Passing the Duchy on a feast Cornish

I have just returned from a week's holiday in Cornwall. It was my first time along the Atlantic coast Cornish and absolutely loved. I did some epic walk along the cliffs of Crackington Haven then drove down past Tintagel, Rock, Padstow and St Ives, with few trips outside to Penzance and the wonderful Minack Theatre of Porthcurno.

Cornwall is a magical place, but that got me to thinking about who owns this charming landscape so favoured by artists. Land ownership is the primary means that scarce resources are divided into society and as such in a democracy it is imperative that people know who owns the land.In the United Kingdom do not have a clear idea of who owns the land, which is why I want to unleash the full dataset of land registry. currently, you can search for an address and find owner at a cost of £ 4 for each search, but you can search by the owner of the land.

We know, however, who is the largest landowner in Cornwall: the Duchy of Cornwall. But what do we know about this seal and the tax or benefit Prince Charles receives as a result of inherit this earth large company?

I asked one of my correspondents fans Philip Hosking, who is an expert in all matters of Cornwall. Had been in touch some months ago looking for advice on using the freedom of information act to get answers to questions about public grants or benefits received by the Duchy.

He has found the Duchy to be less transparent. instead this constitutional body feudal Government maintains that it is nothing but a private landed estate and therefore exempt from the Act of freedom. He I cross stitch by John that uses the Act of freedom to obtain as much information as possible about Ducati of Lancaster and Cornwall. You can discover his work by visiting his blog confirms or denies.

For those interested in this theme, John Kirkhope, notary and Solicitor, widely has researched the Duchy of Cornwall and is organising a series of public discussions on the law of Cornwall.

I have one word of advice to all those who seek information on land owned.Instead of using the freedom of information act you can also try quoting the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.This law is based on a directive and covers a wide range of information relating to the environment, including the use of soil and pollution.It shall also apply to any organization conducting activities that concern the environment, not only public bodies (so the Duchy of Cornwall is covered under the EIR) .for more information about using the EIR see websites for openness or transparency Scottish. you should also look at the site by Rob Edwards, who is an excellent journalist concerning the environment and the use of both freedom and laws EIR.

This entry was published on Monday, September 15th, 2009 at 11: 07 am and is filed under freedom of information. you can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. you can skip to the end and leave a response. Ping is not currently allowed.

View the original article here

Public blocked: freedom does not cover private prisons

Despite being paid from the public, prisons operated under Government contract by private companies as a group not 4 will be covered by a proposal for extending freedom of information act. This marks a shift in dangerous where public services paid by us are no longer accountable to us because they have been outsourced to a private company.

This was upheld in a written reply of the Minister in Parliament yesterday.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm091110/text/91110w0010.htm

November 10, 2009: 218W column

Prisons: freedom of information

Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he plans to extend to private prisons the provisions of the freedom of Information Act 2000.[298646]

Mr. Wills: on 16 July, the Government published the response to its consultation on extending the freedom of information act by means of an order of section 5. noted that it was minded to include private prisons in an initial order. However, the Government has made it clear that it intends to maintain the extension of the law concerned.

This entry was published on Wednesday, November 11th, 2009 at 2: 21 pm and is filed under Crime & justice, freedom of information. you can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. you can skip to the end and leave a response. Ping is not currently allowed.

View the original article here

Hidden High Court Injuctions

The case of Twitter vs Trafigura continues even if it is really the Guardian newspaper and Wikileaks who led this incredible story that illustrates the complete lack of freedom of expression accorded to nationals of the United Kingdom.

For those who haven't been following the case: The Guardian was trying to report Trafigura, a multinational oil and commodity trader, but has received threats of legal action from Carter-Ruck.This led to an injunction to stop them to publish their discoveries yet not only were they prevented from publishing their article but the injunction also prevented them from reporting about the order!

These ' superinjunctions ' are incredibly draconian power and a strong democracy, that they should be used only as a last resort in more limited circumstances – and when you use this would be public knowledge. However, now shows that not only are these injunctions granted by the judges with seemingly not a second thought for Justice open, but there is no record of the actions of the judge either.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Bridget Prentice said yesterday, in response to a parliamentary question written that aren't currently available information and the Court has no intention of collecting such data:

Paul Farrelly MP: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he shall be to collect and (b) publish statistics on the number of not-to consider the orders given by the Court in each of the last five years.[293012]

Bridget Prentice: the information requested is not available.The Court collects data about applications, however, orders are not separately identifiable, and currently there are no plans to modify the database to do so.

