What are they (still) hiding

[jason_c]

May I suggest you all stop wildly speculating and guessing about Clutterbuck and
the files and what did or did not go on.

I did say in a very early post that as soon as the tribunals decison is known I
would be reporting the full facts surrounding the case from start to finish.

Take a breather enjoy life

I look forward to these full facts being posted.

Without being allowed to wildly speculate on the events surrounding JtR we'd hardly have a messageboard worthy of the name. And you'd have about 6 posts at best, Trevor.


Good luck with the case btw.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes Sir.

I hadn't realised that our intrepid searcher for freedom of information was so actively AGAINST freedom of speech!!

Nothing wrong with free speech if you have something constructive or sensible to say. Some people just seem to talk for the sake of talking

[Phil H]

Yes Sir.

I hadn't realised that our intrepid searcher for freedom of information was so actively AGAINST freedom of speech!!

[Trevor Marriott]

May I suggest you all stop wildly speculating and guessing about Clutterbuck and
the files and what did or did not go on.

I did say in a very early post that as soon as the tribunals decison is known I
would be reporting the full facts surrounding the case from start to finish.

Take a breather enjoy life

[Chris]

He should have, if we was wise, written confirmation of what he could and could not do, either in his original contract/instructions. If he has NOT then he is in a very dodgy position.
...
What may have happened with Clutterbuck was that he drew attention to these records which had previously been overlooked or rather casually regarded. Thus he may have observed his authority but not quite as was intended!!

Obviously, any number of things may have happened.

[Phil H]

I can just imagine MI5 being extremely concerned with ex officers releasing details of any files.

Unauthorised release of information is a disciplinary offence, NOT one that has to do with the official release through such mechanisms as FOI.

I have on my office desk an FOI mug dating from about 2005 (when FOI came into effect) which reads on one side: "Right to know NOT need to know". The cuture change from the old ways is not an easy one, and I can imagine that some go oo far just as a few will cling to old ways.

If Clutterbuck can do it then other ex officers will do it in the near future.

A couple of years ago we had a flurry of losses of information from Government, it would be a very unobservant or wilful civil servant to have avoided the instructions and warning/penalties issued at that time.

If precedent has a role in this case, I rather think it has to do with assurances given about confidentiality in the past and future willingness of people to share information if they think it might be released early. This could for instance, tie in with attempts to get communities to share information with the authorities in regard to potential terrorists.

Of course, Clutterbuck wrote in his thesis that he had been given permission to use these records for his research.

He should have, if we was wise, written confirmation of what he could and could not do, either in his original contract/instructions. If he has NOT then he is in a very dodgy position.

FOI is about the AUTHORISED release of information, as would be an academic thesis (I am occasionally asked by colleagues whether it is alright to publish certain information in a dissertation/thesis if it is drawn from work experience or draws on such material. Usually, there is no problem - but they should ask and get it cleared to be sure. Same is true for senior military and security personnel (Stella Rimmington et al) and senior administrators politicians, writing their autobiographies - they have to get them cleared.

What may have happened with Clutterbuck was that he drew attention to these records which had previously been overlooked or rather casually regarded. Thus he may have observed his authority but not quite as was intended!!

Phil

[Chris]

Of course, Clutterbuck wrote in his thesis that he had been given permission to use these records for his research.

Judging from what Trevor Marriott has posted, this is disputed.

[jason_c]

I believe these circumstances themselves would ensure the authorities would fight tooth and nail against their release.

In my experience, not necessarily - but then I have to deal with only a fairly small amount of "security"-related information.

What Clutterbuck probably did was to awake the authorities to the existence of this "archived" material and to assess whether it was "safe" to release it.

"Fighting tooth and nail" suggests a battle red in fang and claw. Of course, the reality is that we work within a framework of legal rules set out in an Act of Parliament, and subject to several levels of audit. It's a pretty civilised situation, with the balance set pretty heavily against the administrator.

Phil

Fair enough points Phil.

I can just imagine MI5 being extremely concerned with ex officers releasing details of any files. If Clutterbuck can do it then other ex officers will do it in the near future. Its just as likely the precedent that worrys them rather than whats in these actual files themselves. Next we'll have ex MI5 officers calling for the release of SP files they have viewed on Queen Victoria & John Brown, Profumo, etc.

Its a slippery slope that MI5 won't wish to go near.

[Phil H]

I believe these circumstances themselves would ensure the authorities would fight tooth and nail against their release.

