The Copyright Infringement / News Article removal - Family Cases

Clarke Simpson made this Freedom of Information request to Foreign and Commonwealth Office

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was partially successful.

Dear Foreign and Commonwealth Office,

On the 7th April 2014, I made a FOI request to the Home Office. From the Home Office's request, it is clear that the FCO are the responsible body to answer my questions.

For ease of reference, my request to the Home Office can be viewed here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/t...

This Freedom of Information request is focusing on your news update on the Gov UK website located here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/world-loca...

As outlined by the outstanding Mr Colin Yeo ["The Blogging Lawyer" (he's actually a Barrister)], your very poor choice of photograph has led to the entire article being removed.

Please provide me with the following information:

All internal communications in relation to this news article. (This now includes all communication with the Home Office in relation to my request to them).

The reasoning for the removal of the news article. (I note it's clearly a coverup. But "Fingers crossed nobody spots this")

The command / rank / person (name also if of senior member of staff) of the person who authorised:
The use of the image
The publication of the news article
The removal of the news article

Have the Home Office been in contact with any of the injured parties (Children, parents, Photographer, News Paper [The Daily Record]) in relation to the unauthorised reproduction of the copyrighted material.

Please provide all settlement details (I am aware a "Formal Apology" was made - was any financial settlement negotiated, and if so, how much?).

For further information, it may be useful to refer to the following
news article on http://FreeMovement.org.uk along with all links:
http://www.freemovement.org.uk/the-power...
http://www.freemovement.org.uk/home-offi...

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/t... (HO Ref: 31480)

Yours faithfully,

Clarke Simpson

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Dear Mr Simpson,

Unfortunately we have been unable process your request because we are not the government department responsible for this publication. You say below that "from the Home Office's request (sic), it is clear that the FCO are the responsible body". We have reviewed the response provided by the Home Office and cannot see any reference to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in that reply. Please let us know what information the Home Office has provided to you that has led you to believe that we hold relevant information so that we can take your enquiry further.

Yours sincerely,

FOI and DPA Team
Foreign and Commonwealth Office

show quoted sections

Dear Foreign and Commonwealth Office,

I write further to my request of today "The Copyright Infringement / News Article removal - Family Case" (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/t...).

I suggest your department reviews the following file https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/2... (html format: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/2...)

Upon the file, it can clearly be seen on page three of the PDF that the upload was conducted in Islamabad ".

It is also clear on page three, the following quote: "..., so it's our presumption that the information was taken from a Dip-Tel and uploaded in Islamabad." - Islamabad is under FCO control? Correct?
(Can you also confirm: What is a "Dip-Tel" - Please provide whatever information you hold on the purpose, usage, and control of "Dip-Tel" within the "FCO" - I am aware that "Diptel" is an IP telephony solution...)

"Fingers crossed nobody spots this, but if anyone approaches us I'm afraid we'll have to ping them in your direction for a response." - They do not directly outline to come to you for a response, but let's be frank, this communication string was between the Home Office (The Quote sent by the Home Office's Chief Press Officer (Immigration) to "Head of Digital Engagement | Digital Transformation Unit | (And this is the clincher:) *FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE*".

I am sure your department will hold the communication string ("RE: web stuff") on file.

Note on the 4th April 2014 at 16:44, the Head of Digital Engagement appears to be a little worried about being asked this question, which reinforces the point that this question is best directed to your department (I Quote: "Why didn't you just remove the photo rather than the whole story in case we're asked?".

I also note, that the Home Office state the following: "Our web people have looked at the story's history and it was *definitely* uploaded from an FCO address, ..." (* emphasis added) on page three of the document.

I also note: Your response today is not lawful, as you have neither confirmed nor denied holding the information requested - as required by the FOI Act 2000 (Which you are clearly aware that this request falls under - and this fact was confirmed by the Home Office's response also).

I note that we are still on Day 0 of the request, and therefore thank you for your prompt attempt at another cover-up. Day 1 of my request is 30th July 2014. I expect a prompt response and no later than the twentieth working day. If you feel that your response of today was a refusal to provide the information, then please accept this message as a request for an internal review, to which I would also expect a response within twenty working days as per the ICO guidelines.

Yours faithfully,

Clarke Simpson

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

1 Attachment

  • Attachment

    RE Freedom of Information request The Copyright Infringement News Article removal Family Cases.txt

    4K Download View as HTML

FOI Request, Ref: 0742-14

 

Dear Mr Simpson

 

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request. It has been assigned a
unique reference number (above) and has been passed to the relevant
section within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to deal with. They will
be in touch with you should your request need clarification.

 

We received your request on 29 July 2014 and will aim to respond within 20
working days, following the date of receipt.

 

Yours sincerely

 

FOI and DPA Team

FCO

 

show quoted sections

R Lewis left an annotation ()

I wouldn't be too suprised if the Home Office had delayed providing the information, so as to give the F.C.O. time to destroy the data it holds.

As the mother raised a formal complaint about her daughter's photograph being used - the FCO responded. This means that their Complaints Management System will hold a substantial record.

