Child abuse unit paying for data

[Roger Hird]

In article <7C77921A-0116-494A-B1E1-8128FA407555@batten.eu.org>,
   Ian Batten <igb@batten.eu.org> wrote:
> On 21 Jan 09, at 1225, Richard Clayton wrote:

> >
> > It sounds as if CEOP hasn't correctly budgeted for their "reverse
> > directory lookup" requests

> The whole thing seems slightly more convoluted that that.  The BBC  
> says that it's the result of an FoI request by the BBC, but presumably  
> those don't happen without having some idea of what you're looking  
> for.  CEOP's commentary is in response to the BBC's questions.  It  
> might be a convoluted way for CEOP to get out their concerns without  
> looking like they're whining directly, but it seems needlessly  
> complex.

Well, when I was a Civil Servant I can remember instances where some
particularly stupid stance by another department was kicked into public
view by a carefully package suggestion to a sensible journalist about
questions which might profitably be asked (and in which quarter to ask
them).

The FOI Act certainly makes such tactics more powerful.

-- 
Roger Hird
roger.hird@argonet.co.uk

Running RISCOS 4.39 on an Acorn StrongARM RiscPC