Have Your Say: Consultation on the Protection of Official Data [Official Secrets Acts], Freedom of Expression and Public Interest @MoJGovUK

17-02-24-law-com-official-dataThanks to my experiences as McKenzie Friend in my life as a computer scientist, I have become a member of the Committee of the Law Group of the British Computer Society which specialises in IT and The Law.

The Committee Members I have met so far are marvellous colleagues, with a barrister as Chair, expert witnesses with experience in paedophilia and an expert in online reputation!

We are now working on a series of events starting with our response to the public consultation that the Law Commission published:

The meeting on Wednesday March 8th in Southampton Street off the Strand:

  • free and open to non-members as well;
  • starts at 6 for 6.30, ends at 8 with drinks and nibbles
  • requires registration via this link.

If you can’t make it to Covent Garden, remote participation is planned via webstreaming. 

The contents of the consultation lists 8 chapters and 4 appendices:

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 2: THE OFFICIAL SECRETS ACTS 1911, 1920 AND 1939

CHAPTER 3: THE OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT 1989

CHAPTER 4: MISCELLANEOUS UNAUTHORISED DISCLOSURE OFFENCES

CHAPTER 5: PROCEDURAL MATTERS RELATING TO INVESTIGATION AND TRIAL

CHAPTER 6: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

CHAPTER 7: PUBLIC INTEREST DEFENCE

CHAPTER 8: LIST OF CONSULTATION QUESTIONS AND PROVISIONAL CONCLUSIONS

APPENDIX A: COMPARATIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS

APPENDIX B: MISCELLANEOUS UNAUTHORISED DISCLOSURE OFFENCES

APPENDIX C: GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS, ORGANISATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED

APPENDIX D: THE OFFICIAL SECRETS ACTS 1911, 1920 AND 1989

The List of Consultation Questions and Provisional Conclusions is 6 pages long and will be the topic of debate.

A 32-page summary document is also available.

Coincidentally, the same professor is also working on this consultation:

That may promise the development in the right direction, given what we’ve come across in terms of police corruption.

But then we’ve also got Lord Neuberger’s announcement:

Well, yes, that’s what we discovered, especially when Litigants in Person had to fend for themselves because lawyers had failed them:

  • judgments are written out beforehand
  • it’s a ping pong between the barristers and the judge is the arbiter…

The advent of ‘digital’ won’t turn white collar criminals into ethical professionals. Only video recordings without the chance of being tampered with would turn round what we’ve observed.

Meanwhile: have your say at this consultation on the Protection of Public Data on Wednesday March 8th at the British Computer Society from 6pm to 8.30!

 

Advertisements

About Sabine Kurjo McNeill

I'm a mathematician and system analyst formerly at CERN in Geneva and became an event organiser, software designer, independent web publisher and online promoter of Open Justice. My most significant scientific contribution is www.smartknowledge.space
This entry was posted in British Computer Society, Consultation on Public Data Protection, Law Commission, Specialist Law Group, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Have Your Say: Consultation on the Protection of Official Data [Official Secrets Acts], Freedom of Expression and Public Interest @MoJGovUK

  1. Jake Maverick says:

    is there really any actual point in being in such a club? if anything just likely to make you even more of a target….:-(

  2. It proves there are exceptions to all things believed to be absolute; and hope to all who believed the cause of justice was dead.

    • Jake Maverick says:

      i believe it’s just propaganda….what it’s really about is jailing journalists, whistleblowers and political activists….which may actually be better alternative to mental prison which is what happening at the moment come to think of it…and at least they’ll get an end date 😦

  3. This came in via email:

    Dear Sabine,
    regarding The Law Commission.

    For some years now l have been sending out three documents l located in the public domain.
    The first is The Advertising Standards Authorities [ASA] “adjudication” against Land Registry, dated the 25th July 2007.

    It replaced a previously ruling in favour of Land Registry of the 30th May 2007.

    The second ruling found Land Registry had misled the UK Public over protections offered to property / land owners by the “registration process”, and although the ASA assured me they notified the media, nothing was ever published, or was there ever a retraction of this misleading literature that after all had been engineered to reach 50 % of property / land owners in England / Wales?

    The second document was a blog by a very senior barrister on his chambers’ website, that was damning of The Land Registry Act 2002, how it was allowed to be brought in, the role of Law Commission (with unnamed commissioner) and setting out the ridiculous amount of misuse of powers by the setting up of The Adjudicator to HM Land Registry.

    Sweet & Maxwell who write law books, investigated this barrister’s musings and in their papers called “Emmett & Farrand on Title” , exposed how the LRA2002 was in fact brought about by a dominant Land Registry hand in glove with a Commissioner Harpum of The Law Commission, who was already in the camp of Land Registry.

    The Law Commission is due to release a paper on the LRA2002 again this year (2017), when history shows the mayhem of their previous involvement.

    Under The Human Rights Act, no one can be deprived of land or property without receiving payment for it.

    Land Registry had many thousands of cases they got under the wire by stealth, in their setting up the Adjudicator of HM Land Registry [AHMLR].

    It was obtained by not only the misleading literature of Land Registry exposed by the ASA in 2007, it was followed up by a second lot of misleading information sent out to the public in literature and on the AHMLR website, at a time when new correct literature had been printed, but was not sent out to the UK Public.

    I received an admission from Land Registry’s Information Officer (Gurmale Sondh) that since the 25th July 2007, over 6,500 cases were referred for judicial involvement by Land Registry, without the benefit of these cases knowing the truth exposed in the ASA ruling.

    This is the tip of the iceberg as many more cases would have ended up going through the courts without the very evidence that would potentially have saved them their life savings and their homes / businesses / assets.

    The Law Commission is not to be trusted!

    • mr Grumpy says:

      “The Law Commission is not to be trusted!”
      I don’t doubt that’s true or that it equally applies to many other similar institutions. Change comes slowly but it comes, and the people will take advantage from it when it does.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Hi I totally understand the mental toll thisntakes on u its a whole different dark world and u cant turn ur eye away my son is on the verge of gettin adopted there r boys who have been abused in care manipulated ect then under the watchfull eye of social services prey on young gls with kids drive them to the point wer there unstable tell them ur crazy takebya kids n thats that av been dignosed with pychosis anger confusin guilt sadness hurt everyday different emotions how du I get threw life noin my kids arnt safe images in my head of things happenin to my kids I got victimized on facebook by social services police ect n jus got brushed away my life will never be the same noing what I no am soo scared

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s