In my experience, not necessarily - but then I have to deal with only a fairly small amount of "security"-related information.

What Clutterbuck probably did was to awake the authorities to the existence of this "archived" material and to assess whether it was "safe" to release it.

"Fighting tooth and nail" suggests a battle red in fang and claw. Of course, the reality is that we work within a framework of legal rules set out in an Act of Parliament, and subject to several levels of audit. It's a pretty civilised situation, with the balance set pretty heavily against the administrator.

Phil

[jason_c]

My question is how does anyone find out that such files exist in the first place? Secondly, is anyone 100% sure that these files will help because it seems (excuse the simile if its bad) a bit like looking through every phone book to find a phone number of a person you dont know the name of or do I just not understand the scale of these files and the potential secrets they may hold.

I have a limited understanding of the issue and timeline of events.

I think it was an MI5 officer(Clutterbuck) who found the files. He then publically announced these files existed after he left the service. I believe these circumstances themselves would ensure the authorities would fight tooth and nail against their release.

[mariab]

Simply making a request under The Whitechapel Murders or Jack The Ripper may not reveal information on the topic which may be found in other police files to which reserachers may not even have considered examining. It is there where the little gems are to be found.

Absolutely.

[Trevor Marriott]

Simply making a request under The Whitechapel Murders or Jack The Ripper may not reveal information on the topic which may be found in other police files to which reserachers may not even have considered examining. It is there where the little gems are to be found.

The success of gaining access to the retained special branch files is not totally reliant on winning the current case but it will go along way to adding much needed weight to the new case.

[Phil H]

chudmuskett

...how does anyone find out that such files exist in the first place?

Under UK FOI law, a public authority (i.e. those who hold the information) has to respond to a request for information by stating whether they do or do not hold information that is relevant. (There is a "cannot confirm or deny option, where it could be sensitivie for it even to be known that such information exists - extremely rarely used).

Thus, if you want information you do not have to request specific files (though you can if you want) but can ask for "any information you hold on the Whitechapel murders2 for instance. If you don't velieve the response is comprehensive, you can appeal.

As I have said before on this and other threads, as someone dealing with FOI requests on a daily basis, I can assure you that Government departments are as helpful as possible, we do not try to evade answering or providing information (except personal information which can only be given to the relevant individual); we are not "paranoid", secretive or unhelpful. Indeed, we devote a lot of time and effort to meeting deadlines and ensuring that information is provided in a quality way.

That said there are legal, commercial and security concerns that might lead to information being withheld, but the last is very rare, in my experience. In withholding (redacting) information in a released document - which is the normal way of doing it (for instance, you release a contract but some financial information may be covered up) we are protecting the public. It would hardly be good for the taxpayer to give away information that would allow future competition for contracts to increase prices for goods, or allow commercial interests to gain an advantage in other ways. But even then, we are scrupulous in looking at the material to ensure that the risks are real.

Nevertheless, at the margins there will always be a "creative tension" between those who want information and the wider public interest. But sometimes the issues are wider - as I suspect in this case where the authorities won't give a d**n about JtR, I'm sure.

I'd like to see these documents too, they sound interesting, but I can understand why there is a reluctance to release them even now.

Phil

[chudmuskett]

My question is how does anyone find out that such files exist in the first place? Secondly, is anyone 100% sure that these files will help because it seems (excuse the simile if its bad) a bit like looking through every phone book to find a phone number of a person you dont know the name of or do I just not understand the scale of these files and the potential secrets they may hold.

[c.d.]

Before anyone starts weaving conspiracy theories or talking of coverups, it is necessary to understand the legal mind and the high level of paranoia to which it is subject. By way of illustration, I worked for a law firm for a number of years. Upon leaving, I asked a partner for whom I had done a lot of work and who I thought liked me if I could get a recommendation. He said no. I was quite shocked and asked why. His reply was that if he were to give me a bad recommendation, I could possibly sue for slander etc. I said ok that makes sense but why would you not give me a good recommendation? He replied that if another firm were to hire me based on my current firm's recommendation there was a possibility that I could be at the new firm one night by myself and steal money from their safe or commit a number of other wrongs. The new firm could turn around and sue my old firm saying that they hired me based upon the old firm's recommendation and therefore the old firm was liable for the damages that I had caused. He remarked that that mindset was pretty ridiculous and that it was only a remote possibility that something like that would happen. Still the possibility existed. Hence the firm's policy.

The legal profession is rife with paranoia and suspicion and that very often dictates policy and how things are handled.

c.d.