I am really interested in the communication between the Home Office and F.C.O. regarding your request,.

Richard Greenhill left an annotation ()

DipTel would be a diplomatic telegram (a secure email sent from a British embassy). The Home Secretary made an official visit to Pakistan at the end of September, so possibly someone from the Home Office was temporarily in Islamabad to prepare for her trip, or maybe even someone senior from the Home Office having an unannounced holiday there in August while working on a secure line provided by the British embassy. Either way, the FCO ought to have records indicating who sent the message, even if it was sent on behalf of a Home Office civil servant or minister.

Clarke Simpson left an annotation ()

Thanks Richard. I've never seen it hyphenated before. It makes me wonder if the home office and fco have another system by simular name.

Diptel allows for secure telephone calls too. So. ...

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Simpson,

 

Please find attached our response to your email of 29 July 2014 requesting
information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 2000.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Pakistan Bilateral Team

 

Pakistan and Afghanistan Department

Foreign & Commonwealth Office  

Old Admiralty Building, London, SW1A 2PA

 

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. http://www.gov.uk/fco
2. http://blogs.fco.gov.uk/

Wayne Pearsall left an annotation ()

What piss takes, Why the hell are they redacting "Cheif Press Officer" "The Daily Record" and various other bits. Hell, even the child's name is already in the public domain, as is the letter of appology. (The BC Member has posted the letter on Twitter, and bar the name/address, the appology does not constitute private information.)

It's nice to see formal apologies issued to everyone and leaving the mother/child until last

Dear Foreign and Commonwealth Office,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Foreign and Commonwealth Office's handling of my FOI request 'The Copyright Infringement / News Article removal - Family Cases'.

FOI 0742 14

1) Now, to begin with, this request for an internal review is to cover the very first refusal to provide the information requested.

2) You have redacted various sets of information without lawful reason:
a) Chief Press Officer has no reason to be redacted. - neither does any other job title / description, or infact any Organisation name.
- by doing so, your department are actually going against Section 16 of the FOIA by concealing a possible seperate organisation to approach on this matter.
b) A newspaper name, has been redacted. This information is already within the public domain: (FYI: The Daily Record has published the Photographer [copyright holder]'s name (Garry F McHarg/FOCAL Scotland), as well as the childs name, and mothers name:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scotti...
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scotti... (the webpage with the original image)

In the fairness to the child, we'll let the redaction of the child's name slide. However, all other redactions are not in keeping witht he FOIA as this information is already within the public domain... Infact on the very website that this entire request stems from also!

We then move onto S.40 in connection with the letter of apology ... Do you mean in connection to Sayeeda Warsi's signature, or the family ? FYI: Here's a copy of the letter shared freely with the family?: https://twitter.com/PanxaUrra/status/476...

Allowing the redaction of the child's name as above - this would mean a single black box, within the first line of text...
Allowing the address - a nice black box on the top left...

Complicated to redact? - managed to do it with your own persons job titles...?

c) Chief Press Officer...

Do I really need to say more on this matter? Why on earth was any name, job title, or other redacted. Government White Pages, freely available on the internet, detail the names, telephone numbers, and email addresses of all governmental departments.

Lets go over the roll of "Senior Press Officer" AKA "Chief Press Officer" AKA "Senior Information Officer":
Department for Transport Press Office, News & Speech Writers Senior Press Officer - Roads Tom Bennett [email address]
Department for Transport Press Office, News & Speech Writers Senior Press Officer - HS2 Paul Malley [email address]
Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Communications Office Senior Press Officer Hayley Court [email address]
Crown Prosecution Service Communications Chief Press Officer / Head of News Sophie Hoskins [email address]
Department for Education Communications Group Chief Press Officer - News Desk Anna Sinfield [email address]
Department for Education Communications Group Chief Press Officer - Schools Desk Oliver Lane [email address]
Department for Education Communications Group Chief Press Officer - Children's and Families Desk Priya Brahmbhatt [email address]
(Is my message on this subject getting across?... - This persons name, is not confidential information - would you like to disclose it?)...

....

3) 4. Please provide all settlement details (I am aware a "Formal Apology" was made - was any financial settlement negotiated, and if so, how much?).
a) Taxpayers have a right to know where their money is being spent. For this reason, I expect the financial figures made payable for the breach of copyright ETC made public knowledge. Afterall, this is the public's money.
b) Please provide the apology's sent to the other injured parties. (Personal Information exemption does not apply. Everybody is aware of their details already - However, should you feel the need to... Feel free to redact names... Simply place "Newspaper" "Photographer" "Mother" "Child" ETC in place of the name. - This would not breach the DPA).

4) Then we come to the MP / MSP. What an absolute joke. So, who is the comedian in the office. S.40 when it comes to an MP/MSP? REALLY? Oh deary me.
I once again refer to http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scotti...
"The call from Stirling Labour MP Ann McGuire was echoed by the city’s SNP MSP Bruce Crawford.

And Commissioner for Children and Young People Tam Baillie cited human rights laws and said he could not see how [Redacted]’s best interests are being met." (Did you see what I did there....)

