Quote:
|
Let's release all information stored under the FOIA without any kind of supervision,
|
I'm not sure you understand how the FoIA works, punky.
1) Information isn't stored 'under' it, it's stored anyway, the Act merely enables us to ask for it, under certain restrictions of cost and national interest.
2) There are plenty of reasons why people won't release information, such as costing too much to find out, national security, information concerning relations with a foreign power, etc. There are already too many restrictions - the USA has a much stronger Act,
3) There is plenty of information of national security interest that the State trusts the actual people in charge of it not to release,
4) Why have a system specifically designed to protect *people* rather than *secrets*?
5) Why have it run by a mate of Tony's rather than an independent person?
The clearing house wasn't in the original legislation as passed by Parliament, which left it up to individual bodies to decide whether to release information, with an independent ombudsman. Hence, in a way, it's flouting the will of Parliament, which didn't say 'Anything potentially embarrassing to the PM should be checked by his best mate first'. It seems very obvious that the FoIA applies only to information of public interest as long as it doesn't come too close to the Exalted Personage Of The Dear Leader, May He Reign For One Thousand Years (and friends). This hardly inspires confidence.