Dear British Broadcasting Corporation,

What was the total amount of money given to Jimmy Saville by the BBC before his death in 2011?

Yours faithfully,

richard

doyle williams left an annotation ()

None of mine thankfully.

FOI Enquiries, British Broadcasting Corporation

Dear Richard,

Thank you for your request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, as detailed in your email below. Your request was received on 25th October 2012. We will deal with your request as promptly as possible, and at the latest within 20 working days. If you have any queries about your request, please contact us at the address below.

The reference number for your request is RFI20121161.

Kind regards

The Information Policy & Compliance Team

BBC Freedom of Information
BC2 B6, Broadcast Centre
201 Wood Lane
London W12 7TP

www.bbc.co.uk/foi
Email: [BBC request email]

Tel: 020 8008 2882
Fax: 020 8008 2398

show quoted sections

Dear British Broadcasting Corporation,

By law you should have answered the question relating to the request of savilles wage.

Yours faithfully,

richard

FOI Enquiries, British Broadcasting Corporation

Dear Richard,

We have received your request for an internal review relating to your request RFI20121161 for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Your request for an internal review was received on 26th November 2012. We shall deal with the review as promptly as possible and, at the latest, within 30 working days. If you have any queries please contact us at the address below.

The reference number for your internal review is IR2012048.

BBC Information Policy and Compliance
Room BC2 B6
Broadcast Centre
White City
London
W12 7TS
UK

Website: www.bbc.co.uk/foi
Email: mailto:[BBC request email]
Tel: 020 8008 2883
Fax: 020 8008 2398

show quoted sections

Katie Paxie, British Broadcasting Corporation

Dear Richard,

I apologise that we have not be able to respond to your request to date. The BBC has received an unprecedented volume of FOI requests and we are attempting to deal with them all as quickly as possible.

I wish to assure you that your request is receiving our attention.

Kind regards,

BBC Information Policy and Compliance

show quoted sections

Peter Jones left an annotation ()

Their disorganisation and lack of resources is no excuse for non-compliance. The BBC should have anticipated increased public interest as soon as the Savile scandal came out - they have know about it since they pulled Newsnight expose this time last year.

Watchkeeper left an annotation ()

So on this occasion the BBC trots out the "unprecedented volume of FOI requests" excuse. Usually, it breaks the law by replying late and offers NO excuse. The result is just the same.

FOI Enquiries, British Broadcasting Corporation

1 Attachment

 

Dear Richard

 

Please find attached the response to your request for an Internal Review
of our response to RFI20121161, reference IR2012048. 

 

Please accept our apologies for the delay in responding to this internal
review

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

BBC Information Policy and Compliance

B6 B2 Broadcast Centre

201 Wood Lane

London W12 7TS, UK

 

Website: [1]www.bbc.co.uk/foi

Email: [2][BBC request email]

Tel: 020 8008 2883

Fax: 020 8008 2398

 

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi
2. mailto:[BBC request email]
3. http://www.bbc.co.uk/

Mark Salter left an annotation ()

Interneal review decision but *still* no response?

How odd.

Also the implied/taken request for an internal review - additional delay?

Peter Jones left an annotation ()

Strange indeed. It would appear the BBC really are making the rules up as they go along.

Watchkeeper left an annotation ()

Mr Simon Pickard, Senior Compliance Manager, states "I therefore conclude that on this occasion the BBC have failed to adhere to the terms of the Act". To which we can all add "YET AGAIN".

And nothing will be done. And nothing will change.

Steven King left an annotation ()

Watchkeeper and Peter Jones - have read and agree with your comments - it appears the ICO still does not have any teeth, and many publc bodies take full advantage of the fact that the ICO does not enforce either FOI or DPA Legislation as it should in many cases, in my humble opinion. When I rcently put an FOI request to the ICO ,regarding Wiltshire Police and the Wiltshire Police Authority, I was left wih the opinion they too manipulate the regulations and guidelines to suit their own agenda's, along with virtually ALL of the public bodies ive tried to get information from through this site.

Richard Turpin left an annotation ()

The BBC would claim "we've had to deal with an unprecedented number of FOIA requests since the Savile/McAlpine/Entwistle affairs".

Unlucky.

richard left an annotation ()

Will do the ICO complaint regardless,in the mean time this maybe worth signing: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petition...

Peter Jones left an annotation ()

It should be noted that the BBC has managed to process several non-Savile-related FOIA requests in the same period.

That suggests to me that, unprecedented number of requests or not, they can process requests in the 20 working day timeframe when it suits them.

It does not suit them to provide responses to Savile-related requests. I am still waiting on this one from October: www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/jimmy_sav...

Stephanie Simmonds, British Broadcasting Corporation

Dear Richard,

I am preparing to disclose information in response to your FOI request [reference number RFI20121161]. Due to the age of the files in question, it has proved difficult to scan pages in sufficiently high quality. I therefore propose sending the disclosure documents to you in hard copy form. Could you please provide a physical address to which I can send the response?

