<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Networked journalism: distributed FoI requests</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.pressgazette.co.uk/fleetstreet/2006/11/11/networked-journalism-distributed-foi-requests/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.pressgazette.co.uk/fleetstreet/2006/11/11/networked-journalism-distributed-foi-requests/</link>
	<description>Signposts to journalism's future from Press Gazette</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:18:50 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Martin Stabe &#187; Crowdsourcing is &#8216;vexatious&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://blogs.pressgazette.co.uk/fleetstreet/2006/11/11/networked-journalism-distributed-foi-requests/#comment-24397</link>
		<dc:creator>Martin Stabe &#187; Crowdsourcing is &#8216;vexatious&#8217;</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:03:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/blog/2006/11/11/networked-journalism-distributed-foi-requests/#comment-24397</guid>
		<description>[...] In an earlier post, I predicted that the requests would be rejected on the FOIA&#8217;s &#8220;acting in concert&#8221; clause, which allows officials to treat requests from an organised campaign as if they were one request. A commenter suggested that the council might actually reject the request because it is &#8220;vexatious&#8221;. I thought that this was unlikely because the request(s) clearly had a serious purpose. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] In an earlier post, I predicted that the requests would be rejected on the FOIA&#8217;s &#8220;acting in concert&#8221; clause, which allows officials to treat requests from an organised campaign as if they were one request. A commenter suggested that the council might actually reject the request because it is &#8220;vexatious&#8221;. I thought that this was unlikely because the request(s) clearly had a serious purpose. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Martin Stabe</title>
		<link>http://blogs.pressgazette.co.uk/fleetstreet/2006/11/11/networked-journalism-distributed-foi-requests/#comment-23835</link>
		<dc:creator>Martin Stabe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Nov 2006 19:39:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/blog/2006/11/11/networked-journalism-distributed-foi-requests/#comment-23835</guid>
		<description>Steve,

This is very true. However, I don't think use of the "vexatious" exemption would have much chance of standing up on appeal to the Information Commissioner in a case like this, where there clearly a serious attempt to obtain information. The issue here seems to be the time it would take for the council to complete the response to the request.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Steve,</p>
<p>This is very true. However, I don&#8217;t think use of the &#8220;vexatious&#8221; exemption would have much chance of standing up on appeal to the Information Commissioner in a case like this, where there clearly a serious attempt to obtain information. The issue here seems to be the time it would take for the council to complete the response to the request.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Jones</title>
		<link>http://blogs.pressgazette.co.uk/fleetstreet/2006/11/11/networked-journalism-distributed-foi-requests/#comment-23827</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Jones</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:55:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/blog/2006/11/11/networked-journalism-distributed-foi-requests/#comment-23827</guid>
		<description>If a public authority has reason to believe that the requests have been submitted as part of a campaign designed primarily to cause it inconvenience, it may be able to refuse them because they are vexatious.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If a public authority has reason to believe that the requests have been submitted as part of a campaign designed primarily to cause it inconvenience, it may be able to refuse them because they are vexatious.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
