I have requested a meeting with the minister, has anyone else also contacted him?
On 4 July 2011 10:58, Julian Todd <[email protected]> wrote: > In a response to another request about PSI relating to a dodgy contracted > out database that is sold on for undisclosed commercial rates to 11 > undisclosed corporations by the MoJ, I got the following paragraph: > > "You may be interested to know that there are three minutes held which > concern meetings held with the Office of Public Sector Information to > discuss the Directive on the Re-use of Public Sector > Information, and its potential impacts on our procurement strategy. These > meeting were not about the re-use of information. They concerned the > construction of the licensing scheme and so are outside the scope of your > Freedom of Information request. I am therefore satisfied that the > information held does not have to be disclosed." > > > Not any more! > > http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/reuse_of_psi_relating_to_procure > > > So it could be that the Ministry perfectly well knows the consequences of > PSI, and may have tried to cook up some kind of dodgy exemption for itself > involving placing these databases under the control of 3rd parties. > > We are going to have to establish whether this is the case, and find the > list of datasets they are doing this with. > > We could coordinate or merge making the complaints through the (FOI like > process) to the Office of PSI under Regulation 18: > > http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/1515/regulation/18/made > > > There are proposed amendments to FOI concerning going after databases, > which to me look like they completely overlap PSI regulations. > > Julian. > > > > On 4 July 2011 08:43, Mark Goodge <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 03/07/2011 17:20, Francis Davey wrote: >> >> Hopefully the present government can be persuaded to do something >>> about it. It strikes me that a political, rather than technical or >>> legal, solution may be the best way to approach it. The present >>> government ought to be psychologically in favour of getting rid of >>> exclusive arrangements, especially where they bring in no revenue. >>> >> >> I tweeted and blogged about it, and someone else on Twitter pointed out >> that such an arrangement may well be contrary to section 14 of the Re-use of >> Public Sector Information Regulations 2005. If so, that would apply to the >> contract with Bailii as well. So I've followed it up with another FoI >> request: >> >> http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/**request/public_interest_** >> provisions_for_e<http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/public_interest_provisions_for_e> >> >> Mark >> -- >> Sent from my Babbage Difference Engine >> http://mark.goodge.co.uk >> http://www.ratemysupermarket.**com <http://www.ratemysupermarket.com> >> >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> developers-public mailing list >> developers-public@lists.**mysociety.org<[email protected]> >> https://secure.mysociety.org/**admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/** >> developers-public<https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public> >> >> Unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/**admin/lists/mailman/options/* >> *developers-public/julian%**40publicwhip.org.uk<https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/julian%40publicwhip.org.uk> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > developers-public mailing list > [email protected] > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public > > Unsubscribe: > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/javier%40openrightsgroup.org >
_______________________________________________ developers-public mailing list [email protected] https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public Unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/archive%40mail-archive.com