Kind regards,

Stephanie Simmonds

Stephanie Simmonds | Senior Advisor * | BBC Information Policy and Compliance | [BBC request email]

show quoted sections

Peter Jones left an annotation ()

Don't.
Insist that she sends them electronically.
It is your right under the Act.

Peter Jones left an annotation ()

Note in particular that section 11 of the 2000 Act allows the applicant (you) to express a preference for how the BBC's response is delivered. They have to comply with your preference as long as it is reasonably practicable to do so.

As they receive the best part of £4 billion a year, it's a reasonable bet that they have pretty effective scanning technology. If it can be read by a human then it can be scanned electronically - FACT.

Watchkeeper left an annotation ()

I concur with Mr Jones. This is a blatant attempt by the BBC, committed to "only pass[ing] the minimum necessary information" (my favourite phrase of the moment), to keep embarrassing information out of the public eye.

Presumably the "hard copy" to which Ms Simmonds refers will be a photocopy i.e. a document produced by scanning the original! Having been scanned, the output can be directed either to paper or a pdf file. The quality will be the same in each case.

Good grief! If the BBC has technology which can detect a TV "in 20 seconds" and "with frightening efficiency", it can surely produce a pdf of an old document. With an annual income greater than the GDPs of 72 countries (thank you, licence payers) I think you're entitled to the format you choose.

Watchkeeper left an annotation ()

I now find there's a scan of Magna Carta available online:

http://tinyurl.com/adkks2u

Judge the quality for yourselves. The original dates from the 13th century, almost 800 years ago, and I doubt the documents in question are so old ...

Peter Jones left an annotation ()

Of course if she sends you a hard copy then the same information will not be available here for others to view. No doubt they realise that. Given they have not published any new FOIA disclosure responses on their website since 2011, I suspect they'd quite like minimal exposure on their response.

Peter Martin left an annotation ()

Today is the publication of the Pollard Report detail, though apparently without any detail. 'Redacted' appears the favoured term, though some are calling it censored.

One wonders if this grudging release process of one, small, oddly selected aspect of the FoI process is not in some way designed to offer a singular counter to the point many are making on the level of BBC FoI release over the past few years. 'One' negates 'none', and looks better, if not much.

But they still seem unaware of the few favours they do any chance of trust in integrity and consequent trust in commitment to transparency with the childish games being played over the release of even this small, distracting morsel.

As ably shown, the claims on inability to deliver a copy by anything other than as illuminated script borne via carrier pigeon are plain daft, and clearly designed to make sharing as difficult as possible.

If, as suggested, the form should be electronic as requested, and publicly visible, as seems reasonable, the BBC needs to explain why not.

Or would this entail another year-long exercise in obfuscation?

Mark Salter left an annotation ()

Sending a hardcopy does not of course prevent the data being presented here, it just passes the onus to the requestor, to scan and pass to the whatdotheyknow.com team - whom I'm sure would be willing and able to add the response to this exchange.

But unless the BBC are sending you the original documents (highly unlikely) then they will be sending a copy - all the better electronically dispatched instead of printed on paper!

Mark Salter left an annotation ()

I have just requested the same information :-

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/r...

primarily as richard does not appear to have replied and secondly because it would be a shame to not have the information requested that might be sitting in a envelope on Stephanie's desk released.

Mark

Dear Stephanie Simmonds,

Dear Stephanie,

Please send the documents to 10 Downing St, London SW1A 2AA. Thanks.

Yours sincerely,

richard

Dear Stephanie Simmonds,

Have you sent the documents?

Please respond.

Yours sincerely,

richard

Stephanie Simmonds, British Broadcasting Corporation

Dear Richard,

As below, the documents have been produced in hard copy form, due to the difficulty and expense involved in scanning in excess of 1000 pages, dating back some 40 years, in sufficiently high quality. If you do not wish to provide the BBC with an address, you are more than welcome to pick the documents up from reception at the BBC's premises in West London, as other requestors have done.

Kind regards,

Stephanie Simmonds

show quoted sections

Dear Stephanie Simmonds,

10 Downing St, London SW1A 2AA is the address,

Thanks

Yours sincerely,

richard

Peter Martin left an annotation ()

There seems now to be somewhat of an impasse between the BBC being determined to scan electronically but then send hard copy, presumably printed out and by mail/courier, at significant extra expense, and some 'issues' between the BBC and requester on an address that is deemed acceptable by the BBC for this all to be sent to.

The reluctance to use the one provided may be down to the highest elected office in the land getting to wonder why the most unaccountable public sector entity around is engaging in such a blatant legal trick of using public funds to drown the other side in attrition material to avoid sensible analysis.

That is between Richard and the BBC. And the BBC's PR dept., as this goes further viral.

I am still monitoring posts on this site to get a handle on how FOI works or, as clearly in evidence, gets circumvented by the powers that be very unhappy it exists to hold them to account.

