The Information Commissioner has announced that The Home Office is to be monitored for three months over concerns that it takes too long to respond to Freedom of Information requests from the public.
The information commissioner said that he would be looking at responses to FOI requests received between 1 July and 30 September 2013. From my own experiences with The Home Office on What Do They Know, I am well aware of the problem, and have infact raised about 30 complaints to the ICO in relation to various Freedom of Information requests that I myself have filed to The Home Office.
It is, however, NOT just The Home Office that is to be monitored. The ICO’s announcement also states that the period will also monitor South Tyneside Council and Sussex Police.
So, after the refusal notice from The Home Office, it came to light that The Home Office don’t care much about the best interests of a child – despite being bound to it by their Section 55 responsibilities.
However the fact that you are breastfeeding, in itself, does not confer a derivative right. Depriving the child of the ability to be breastfed by you if you are required to leave the UK is not regarded as depriving the child of the benefit of its rights as a union citizen. should this particular aspect of the case wish to be pursued then you may wish to make an Art 8 application as detailed later in this letter.
So, lets get a bit of insight into the whole situation.
The Home Office don’t care about the fact that the baby is Breast Fed. Basically saying “Touch S**t”.
It is a *fact* that it is in a babies best interests to be breast fed.
They do not actually assess the best Interests of a child.
This fact will only go to help our case – as outlined in the recent MA and SA ruling.
It appears that the Home Office clearly do not take the Best Interests of a Child into the matter at hand – they even state such in the refusal notices by stating “must make an Art 8 application“.
Since 1999, there have been numerous reports by the Gov that outlines the fact that “Breast is Best”.
(Search YouTube: Breast is Best)
It is for this reason the following What Do They Know freedom of information requests were filed:
So, it was publicly advertised on television and billboards. A small fleet of advertisement vans were driving around London with a massive billboard of “Go Home or Face Arrest”The public announcement by The Home Office was posted on the 25th July 2013 on the Home Office News Pages. This scheme / pilot is clearly discriminative. As I outlined in response to a previous FOI request I made on What Do They Know.
I therefore posted my own FOI Request Cost of the Returns Pilot. It appears that I am not the only person interested in this subject. Take a look at the following FOI requests also…
It appears that good Judge O’Connor has found in favour of the people who the Home Office have refused a right of residence to. It is well worth a read to anybody. As is the associated FreeMovement Blog Article.
As you will see from the response today, The Home Office have stated that to tell us (The Public) how much of our money it spends protecting the American Embassy (who I might add have their own Armed Contractors / Security / Police onsite also) would serve to reveal how much protection is in place.
With regards to your questions, we confirm we hold the information requested. However, after careful consideration we have decided that the information is exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 24(2) of the Freedom of Information Act. This exempts us from our duty to release the information where to do so could prejudice national security, and the public interest falls in favour of applying the exemptions. This test is explained fully in the annex of this letter.
Furthermore, we neither confirm nor deny we hold any further information under section 23(5) (information supplied by or relating to the security services). Section 23 is an absolute exemption and does not require the consideration of the public interest.
The response goes onto state:
However, the Home Office believes these arguments are outweighed by the general arguments for applying the Section 24 (2) in response to any questions about the protection of individuals and institutions. The justification is that the purpose of providing police protection is to protect life. Releasing the cost of supplying armed (UK) police services at the American Embassy could allow individuals to deduce the type of protection in place. It is long established policy not to comment upon any matters of personal protective security. Disclosure of such information could compromise the integrity of those arrangements and affect the security of a wide range of persons.
However, this is rediculous, which has ended up in an expansion of my original request, which I am sure will not fall foul of Section 24 or 23. – How much of the bill do the Americans foot. However, I am sure they foot a grand total of £0. – We’ll wait and see.
I just read an interesting Article on the European Law Blog website in regards to yet another Best Interests of the Child decision (Case C-648/11). Well worth a read… But to sumarise… Its YET ANOTHER declaration that a child’s best interests must be of ‘Primary Consideration’…
‘guided by the primary consideration of the child’s best interests (Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’))’
As well as other various references…
As highlighted in the case ….
Article 24 of the Charter is based on the New York Convention on the Rights of the Child signed on 20 November 1989 and ratified by all the Member States, Article 3 of which provides that, ‘[i]n all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration’.