• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Queen Mary's appeal ICO decision on PACE data

Chrisb

Senior Member
Messages
1,051
Surely releasing the data cannot be more "vexatious" than the arduousness of having to go through trials and appeals. It

Is the term "vexatious" still being used? If so, it would be necessary to question whether it is used in an everyday sense to mean "annoying" or "tiresome" or "burdensome", or whether it is used in a legal or quasi legal sense to mean "persisting with an unarguable case to an unreasonable extent", or something of that sort. I have not looked up the definition, but it must be along those lines. Given the context one would expect the legalistic meaning to be intended.

It is suspected that the term is used in the first sense, but with the hope of giving it the aura of the second. It can be so much more effective a term if those against whom it is used can be compared to "vexatious litigants"

It would seem to be an untenable argument that an argument upheld by the Information Commissioner could be regarded as untenable or unreasonable, or, indeed, vexatious.
 

sarah darwins

Senior Member
Messages
2,508
Location
Cornwall, UK
Is the term "vexatious" still being used? If so, it would be necessary to question whether it is used in an everyday sense to mean "annoying" or "tiresome" or "burdensome", or whether it is used in a legal or quasi legal sense to mean "persisting with an unarguable case to an unreasonable extent", or something of that sort. I have not looked up the definition, but it must be along those lines. Given the context one would expect the legalistic meaning to be intended.

It is suspected that the term is used in the first sense, but with the hope of giving it the aura of the second. It can be so much more effective a term if those against whom it is used can be compared to "vexatious litigants"

It would seem to be an untenable argument that an argument upheld by the Information Commissioner could be regarded as untenable or unreasonable, or, indeed, vexatious.

A little light reading .... https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1198/dealing-with-vexatious-requests.pdf

;-)

There's a whole section on "The Meaning of Vexatious" :

The meaning of vexatious
16. In Information Commissioner vs Devon County Council & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC), (28 January 2013) the Upper Tribunal took the view that the ordinary dictionary definition of the word vexatious is only of limited use, because the question of whether a request is vexatious ultimately depends upon the circumstances surrounding that request.
17. In further exploring the role played by circumstances, the Tribunal placed particular emphasis on the issue of whether the request has adequate or proper justification. They also cited two previous section 14(1) decisions where the lack of proportionality in the requester’s previous dealings with the authority was deemed to be a relevant consideration by the First Tier Tribunal.
18. After taking these factors into account, the Tribunal concluded that ‘vexatious’ could be defined as the “...manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of a formal procedure.’ (paragraph 27).
19. The Tribunal’s decision clearly establishes that the concepts of ‘proportionality’ and ‘justification’ are central to any consideration of whether a request is vexatious.
20. This being the case, we would suggest that the key question the public authority must ask itself is whether the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress.

I'm not even sure how the "public authority" denomination can apply to a group of researchers or a university in receipt of public money. But I'm not a lawyer.
 

Chrisb

Senior Member
Messages
1,051
After taking these factors into account, the Tribunal concluded that ‘vexatious’ could be defined as the “...manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of a formal procedure.’ (paragraph 27).

This does not seem to be the sense in which the term vexatious is used when, or if, conjoined with malicious. It appears to be merely a thoughtless expression of opprobrium.
 

MeSci

ME/CFS since 1995; activity level 6?
Messages
8,231
Location
Cornwall, UK
So disappointed to hear this outcome, as it just prolongs the agony for everyone involved. I can't help thinking this is a bad move on QMUL's part, as it draws out the whole process, attracting greater attention to the issue. And it is surely only a matter of time before the data are released somehow.

Stretching it out like this seems to serve no purpose than to inconvenience those who requested the data. What word do we use for that? is it, er, "vexatious"?

I wonder what the legal and administrative costs for QMUL have been so far to defend/appeal this and the other FOI requests? Would be easily into five figures by now.
How long will it be before the costs to the government of dealing with the FOI stuff exceed any monetary advantage gained for them by the PACE trial - if indeed there has been any advantage? (Misdiagnosing and mis-treating/not treating sick people cannot save money in the medium term, even less so in the long term.)
 

sarah darwins

Senior Member
Messages
2,508
Location
Cornwall, UK
We can only trust that there will be good legal minds at the Tribunal, people who are capable of separating the red herring of the intent of the request from the core issues:

  • the lives of a quarter of a million UK citizens have been materially affected by the PACE trial, which is frequently cited in policy documents in the areas of both healthcare and social security
  • a significant number of doctors, scientists and academics of good standing have questioned both the methodology and the authors’ interpretation of the trial
  • the validity of the trial, and of the interpretion given it by its authors and by public authorities, cannot be established unless the trial data is made available for independent scrutiny (in accordance with long established scientific practice)

That’s how I see it. Is that fair?
 
Messages
13,774
IMO they have already tampered with the data by misrepresenting it.

There's a big difference (by scientific standards) between the sort of spin and misrepresentation we've seen from PACE and outright fabricating their data. imo, there's no way they'd do that. At the moment a lot of people in authority would be willing to semi-back them with 'no study is perfect, less than ideal, mistakes were made, sure of good intentions' platitudes. If they were found to have fabricated data they'd be done.
 

jimells

Senior Member
Messages
2,009
Location
northern Maine
we would suggest that the key question the public authority must ask itself is whether the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress.

The release of the data will certainly be disruptive and harmful to the people who have used it to perpetrate fraud.
 

jimells

Senior Member
Messages
2,009
Location
northern Maine
I would be fraud if they haven't. But if the data is released, I am not sure how it's authenticity can be determined. There is metadata on files, but even this could possibly be altered.

A large institution will likely have off-site backup of important data. These off-site copies would typically be under control of system administrators, not the researchers and other users. It would be very difficult to reach and alter these copies without the aid of the system administrators.

My former computer career spanned three decades. In all that time, no one ever asked me to help falsify data, and I would not have done so. I think it is fair to say that it would take a really, really big lever to make this happen in an academic institution.