Late delivery
One of those who requested information about MPs' allowances in the cases mentioned in my previous entry was the journalist Heather Brooke, author of the FOI guide 'Your Right to Know'.
She is now at the lack of notice that she as a complainant was given that her case had been decided.
I have to say that I have a lot of sympathy with her, based on my own experience with the Information Commissioner's Office. On one previous occasion I had the following problems with a decision notice on one of my complaints to them:
• They posted it to me instead of emailing it, despite the fact I had requested that communications to me are sent by email
• They didn’t put any stamps or franking on the envelope.
• So the Royal Mail didn’t deliver it, and I had to go the local delivery office and pay £4.85 for the privilege of collecting it.
The decision notice told me my appeal was rejected. But I needn’t have paid the £4.85 to find that out, since by the time I got to the delivery office and found out what was inside the undelivered item of post the decision notice was on the Commissioner’s website. As Heather says on her blog, 'With the ICO you're the last to know'.
The Commissioner’s office apologised and refunded me the £4.85. But they wouldn’t promise to send me future decision notices in my cases by email. They said they need to make sure that both parties receive decisions simultaneously. But using the post is less likely to guarantee this than using email.
A 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
The irony of the people who campaign for information to be more available complaining that they don't get priority to use it whilst others can't!
Ben, did you read the same post i did?, would appear not.
This government is notorious for trying to hide their antics.
Our local MP has put on his web site that he voted to exemmpt MPs from the act and justified it with "proof" with a lnk to a pdf file that comes up with a 404.
What can you do with them ?
Irony of Irony the 91Èȱ¬'s own internal report confirms what the rest of the country has known for years that the 91Èȱ¬ is biased.
All the newspapers are carying this story today the 91Èȱ¬ are not!.
The 91Èȱ¬ must now publish the 'Balen' report, I cannot see how the 91Èȱ¬ can claim to be impartial in how it presents current affairs etc.
I suppose the 91Èȱ¬ will finally get around to commenting on this latest report, however, it will do it in it's normal style i.e. 'The 91Èȱ¬ may have made some mistakes, and we will learn from them', of course the 91Èȱ¬ will do no such thing, the 91Èȱ¬ will continue to misrepresent the news as it has done ever since it allowed itself to become a mouthpiece for any minority group with a grudge.
Finally, to quote the 91Èȱ¬'s very own Rod Liddell in the 'Sunday Times'; the 91Èȱ¬ needs to stop recruiting journalists just from the 'Guardian'.