5) "2. [Redacted (Name?)]. A junior [Redacted (Department or Job Title?)] member of staff had cleared the text of the posting with [Redacted - (No longer employed? - Possible S.40)], but unfortunately not the attached image, which had been downloaded from the"
Explain these redactions... I certainly dont see how the second redaction exists?

6) "in fact from the [Redacted]website" "Daily Record" website by any chance?... - As noted on the very webpage that this came around...

7) An FCO press team spokesperson responded to [Redacted] request for a quotation at the time with “We are extremely sorry. “The photograph should never have been used in this way.” We have not however yet apologised to the family directly. A draft letter is attached.

Please provide the draft letter. Also clarify - Redacted is The Daily Record? A newspaper?

8) I was going to wait on this matter, but, heres one for you... - Can you define who are "proper journalists"? - Do you hold a record of the few who follow Colin Yeo's Blog?

9) "We attach a draft letter of apology for [Redacted]; and draft replies for [Redacted]MP and MSP."
Please do share the attachments, feel free to redact names, but obviously not the mp's as they are public officials.

10) I could go through every email signature, but heres just one:
"[Redacted]
Pakistan & Afghanistan Department
[Redacted]"

The redactions are not lawful. Please provide the redacted information. As outlined above. The email addresses are public property. They have no private attachment. The same goes for Home Office email addresses, departments, and job titles. I actually find it disturbing, and secretive, that you failed to disclose the job title "Chief Press Officer".

11) "Don’t know if the story has been used before. The content management system for GOV.UK was showing [Redacted]as the author of the story."
I would expect that [Redacted] has an official note on his/her employment file. I understand that such may have redactions, but please provide that document/information, as you know who cocked up - it wouldnt take too long to file the information.
Failure to provide this information will be taken as confirmation of this entire thing being brushed under the carpet (as it clearly reads throughout the message string).

12) I clearly asked for all communication regarding my FOI request to the Home Office and this to be provided. I am well aware that the Home Office was in contact with yourselves regarding my request to them. You have failed to provide this information. Please provide that information.

13) "From: [Redacted]
Sent: 04 April 2014 16:44 To: [Redacted]
Subject: RE: web stuff
Thanks
Why didn’t you just remove the photo rather than the whole story in case we’re asked?
We didn’t migrate news onto Post sites from our old platform, so it would have been created in August.
Best wishes
[Redacted]
[Redacted]| [Redacted]| Digital Transformation Unit | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
[Redacted] | [Redacted]| [Redacted]"

Why did you redact job titles ETC - Should I refer you once again to the Home Office release. This information is very clear.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/2...

Here's some contacts which may help... Foreign & Commonwealth Office Engagement & Communications Directorate Director Hugh Elliott [email address]
Foreign & Commonwealth Office Engagement & Communications Directorate DoC's PA Alice Riley [email address]
Foreign & Commonwealth Office Press & Digital Department Digital Transition Leader Adam Bye [email address]
Foreign & Commonwealth Office Press & Digital Department Chief Digital Officer Alison Daniels [email address]
Foreign & Commonwealth Office Engagement & Communications Dept Head of External Communications Sara Everett [email address]
Foreign & Commonwealth Office Engagement & Communications Dept Head of Internal Communications Catherine Morris [email address]
Foreign & Commonwealth Office Press & Digital Department Head of Press & Digital Department and Press Secretary to the Foreign Secretary Carl Newns [email address]
Foreign & Commonwealth Office Press & Digital Department Deputy Head of Press & Digital Department Michael Hoare [email address]
Foreign & Commonwealth Office Press & Digital Department PA to Head & Deputy Head of Press & Digital Department Cate Rutherfurd [email address]
Foreign & Commonwealth Office Press & Digital Department Chief Press Officer Andrew Pittam [email address]
Foreign & Commonwealth Office Press & Digital Department Chief Press Officer Paul Anderson [email address]
Foreign & Commonwealth Office Press & Digital Department Chief Press Officer Samuel Heath [email address]
Foreign & Commonwealth Office Press & Digital Department Chief Press Officer Sinead Keller [email address]
Foreign & Commonwealth Office Press & Digital Department Chief Press Officer Susan Crown [email address]
Foreign & Commonwealth Office Press & Digital Department Chief Digital Officer Alison Daniels [email address]
Foreign & Commonwealth Office Press & Digital Department Press Officer (Newsdesk Manager) Zoe Jones [email address]

I expect a prompt response to this request for Internal Review.

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

Yours faithfully,

Clarke Simpson

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Internal Review for FOI Request Ref 0742-14

Dear Mr. Simpson

Thank you for your request for an Internal Review of your FOI Request Ref 0742-14. It has been passed to the relevant department within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to deal with. They will be in touch with you with an outcome.

We received your request on 22 August 2014 and will aim to respond within 20 working days.

Yours sincerely

FOI and DPA Team
FCO

show quoted sections

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Simpson –

 

Please find attached the response to your request for an Internal Review
into FOI 0742-14.

 

Best wishes,

 

South Asia & Afghanistan Department

 

 

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. http://www.gov.uk/fco
2. http://blogs.fco.gov.uk/