The LGBT people need to fight fire with fire and investigate the crimes and secrets of the anti-gay Christians who are trying to smear LGBT people. The Christians have many more crimes and dead bodies in their closet than anybody else. Two thousand years of covered up Holy horror. So request information on the pedophile Catholic priest and all of their dirty little secrets. They try to hide from the public.
The People is a gutter rag, it is to be expected that the kind of ignorant small minded wasters who read it would enjoy a bit of ‘queer bashing’.
I despise The People as a newspaper – and it used to aggravate me that my parents bought it!
However, it does support equal marriage
I don’t see the problem – I like Freedom of Information. I’m just about to send some off for the first time in my life.
However, I would set a fee for this of £5000 per request, if the requester is identified as a junk tabloid like, for example, Sun, Mail, Express, Mirror, Star, etc. I don’t read junk – life is already too short.
Well, I wouldn’t worry too much, as the People is aimed at the uneducated lower-classes who are too thick to think for themselves anyway. Most of them don’t vote or have a voice – thankfully.
Talking of newspapers, has anyone seen the story re Nadine Dorries, front page of the Mail. Apparently employing her full time student daughter as an “Office Manager” £39K P.A. out of public funds?
Nepotism as its worst
Still Dorries is full of double standards
I too am a huge fan of freedom of info laws. I would be against any move to charge a fee for a request as this would certainly restrict the freedom of many people to make requests for information.
I don’t think people fully appreciate that anyone can make one of these requests to any public body. I made one to my university (Oxford Brookes) when the Vice-Chancellor made a number of worrying statements about equality and diversity at the university, singling out the worship diversity strand for special treatment and awareness. I wanted to know whether the equality and diversity budget was equally privileging worship over other strands (disability, ethnicity, age, sexuality etc.) so I made a freedom of information request. The figures clearly showed that the university was spending tens of thousands of pounds on promoting religious activities and not a single penny on promoting the sexual orientation diversity strand! It was extremely helpful and helped support continued campaigning.
I just wanted to add that the problem of university equality and diversity budgets being used to fund religious activities at the expense of other strands remains acute at both universities here in Oxford. Oxford University is particularly astonishing in its hypocrisy at funding numerous churches, chapels, religious posts and activities to the tune of millions of pounds each year at the expense of other vectors of diversity, particularly sexual orientation, on which it has an appalling record. Perhaps an enterprising investigative journalist could make a freedom of info request about that and give us a decent report about it!
I strongly support FOI laws. They have revealed a great deal of information that would have been hidden previously – and should (provided requests are reasonable – as the regulations state) be free of charge.
I’m not convinced that the FOI has any relevance. As far as I can remember these scurrilous rags have simply made most of their “news” up. That they have access to additional data for distortion under FOI hasn’t really changed their behaviour at all. The problem isn’t with FOI but with unthinking readers who take everything that printed in these bird cage liners as truth.
And don`t forget the trawling of gay contact sites like GAYDAR and CAFFMOSCOMMUNITY for spicy details about well known people. Remember Chris Bryant on his Gaydar profile photo in underpants splashed over the Daily Mail.?
The Internet is a dangerous place. Once it is on teh interwebs, you have let the genie out of the bottle and that’s that. If people want to parade around in public in their underwear, that is entirely up to them, but be aware “public” means precisely that.
These stories are indeed horrible. However, I don’t think restricting FOI laws would solve the problem. I reckon it would just force the press to use even more desperate measures to get sensational scoops on LGBT people – trans people in particular as they provide a more “juicy” story it seems to the press – and we’ll end up with an even more corrupt press than we started with. But I really would like further protections for those who are damaged by sensationalist articles that misrepresent information. I think that if the information is going to be available, the press should make it absolutely clear what they intend to use the information for, and then there should be repercussions if they lie and use it in a way that they did not make clear.
*cough* Daily Mail and The Sun *cough*