Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Can you please inform me how many suspect groomers have been
referred to the Metropolitan Police or CEOP directly from the
online social networking site BEBO by the owners of this site.

i.e following their own security observation methods discovering
suspected grooming behaviour.

Please provide numbers for the last 4 years.

B. Also can you please notify the numbers (if any) which have
resulted in a criminal charge and also the number convicted
following investigation of this material.

Yours faithfully,

Paul

Dear Mr Mason

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2010010000755
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 05/01/2010. I note you seek
access to the following information:

Can you please inform me how many suspect groomers have been referred to
the Metropolitan Police or CEOP directly from the online social
networking site BEBO by the owners of this site. i.e following their own
security observation methods discovering suspected grooming behaviour.
Please provide numbers for the last 4 years.

Also can you please notify the numbers (if any) which have resulted in a
criminal charge and also the number convicted following investigation of
this material.

Your request will now be considered in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act). You will receive a response within the
statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act, subject to
the information not being exempt or containing a reference to a third
party. In some circumstances the MPS may be unable to achieve this
deadline. If this is likely you will be informed and given a revised
time-scale at the earliest opportunity.

Some requests may also require either full or partial transference to
another public authority in order to answer your query in the fullest
possible way. Again, you will be informed if this is the case.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet, which details your right of
complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please write
or contact me on telephone number 020 7230 2003 quoting the reference
number above.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Beaumont
SCD Information Manager
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again ***

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 40 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Mason

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2010010000755
I respond in connection with your request for information which was
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 05/01/2010. I note
you seek access to the following information:

Can you please inform me how many suspect groomers have been referred to
the Metropolitan Police or CEOP directly from the online social
networking site BEBO by the owners of this site. i.e following their
own security observation methods discovering suspected grooming behaviour.

Please provide numbers for the last 4 years.

Also can you please notify the numbers (if any) which have resulted in a
criminal charge and also the number convicted following investigation of
this material.

DECISION

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (The Act), this
letter represents a Refusal Notice for this particular request under
Section 17(4).

Section 17(4) of the Act provides:

(4) A public authority is not obliged to make a statement under subsection
(1)(c) or (3) if, or to the extent that, the statement would involve the
disclosure of information which would itself be exempt information.

The MPS can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any information with
regard to individuals suspected of committing an offence under Section 15
of the Sexual Offences Act where the MPS was advised of suspicious
activity by the on-line social networking site Bebo, as the duty in
Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply by
virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 23(5) Information Supplied by, or concerning, certain Security
Bodies
Section 30(3) Investigations
Section 31(3) Law Enforcement
Section 38(2) Health and Safety
Section 40(5) Personal Information
Section 44(2) Prohibitions on Disclosure

Sections 23, 40 and 44 are class based absolute exemptions and there is no
requirement to consider the public interest test in this area.

Section 30 is a class based qualified exemption and consideration must be
given as to whether there is a public interest in neither confirming nor
denying the information exists is the appropriate response.

With Sections 31 and 38 being prejudice based qualified exemptions there
is a requirement to articulate the harm that would be caused in confirming
or not that the information is held as well as carrying out a public
interest test.

Harm in Confirming or Denying that the Information is held

Disclosures under the Act are disclosures to the world, not just to the
individual making the request. To confirm that information relating to
suspects identified by social networking site Bebo potentially committing
offences under Section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act is held, even if that
information was exempted, or to confirm no information is held, would
provide intelligence to criminals about the status of police
investigations and intelligence.

Public Interest Considerations

Section 30 and Section 31

Factors favouring Disclosure

The MPS is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime
and protecting the communities we serve and there is a public interest in
the transparency of policing operations to ensure investigations are
conducted appropriately.

Factors favouring Non-Disclosure

Modern-day policing is intelligence led and the MPS share information with
other law enforcement agencies as part of their intelligence gathering
process. To confirm or not whether information is held would hinder the
prevention and detection of crime and undermine the partnership approach
to investigations and law enforcement.
Section 38

Factors favouring Disclosure

Confirmation as to whether the information is or isn't held could provide
a better awareness to the general public that the use of police funds is
being dealt with appropriately.

Factors favouring Non-Disclosure

The MPS will never confirm whether or not information is held if to do so
could jeopardise the risk of an individual or undermine public confidence
in the MPS's ability to protect the well-being of the community.

Balancing Test

Irrespectively of whether information is or isn't held, public safety and
the ability to deliver effective law enforcement is of paramount
importance to the MPS. Confirmation or denial of whether information is
held would undoubtedly compromise both law enforcement and health of
safety of an individual. Therefore, at this moment in time, it is our
opinion that for these issues the balancing test for confirming whether or
not any other information is held by the MPS is not made out.

No inference can be taken from this refusal that the information you have
requested does or does not exist.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet which details your right of
complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please write
or contact me on telephone number 020 7230 2003 quoting the reference
number above.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Beaumont
SCD Information Manager
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again ***

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 40 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Metropolitan Police
Service (MPS)'s handling of my FOI request 'BEBO Paedophile
referrals'.

