http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2008/07/blog_break_but_more_from_rothe.html en-gb 30 Thu 07 Jan 2010 03:59:21 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2008/07/blog_break_but_more_from_rothe.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2008/07/blog_break_but_more_from_rothe.html?page=17#comment6 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! Thu 07 Aug 2008 13:30:53 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2008/07/blog_break_but_more_from_rothe.html?page=14#comment5 Martin,What happend? Wed 06 Aug 2008 20:12:42 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2008/07/blog_break_but_more_from_rothe.html?page=11#comment4 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. Thu 31 Jul 2008 13:39:15 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2008/07/blog_break_but_more_from_rothe.html?page=8#comment3 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. Wed 30 Jul 2008 10:06:54 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2008/07/blog_break_but_more_from_rothe.html?page=5#comment2 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. Wed 30 Jul 2008 10:05:16 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2008/07/blog_break_but_more_from_rothe.html?page=2#comment1 Many thanks for that correction. Wed 30 Jul 2008 08:58:05 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2008/07/blog_break_but_more_from_rothe.html?page=0#comment0 www.WhatDoTheyKnow.com, not You! Tue 29 Jul 2008 17:09:35 GMT+1