I agree with wikileaks: "Now for journalists UK grow some balls and start to violate injunctions of censorship"

It's bad enough that superinjunctions to everyone here, but it is absolutely awesome that there are also recorded as often uses pressure must be put into court to record these opportunities and make the details public as urgent.

This entry was published on Friday, October 16th, 2009 at 11: 34 am and is filed under Crime & justice, freedom of information. you can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. you can skip to the end and leave a response. Ping is not currently allowed.

View the original article here

Terrorists worldwide?

The British Journal of Photography have done some requests for freedom cunning to determine the extent to which controversial "powers of detention and searches of S44 ? were applied in Great Britain.

Under sections 40 to 44 of the terrorism Act 2000, the police can stop and search without a warrant, or any grounds of suspicion and can arrest you and keep up to 48 hours without charge brought. all items in his possession can be taken out.

Of course, these draconian powers does not have captured many terrorists.But have been used repeatedly to harass photographers:

This entry was published on Monday, December 21st, 2009 at 4: 09 pm and is filed under freedom of information. you can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. you can skip to the end and leave a response. Ping is not currently allowed.

View the original article here

Journalism of investigation – Norwegian style

 

I attended the Conference SKUP Norwegian journalists last weekend. There were around 560 journalists from all over Norway in presence more than a handful of international speakers, including myself, investigations editor of the guardian David Leigh and one of the founders of Wikileaks: Julian Assange.

I was blown away by the number of journalists present as I've never been to a Conference UK with something close to this number of journalists. In Scandinavia, the tradition is for reporters to collaborate and share knowledge.In the United Kingdom there are still always above the hyper-competition of Fleet Street, where journalists tend to view affair with suspicion and instinct is keeping self-knowledge. While this has some advantages, in the present climate it makes more sense for journalists to band together, especially when it comes to common interests, such as defamation, freedom of expression and information.

Most of the talks were in Norwegian, so I can't offer much lighting upon them even if I heard about some amazing journalists: one of which was exposing his ninth judicial, another has written a book on bank robbery Norway's most famous.

The speaker that impressed me most was Julian Assange.I tweeted a lot from your session (@ newsbrooke), but one thing struck me: said that despite the primary source material release to anyone and everyone through Wikileaks – not become larger scandal stories until written by a journalist expert at a mainstream newspaper. mentioned the issue of a U.S. military manual leaked in relation to abuse at Abu Ghraib/Guantanamo Bay along with a few others. an army of citizen journalists didn't know what to do with this and past.Was just the experienced reporters at institutions of mass media who wrote about it and has a history.

It seems that there is hope for the traditional print, after all.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 23rd, 2009 at 4: 20 pm and is filed under freedom of information. you can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. you can skip to the end and leave a response. Ping is not currently allowed.

View the original article here

Drama will be broadcast 23 feb

The dramatization of my campaign to open Parliament now has a date.

On costs (formerly put down the House) will have the first transmission on Forrest at 9 pm on Tuesday 23 February.Don't miss it!!I did an interview with Martin Bell for the radio times and will be tomorrow s (16 February) own women's magazine for those who want a taste of what's to come.

This entry was published on Monday, September 15th, 2009 at 11: 20 am and is filed under freedom of information.You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. you can skip to the end and leave a response. Ping is not currently allowed.

View the original article here

Calls for a redesign of the Web

I'm trying to radical redesign of this site and would love to hear from any interested web designer.

In short, I intend to keep the blog on WordPress, but want to rebranding the site as heatherbrooke.org (I bought this domain name).I would like to see more graphics and better navigation and hierarchies more streamline. I'm watching something along the lines of this site by the author Raj Patel: http://rajpatel.org/

If you are interested please let me know your daily rate and work as many days of you think this rebranding would also send me some of your previous work.

The final warning is that this must be done quickly – before 23 March.

Applications or tenders received gladly Erica (at) yrtk.org.

This entry was published on Tuesday, 2 March 2010 at 10: 15 pm and is filed under freedom of information. you can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. you can skip to the end and leave a response. Ping is not currently allowed.

View the original article here

Tonight's the night!

