What are they (still) hiding

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff,

We are talking about the following:-

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4688

Suggest you see Simon's original post, and see also Trevors first post and his last posting on the subject for an overall sense of the thing.

best wishes

Phil

Thanks Phil fore your help. But I think I know what I'm talking about and what the records might contain.

I'm simply asking what is thought they might reveal?

And possibly if those doing so will understand what they are actually referring too?

Pirate

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jeff,

We are talking about the following:-

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4688

Suggest you see Simon's original post, and see also Trevors first post and his last posting on the subject for an overall sense of the thing.

best wishes

Phil

[Jeff Leahy]

I dont know if I have this wrong?

But are we talking about records that no one has ever seen before?

or records and names about records and communications that no longer exist?

Pirate

[Phil Carter]

Phil

I have no knowledge of this specific case, so cannot talk about it. my posts on the subject have been intended to try to give some thought into the generality og the thought processes and procedures that are entailed.

Personally, I have a suspicion that the sensitivity of the ledgers was only recognised late and at quite high level.

Thus inconsistent arguments may have been put forward over time, as at first no risk, then some risk, then a general risk may have been perceived. But that is, I must emphasise, wholly speculation on my part.

i think initially (or at least after a while) the risk of releasingnames was perceived by someone. But the wider risks of setting a precedent may not have emerged until later, and perhaps only when specifc legal advice was sought (for instance in application to on-going cases).

Again, I do NOT know, thet is just a guess.

Hope that helps,

phil

Helo Phil,

Thanks for the reply, and having seen Trevor's own comment (thank you Trevor, most kind), precedent isn't the answer here either.
The long list of defeated arguments in this case that were used by the Met originally, was amazing (including the cost of making a copy via photocopier...) and now, in this last tribuneral hearing the argument was more or less solely reliable upon the release and effect of informants names.

I ask again. If people have, on many occasions, asked first to have the informants names and one line references redacted out.. and even the offer of signing a guarentee of non-dislocure of any of these names and references was made.. why the devil would the Met STILL need to keep the ledgers closed if the very reason for their argument was agreed to be taken care of?

It really is shooting oneslf in the foot. That is the very argument that they use for non-release!

best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

There are no precedents in freedom of information cases.

Each case is judged on its merits. That is not to say that a decision in one case cannot be cited in another. In my case the police and information commissioners cited the decisons of two other tribunals on the issues surrounding the disclosure of the identities of informants.

Furthermore a tribunal judge is not bound by the decison of a previous tribunal.

As far as the contents of the registers and the ledgers are concerned the police argued that they could not distinguish between what entries related to informants and what did not. Clearly I suggest they can be. This was another argument which formed an integral part of my case.

[Phil H]

Phil

I have no knowledge of this specific case, so cannot talk about it. my posts on the subject have been intended to try to give some thought into the generality og the thought processes and procedures that are entailed.

Personally, I have a suspicion that the sensitivity of the ledgers was only recognised late and at quite high level.

Thus inconsistent arguments may have been put forward over time, as at first no risk, then some risk, then a general risk may have been perceived. But that is, I must emphasise, wholly speculation on my part.

i think initially (or at least after a while) the risk of releasingnames was perceived by someone. But the wider risks of setting a precedent may not have emerged until later, and perhaps only when specifc legal advice was sought (for instance in application to on-going cases).

Again, I do NOT know, thet is just a guess.

Hope that helps,

phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil,

The one thing about all this that does NOT make sense, is that the offer was made, apparently, from my understanding of all this, that any line with reference to an informer or an informer's name could be redacted, leaving the rest of the 36,000 entries available for perusal. But on various seperate occasions even THIS was refused. If I understand this correctly, the offer of a signed warranty against publishing or using any names relating to the above problem was also offered, and again the Met Police refused. On various occasions.

Now the whole argument from the Met relates to informers. Why in heavens name can't the rest of the ledgers be seen if the informers question is taken out of the equation? THAT, surely, only causes one thing in the minds of most people. Suspicion. To me it's like shooting oneself in the foot. Because it doesn't do the Met Police (A public service body) any favours at all.

As a civil servant, could you please explain to me the logic in favour of keeping the ledgers closed even if the informants names are redacted out and that is the whole argument of the police in the first place?

best wishes

Phil

[TomTomKent]

Absolutely TomTom. A point that i have tried to make several times in other threads, but not so eloquently as you have just done.

Phil

Cheers. Throw enough pennys at the fountain and I will hit eventually...

[Phil H]

Absolutely TomTom. A point that i have tried to make several times in other threads, but not so eloquently as you have just done.

Phil

[TomTomKent]

On the subject of informants we are obliged to remember it is not the specific acts or informers that are the concern of the police, it is the precedent; if potential or current informers believe their name be released at any point in any context, they will be less willing to inform or whistleblow. The doubt, the perception of a risk is far more damaging than the genuine threat, in a climate where it is difficult enough to convince people to take the risk.

[Phil H]

So thanks, but no thanks really.

An interesting perspective, Errata, and one that might be persuasive in some areas of Government.

But I don't think the concerns of those who have to make the judgements/decisions on release will be swayed by your arguments.

Phil

[Errata]

If it was proven that a Jewish witness identified the Ripper then refused to testify some petty types would use that as justification for their prejudices.

In a way I would applaud an effort to protect the Jewish (or any other ethnicity) community from the backlash of this kind of information.

But in the end, I gotta say "don't let me stop you..."

People who are prejudiced against Jews, or Catholics, or Saudis or whoever already have justifications for their feelings. a 100+ year old crime may give them a moment's thrill of vindication, but it will not affect any decision to become disorderly or violent. They already are those things, or they aren't. All any revelation about this case can do is affect the timing of such a thing.

Let them come. We've dealt with it before. And keeping the information a secret can only fuel suspicions anyway. We are attached to enough conspiracy theories thank you. If they are keeping the secret to protect us, they need to not do that. The time of imminent danger is long past. Any relics of it today can be taken care of. And quite frankly it is a little infantilizing, not to mention the fact that it can be seen to imply that we ARE in fact responsible for the actions of one of our members, and we are being protected from having to answer for the deeds of another a very long time ago.

So thanks, but no thanks really.

[Phil H]

Something else

Well, belinda, with intelligence, security and similar sensitive work there is always the question of methods and procedures. If they are still in use now, then the authorities wiould not wish to reveal them.

There may also be questions about people with the right knowledge putting "2 & 2" together. I was told at the time of the "Spycatcher" furore years back, when Peter Wright, an ex-MI5 man, publishjed a book that the UK authorities tried to ban, that the concern was not over specific passages. It was that there were "facts" in the book that put together, gave away information that was considered damaging.

The fact that the UK authorities had broken the German "Enigma" code was not revealed until the 1980s, almost 40 years after the end of the war. It was a secret so well kept that I don't think anyone had even hinted at it. It was crucial to an understanding of the war, yet was kept secret.

There are many factors that COULD be behind the concern, and even if laymen such as we are could see the unedited documents, we might not see what the concern was. Such things can be VERY subtle.

Phil

[belinda]

Yes that is always possible. What I mean is I think there is something else in the report possibly nothing to do with the Ripper murders that is a potential cause of trouble.

[Phil H]

Additional information

I found a reference to my example, in relation to Southwark (London) cemeteries.

It is possible by law to re-use private graves that are older than 75 years old (good practice is to wait until they are 100 years old)

Phil