Ben Goldacre
Saturday November 11, 2006
The Guardian
I don’t know if you’ve ever tried using the Freedom of Information Act: it’s an excellent trouble making tool, and you do feel quite James Bond, but the act has its flaws. One being that if you ask for too much, as one lone, obsessive, disproportionately pedantic science columnist, they turn you down on grounds of cost. Quite spuriously and unfairly, to my mind. So now I’m offering a kind of skills swap: I’ll teach you all how to do an FoI request (it’s easy) if you help me get a bunch of data.
Contain your boredom and exhaustion, because it’s the Durham fish oil pill people again, but think of this more as an experiment in what happens when you just won’t let go. You’ll remember that this story bore the cardinal hallmark of quackery: they claimed they had proven that expensive Equazen fish oil pills improved school performance in various trials, and were eager to sing about this in the media, but when I approached to ask about the science, with a loaded postgraduate medical qualification in my back pocket, they shut up shop and fled. Dr Madeleine Portwood, eager to appear on Channel 4 promoting her “trials” and bamboozling non-science journalists, did not return my calls, or my emails, and the press office – bless them – weren’t much help. The durhamtrial.org “results” website is a superficially plausible but ultimately uninformative sham.
So I made an FoI request to get the data, and they refused to give me anything. The refusal, I ought to say, took them the full statutory 4 weeks (nice!). And why are they turning me down? “It is estimated that it would take 30 hours to fully respond to this second request, which would cost £750 when calculated using the statutory rate of £25 per hour.”
This is a joke: all I asked for, essentially, was the basic information you’d find in any write up of any scientific experiment: the trial methods in sufficient detail to decide if they were a “fair test” of the treatment, and the results in full. Oh, and a few leaflets. You can witness the full, formal anality of my FoI request online: I just used the CONSORT guidelines as a template, since they’re the gold standard for writing up any trial. If Durham and Dr Portwood really are in a position to bang on about their positive results, they should have this information at the tips of their fingers.
But no. And not only did they turn me down, they also – rather censoriously to my mind – pointed out that any cleverdick “multiple small applications” shenanigans from me would be totted up and rejected. And this is why, gentle reader, I need your help.
Some of it was bland stuff: copies of blank consent forms, leaflets for parents, the eligibility criteria for participants, the trial locations, that stuff. Some of it is more nerdy. “Nullius In Verba”, as it says on the Royal Society’s headed notepaper: “on the word of no-one”. That’s what science is about. It’s not that I think they’re lying, it’s that the devil is in the detail. Science isn’t about telling a journalist you’ve proved something in your brilliant trials, and then seeing your name in the paper, it’s about methods and results.
Did they deviate from the protocol during the studies, I asked, for example, and if so, why? How were the studies blinded? Bread and butter stuff. Were there any analyses they did, but which weren’t reported because they were, well, negative? As we all know, the more different analyses you do on your data – it’s called “data dredging” in the trade – the more likely you are to stumble on a positive result, simply by chance. Likewise, I wanted the protocols for studies that are not yet completed, because it’s always a nice idea to know the protocol before people start their study, otherwise they might change it halfway through, which can stop the trial from being a fair test.
This is bog standard science. That’s the information I wanted. It’s what I still want, and I intend to get it, even if I have to break in to Durham Town Hall and take hostages. Before we get that far, I need your help, and there are full instructions for your FoI requests below. Durham Council, Madeleine Portwood, et al, just so that you know: I very simply will not let this lie.
How To Make Your Freedom Of Information Act Request:
The FoI Act is an excellent way to observe whether public figures and bodies are behaving in a generally appropriate and open fashion. The mechanics of making a request are unspectacular. Most public bodies will accept an informal email. Peter Dinsdale is the Freedom of Information / Data Protection Coordinator at Durham Council, and he has said to me in the past that he would accept FoI requests by email. His email address peter.dinsdale@durham.gov.uk and he is very nice and helpful. Put “Freedom of Information Request” in the subject line. If they change their mind and insist on you using their tedious FoI form then you can find that here: they have 20 working days to reply to your request (or not), and if you're feeling ubergeeky you can read more about FoI here.