Hope you'll all tune in tonight to watch at the expense at 9 pm on Forrest.

Great to see that did take the agenda in most newspapers (although my character was described by parliamentary sketch writer, the times ' Ann Treneman as ' loony on this side of the bus ').

Well, if the shoe fits ...

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 23, 2010 at 12: 09 pm and is filed under freedom of information. you can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. you can skip to the end and leave a response. Ping is not currently allowed.

View the original article here

Reformer of the year

Didn't get to blog a lot these days are in the last few weeks of my book deadline but I should mention that I recently received a piece very welcome news: I won the title of Reformist politician of the year 2009 after an election held by the reform online Think Tank.

I was lucky to be approved by the most influential blogs including Guido Fawkes, Left Foot Forward (United two unusually sites), the Daily Telegraph Benedict Brogan and Devil's kitchen

Thanks to these bloggers and all those who voted. here's the press release of reform.

Heather Brooke is "Reformer of the Year" for the work of members ' expenses

Freedom of information Reform activist WINS in landslide poll

Heather Brooke, the activist of freedom of information, won a poll to find the reformer of the year for 2009. Ms Brooke, who was a pivotal figure of unveiling of parliamentary expenses scandal, has won the title in a landslide, securing over a thousand EUR1.157 votes.

He played a major role in the saga of expenses of members of Parliament, winning a case to court against the House of Commons for full revelation according to dimensions of houses.The judgment was the driving force behind the reform of parliamentary expenditure resulting.

Participants in the contest gave a wide variety of enthusiasts reasons to support Ms. Brooke:

"Has created a totemic symbol of sorting low-level corruption and waste to be disposed of through the Government and demonstrated that the best way to do this is exposure and transparency".

"Without access to information that we are completely stumped."

"Was the main culprit of the campaign to implement national taxpayer rights to freedom of information, despite apathy continues body citizen".

"Politics in Britain will never be the same, it was reformed forcibly. that is why she is clearly the reformer of the year: no contest."

"Brought the first real serious talk, although since then forgotten, our policy reform for decades.Others on the list deserve honorable mention but Heather stands out ".

"Had the courage and determination to see through what must have seemed scanning on Everest. well done really".

Public reaction force helped Heather Brooke take an incredible 89% of the votes. second place was awarded to Douglas Carswell, reform MP to Harwich and Clacton and author of the plan, with third place going to Michael Gove, which foresees a great reorganization of the school system if the Conservatives win the power of next year.

Director of the reform, Andrew Haldenby, said: "Heather showed how transparency possible to reform Parliament. now all the public sector must be opened in the same way, to address the real waste that is located in the heart of Government."

The reform is an independent, charitable, non-partisan think tank (registered charity reform Research Trust, no 1103739) whose mission is to set a better way to deliver public services and economic prosperity. We believe that public sector liberalisation, breaking the monopoly and broaden the choice, high quality services can be made available to everyone.

This entry was posted on Thursday, November 19, 2009 at 2: 23 pm and is filed under freedom of information. you can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. you can skip to the end and leave a response. Ping is not currently allowed.

View the original article here

New website: heatherbrooke.org

My new site is now up and running: heatherbrooke.org. All new posts and blog future updates will be published on the new site with information on my new book the silence of State.

Information from the site through links will be moved YRTK re-directed in the next few weeks.

Please check out my new site and let me know what you think.Thanks to Dave Uprichard at One Trick Pony for the new design.

This entry was published on Sunday, March 28, 2010 at 8: 13 pm and is filed under freedom of information. you can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. you can skip to the end and leave a response. Ping is not currently allowed.

View the original article here

When Brooke met Brooker

I am the newest episode of delightfully acerbic Charlie Brooker's Newswipe. Readers of my twitterfeed (@ newsbrooke) may know that I am a big fan of caustic humour style of Brooker and insightful, so it was a real pleasure to be interviewed for the second series of his show on the news.

You can watch the entire episode on BBC iplayer rubbishy for a limited time (appear in 15 minutes) or in perpetuity on YouTube (5 minute).I speak here how journalists grant civil servants anonymity for no good reason For the very definition of their role, official spokesperson did not absolutely no reason to be anonymous once more dubious practices in the British press is how reporters colluding with officials by granting anonymity.

