A new Freedom of Information Act request to the Home Office about the selective leaking to the media of a confidential report byJim Gamble, former head of CEOP
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: FOI's & Petitions :: FOI Requests into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann
Page 1 of 1 • Share
A new Freedom of Information Act request to the Home Office about the selective leaking to the media of a confidential report byJim Gamble, former head of CEOP
by Tony Bennett 02.09.14 19:01
This request was sent earlier today in view of the unprecedented selective leaking yesterday to Sky News and other Britiish media of a highly confidential scoping report prepared by Jim Gamble for the Home Office in 2010 in the Madeleine McCann case.
The leak appeared to be being used to put a 'spin' on the failure over 7 years of the British police forces to make any progress in the investigation of Madeleine's disappearance, despite enormous resources, and to promote a forthcoming book on the case by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
NEW REQUEST 2 SEP 2014 - SUMMARY: This request is about factual matters relating to a report prepared by Jim Gamble, former boss of CEOP, about the Madeleine McCann case
Dear Home Office,
re: Freedom of Information - A Scoping Report in 2010 by Jim Gamble about the Madeleine McCann case
During 2009 and 2010, there were numerous reports in the British print and TV media about the preparation of a scoping report in connection with a possible review of the Madeleine McCann case. Alan Johnson was the Home Secretary at the time. Some newspapers made reference to the Metropolitan and West Yorkshire police forces having been asked to carry out this scoping exercise, but eventually it was announced that Jim Gamble, former boss of CEOP, was doing it. It is now known that this scoping exercise was used by the Home Office when, after the intervention of News International's then Chief Executive Officer, Ms Rebekah Brooks, the Home Office in conjunction with the then Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, decided to set up Operation Grange, the investigative review into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. This report was not made public and was described in the British press as 'top secret'.
Despite that, on Sky News yesterday (1 Sep 2014) and in several British newspapers within the past 24 hours, it was stated that a persons or persons unknown had 'briefed' Sky News and the press with partial disclosures from this 'top secret' report.
Arising out of the above facts, and notwithstanding that there continues to be an investigation into the facts surrounding Madeleine's disappearance, please answer the following questions:
1. What other persons or organisations or agencies were asked if they could carry out this scoping exercise, before Jim Gamble was approached?
2. On what date was Jim Gamble approached to carry out this exercise?
3. On what date did Jim Gamble complete his report and/or submit it to the Home Secretary?
4. Was any payment made to either CEOP or to Jim Gamble personally for carrying out this report; if so, what was the fee?
5. Is the report marked or treated as confidential?
6. If the report is confidential, has the Home Office authorised partial release of its contents to the media?
7. If it has so authorised such release, (a) who authorised the release of this information and (b) on what date was it authorised?
8. If any release of its contents has not been authorised by the Home Office, (a) has the Home Office begun an enquiry into who leaked this information and (b), if so, on what date did the leak enquiry begin?
9. Specifically, did the Home Office authorise Jim Gamble to disclose some of his report's contents to the media; if so, who authorised this disclosure and on what date was such authority given?
If the 'public interest' test is deemed to apply to any of the above questions, the issue of whether and under what circumstances persons are at liberty to release selected details of a confidential document within an investigation to the media is, it is submitted, manifestly a matter of the public interest.
Yours faithfully,
Anthony Bennett
The leak appeared to be being used to put a 'spin' on the failure over 7 years of the British police forces to make any progress in the investigation of Madeleine's disappearance, despite enormous resources, and to promote a forthcoming book on the case by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
NEW REQUEST 2 SEP 2014 - SUMMARY: This request is about factual matters relating to a report prepared by Jim Gamble, former boss of CEOP, about the Madeleine McCann case
Dear Home Office,
re: Freedom of Information - A Scoping Report in 2010 by Jim Gamble about the Madeleine McCann case
During 2009 and 2010, there were numerous reports in the British print and TV media about the preparation of a scoping report in connection with a possible review of the Madeleine McCann case. Alan Johnson was the Home Secretary at the time. Some newspapers made reference to the Metropolitan and West Yorkshire police forces having been asked to carry out this scoping exercise, but eventually it was announced that Jim Gamble, former boss of CEOP, was doing it. It is now known that this scoping exercise was used by the Home Office when, after the intervention of News International's then Chief Executive Officer, Ms Rebekah Brooks, the Home Office in conjunction with the then Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, decided to set up Operation Grange, the investigative review into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. This report was not made public and was described in the British press as 'top secret'.
