|
Page 2 of 2
|
Author |
Message |
roger spencer
Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 41
Location: Costa Calida Spain
|
fighting fund
I am in all the way and then some no way should we let the suits smirk over us!!!!
|
Thu Nov 16, 2006 4:30 pm |
|
|
Dave Woolmer
Joined: 03 Mar 2006
Posts: 48
Location: East Sussex
|
Most definitely, count me in
_________________ I like it here on MY planet. If you wish to visit, you are welcome,
but your sanity is not my responsibilty!
|
Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:45 pm |
|
|
mcdangle
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 1027
Location: Scotland
|
Me too. Even us Jocks will dig deep and come up with cash for a fighting fund. We always did like a good fight anyway, and boy am I looking forward to getting stuck into these 'suits'.
|
Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:14 pm |
|
|
'Jock' Fenton
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 1222
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
While I'm unsure if I like the sound of 'even us Jock's'....I'm game for the fight too...I'll probably have to step up on the begging letters a bit perhaps?
_________________ ...................'Jock'
Paroi...Rasah...Batu Signals Troop.
|
Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:38 pm |
|
|
John Cooper
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2158
Location: Suffolk
|
Leading the way from Suffolk!
_________________ --------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:41 pm |
|
|
ro5=6372
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 1763
|
..
Last edited by ro5=6372 on Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:24 am; edited 1 time in total
|
Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:47 pm |
|
|
Paul Alders
Joined: 04 Mar 2006
Posts: 931
|
Brummies are always ready to stand up for what is right. I'm in.
yo arll rite our kid.
|
Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:56 am |
|
|
mcdangle
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 1027
Location: Scotland
|
ro5=6372 wrote:mcdangle wrote:Me too. Even us Jocks will dig deep and come up with cash for a fighting fund. We always did like a good fight anyway, and boy am I looking forward to getting stuck into these 'suits'. DON'T TAKE IT PERSONAL MC D ,LAST TIME I KNEW THE JOCKS DUG DEEP ,WAS WHEN A JOCK DROPPED A PENNY DOWN A RABBIT HOLE,THIS IS NOW KNOWN AS THE GRAND CANYON,CONFIRM PSE,NO I DINNA WANNA PERSONAL VISIT
Pete, on a dull, rainy day, your humour brings a ray of light. Keep up the good work. If we couldn't laugh we would cry. I hivnae got yer address so the 'Dumfries Handshake' is oot o' the question the noo, Jimmy.
|
Fri Nov 17, 2006 10:08 am |
|
|
'Jock' Fenton
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 1222
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
Quote: I hivnae got yer address so the 'Dumfries Handshake' is oot o' the question the noo, Jimmy.
Pete.....unlike McDangle, I'm confident that, on my next visit to the UK, I'll 'be able tae track ye doon'.....and perhaps then be in a position to introduce you to what I used to understand as 'The Marquis o' Edinburgh Rules'.
_________________ ...................'Jock'
Paroi...Rasah...Batu Signals Troop.
|
Fri Nov 17, 2006 11:43 am |
|
|
ro5=6372
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 1763
|
..
Last edited by ro5=6372 on Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:22 am; edited 1 time in total
|
Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:16 pm |
|
|
BarryF
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2721
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
|
Re: Royal Prerogative
George F wrote:The attorney general announced in December 1996 that the government would no longer claim immunity on a class basis and certificates would only be used when disclosure would cause "real damage or harm"
I think an important aspect from your AG quote is that what the AG was saying is that while it is relevant to have exemptions from the FoIA, those exemptions should be exercised with care and should not be treated as blanket approval to hide everything under the desk. The premise of the FoIA is that all info should be in the public domain unless the release of that info could cause real damage or harm and should therefore be allowed the protection of the exemption. But not by default.
Thus, if the placing of info in the public domain does not cause real damage or harm then it should not be afforded the protection of an exemption even though it falls under one of the headings you quoted.
The judgement as to whether info would cause "real damage or harm" is qualitative and is subjective - and any qualitative and/or subjective judgement must be capable of independent scrutiny.
George F wrote:• foreign or international awards where The Queen’s permission is required or sought to accept and wear them;
For example, if the info we seek falls under the above heading it is clearly there to protect the background to the Queen giving or withholding permission. But if the release of that info was to demonstrate that civil servants had not given the Queen a full and even-handed brief, then the only “real damage or harm” would be to the suits who had failed the Queen.
In my view, the FoIA is there not to protect civil servants’ incompetence or sleight of hand or inappropriate advice to the Queen.
Therefore I think we are both agreed that the info should be released from the Exemption and into the public domain.
Barry
_________________ BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia
|
Tue Nov 28, 2006 11:33 am |
|
|
BarryF
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2721
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
|
Re: Royal Prerogative
George F wrote:Unfortunately exemption 41(b) was not written to protect incompetent suits, or silly billy's on the HD committee members. This exemption is to protect the Sovereign.
Precisely!
We are talking about specific exewmptions and the fact that because something falls under one of those exemptions doesn't mean the info has to stay there - it shoudl only do so if, to release that info, wouls cause real damage or harm.
And therein lies my point. If placing the info into the public domain doesn't cause Her any "real damage or harm" and in fact helps her to be seen to be even-handed and playing Her role a Monarch in a democratic society, that openness "repairs damage and causes good". It may not help the suits but Exemptions from the FoIA are not there to hide their crappy recommendations.
My problem with the suits' position is that there is considerable suspeicion that they are needlessly and knowingly placing major question marks over the Crown - are they willing to do so just to protect their own discredited position?
And, yes ... I do remember the Admiral and his views! Understanding of what we are doing but unwilling to contemplate that the Queen has withheld approval - same view as us.
Barry
_________________ BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia
|
Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:08 pm |
|
|
Kentsboro
Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Posts: 431
Location: Hampshire
|
Contingency Plans
Here's another one for any donation required. Tony D (Kentsboro)
ONE WAY OR OTHER WE WILL WIN !
|
Tue Nov 28, 2006 4:45 pm |
|
|
BarryF
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2721
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
|
Re: Contingency Plans
Kentsboro wrote:Here's another one for any donation required. Tony D (Kentsboro)
ONE WAY OR OTHER WE WILL WIN !
Thanks for your support, Tony.
Let's hope we do not have to go to Phase III - but we shall if we have to.
Barry
and the Fight4thePJM Team
_________________ BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia
|
Wed Nov 29, 2006 6:03 pm |
|
|
|
The time now is Thu Apr 25, 2024 11:58 am | All times are GMT
|
Page 2 of 2
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|