Follow this request
There are 4 people following this request
Act on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Expenses of SLT members
To University of Salford by Sophie Quinn 12 March 2010
Former Personal Assistant to the Registrar & Secretary
To University of Salford by Damien Shannon 16 November 2009
Register of Interests
To University of Salford by James Brown 30 November 2009
International travel by staff from Salford Business School
To University of Salford by Li Na 4 November 2009
FoI Disclosure Logs for 2007, 2008 and 2009
To University of Salford by Li Na 17 November 2009
Registers
To University of Salford by W Adams 25 July 2011
Conduct of University Members of Staff
To University of Salford by Peter Burke 5 March 2010
Legal costs incurred in connection with disciplinary proceedings
To University of Salford by James Brown 1 December 2009
International travel by Director of China Programmes
To University of Salford by Li Na 10 November 2009
Use of Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
To University of Salford by Li Na 12 November 2009
The University of Salford refuse to answer any Freedom Of Information requests
Peter Burke made this Freedom of Information request to University of Salford
The request was successful.
From: Peter Burke
5 March 2010
Dear University of Salford,
I am an Alumni of The University of Salford, May I ask why does The
University of Salford refuse to answer any Freedom Of Information
requests ?
It would simply be a matter of refute, confirm, or give the
appropriate data to the enquirer.
The very refusal of The University of Salford to answer questions
would lead to allegations of impropriety and mismanagement within
the university.
I would therefore request in the interest of the reputation of The
University of Salford, that every one of the ninety nine Freedom of
Information request is fulfilled and an appropriate answer is
given.
Yours faithfully,
Peter Burke
Ben Harris left an annotation ( 8 March 2010)
I've removed some intemperate annotations from this request. Please remember that annotations are for helping other users to find information, not for insulting them.
-- Ben Harris, WhatDoTheyKnow volunteer.
From: Foi
University of Salford
23 April 2010
Dear Mr Burke,
The University of Salford takes its responsibilities under the Freedom of
Information Act (the Act) very seriously and endeavours to ensure that all
requests made under the Act are dealt with properly.
There are however a number of exemptions under the Act which protect
public authorities from releasing information where to do so would be
damaging to the organisation, either by virtue of the content of the
information or due to the amount or manner in which it is requested.
In dealing with all requests made under the Act, the University considers
the legislation in great detail and is satisfied that every response it
provides is compliant with the requirements of the Act.
Yours sincerely
Matthew Stephenson
Matthew Stephenson
Head of Information Governance
Governance Services
University of Salford
Clifford Whitworth Building
University of Salford
Salford, M5 4WT.
T: 0161 295 6856
F: 0161 295 6339
[1][email address]
[2]www.infogov.salford.ac.uk
show quoted sections
Damien Shannon left an annotation (23 April 2010)
With all due respect to Mr Stephenson, this shows a tremendous lack of understanding of FOI legislation.
There is no element of the legislation on FOI which defines the meaning of the term 'vexatious' and thus interpretation must be left to the guidance issued by the Office of the Information Commissioner and previous case studies.
That information is damaging to an institution is not described in either the guidance or by case examples as a sufficient basis for supressing it from publication.
If that were a valid defence, the data on MPs expenses would never have been published.
The University simply need to face up to their responsibility and publish this data voluntarily whilst there is still time, rather than go through the expensive and humiliating process of failed suppression (which is undoubtedly what this will end up being).
Similarly, the admission that the information may be damaging to the institution will only serve to strengthen the resolve of those requesting the information. If it is damaging then surely the University is guilty of wrong doing?
brian ovens left an annotation (27 May 2010)
I thought universities were registered charities, this makes them exempt from giving information. I could be wrong, but i think its up to the University to decide if it should answer or not.
Damien Shannon left an annotation (28 May 2010)
Brian Ovens - Mr Stephenson doesn't understand the FOI act and you don't understand Charity Law.
Universities are not Registered Charities but are Exempt Charities. They are covered by the term 'public body' as defined in the act. They have a legal duty to comply with the act.
Peter Burke left an annotation (26 June 2010)
The request that i have made myself is successful because a response has been made, however the reasons for not replying to other reasonable questions with reasonable and concise answers is not acceptable. However maybe the university is now looking at the other questions hopefully.
Damien Shannon left an annotation (27 June 2010)
In my opinion, the only reason they are now answering some other requests is because they want to try and make themselves look reasonable to the Information Commissioner, who is set to make a judgement about the countless requests they rejected!
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Make and explore Freedom of Information requests






Peter Burke left an annotation ( 8 March 2010)
http://www.u4.no/
In particular the pdf book available on the website would give insight to the methodology of institutionalised corruption including the education sector:
http://www.u4.no/pdf/?file=/document/lit...
Until The University Of Salford becomes more transparent with regards to information requested by process of Freedom of Information, it would be only reasonable to believe that there is irregular financial activity and nepotism within the University.
Link to this