Despite that, on Sky News yesterday (1 Sep 2014) and in several British newspapers within the past 24 hours, it was stated that a persons or persons unknown had 'briefed' Sky News and the press with partial disclosures from this 'top secret' report.
Arising out of the above facts, and notwithstanding that there continues to be an investigation into the facts surrounding Madeleine's disappearance, please answer the following questions:
1. What other persons or organisations or agencies were asked if they could carry out this scoping exercise, before Jim Gamble was approached?
2. On what date was Jim Gamble approached to carry out this exercise?
3. On what date did Jim Gamble complete his report and/or submit it to the Home Secretary?
4. Was any payment made to either CEOP or to Jim Gamble personally for carrying out this report; if so, what was the fee?
5. Is the report marked or treated as confidential?
6. If the report is confidential, has the Home Office authorised partial release of its contents to the media?
7. If it has so authorised such release, (a) who authorised the release of this information and (b) on what date was it authorised?
8. If any release of its contents has not been authorised by the Home Office, (a) has the Home Office begun an enquiry into who leaked this information and (b), if so, on what date did the leak enquiry begin?
9. Specifically, did the Home Office authorise Jim Gamble to disclose some of his report's contents to the media; if so, who authorised this disclosure and on what date was such authority given?
If the 'public interest' test is deemed to apply to any of the above questions, the issue of whether and under what circumstances persons are at liberty to release selected details of a confidential document within an investigation to the media is, it is submitted, manifestly a matter of the public interest.
Yours faithfully,
Anthony Bennett
____________________
Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"
Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".
Tony Bennett- Investigator
- Posts : 16926
Activity : 24792
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 77
Location : Shropshire
Re: A new Freedom of Information Act request to the Home Office about the selective leaking to the media of a confidential report byJim Gamble, former head of CEOP
by Benion 02.09.14 19:07
Tony I am not legally qualified (although I am currently considering law training) so can I just ask some basic questions...
If you send a FOI and whoever gets it, basically does not like you (no offence, but I do not think the establishment is too keen on you, because you want the truth in this case) can they not just ignore it? Think "oh no, its that Anthony Bennett guy, the one who harasses the poor innocent McCanns? I will file that right in the bin"
Do they have to answer you and do they have any powers in being selective in what information they do release?
If you send a FOI and whoever gets it, basically does not like you (no offence, but I do not think the establishment is too keen on you, because you want the truth in this case) can they not just ignore it? Think "oh no, its that Anthony Bennett guy, the one who harasses the poor innocent McCanns? I will file that right in the bin"
Do they have to answer you and do they have any powers in being selective in what information they do release?
Benion- Posts : 78
Activity : 94
Likes received : 8
Join date : 2014-03-11
Re: A new Freedom of Information Act request to the Home Office about the selective leaking to the media of a confidential report byJim Gamble, former head of CEOP
by Tony Bennett 02.09.14 19:58
Benion wrote:Tony I am not legally qualified (although I am currently considering law training) so can I just ask some basic questions...
If you send a FOI and whoever gets it, basically does not like you (no offence, but I do not think the establishment is too keen on you, because you want the truth in this case) can they not just ignore it?
REPLY: There are provisions to enable authorities to refuse FoI requests e.g. if the request is considered 'frivolous' or 'vexatious', or if a person makes very frequent requests. No, a request cannot be refused if they 'don't like you'. In any case, in all of these cases, there is the right of appeal to the Information Commissioner, who many times orders reluctant authorities to supply answers where answers have been refused initially.
Think "Oh no, it's that Anthony Bennett guy, the one who harasses the poor innocent McCanns? I will file that right in the bin"
REPLY: The answers, or refusals to answer, are usually delivered by an authority's FoI officer(s), who in theory are supposed to be neutral, and to be fair will usually advise their colleagues when information may or may not be disclosed.
Do they have to answer you and do they have any powers in being selective in what information they do release?
REPLY: There are many good reasons for refusing to answer FoI questions, and quite a few of them are given in the other three threads I raised today - and of course they will also be found in the Freedom of Information Act 200 itself
I have since had this automated response, as I use the WhatDoTheyKnow website:
From: FOI Requests
Home Office
2 September 2014
Thank you for contacting the Home Office FOI Requests mailbox.
