Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by TiredSam, Mar 1, 2016.
Does this mean that White's campaign to exempt universities from the FOIA has failed?
I have no information other than the article. The BBC chose to lead with the headline about charges, probably because that's what they think most of their readers are most concerned about. But if the minister says "we will not make any legal changes" then my hopeful interpretation is that that must include university exemptions, because that would be a legal change? I expect as the scientific media report it someone will spell it out for us.
This seems like good news - but I think all the articles so far have been based on the UK Government's pre-briefings. It sounds good, but we need to check the report when it's published later today to make sure there are no unpleasant surprises hiding in the detail. If the Government *had* decided to grant some FoI exemptions for research institutes they certainly wouldn't highlight this point in press releases that were designed to produce positive headlines.
Interesting comment on the BBC website:
FOI Commission: Why has it surprised observers? - BBC News
The full review is published here:
Some changes to the law are recommended, and the government says they will consider them carefully, but most (if not all) recommendations seem to be in favour of the public. No changes to academic institutions are recommended. (Yippee!)
I haven't read the details yet. The PACE people are quickly reaching the end of the road on releasing the data. It has been clear that they have been lobbying for changes and that their strategy is to delay, delay, delay while attempting to change the law. That strategy is now dead. Anybody have an idea what they might try next?
I wonder if this means the insurance industry is finally cutting these people loose. In the US, powerful industry lobbies get changes to laws all the time. It's how the place works. I imagine in the UK it is similar.
I think Plan A will be to get the Information Commissioner's judgement from last October overturned (if they can). It looks like Plan B is establishing the 'robust trusted independent system to protect anonymity' that Wessely tweeted about at the end of January (and which the Bishop/Lewandowsky 'Nature' article seems to have been preparing the ground for). In other words, a new body with a fresh veneer of respectability which will use concerns about patient confidentiality to justify refusing data requests.
This blog from Coyne yesterday is largely cut and paste of stuff I have already seen, mostly from news sources such as BBC.
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.