http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/advice_to_the_internet_watch_fou
They just responded, rejecting my request under s17(4):
In accordance with the Act, this letter represents a Refusal Notice for
this particular request under Section 17(4).
Section 17(4) of the Act provides:
(4) A public authority is not obliged to make a statement under subsection
(1)(c) or (3) if, or to the extent that, the statement would involve the
disclosure of information which would itself be exempt information.
The Metropolitan Police Service can neither confirm nor deny that it holds
the information you requested as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following
exemption:
S30(3) Investigations
The MPS will not disclose whether it has carried out an investigation, or
whether an investigation is taking place, unless that information has
already been placed in the public domain, through channels such as the
media or the court process. Nor will we confirm whether or not
correspondence has been received by a force from a third party.
Any disclosure under Freedom of Information is a release of information to
the world in general and not an individual applicant. Therefore, simply
confirming or not that such information were held would reveal which force
has and hasn't had contact with the IWF.
I don't suppose anyone has any evidence that the IWF definitely contacted a
specific police force, do they? :o)
--
Owen Blacker, London GB
Say no to ID cards: www.no2id.net
Get your mits off my bits: www.openrightsgroup.org
Help us crowdsourcing video: www.theyworkforyou.com/video
--
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
