New FOI Act questions re CEOP and the Home Office

by **Tony Bennett** 13.07.10 10:15

Dear Home Office Freedom of Information Section

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000

]copied to Ian Lister for information]

Please answer the following questions under FOI Act:

1. On 19 January 2010, the Daily Telegraph
[ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/active/7028314/Agency-to-find-missing-children-with-Twitter.html ]

quoted the Chief Executive of CEOP, Mr Jim Gamble, as follows:

CEOP’s first responsibilities for missing children would begin “almost immediately” and then gradually evolve, Mr Gamble said, but the name of the agency was unlikely to change because it had built up good public recognition.
Although CEOP would be seeking some extra cash from the Government due to its new responsibilities he said there were also economies of scale associated with bringing missing children inquiries into the agency’s existing responsibilities, he added.

Last week Mr Gamble was quoted in a media release marking 10 years since the abducton and murder of Sara Payne as saying: "We are now also to take responsibility for missing children".

In relation to these 'new reposnsibilities' for missing children' please supply the following information:

a) what legal responsibilties was CEOP given at its inception; please refer to me to any document where these are clearly set out

b) what additional legal responsibilties has it been given since its inception, including any responsibilities for missing children?

c) please state on what dates CEOP was given additional responsibilties for missing children and, on each occasion, what those additional responsibilities were

d) who decides what additional responsibilies are allocated to CEOP? Is there a decision by Parliament on each such occasion? Or does the Home Office Minister decide?

e) please set out precisely what legal powers and responsibilities CEOP currently has in relation to missing children on the date of asking these questions.

2. On 3 May 2010, I asked eight questions of CEOP, in a letter to mr Gamble, in line with their previous statements that, although not obliged to answer FOI Act questions, they would be as open and transparent as possible about their work.

No reply has yet been received to that letter.

Of these eight questions, the Home Office is in a position to answer the following:

1. What legal powers are available to CEOP and its staff?

2. Under what powers can CEOP insist or encourage children, young people and their parents to report alleged crimes to CEOP rather than to their local police force?

3. What action does CEOP take if they have reasonable grounds for believing that an offence against children has been or is being committed; do they investigate and if necessary charge the offender themselves, or do they refer cases to the local police service, or does it depend on the circumstances? If so, what are the criteria for deciding whether a case is investigated by the police or by CEOP?

4. How many staff does CEOP employ?

5. What was the annual cost of CEOP for the last year for which figures are available?

Please kindly answer those five questions.

Yours sincerely
Anthony Bennett
66 Chippingfield
HARLOW
CM17 0DJ
01279 635789

The e-mail addresses again if anyone ever gets the inclination to ask the Home Office FOI section any questions:

info.access@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk,
FOIResponses@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk,
public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

by **Tony Bennett** 13.07.10 10:23

E-mail sent to CEOP this morning:

To enquiries@ceop.gov.uk

From: ANTHONY BENNETT
Subject: Tony Bennett (Madeleine Foundation) letter to Mr Gamble, CEOP, 3 May 2010
To: enquiries@ceop.gov.uk, press@ceop.gov.uk
Date: Tuesday, 13 July, 2010, 9:55

Attn, Sophie, Support & Development, CEOP

Thank you for having a word with me this morning.

As promised, I attach the letter I sent to Mr Gamble on 3 May.

Mr Gamble has made public pronouncements that he wants CEOP to be as open and transparent as possible.

I have since learnt that CEOP is apparently exempt from the Freesom of Information Act; however I cannot see that answering any of my eight questions in my letter would in any way inhibit CEOP's work. It is a matter of comon courtesy for a publicly-funded body to reply to a letter and answer reasonable questions put to it.

My letter also of course raised very important questions about the close nexus between Mr Gamble, CEOP and the McCanns.

Thank you for agreeing to telephone me back later today when you have found out why I have had no answer yet to my letter.