I do not agree that the sections quoted apply to this request, nor
does the public interest preclude it's disclosure. I would offer
that the public interest strongly supports disclosure, for example,
reassuring parents about the success of the 'report it' button on
the BEBO site.

I am merely requiring the information of 'numbers' this cannot be
held to be personal information nor be of such sensitivity that it
would permit 'criminals' to get the heads up on Police
investigations. Those intent on grooming via social networking
sites are aware that their activity may well be discovered and
reported to the law enforcement agencies.

I request that the Met police revisit their decision and properly
consider release of information which is known to be held.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/be...

Yours faithfully,

Paul

Dear Mr Mason

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2010010004936

I write in connection with your email dated 26 January 2010 requesting
that the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) review its response dated 26
January 2010 to your request for information relating to:

* FOIA case number 2010010000775.

The review will be conducted in accordance to the MPS's complaints
procedure. The MPS endeavour to respond to your complaint by 23 February
2010.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact Shannon Aldridge on telephone number 020 7161 3527 or at the
address at the top of the letter quoting the reference number above.

Thank you for your interest in the MPS.

Yours sincerely

Shannon Aldridge
Quality and Assurance Advisor

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again ***

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 40 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

Dear Mr. Mason

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2010010004936

Further to our letter of 29 January 2010, I am now able to provide a full
response to your complaint dated 26 January 2010 concerning:

* Original FOIA request number 2010010000775.

I note you requested the following:

"Can you please inform me how many suspect groomers have been referred to
the Metropolitan Police or CEOP directly from the online social networking
site BEBO by the owners of this site i.e. following their own security
observation methods discovering suspected grooming behaviour.

Please provide numbers for the last 4 years.

Also can you please notify the numbers (if any) which have resulted in a
criminal charge and also the number convicted following investigation of
this material."

DECISION

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has completed its review and has
decided to:

* Uphold the original decision

REASON FOR DECISION

Before I explain the reasons for the decisions I have made in relation to
your FoIA review, I thought that it might assist you if I outline the
parameters set out by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) within
which a request for information can be answered.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 creates a statutory right of access to
information held by public authorities. A public authority in receipt of a
request must, if permitted, confirm if that public authority holds the
requested information and, if so, then communicate that information to the
applicant.

The right of access to information is not without exception and is subject
to a number of exemptions, which are designed to enable public authorities
to withhold information that is not suitable for release. Importantly, the
Act is designed to place information into the public domain, that is, once
access to information is granted to one person under the Act, it is then
considered public information and must be communicated to any individual
should a request be received.

I have considered your original request for information within the
provisions set out by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and have today
decided that Sections 23(5), 30(3), 31(3), 38(2), 40(5) and 44(2) are
engaged. I therefore uphold Mr. Beaumont's decision.

This letter consequently represents a Refusal Notice under Section 17(1)
in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). Please
see the legal annex below for the relevant extracts of the legislation
which apply.

The Metropolitan Police Service therefore neither confirms nor denies that
it holds the requested information, as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply by virtue of the
aforementioned exemptions.

As I have today decided to uphold Mr. Beaumont's decision, I believe it
unnecessary to repeat his arguments verbatim. However I hope to reiterate
a few of the most salient points in order to demonstrate why I believe Mr.
Beaumont's decision was appropriate.

A Freedom of Information Act request is not a private transaction. Both
the request itself, and any information disclosed, are considered suitable
for open publication. This is because, under Freedom of Information, any
information disclosed is released into the wider public domain,
effectively to the world, not just to one individual. Information
disclosed under the Act, even by way of confirming or denying that
requested information is held, must be suitable for public consumption.

Under the Act, we cannot, and do not, request the motives of any applicant
for information. We have no doubt the vast majority of applications under
the Act are legitimate and do not have any ulterior motives, however, in
disclosing information to one applicant we are expressing a willingness to
provide it to anyone in the world. This means that a disclosure to a
genuinely interested and concerned applicant automatically opens it up for
a similar disclosure to anyone, including those who might represent a
threat to individuals.

Confirmation or denial that the requested information is held could enable
an individual or group of individuals with the necessary intent to change
tactics and therefore evade detection and apprehension.

If the MPS were to confirm or deny that we were in receipt of intelligence
about suspect groomers from the owners of Bebo following their own
security observation methods, we would be placing valuable intelligence
into the public domain.

To confirm that we had information would alert possible groomers to the
fact that they may have been the subject of covert investigation, and
could also lead to changes in how potential criminals conducted themselves
on-line in order to evade detection and subsequent apprehension. It would
also provide intelligence into Bebo's own security observation methods.
Alternatively, if the MPS were to confirm that we held no information on
this matter, it would suggest an area of perceived weakness in our
intelligence and could lead to an increased level of grooming activity due
to the perception that the site was 'safe' and not monitored.