The Freedom of Information (FoI) Act 2000 provides public access to
recorded information held by the department.
If you have submitted a valid FoI request, we will acknowledge your
request within 24 hours, and aim to provide the information requested
within 20 working days as specified under the FoI Act.
____________________
Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"
Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".
Tony Bennett- Investigator
- Posts : 16926
Activity : 24792
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 77
Location : Shropshire
Re: A new Freedom of Information Act request to the Home Office about the selective leaking to the media of a confidential report byJim Gamble, former head of CEOP
by Tony Bennett 05.09.14 11:57
LATEST:
From: FOI Requests
Home Office
4 September 2014
Anthony Bennett
Thank you for contacting the Home Office with your request.
This has been assigned to a caseworker (ref 32799) who will respond to you.
We will aim to send you a full response by 30/09/2014 which is twenty working days from the date we received your request.
If you have any questions then please do not hesitate to contact us.
Thank you
FOI Requests
Home Office
From: FOI Requests
Home Office
4 September 2014
Anthony Bennett
Thank you for contacting the Home Office with your request.
This has been assigned to a caseworker (ref 32799) who will respond to you.
We will aim to send you a full response by 30/09/2014 which is twenty working days from the date we received your request.
If you have any questions then please do not hesitate to contact us.
Thank you
FOI Requests
Home Office
____________________
Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"
Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".
Tony Bennett- Investigator
- Posts : 16926
Activity : 24792
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 77
Location : Shropshire
Re: A new Freedom of Information Act request to the Home Office about the selective leaking to the media of a confidential report byJim Gamble, former head of CEOP
by Doug D 30.09.14 13:16
This request is about factual matters relating to a report prepared by Jim Gamble, former boss of CEOP, about the Madeleine McCann case
Anthony Bennett made this Freedom of Information request to Home Office
Currently waiting for a response from Home Office, they must respond promptly and normally no later than 30 September 2014 (details).
………………………………………….
Tony,
Home Office late on parade again?
Anthony Bennett made this Freedom of Information request to Home Office
Currently waiting for a response from Home Office, they must respond promptly and normally no later than 30 September 2014 (details).
………………………………………….
Tony,
Home Office late on parade again?
Doug D- Posts : 3719
Activity : 5286
Likes received : 1299
Join date : 2013-12-03
Re: A new Freedom of Information Act request to the Home Office about the selective leaking to the media of a confidential report byJim Gamble, former head of CEOP
by Tony Bennett 14.10.14 19:44
I have today received a response from the Home Office refusing my request in its entirety.
The reason given is Section 23 of the FoI Act and I've highlighted this and other relevant parts of the Home Office's reply.
On this occasion I have decided to exercise my right to a review and my letter today to the Home Office FoI Act Section askiong for a review is below.
To all reading this post, may I once again emphasise the truly extraordinary way that this one man - Jim Gamble - is and has been joined at the hip with the McCann Team, and has been since Week One when he asked holidaymakers who had been in Praia da Luz to send him their holiday photos. There is much more about this on this forum if you use the search facility under 'Gamble'.
Herewith:
a) the Home Office refusal letter and
b) my request for a review:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Annex A
Section 23 - exemption
23 Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters.
(1) Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it was directly or indirectly supplied to the public authority by, or relates to, any of the bodies specified in subsection (3).
(2) The bodies referred to in subsections (1) and (2) are—
(a) the Security Service,
(b) the Secret Intelligence Service,
(c) the Government Communications Headquarters,
(d) the special forces,
(e) the Tribunal established under section 65 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000,
(f) the Tribunal established under section 7 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985,
(g) the Tribunal established under section 5 of the Security Service Act 1989,
(h) the Tribunal established under section 9 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994,
(i) the Security Vetting Appeals Panel,
(j) the Security Commission,
(k) the National Criminal Intelligence Service,
(l) the Service Authority for the National Criminal Intelligence Service.
(m) the National Crime Agency (formerly Serious Organised Crime Agency).
REPLY FROM TONY BENNETT
Dear Home Office,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Home Office's handling of my FOI request 'This request is about factual matters relating to a report prepared by Jim Gamble, former boss of CEOP, about the Madeleine McCann case'.