Yours sincerely

Tony Bennett

by Rainbow 13.07.10 11:30

Mr Lister will be sticking his head in the nearest paper shredder on receipt of these new requests New FOI Act questions re CEOP and the Home Office Lol

New FOI Act questions re CEOP and the Home Office Lol

by **Tony Bennett** 13.07.10 19:01

Well, I've had a quick response from Sophie at CEOP tonight.

At 5.58pm she 'phoned and this was the gist of the message:

* We do now remember your letter coming in.

* I passed it to a colleague to deal with, and s/he didn't. I own up, it's my fault, I should have chased up my colleague but I didn't. That colleague is a colleague of mine in the CEOP 'Support and Development' section.

* We anticipate replying to your letter in the 'next few days'.

She was perfectly polite and correct - and did say sorry for the delay.

by Guest 13.07.10 19:19

Good to see you have got at least a response admitting your letter has been received Tony. CEOP want the public to help in the fight against internet crime yet are less forthcoming when someone contacts them for information - usually they dont give any response imo. They need to be more accountable.

by ufercoffy 13.07.10 19:24

Rainbow wrote:Mr Lister will be sticking his head in the nearest paper shredder on receipt of these new requests

Good Lord, I do hope not! He's got questions to answer first.

by pennylane 13.07.10 19:39

Tony Bennett wrote:Well, I've had a quick response from Sophie at CEOP tonight.

At 5.58pm she 'phoned and this was the gist of the message:

* We do now remember your letter coming in.

* I passed it to a colleague to deal with, and s/he didn't. I own up, it's my fault, I should have chased up my colleague but I didn't. That colleague is a colleague of mine in the CEOP 'Support and Development' section.

* We anticipate replying to your letter in the 'next few days'.

She was perfectly polite and correct - and did say sorry for the delay.

Thought your e-mail this morning to CEOP was really excellent and to the point.

Thank you for posting Sophie's response.

Now that's one I really didn't anticipate for some reason!

by Judge Mental 13.07.10 21:39

ufercoffy wrote:
Rainbow wrote:Mr Lister will be sticking his head in the nearest paper shredder on receipt of these new requests

Good Lord, I do hope not! He's got questions to answer first.

uffercoffy

@ Rainbow
Why does one think Lister would try to avoid Tony Bennett's perfectly reasonable requests by putting his head in a shredder? Do you think his department has already run out of delaying tactics?

by **Tony Bennett** 13.07.10 21:48

pennylane wrote:Thought your e-mail this morning to CEOP was to the point.

You mean: unlike the wordy waffle from him I usually have to wade through...

by pennylane 14.07.10 8:50

Tony Bennett wrote:
pennylane wrote:Thought your e-mail this morning to CEOP was to the point.
You mean: unlike the wordy waffle from him I usually have to wade through...

Not at all Tony! New FOI Act questions re CEOP and the Home Office 110921

it's just that I have woefully inadequate information-retaining skills! New FOI Act questions re CEOP and the Home Office 234628

by **tigger** 03.05.14 21:22

I'm copying this here from the Facts and Fiction topic as I want to be able to find it again and in this topic I see to my surprise that CEOP is exempt from the FOI act.
Right. winkwink

An email between Portimão and Lisbon of 9 May 2007 was the subject of a Freedom of Information (FOI) request asking for Ambassador Buck's communications related to the McCanns.

This email (or a portion of it) was withheld based on "Personal Information" exemption: Section 40 (2) and (3) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
------------------------------------------------
Further information emerged regarding the 2 additional experts Buck had announced on Tuesday May 8th.

Ambassador Buck said they were "kidnapping experts" and had joined the 3 other British investigators who had been in Portugal since Saturday 5th.

"... two 'Cracker-style' criminal behaviour experts from Britain flew into the Algarve yesterday to join investigators..."

They were from CEOP and their dispatch had been organised by the British Foreign Office.

"A spokeswoman for the CEOP said the move was unprecedented and had been organised by the Foreign Office."

by Cristobell 03.05.14 23:35

I see Jim Gamble resigned just a few months after Tony's letters.

I think CEOP's interest in Madeleine was as a poster girl. Angelic child, lots of evil people out there trying to steal our kids, please give generously.