Blog break but more from Rother

Comments

Sign in or register to comment.

• Previous
• Next

• 1. At 6:09pm on 29 Jul 2008, Julius_Strangepork wrote:

  www.WhatDoTheyKnow.com, not You!

  Complain about this comment

• 2. At 09:58am on 30 Jul 2008, MartinRosenbaum wrote:

  Many thanks for that correction.

  Complain about this comment

• 3. At 11:05am on 30 Jul 2008, RoverGringo wrote:

  I see the good folk at Rother still insist that an email is not a valid address for correspondence.
  
  Perhaps somebody could point them in the direction of this ICO guidance.
  
  Particularly page 6 of the document (page 8 of the PDF), where it states:
  
  Any correspondence could include a request for information. If it is written (this includes e-mail), legible, gives the name of the applicant, an address for reply (which could be electronic), and includes a description of the information required, then it will fall within the scope of the legislation.
  
  

  Complain about this comment

• 4. At 11:06am on 30 Jul 2008, RoverGringo wrote:

  I emailed the above to the applicant on whatdotheyknow, and I just noticed he has passed it on to Rother for their attention.
  
  Let's see what they say to it.

  Complain about this comment

• 5. At 2:39pm on 31 Jul 2008, MonkeyBot5000 wrote:

  I notice that someone's picked them up on calling WhatDoTheyKnow amateurish...
  
  
  "I request
  
  a) The number and URLs of websites classified by RDC as 'full' (such as http://www.rother.gov.uk )
  b) The number and URLs of websites classified by RDC as 'amateurish' (such as http://whatdotheyknow.com )
  c) The number and URLs of websites which fall into any other categories which RDC may use.
  d) How these classifications are decided upon, and any training manual or procedural documents issued to staff which directs them to use this classification scheme. "
  
  
  Unfortunately they seem to be suffering from the classic lawyers delusion - that only they have read or understood the law and, as a lawyer, their opinion is correct.

  Complain about this comment

• 6. At 9:12pm on 06 Aug 2008, Dennis Junior wrote:

  Martin,
  
  
  What happend?
  
  

  Complain about this comment

• 7. At 2:30pm on 07 Aug 2008, RoverGringo wrote:

  Rother DC have now published the fact that they have received specific advice from the ICO that emails are acceptable addresses for correspondence.
  
  They have also been advised to remove references to s.14 from their 'standard' responses.
  
  Hopefully this brings the 'saga' to an end!

  Complain about this comment

• Previous
• Next

View these comments in RSS