Sources should be granted anonymity only in very limited circumstances, where the name is likely to cause damage specific (for example, a complainant who could lose his job). There's no reason to private persons or police spokesman, for example, should be granted anonymity, but I had many arguments with those people who insist on it as their "right".

The reason for which these people insist on anonymity is, simply, to exercise the power without liability. Anonymity = deniability.

I think it's a fundamental role of the journalist to officials to push to stand behind what they say.If these officials do not agree, then don't print their statements or give their air time.Is it really that simple.If journalists pasted on just this one point they overnight could force a change in the culture of the European Parliament, the civil service and many public services.

 

This entry was published on Friday, January 29, 2010 at 5: 08 pm and is filed under freedom of information. you can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. you can skip to the end and leave a response. Ping is not currently allowed.

View the original article here

Expect defamation reform, now that members are interested

For some it might seem that the article today the Guardian is bad news:

Super-injunctions restrict freedom of speech, of advise lawyers speaker
• Orientation contradicts the position of Minister of Justice
• Selection Committee fears for parliamentary privilege

But that is to overlook the historical tradition with which members do not give a fig about the invasion of our privacy practices, civil or freedom of speech, until they find their affected.

Who cares about the common man's freedom of speech is stifled by the law of defamation worst in the world when we have granted thee immunity from it through the parliamentary privilege?It was a similar story with draconian and disturbing away breath anti-terrorist laws that were all very well until an MP was arrested in his Office (Damien green MP) or spied on while visiting an inmate of the prison (MP Sadiq Khan).Then – suddenly – parliamentarians had second thoughts on totalitarian culture that had nourished.

Therefore, members who now are liable under the law of defamation conclude that defamation reform is destined to become a legislative agenda. read here!

This entry was published on Monday, December 7th, 2009 at 1: 32 pm and is filed under freedom of information. you can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. you can skip to the end and leave a response. Ping is not currently allowed.

View the original article here

Online Betting Law

On July 28 the House Financial Services Committee released a press release saying they had "passed legislation to enable Americans to bet online and put an end to an inappropriate interference with their personal freedom." This latest legislation was in response to the June 1 deadline imposed on banks and other financial instiituation to block Internet gambling transactions.

Although compliance just began on June 1 of this year, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) was signed into law in 2006 in an effort to restrict the use of payment systems for Americans who gamble online. The American Bankers Association warned all banks in November last year that they had to comply with the 2006 law by June 1, 2010, and institute policies and procedures to block certain prohibited transactions.

Reporting for the New York Times in July, Sewell Chan wrote that the recent bill to legalize online gambling sponsored by Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, would "direct the Treasury Department to license and regulate Internet gambling operations, while a companion measure, pending before another committee, would allow the Internal Revenue Service to tax such businesses. Winnings by individuals would also be taxed, as regular gambling winnings are now. The taxes could yield as much as $42 billion for the government over 10 years.... The committee vote was 41 to 22, with seven Republicans joining most Democrats on the panel in favor of the measure."

In response to the implementation of the Act of June 1, some casinos have come up with their own payment systems. At this point it is difficult to say how the 2006 legislation will affect the industry and how soon new legislation will be put in place to legalize Internet gaming for Americans. The new bill has not yet had a hearing.

The issues involved in legislating online gambling are a lot more complicated today than they were 13 years ago when Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz) first introduced the bill known as the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1997. At that time National News reporter David Isaacson had written that online gambling had grown into a 300 million dollar industry and there were about 32 online casino sites.

In his article Chan reported that by some estimates, American online gambling exceeds $6 billion a year. Although this sounds like a lot, it is less than what the industry was making back in 2003, before most online casinos were driven off shore as a result of the 2006 law. In March of 2002, Andy Sullivan of Reuters reported that Christiansen Capitol Advisors estimated gambling sites took in about $2.2 billion in revenues in 2000, and would collect $6.4 billion by 2003. At the time Sullivan wrote his article, there were about 1400 online casinos. In 2003 there were between 1800 and 2000.

The US government has had a long history of trying to determine what to do with Internet Gambling. Back in 1997 the American economy was still booming and dot.coms hadn't yet gone bust but by 2003 advertising revenue from offshore gambling sites had fueled the Internet economy. Internet businesses had been scrambling to stay afloat and the advertising revenue from gambling sites had been too irresistible to refuse.

For the full story, click here

Afraid of breaking the law when betting online? You can be safe when betting here