking to him about his experience at the time. If you can provide us with any information on this subject that you are able to share I would be very grateful. Many thanks for your help





Response

I am writing to inform you that we have searched our records and the information yourequested is not held by London Borough of Barnet.The council's Returning Officers is a statutory office holder who holds  information about candidates on their own behalf under Representation of the People Act and not on the council's behalf.  The information requested is therefore not held by thecouncil for FOI purposes. The Returning Officer is not a   public authority subject to FOI and therefore they are not obliged to answer FOI requests themselves. However, we have considered whether the Returning Officer could provide thisinformation in any event.  However, they have confirmed that information about candidates is not retained for this length of time and so nothing is held by them aboutthis candidate. The retention period for the Returning Officer is    1   year under the Representation of the People Act 1983 sch 1 rule 57

 All fascinating stuff.

Whilst perusing the list, I found one which I believe will put a rather large shadow over the campaign for re-eection of Matthew Offord.  Why not have a look through the list and see if you can spot it? Watch this space.

The real reason for the failure of Great Britain !

If you'd asked me two years ago what the biggest problem with Great Britain was, I'd have said "Haven't got a clue". Over the past couple of years, mostly as a result of writing this blog, I have a very clear idea. It may surprise you to hear that the problem isn't the Tories and it isn't Labour. It's not the Lib Dems or the BNP.

It is nothing to do with Party politics. It is however the major problem with party politics. What am I talking about? Secrecy in Government. We all pay taxes but the powers that be make all of the important decisions behind closed doors. In the USA this is not the case. The culture of Freedom of Information in public office is a fundamental right. Expenses are publicised, meetings are minuted and documented. The opposition have access to all of this so the rulers have to do a good job. There are no dodgy deals behind closed doors. That is why the USA has become the richest and the most powerful nation on Earth.

Over here things are done slightly differently. If you go to the public gallery at the Council to watch meetings, you'll know that all of the important discussions are taken with the public excluded. Are they discussin national security? What do you think.

There is a truly disgusting story in the Guardian today. It illustrates to me that Jack Straw is just not up to the job. The government and the judiciary can continue to conceal the names of more than 170 misbehaving judges, a freedom of information tribunal has ruled.

The ruling came out in favour of justice secretary, Jack Straw, and the judiciary as they have fought a four-year battle to hide the identities of miscreants.

The three-member tribunal, led by David Marks QC, dismissed a challenge from the Guardian which had argued that the public should know which judges had been disciplined and why.

The reason for this? Members of the judiciary who have been sacked or reprimanded for misconduct would suffer "great distress" if details of their misdemeanours were made public.

These people are paid a great deal of money. They are paid this in expectation that they behave themselves. How anyone, let alone a justice secretary could possibly claim that it is not in the public interest for bad apples to be exposed is beyond me.

Until we abolish secrecy and open the whole system up to proper scrutiny, this country will never be fair, free and honest

Section 43 - FOI requests - vital information

Here's what you really need to know about section 43. If you are making an FOI request and you are getting effed about you really should check this out.

http://www.foi.gov.uk/guidance/exsumm/sec43.htm


Oddly enough Section 43 is also one of my favourite psychedelic tracks by Country Joe and the Fish. Click HERE to see them perform it at the Monteray Pop festival in 1967. How strange is that ????