The Madeleine McCann case is of exceptional national and even international interest. Concern is expressed by many about the response of various government agencies and British police forces to the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
Referring to my request for information, every single question I asked relates to matters already fully in the public domain.
Moreover, there has unquestionably been a 'leak' to the media of part of the contents of Mr Gamble's report. The question of how and for what purpose this leak occurred is manifestly a matter of public interest. You have conceded that this is a highly confidential report - and it follows therefore that its partial disclosure, presumably with the consent of the Home Secretary, is a matter of public concern.
I have carefully considered Section 23(1) and as a result withdraw my request for some of the information.
However, in the light of my comments above, I consider it reasonable for the Home Office to disclose information clearly held by the Home Office in answer to the following questions:
2. On what date was Jim Gamble first approached to carry out this [scoping] exercise?
3. On what date did Jim Gamble complete his report and/or submit it to the Home Secretary?
6. If the report is confidential, has the Home Office authorised partial release of its contents to the media?
7. If it has so authorised such release, (a) who authorised the release of this information and (b) on what date was it authorised?
8. If any release of its contents has not been authorised by the Home Office, (a) has the Home Office begun an enquiry into who leaked this information and (b), if so, on what date did the leak enquiry begin?
9. Specifically, did the Home Office authorise Jim Gamble to disclose some of his report's contents to the media; if so, who authorised this disclosure and on what date was such authority given?
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/this_request_is_about_factual_ma
Yours faithfully,
Anthony Bennett
The reason given is Section 23 of the FoI Act and I've highlighted this and other relevant parts of the Home Office's reply.
On this occasion I have decided to exercise my right to a review and my letter today to the Home Office FoI Act Section askiong for a review is below.
To all reading this post, may I once again emphasise the truly extraordinary way that this one man - Jim Gamble - is and has been joined at the hip with the McCann Team, and has been since Week One when he asked holidaymakers who had been in Praia da Luz to send him their holiday photos. There is much more about this on this forum if you use the search facility under 'Gamble'.
Herewith:
a) the Home Office refusal letter and
b) my request for a review:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
HOME OFFICE REFUSAL LETTER Mr A Bennett request-227967-6e6056c0@whatdotheyknow.com 14 October 2014 |
Dear Mr Bennett, Freedom of Information request reference: 32799 Thank you for your e-mail of 2 September concerning a Freedom of Information request related to a scoping report of 2010 by Jim Gamble, former head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) about the Madeleine McCann case. Your request has been handled as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. You asked for the following information: 1. What other persons or organisations or agencies were asked if they could carry out this scoping exercise, before Jim Gamble was approached? 2. On what date was Jim Gamble approached to carry out this exercise? 3. On what date did Jim Gamble complete his report and/or submit it to the Home Secretary? 4. Was any payment made to either CEOP or to Jim Gamble personally for carrying out this report; if so, what was the fee? 5. Is the report marked or treated as confidential? 6. If the report is confidential, has the Home Office authorised partial release of its contents to the media? 7. If it has so authorised such release, (a) who authorised the release of this information and (b) on what date was it authorised? 8. If any release of its contents has not been authorised by the Home Office, (a) has the Home Office begun an enquiry into who leaked this information and (b), if so, on what date did the leak enquiry begin? 9. Specifically, did the Home Office authorise Jim Gamble to disclose some of his report's contents to the media; if so, who authorised this disclosure and on what date was such authority given? In relation to your questions above, we are able to confirm that whilst a report is held by the Home Office, it is exempt from disclosure under Section 23 (1) of the Act. This states that information held by a public authority is exempt from disclosure if it was directly or indirectly supplied, or relates to, any of the bodies specified in Section 23(3). Section 23 is an absolute exemption and there is no requirement to consider the public interest. Further details of this exemption are set out in Annex A. The Home Office does not comment on any alleged leaks of official information, and we do not comment on specific leak enquiries or outcomes of any specific investigations. If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an independent internal review of our handling of your request by submitting a complaint within two months to the address below, quoting reference 32799. If you ask for an internal review, it would be helpful if you could say why you are dissatisfied with the response. Information Access Team Home Office Ground Floor, Seacole Building 2 Marsham Street LONDON SW1P 4DF e-mail: info.access@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk As part of any internal review the Department's handling of your information request will be reassessed by staff who were not involved in providing you with this response. If you remain dissatisfied after this internal review, you would have a right of complaint to the Information Commissioner as established by section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act. Yours sincerely, I. Barton Police Integrity and Powers Unit |
Section 23 - exemption
23 Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters.
(1) Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it was directly or indirectly supplied to the public authority by, or relates to, any of the bodies specified in subsection (3).
(2) The bodies referred to in subsections (1) and (2) are—
(a) the Security Service,
(b) the Secret Intelligence Service,
(c) the Government Communications Headquarters,
(d) the special forces,
(e) the Tribunal established under section 65 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000,
(f) the Tribunal established under section 7 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985,
(g) the Tribunal established under section 5 of the Security Service Act 1989,
(h) the Tribunal established under section 9 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994,
(i) the Security Vetting Appeals Panel,
(j) the Security Commission,
(k) the National Criminal Intelligence Service,
(l) the Service Authority for the National Criminal Intelligence Service.
(m) the National Crime Agency (formerly Serious Organised Crime Agency).
REPLY FROM TONY BENNETT
Dear Home Office,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Home Office's handling of my FOI request 'This request is about factual matters relating to a report prepared by Jim Gamble, former boss of CEOP, about the Madeleine McCann case'.
The Madeleine McCann case is of exceptional national and even international interest. Concern is expressed by many about the response of various government agencies and British police forces to the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
Referring to my request for information, every single question I asked relates to matters already fully in the public domain.
Moreover, there has unquestionably been a 'leak' to the media of part of the contents of Mr Gamble's report. The question of how and for what purpose this leak occurred is manifestly a matter of public interest. You have conceded that this is a highly confidential report - and it follows therefore that its partial disclosure, presumably with the consent of the Home Secretary, is a matter of public concern.
I have carefully considered Section 23(1) and as a result withdraw my request for some of the information.
However, in the light of my comments above, I consider it reasonable for the Home Office to disclose information clearly held by the Home Office in answer to the following questions:
2. On what date was Jim Gamble first approached to carry out this [scoping] exercise?
3. On what date did Jim Gamble complete his report and/or submit it to the Home Secretary?
6. If the report is confidential, has the Home Office authorised partial release of its contents to the media?
7. If it has so authorised such release, (a) who authorised the release of this information and (b) on what date was it authorised?
8. If any release of its contents has not been authorised by the Home Office, (a) has the Home Office begun an enquiry into who leaked this information and (b), if so, on what date did the leak enquiry begin?
9. Specifically, did the Home Office authorise Jim Gamble to disclose some of his report's contents to the media; if so, who authorised this disclosure and on what date was such authority given?
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/this_request_is_about_factual_ma
Yours faithfully,
Anthony Bennett
____________________
Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"
Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".
Tony Bennett- Investigator
- Posts : 16926
Activity : 24792
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 77
Location : Shropshire
Re: A new Freedom of Information Act request to the Home Office about the selective leaking to the media of a confidential report byJim Gamble, former head of CEOP
by Doug D 14.10.14 20:07
Well that’s a surprise! Even with a straight refusal they still can’t keep within the regulatory time frame.
Just a thought.
Probably too late in the day as your appeal has already gone off, but surely as the scoping report was carried out a couple of years before CEOP was swallowed up by the NCA, I cannot see that they should get away with the Section 23 exemption, although no doubt they could just come up with another excuse.
I may be wrong but can’t see CEOP sitting in any of the other categories listed in 2010.
Keep watching for a response to Mike Staples request for the cost of Redwoods summer holiday and search/dig.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/please_can_you_provide_the_follo#incoming-528891
This request was made on 12th June 2014 and has been regularly deferred, with a current ‘response due’ date of 31st October 2014.
They turned down your ‘helicopter’ visit request, so why they haven’t kicked this one into touch yet remains to be seen.
Just a thought.
Probably too late in the day as your appeal has already gone off, but surely as the scoping report was carried out a couple of years before CEOP was swallowed up by the NCA, I cannot see that they should get away with the Section 23 exemption, although no doubt they could just come up with another excuse.
I may be wrong but can’t see CEOP sitting in any of the other categories listed in 2010.
Keep watching for a response to Mike Staples request for the cost of Redwoods summer holiday and search/dig.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/please_can_you_provide_the_follo#incoming-528891
This request was made on 12th June 2014 and has been regularly deferred, with a current ‘response due’ date of 31st October 2014.
They turned down your ‘helicopter’ visit request, so why they haven’t kicked this one into touch yet remains to be seen.
Doug D- Posts : 3719
Activity : 5286
Likes received : 1299
Join date : 2013-12-03
Re: A new Freedom of Information Act request to the Home Office about the selective leaking to the media of a confidential report byJim Gamble, former head of CEOP
by Tony Bennett 14.10.14 20:21
Thank you very much - and that point had certainly not occurred to me.Doug D wrote:Just a thought.
Probably too late in the day as your appeal has already gone off, but surely as the scoping report was carried out a couple of years before CEOP was swallowed up by the NCA, I cannot see that they should get away with the Section 23 exemption, although no doubt they could just come up with another excuse.
I may be wrong but can’t see CEOP sitting in any of the other categories listed in 2010.
However, I think I shall not pursue it because, since as you say CEOP was 'swallowed up' by the National Crime Agency, and the report is therefore mow held by them, they would no doubt contend that it has now become secret (by virtue of the takeover), even if CEOP wasn't exempted under Section 23 before.
Moreover, I think you'll find that CEOP was actually exempted from the whole of the FoI Act 2000 (like ACPO).
____________________
Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"
Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".
Tony Bennett- Investigator
- Posts : 16926
Activity : 24792
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 77
Location : Shropshire
Re: A new Freedom of Information Act request to the Home Office about the selective leaking to the media of a confidential report byJim Gamble, former head of CEOP
by Liz Eagles 14.10.14 20:25
Here is a tweet from Jim Gamble made yesterday 13th October 2014
Jim Gamble @JimGamble_INEQE · Oct 13
The best political news I've seen in a long time. A man of the people for the people.
Jim Gamble @JimGamble_INEQE · Oct 13 The best political news I've seen in a long time. A man of the people for the people.
Liz Eagles- Posts : 11153
Activity : 13562
Likes received : 2218
Join date : 2011-09-03
Jim Gamble: 'Paedophiles don't need to be locked up'
by Tony Bennett 14.10.14 20:37
While we're collecting quotes from Jim Gamble, what about this infamous one (in red), strangely enough made less than 4 weeks after Madeleine McCann was reported misisng:
+++++++++++++++++++++++
The man leading Britain's battle against online paedophiles was yesterday accused of being soft on child pornography.
Jim Gamble, a former senior police officer, infuriated children's charities by suggesting some internet offenders should not go to jail.
Mr Gamble is chief executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre or CEOP, a body set up last year to make the web safer for children.
CEOP has helped catch offenders who prey on children online, trawling chatrooms and websites for youngsters to groom.
But Mr Gamble does not think jail is necessarily the best place for those paedophiles who have still to live out their deviant fantasies offline.
Yesterday he said: "We shouldn't be sending everyone that ever commits an offence - particularly of the viewing kind - to prison.
"If someone is at the beginning of the spiral of abuse, where there is evidence to indicate during the investigation that this person may well benefit from a police caution and be managed, then of course that needs to be done."
Michele Elliott, director of children's charity Kidscape, said: "To treat [paedophiles] in the community sends a message that what they have done is not very serious.
"I believe that if you download child pornography, you are just as guilty as the people who are taking the photographs. You create a market, because you want to view child pornography, therefore a child is abused for your pleasure. As far as I am concerned, that means prison. Obviously, that means different length prison sentences for different crimes, but as far as I'm concerned, there's a child victim out there, and justice demands that you go to prison for having been involved in the abuse of a child."
She added: "Offenders, while locked up, should receive mandatory treatment, but they should not be left in the community. Jim Gamble is effectively saying we've caught people doing something that's abhorrent, but we've got too many to deal with', but that's crazy."
+++++++++++++++++++++++
The man leading Britain's battle against online paedophiles was yesterday accused of being soft on child pornography.
Jim Gamble, a former senior police officer, infuriated children's charities by suggesting some internet offenders should not go to jail.
Mr Gamble is chief executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre or CEOP, a body set up last year to make the web safer for children.
CEOP has helped catch offenders who prey on children online, trawling chatrooms and websites for youngsters to groom.
But Mr Gamble does not think jail is necessarily the best place for those paedophiles who have still to live out their deviant fantasies offline.
Yesterday he said: "We shouldn't be sending everyone that ever commits an offence - particularly of the viewing kind - to prison.
"If someone is at the beginning of the spiral of abuse, where there is evidence to indicate during the investigation that this person may well benefit from a police caution and be managed, then of course that needs to be done."
Michele Elliott, director of children's charity Kidscape, said: "To treat [paedophiles] in the community sends a message that what they have done is not very serious.
"I believe that if you download child pornography, you are just as guilty as the people who are taking the photographs. You create a market, because you want to view child pornography, therefore a child is abused for your pleasure. As far as I am concerned, that means prison. Obviously, that means different length prison sentences for different crimes, but as far as I'm concerned, there's a child victim out there, and justice demands that you go to prison for having been involved in the abuse of a child."
She added: "Offenders, while locked up, should receive mandatory treatment, but they should not be left in the community. Jim Gamble is effectively saying we've caught people doing something that's abhorrent, but we've got too many to deal with', but that's crazy."
____________________
Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"
Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".
Tony Bennett- Investigator
- Posts : 16926
Activity : 24792
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 77
Location : Shropshire
Re: A new Freedom of Information Act request to the Home Office about the selective leaking to the media of a confidential report byJim Gamble, former head of CEOP
by Liz Eagles 14.10.14 20:45
Tweet from Jim Gamble 12th October 2014
Jim Gamble @JimGamble_INEQE · Oct 12
On route to Birmingham with the@ineqegroup schools team, for teacher training day & Safer Social Networking Activity #SSNAP Masterclasses
...........................................................................................................
So there's a school's team Jim - but not everyone who watches child porn should necessarily go to prison?
Get a grip.
ETA: I wonder how much inequegroup billed Birmingham schools for this 'masterclass'.
Jim Gamble @JimGamble_INEQE · Oct 12 On route to Birmingham with the
...........................................................................................................
So there's a school's team Jim - but not everyone who watches child porn should necessarily go to prison?
Get a grip.
ETA: I wonder how much inequegroup billed Birmingham schools for this 'masterclass'.
Liz Eagles- Posts : 11153
Activity : 13562
Likes received : 2218
Join date : 2011-09-03
Re: A new Freedom of Information Act request to the Home Office about the selective leaking to the media of a confidential report byJim Gamble, former head of CEOP
by Tony Bennett 17.10.14 13:25
Thank you aquila for, quite rightly, keeping us focussed on the strange Jim Gamble's role in this strange case full of strange people.
In the meantime, my request for a review of the refusals of information on this matter has brought forth this response today:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: FOI Requests
Home Office
17 October 2014
Dear Anthony Bennett,
Thank you for your email in which you ask for an Internal Review of our response to your Freedom of Information Request.
The internal Review has been assigned to the Case Owner who will respond to you accordingly, under FOI Ref 32799
We will aim to send you a full response by 11/11/2014, which is Twenty working days from the date we received your request.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us.
Thank you
FOI Requests
Home Office
In the meantime, my request for a review of the refusals of information on this matter has brought forth this response today:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: FOI Requests
Home Office
17 October 2014
Dear Anthony Bennett,
Thank you for your email in which you ask for an Internal Review of our response to your Freedom of Information Request.
The internal Review has been assigned to the Case Owner who will respond to you accordingly, under FOI Ref 32799
We will aim to send you a full response by 11/11/2014, which is Twenty working days from the date we received your request.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us.
Thank you
FOI Requests
Home Office
____________________
Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"
Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".
Tony Bennett- Investigator
- Posts : 16926
Activity : 24792
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 77
Location : Shropshire
Similar topics» Madeleine Foundation Freedom of Information letter 3.5.10 to Jim Gamble, CEOP
» Home Office replies to a Freedom of Information Act request about the 'Letter to Portugal'
» Home Office replies to a Freedom of Information Act request about the 'Letter to Portugal'
» Freedom of Information Act request to the Home Office about a review or re-investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann
» Freedom of Information Act request to the Home Office about a review or re-investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann
» Home Office replies to a Freedom of Information Act request about the 'Letter to Portugal'
» Home Office replies to a Freedom of Information Act request about the 'Letter to Portugal'
» Freedom of Information Act request to the Home Office about a review or re-investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann
» Freedom of Information Act request to the Home Office about a review or re-investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: FOI's & Petitions :: FOI Requests into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