The consequences, therefore, of confirming or denying that the requested
information is held are vast. Not only would it impact upon the
Metropolitan Police Service's ability to prevent and detect crime, but it
could subsequently impinge upon our ability to administer justice to those
committing crime though these websites. With our law enforcement
capabilities hindered, our ability to catch and subsequently prosecute
against offenders is severely reduced. As a result, the safety of young
users on the Bebo networking site would be compromised, as there could be
a rise in potential groomers frequenting it and or other similar sites as
a result.

The prevention of crime is the foundation upon which U.K. policing is
built. The police have a clear responsibility to prevent crime and arrest
those responsible for committing crime and or those that plan to commit
crime, in this particular case - grooming. To do this the police require
evidence and that evidence can come from a number of sources. To confirm
or deny that we held information of this nature from an independent source
via an FOIA disclosure may undermine the partnership approach to law
enforcement and investigations which is relied upon in modern day
policing. It is strongly believed that law enforcement cannot and must
not work in isolation. The disclosure of any information, that may or may
not be held, which could compromise such co-operation cannot be seen to be
in the public interest. May I also take this opportunity to remind you
that not all government bodies must comply with the Freedom of Information
Act. Therefore information and intelligence shared with certain security
bodies, for example the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) with which
the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) centre are affiliated,
is exempt under the Act. In this instance we can not even confirm or deny
whether such intelligence exists - for the reasons outlined in both the
original response and above.

The public interest is not what interests the public, but what will be of
greater good if released to the community as a whole. It is not in the
public interest to confirm or deny that information is held if that
information in itself may compromise the service's ability to fulfil its
core function of law enforcement, jeopardise any current or future
investigation into grooming or endanger the health and safety of
individuals.

Although you have stated in your request for a review that 'the public
interest does not preclude its disclosure', can I inform you that there is
already much information in the public domain about intelligence and
social networking sites. This demonstrates a commitment to proactive
disclosure of material deemed suitable for public consumption. For
example, I have included a link below to the CEOP website where they have
published their Strategic Overviews for 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 to
download.

http://www.ceop.police.uk/publications/

These overviews show a breakdown of reports on social networking sites
which may be of interest to you.

The Annual Reports, also available to download via the above link, provide
a lot of information about partnership working and intelligence sourcing
which may interest you.

In addition, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) Centre
has already stated that prior to the inclusion of the 'Ceop report' button
on Bebo in November 2009, around 10,000 people a month were already
pressing the button for advice and help across other online services.

http://www.ceop.gov.uk/mediacentre/press...

Whilst I appreciate that this is not the response that you would have
liked, I hope that it successfully explains the reasons why the MPS can
neither confirm nor deny that we hold any information pertinent to your
request. The MPS is committed to delivering effective law enforcement and
ensuring public safety and confidence. At this time, therefore, I must
uphold Mr. Beaumont's original decision.

Legal Annex

Section 17(1) of the Act provides:

(1) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information,
is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision of Part II relating
to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request or on a claim
that information is exempt information must, within the time for complying
with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which-
(a) states that fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.

Section 23(5) of the Act provides:

(5) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that,
compliance with section 1(1)(a) would involve the disclosure of any
information (whether or not already recorded) which was directly or
indirectly supplied to the public authority by, or relates to, any of the
bodies specified in subsection (3).

Section 30(3) of the Act provides:

(3) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise in relation to information
which is (or if it were held by the public authority would be) exempt
information by virtue of subsection (1) or (2).

Section 31(3) of the Act provides:

(3) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that,
compliance with section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice
any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1).

Section 38(2) of the Act provides:

(2) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that,
compliance with section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, have either
of the effects mentioned in subsection (1).

Section 40(5) of the Act provides:

(5) The duty to confirm or deny-
(a) does not arise in relation to information which is (or if it were held
by the public authority would be) exempt information by virtue of
subsection (1), and
(b) does not arise in relation to other information if or to the extent
that either-
(i) the giving to a member of the public of the confirmation or denial
that would have to be given to comply with section 1(1)(a) would (apart
from this Act) contravene any of the data protection principles or section
10 of the [1998 c. 29.] Data Protection Act 1998 or would do so if the
exemptions in section 33A(1) of that Act were disregarded, or
(ii) by virtue of any provision of Part IV of the [1998 c. 29.] Data
Protection Act 1998 the information is exempt from section 7(1)(a) of that
Act (data subject's right to be informed whether personal data being
processed).

Section 44(2) of the Act provides:

(2) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if the confirmation or
denial that would have to be given to comply with section 1(1)(a) would
(apart from this Act) fall within any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of
subsection (1).

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to contact the Information
Commissioner with your complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me on 020 7161 3527 or at the address at the top of this letter,
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Shannon Aldridge
Quality and Assurance Advisor
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again ***

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 40 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections