91Èȱ¬

I certainly understand the requirement to keep private the precise postal codes in which employees of the information commission live, but I cannot understand why employees of the state should be granted privacy when it comes to their remuneration (and I speak as an employee of the state). As a taxpayer, I would very much like to know how much of my money individuals are paid to perform their duties.

Yes, I noticed those this morning. And, interestingly, his decision in respect of himself for case ref. FS50163927 goes against his own guidance... The complainant requested the job titles and wages of the five most senior staff members in the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). "The Commissioner has investigated and found that the ICO was correct to withhold the exact salary details under section 40 as disclosure would breach the first data protection principles".

The ICO's guidance on the application of Section 40 (Awareness Guidance 1) states: "...it would be unlikely to be unfair to publish, in the case of senior staff, details of salaries and other benefits."

Interesting indeed. One rule for one, one rule for everyone else?

Also three decisions in respect of the 91Èȱ¬ among that batch, all of which had at least two complaints upheld ;-)

I also agree with the requirement to keep postcodes private, the postcode would not just potentially identify the members of staff, it could also identify their family or partners if they also live at that address. That is certainly personal data.

John, you'd know how much of your money went in public sector salaries if you knew the total amount paid in salaries, the total number of those employed, and the division of those people into salary bands. It's not really necessary to know exactly how much each individual gets to see whether value for money is being obtained.

Knowing to the nearest £5,000 seems a reasonable compromise.

I cannot agree that the precise salary details of any civil servants should be kept confidential - especially the salaries of "senior" staff.

Anyone whom has ever seen an older copy of Whitaker's Almanac, will see the precise salaries of the senior staff in all government departments was published annually for well over a hunderd years and I don't recall the world coming to an end or any of those individuals whose salary details were published suffering in any way because of it.

I can certainly understand anyone wanting to know how much taxpayer's money is squandered on funding and financing what to my mind is a wholly unfit for purpose department somewhat akin to a toothless lapdog of the government who simply does as it is told by it's masters irrespective of the laws it is supposed to be upholding.

As for postcodes, if anyone really wanted to find out the home addresses of all the ICO's staff, all any moderately competent researcher needs to know is the person's name.

As for the ICO ignoring his own guidance, I must agree with Michael quoted above about one rule for one and another for everyone else.

Freedom of Information? In this country? To quote Howard Carter, the answer to that is spherical and in the plural.

Policing ones self? A keystone to proving ones independence. Keystone - police? Yes that sounds about right!

Well were I given these sanctions - occasionally I would find myself guilty in a little appeal matter - just to show how completely independent I was and would hand down a punishment to my sen, promising to do better in the future and move on feeling very chastened but justified.

The ICO ignoring its own guidance? A thing never heard of.

Spherical and plural = Round objects!

Who IS Round and why does he object?

"Who IS Round and why does he object?"

Thanks Paul...that must be the only time I have been amused by anything at all to do with Freedom of Information!

:)