Make and explore Freedom of Information requests
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid for FOI purposes (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this requestAct on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Phorm: 3 Years On
To Attorney General’s Office by P. John 15 February 2011
Complex Case Time Recording, BT, Phorm
To Crown Prosecution Service by P. John 16 May 2010
Interception of Internet Communications
To The Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland by P. John 26 April 2011
Phorm/Second Phase of European Commission Infringement Case 64/08/INSO
To Home Office by P. John 29 December 2009
Accountability & Transparency: BT/Phorm Prosecution
To Crown Prosecution Service by P. John 29 December 2009
TalkTalk: Unlawful Surveillance of Internet Users
To Home Office by P. John 26 July 2010
Phorm (Case Ref 5253/08)
To Crown Prosecution Service by P. John 15 September 2010
Confirmation of the Body Investigating BT/Phorm
To Crown Prosecution Service by P. John 1 October 2009
Phorm/BT: Resource and Effort Expended
To Crown Prosecution Service by P. John 28 November 2009
Confidentiality of Commercial Telecommunications
To Home Office by P. John 22 October 2009
BT/Phorm: Senior Level CPS Staff
P. John made this Freedom of Information request to Crown Prosecution Service
The request was partially successful.
From: P. John
14 December 2010
Dear Crown Prosecution Service,
I understand from published correspondance sent by a lawyer in
Special Casework to Alex Hanff that the BT/Phorm case is "under
consideration at a senior level".
Please could you disclose to me
- the names of the senior level CPS staff who are presently giving
consideration to the BT/Phorm case
- correspondence between Andrew Hadik and the same senior staff
concerning the BT/Phorm case
- the dates of meetings between Andrew Hadik and the same senior
staff concerning the BT/Phorm case
- correspondence/dates of meetings between Andrew Hadik or senior
staff and British Telecom representatives
- correspondence/dates of meetings between Andrew Hadik or senior
staff and Phorm representatives
Please could you also
- confirm or deny that Keir Starmer is among the senior staff
engaged in the consideration of this matter
On a related note, I understand that CPS Special Casework
"appreciate that Community Engagement is actually about you. Our
commitment is simple: we will listen and make changes where
possible."
Please could you disclose to me how I can facilitate a meeting
between campaigners and the CPS Special Casework team to discuss
concerns about Police corruption, illegal communications
surveillance, intellectual property theft, fraud, computer misuse,
industrial espionage... In particular by commercial entities such
as BT/Phorm, TalkTalk/Huawei, and Experian Hitwise? In order that
you might "listen and make changes where possible"?
Like many others observing this shambolic process, I am appalled
that the CPS has still not prosecuted the recidivist criminals
responsible for the BT/Phorm scandal.... 800 days after the
evidence and facts of the matter were presented to you.
Yours faithfully,
Peter John
Magna Carta; "To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or
delay, right or justice".
From: Freedom of Information Unit
Crown Prosecution Service
14 January 2011
Please find attached our response.
show quoted sections
From: P. John
16 January 2011
Dear Freedom of Information Unit,
thank you for your response.
I note Keir Starmer was recently quoted saying "I have made it
clear that a robust attitude needs to be taken to any unauthorised
interception".
At the time of writing it has been 824 days since you were first
asked to prosecute the criminals in BT and Phorm responsible for
commercial intellectual property theft, fraud, computer misuse, and
unauthorised interception.
No one has been arrested, prosecuted, or imprisoned.
Meanwhile the same individuals are still at large, and still
compromising the confidentiality, security, and integrity of
telecommunications.
If that is what Keir Starmer considers a "robust response" to
unauthorised interception, how would I discriminate the
alternative?
Yours sincerely,
P. John
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Ann Reeves left an annotation (15 January 2011)
Link to this