I am hence wondering if a legitimate series of questions on FOI procedure may be worthwhile, namely:

a) What governs the move from provision of electronic data replies to hard copy.

b) How many responses are provided in which form.

c) How many responses that are mailed are in excess of 100, 500, 1000 pages.

d) What the progress rates thereafter are.

e) What the cost estimates are for scanning and printing vs. scanning and storing/sending electronically.

At which point the NAO may be persuaded to take an interest.

It's one thing to muck about to avoid providing answers, but doing so by consuming/abusing public funds game playing is never a good idea.

FOI Enquiries, British Broadcasting Corporation

1 Attachment

 

Dear Richard,

 

You may recall we wrote to your acknowledging your request for details of
payments made to the late Jimmy Savile.

 

Firstly, please accept our sincere apologies for the length of time it has
taken to respond to you on this matter; we have as I’m sure you can
imagine been inundated with Freedom of Information Act requests and this
has impacted on our ability to respond more promptly.

 

Details of Jimmy Savile’s payments are kept on his contributor files, some
of which date back to the early 1960’s. Due to the age of the material it
has not been possible to scan the contents into an electronic format so we
have made copies of these contributor files which we can post to you if
you still require them? If you would like copies of these files please can
you provide us with a postal address.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

Simon Pickard

 

BBC Information Policy and Compliance

Room BC2 B6

Broadcast Centre

White City

London

W12 7TS

UK

 

Website: [1]www.bbc.co.uk/foi

Email: [2]mailto:[BBC request email]

Tel: 020 8008 2883

Fax: 020 8008 2398

 

[3]Description: Description: \\BBCFS2025\UserData$\myrien01\Documents\My
Pictures\BBC.png

 

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/www.bbc.co.uk/foi
2. mailto:[BBC request email]
4. http://www.bbc.co.uk/

Dear FOI Enquiries,

10 Downing St, London SW1A 2AA is the address.

Yours sincerely,

richard

FOI Enquiries, British Broadcasting Corporation

2 Attachments

 

Dear Richard,

                

Please find attached the response to your request for information,
reference RFI20121161

 

Please accept our apologies for the delay in providing this response to
you.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

BBC Information Policy and Compliance

Room BC2 B6

Broadcast Centre

White City

London

W12 7TS

UK

 

Website: [1]www.bbc.co.uk/foi

Email: [2]mailto:[BBC request email]

Tel: 020 8008 2883

Fax: 020 8008 2398

 

[3]Description: Description: \\BBCFS2025\UserData$\myrien01\Documents\My
Pictures\BBC.png

 

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/www.bbc.co.uk/foi
2. mailto:[BBC request email]
4. http://www.bbc.co.uk/

Mark Salter left an annotation ()

I have posted links to Electronic copies of the data in the response here:-

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/r...

richard left an annotation ()

Well done Mark you should iclude a pic of the parcel and the receipt showing what you had to pay.

Lets not forget Simon Pickard,Stephanie Simmonds and the rest of the FOI team at the BBC. I hope you lot understand that most people only pay a T.V licence out of FEAR of being taken to court. But dont worry no one will find out you cant post a parcel or scan documents to a computer,back to work at the 30 grand plus job sponging of the people of Britain.

Thanks

Peter Martin left an annotation ()

More a question to those experienced in the FoI system and this site, but given what appears a successful outcome (albeit painfully derived) to the information sought eventually being delivered, is there a reason it is headed at the top as:

"The request was refused by British Broadcasting Corporation"

Looks to me that they tried every which way to refuse, but eventually did (had to) comply.

Mark Salter left an annotation ()

@Peter...

... this request was effectively refused as the requester did not provide an address the BBC considered appropriate and belonging to them.

My request for the same information was 'successful' but is not yet complete (internal review).

Each request is considered in isolation - in terms of result here, which usually works well, apart from when organisations choose to combine answers to multiple requests into single responses - then it gets quite messy.

HTH

Peter Martin left an annotation ()

Thanks Mark.

I am still 'learning' the FOI system before I engage, and while it seems it has its own loophole opportunities for skilled duckers and divers like the BBC, it at least looks navigable to garner a result, not least by them not being in overall control and able to pull the plug on whim.

Evidently team coordination is possible (even if not asked for) and where one falls another can pick up the banner.

This alone is well worth knowing.

With complaints, the BBC can pull the plug internally at any time and for any reason (often without offering one), or even issue a generic fatwa if a questioner looks like getting too close to them having to actually answer accurately on topics they know won't look good on the monthly appeals summary.

Mark Salter left an annotation ()

Might I suggest that you take a read of the hints and guidance on this website?

The best piece of advice I think I could give is...

... don't presume any government body will try not to answer and then make a request on that basis.
Assume instead that they will reply as fast as they can - in the spirit of the FOIA - then politely ask them why they didn't *if* they don't manage to respond in a timely manner without a reasonable and valid reason.

This site holds great guidance :-

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/requ...

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org