Comments for http://deltawww.live.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/02/the_coming_20_year_rule.html http://deltawww.live.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/02/the_coming_20_year_rule.html en-gb 30 Wed 17 Dec 2014 20:59:14 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://deltawww.live.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/02/the_coming_20_year_rule.html janeclark17 http://deltawww.live.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/02/the_coming_20_year_rule.html?page=94#comment18 Things should be made public available why should people of power be unaccountable for their actions. Wed 06 Oct 2010 13:09:58 GMT+1 Discount watches http://deltawww.live.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/02/the_coming_20_year_rule.html?page=89#comment17 Nice and thanks for given information to us.Your site always has some good info to share..got you bookmarked..Thanks! Tue 25 May 2010 14:19:06 GMT+1 crystal305 http://deltawww.live.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/02/the_coming_20_year_rule.html?page=84#comment16 This post has been Removed Thu 08 Apr 2010 09:21:43 GMT+1 bobray http://deltawww.live.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/02/the_coming_20_year_rule.html?page=78#comment15 This post has been Removed Tue 06 Apr 2010 09:03:23 GMT+1 ghostofsichuan http://deltawww.live.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/02/the_coming_20_year_rule.html?page=73#comment14 Nothing like open government. How does one explain to the Chinese that this is a better system? We have open government and in only 20 years you can find answers to your questions....well...some of your questions, whereas in China the government hides information from the people...see the difference? Thu 04 Mar 2010 21:41:47 GMT+1 Bob Long http://deltawww.live.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/02/the_coming_20_year_rule.html?page=68#comment13 Anyone in government that's doing anything shifty will just take a leaf from Blair's book and not have any records kept. Mon 01 Mar 2010 14:44:15 GMT+1 Peter Galbavy http://deltawww.live.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/02/the_coming_20_year_rule.html?page=63#comment12 I and many others continue to put forward the view that embarassment should not be considered fungible with national security, either to individuals, parties or companies. Mon 01 Mar 2010 12:49:11 GMT+1 Martin Rosenbaum http://deltawww.live.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/02/the_coming_20_year_rule.html?page=57#comment11 BobRocket - the publicly-owned banks are not actually covered by FOI. Mon 01 Mar 2010 08:19:17 GMT+1 pienmashfilms http://deltawww.live.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/02/the_coming_20_year_rule.html?page=52#comment10 An Award winning film director Bill Maloney was refused entrance to the Inner London Family Proceedings Court to support a young couple who were having their 10 month old baby girl taken away from them.This is another tragic example of authorities taking children from young parents at birth.Reported recently in The Times: Reforms to open up the family courts to the media are at risk of being scuppered by mounting opposition from senior judges, lawyers, childrens groups and MPs.Jack Straw wants to build on ground-breaking moves last year to open the family courts so that media reporting is not thwarted by the current wideranging restrictions. But a second set of measures, designed to allow media reports on evidence and naming of witnesses, has run into heavy opposition. Filmmaker and survivor of abuse in care Bill Maloney produces gritty, cutting edge documentaries focusing on the exposure of Institutional child abuse. He was genuinely there in support of this young couple with learning difficulties. He was subsequently informed by a Times journalist that he should not have been refused entry to the Courts building and could have insisted. Does anyone know the definitive ruling on the public attending a family court? I'm aware that prior applications are required for permission to attend the actual hearing but I didn't think this applied to entry to the building?There is a video of Bill Maloney's report on Youtube 'Government's Secret Family Courts'. Sat 27 Feb 2010 12:25:04 GMT+1 metaltoast http://deltawww.live.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/02/the_coming_20_year_rule.html?page=47#comment9 "If you want to know how your taxes are spend in relation to the Royals then you can google the Royal accounts quite easily. Those are published annually. However most of the Royal Family is not paid for by our taxes and instead earns its own living from its lands (Charles and his kids are paid for by the income from the Duchy of Cornwall... I buy his bacon). Even then those accounts are also published although Charles has no real obligation to do so. I don't put my bank details online for the public to pick over." -Peter_SymPeter, the fact is simple - the royal accounts only show half the picture. The Monarchy's website clearly states that the figures exclude costs that are "unavailable" such as security, however FoI requests to some police forces have revealed these figures. That's not what I'd define as "unavailable". Fri 26 Feb 2010 16:21:45 GMT+1 underblog http://deltawww.live.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/02/the_coming_20_year_rule.html?page=42#comment8 If, as is often reported, Prince Charles frequently attempts to influence Government policy by writing to ministers left, right and centre, we should know what he's saying right now, let alone in 20 years time.He has no electoral mandate, is a complete irrelevence to a large portion of the populace, and should butt out.Or if you think as a private individual he should be able to write to whoever he chooses in confidence, that's fine. But ministers should then pass his letter down the chain to a low to mid level civil servant who can fob him off just as they would anybody else. Fri 26 Feb 2010 15:08:24 GMT+1 Ian M Palmer http://deltawww.live.