What are they (still) hiding

[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]

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]

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 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

[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

[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 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

[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]

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]

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,

As far as I know, 36,000 entries relating to original Special Branch files, 1888-1894.

best wishes

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff,

As far as I know, 36,000 entries relating to original Special Branch files, 1888-1894.

best wishes

Yes, but do the files they refer to still exist?

And please don't treat me like a numpty

Pirate

PS Well I guess some do exist but most dont.....all you have is referances to these? is it not?

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jeff,

Err I wasn't and don't treat people like "numpties" whatever that means, I only said what I believe to be correct..36,000 entries relating to original Special Branch Files. Please stop accusing me of things I do not do, even if I do understand the apparent derogatory meaning.

As far as the original files are concerned, it is thought, believed.. whatever the Met have said/not said.. that they do not apparently exist any more.

best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Some of the files do exist and are still held in Special Branch Archives and I currently have another case pending with the met Police and The Information commissioners to gain access to them.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Trevor,

Thank you, you really do want infamy don't you!.. I wish you the best of luck with this enterprise as well!
Ever thought of becoming a police dog? ;-)


best wishes

Phil