• 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, 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.

Tribunal orders QMUL to release anonymised PACE data 16 Aug 2016

Kati

Kati

Patient in training
Messages
5,497
viggster said:
Big news here: QMUL scientists discover Earth-sized planet orbiting star next door...VOW TO SEND PACE RESEARCHERS TO INVESTIGATE.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-orbiting-proxima-centauri-our-closest-star/
Click to expand...

And then, there is this case regarding releasing important data so voters can make an informed decision:
image.jpeg
 
Y

Yogi

Senior Member
Messages
1,132
Submitted on 19 August 2016:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/up_date_on_monies_spent#outgoing-571627

Up date on monies spent

Dear Queen Mary, University of London,

I request a summary of the monies spent since the PACE trial was published on:

1/ Legal fees to attempt to prevent the release of the raw data for the main PACE trial.
2/ Legal fees to prevent the release of the raw data for the summary graph in appendix 2 of the follow up paper.

If points 1 and 2 are not itemised separately, the total amount charged for legal fees in respect for all actions to date.

3/ Ancillary costs.
4/ Wages/costs of staff involved in the actions.
5/ Monies paid to any persons or for any things in relation to these actions.
6/ Correspondence justifying the use of public monies to keep raw data from researchers that are not closely aligned with or strongly influenced by the QMUL staff.

Yours faithfully,

Robin
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
A

AndyPR

Senior Member
Messages
2,516
Location
Guiding the lifeboats to safer waters.
Deepwater

Deepwater

Senior Member
Messages
208
AndyPR said:
Looks like there is an issue with the file on the Tribunals website, I couldn't access it directly from the site and using the direct link gives the same error message. Let the conspiracy theories commence ;)
Click to expand...


Agree - I've tried every link I can think of, and the gov.uk Search facility, and it's just not there.
Did find this about QMUL's finances from December 2014, though:-

And here are some quotes:
"Financial Notice to Improve ("Notice")

Issued to Queen Mary’s College on 12 December 2014
1. This Notice is issued in accordance with clause 5.5 of the college’s Funding Agreement because Queen Mary’s College has been assessed as inadequate by the EFA for its Financial Health for the current year 2014 to 2015. The Financial Planning Handbook, section 2.8, sets out that where a college’s financial health is graded as ‘inadequate’ for the previous year (forecast or actual out-turn) or the current year (budget), this will form the basis for issuing a Financial Notice to Improve."

"The Financial Recovery Plan should demonstrate, in the EFA’s assessment, that the proposed delivery will secure the college’s financial position by improving its EFA assessed financial health rating, to at least satisfactory, by the end of the academic year 2015 to 2016. The financial health rating will be formally assessed by the evaluation."
 

Attachments

  • QueenMarysFNTI_redacted-18December2014.pdf
    229 KB · Views: 24
Last edited:
U

user9876

Senior Member
Messages
4,556
AndyPR said:
Looks like there is an issue with the file on the Tribunals website, I couldn't access it directly from the site and using the direct link gives the same error message. Let the conspiracy theories commence ;)
Click to expand...


Maybe they will update it to a searchable file rather than the scanned images.
 
M

medfeb

Senior Member
Messages
491
Kalliope said:
It seems this link on the ruling does not work anymore? Has it been moved to another place?

http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i1854/Queen Mary University of London EA-2015-0269 (12-8-16).PDF
Click to expand...

Appellant gets to change the wording? Is that standard practice? That would seem quite remarkable to me.

Anyway - the original version was archived in the Wayback Machine on August 20.
https://web.archive.org/web/2016082...iversity of London EA-2015-0269 (12-8-16).PDF
 
sarah darwins

sarah darwins

Senior Member
Messages
2,508
Location
Cornwall, UK
medfeb said:
Appellant gets to change the wording? Is that standard practice? That would seem quite remarkable to me.
Click to expand...

Guesswork at the moment, of course, but I would suspect there was an error of fact somewhere in the ruling. Might be quite trivial — like a name or a misattributed quote or something — so best wait and see. On the face of it it does sound a bit WFT?!
 
Y

Yogi

Senior Member
Messages
1,132
medfeb said:
Appellant gets to change the wording? Is that standard practice? That would seem quite remarkable to me.

Anyway - the original version was archived in the Wayback Machine on August 20.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160820040143/http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i1854/Queen Mary University of London EA-2015-0269 (12-8-16).PDF
Click to expand...

On initial reading I thought it was serious but I think now the person was joking (but can't be sure). The whole PACE thing is surreal.
 
C

Chrisb

Senior Member
Messages
1,051
A problem which I foresee is that this might start the clock running again on time to appeal- so that they might have another 28 days commencing on the date of issue of the amended decision. Please say it ain't so.
 
Daisymay

Daisymay

Senior Member
Messages
754
Well I'm pretty twitter illiterate but when I looked back at Coyne's twitter account on 1st Sept I didn't see that tweet, but it may well be I'm not looking at the right place!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.