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/02/the_coming_20_year_rule.html?page=36#comment7 While documents from the Hutton Inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly are to be kept secret for 70 years."Nothing to hide. Nothing to fear." Fri 26 Feb 2010 15:02:50 GMT+1 MonkeyBot 5000 http://deltawww.live.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/02/the_coming_20_year_rule.html?page=31#comment6 "Why does the royal part of the government not have to be subject to the same duty of disclosure as any other?"Because shut the hell up peasant, that's why! Fri 26 Feb 2010 13:30:18 GMT+1 Naomimuse http://deltawww.live.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/02/the_coming_20_year_rule.html?page=26#comment5 Ten years should be enough for government documents. Fri 26 Feb 2010 11:51:05 GMT+1 Peter_Sym http://deltawww.live.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/02/the_coming_20_year_rule.html?page=21#comment4 #4 Firstly the fact that we have a Royal Family should remind you that we don't live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional monarchy with a representitive parliament elected along vaguely democratic lines but with an unelected head of state and upper house. Not one country on earth is a true democracy (although Switzerland comes close). If you want to know how your taxes are spend in relation to the Royals then you can google the Royal accounts quite easily. Those are published annually. However most of the Royal Family is not paid for by our taxes and instead earns its own living from its lands (Charles and his kids are paid for by the income from the Duchy of Cornwall... I buy his bacon). Even then those accounts are also published although Charles has no real obligation to do so. I don't put my bank details online for the public to pick over.The sort of royal documents that aren't disclosed relate to the recent divorces of the Queens kids... and rightly so. Go back 60 years and the sort of stuff that was kept under lock and key related to the Duke of Windsors friendship with Hitler. Probably best kept quiet at the time. That gets back to my post #2. I have seen countless idiots on HYS demand that MI5 & 6 be subject to the freedom of information act..... kind of defeats the point of having a secret service if Bin Ladin can file a FOI request asking what surveliance we do on Al Queda! Fri 26 Feb 2010 11:06:40 GMT+1 Hugh Parker http://deltawww.live.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/02/the_coming_20_year_rule.html?page=15#comment3 Why does the royal part of the government not have to be subject to the same duty of disclosure as any other? Of course, the Windsor family have their right to privacy, but if a member of this democratic country wants to question something about how their tax money is spent, for example, why should this one part of the government's expenditure and business not be subject to the same public scrutiny as the others? Fri 26 Feb 2010 10:34:24 GMT+1 Andy Wightman http://deltawww.live.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/02/the_coming_20_year_rule.html?page=10#comment2 Presumably this relates to UK and English (and Welsh?) government documents. Scottish government documents are now being released after 15 years. See http://www.nas.gov.uk/about/100115.asp Fri 26 Feb 2010 10:01:20 GMT+1 Peter_Sym http://deltawww.live.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/02/the_coming_20_year_rule.html?page=5#comment1 #1 Problem with that idea is that the launch codes for the Trident missiles are publically paid for material. An extreme example, sure but it should illustrate why not everything we pay for should be publically available.Being more cynical its often necessary for govts to have dealings with individuals and groups that the general public wouldn't agree with. For instance during the height of the IRA bombing campaigns in the 80's and despite what was publically said the British govt conducted secret negotiations with the IRA. This simply couldn't have happened with 'The Sun' telling their readers that our MPs were talking to Libyan funded kiddie killers. Fri 26 Feb 2010 08:29:32 GMT+1 BobRocket http://deltawww.live.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/02/the_coming_20_year_rule.html?page=0#comment0 Presumably non-sensitive material will be published (or material relating to the opposition) after 20 years, material relating to the present incumbents will be deemed commecially sensitive and not released at all. (so no change there)I would like to see all publicly paid for material released to the public, I am not convinced about hiding stuff 'in the national interest' as 'national' and 'self' interest can easily be confused.Confidential 'Commercial' interest smacks of corruption. (and we will never know)I can go with the Royal stuff, the present Monarch has been there since 1953, I don't think it pertinent to question the current one about stuff that happened when she was 30 nor her children or grand-children, perhaps a rule of 20years after demise might be better for serving Monarchs and inline heirs.Martin, on another issue, as we (the public) now own a majority share of a national bank (or two) and the employees of such now appear as public sector employees could the FOI be used to find out the actual cost of a debit/credit transaction against a normal UK current account in those banks we own ? Fri 26 Feb 2010 04:16:03 GMT+1