The trick with requests is to be very specific about the information you require. I lifted the list of what I wanted, essentially, from the CONSORT guidelines: they are an internationally respected set of standards for the information that should be presented for a clinical trial, and they represent the basic things you would need to know about a study to assess its quality and results. There is more on the CONSORT project and its history here, and the CONSORT checklist is here.
Pasted below is a copy of the request I sent to Peter Dinsdale which was rejected, on the grounds that it was asking for too much. I suggest that each person requests just 2 or 3 sections each, going through them in order to avoid confusion, and then posts what they requested, and ideally the full email request they sent, in the comments below, so everyone can see how far we've got and what is left to be requested. Remember, for each request, to say that you want the information for each and every one of the many different trials or studies into omega-3 fish oils that have been performed in children by Durham employees in the past 5 years. God knows how many there really are.
Good luck, have fun, and don’t forget to post the replies you get from Durham in the coming weeks. Don't worry about doubling up with what other people have requested, it's better to be belt and braces. And naturally if you prefer you can also just email me your requests and responses without posting them below. Thanks again and good luck!
Dear Mr Dinsdale
many thanks for your assistance with my FoI request, which I made two weeks ago.
As I have unexpectedly encountered difficulty exploring the details of the trials and studies performed by Durham I would like to make a further FoI request.
As you may be aware, Durham Council's representatives (primarily Madeleine Portwood but also Dave Ford and the press office) have been reporting to the media since 2002 that they have performed numerous studies on the efficacy on omega-3 fatty acids on various outcomes in children and adults.
To the best of my knowledge these have been performed in pre-school children, primary school children, and secondary school children in Durham, students in Durham and Edinburgh, schools in Middlesborough, schools in Sunderland, and possibly elsewhere. As per my previous FoI request I would be grateful for a comprehensive list of studies both completed and ongoing, regardless of whether they had positive or negative results, including studies that were not completed.
For each of these studies I would like details of who was involved, what intervention was given, what was measured, what the results were, etc, further details are below. The positive results of these studies have been discussed extensively in the public domain and the media by Durham staff (going back several years) but I have been unable to obtain details that would enable me to assess these claims. Generally when researchers go to the media to promote positive results of completed studies, since the studies have been completed, and the researchers have been able to appraise the results, they are willing and able to explain the technical aspects of those studies.
The specific details of what I need to know – which are the bare minimum any scientist would expect in order to appraise a study – are as follows below. I would be grateful if you could give me this for each of the studies separately.
I'd be grateful if you could also confirm receipt of this email.
Many thanks,
Dr Ben Goldacre
119 Farringdon Road
London
EC1R 3ER
Fax: 020 7117 3593
For studies that have been performed and discussed:
METHODS
Participants
Eligibility criteria for participants and the settings and locations where the data were collected.
Interventions
Precise details of the interventions for each group and how and when they were actually administered.
Objectives
Specific objectives and hypotheses.
Outcomes
Clearly defined primary and secondary outcome measures and, when applicable, any methods used to enhance the quality of measurements (e.g., multiple observations, training of assessors).
Sample size
What the sample size was, how sample size was determined and, when applicable, explanation of any interim analyses and stopping rules.
Randomization
Were the participants randomly allocated to different treatments? Method used to generate the random allocation sequence, including details of any restrictions (e.g., blocking, stratification)
Method used to implement the random allocation sequence (e.g., numbered containers or central telephone), clarifying whether the sequence was concealed until interventions were assigned.
Who generated the allocation sequence, who enrolled participants, and who assigned participants to their groups.
Blinding (masking)
Whether or not participants, those administering the interventions, and those assessing the outcomes were blinded to group assignment.
How the success of blinding was evaluated.
Statistical methods
Statistical methods used to compare groups for primary outcome(s); Methods for additional analyses, such as subgroup analyses and adjusted analyses.
RESULTS
Participant flow
Flow of participants through each stage: specifically, for each group what were the numbers of participants randomly assigned, receiving the intended treatment, completing the study protocol, and analyzed for the primary outcome.
Describe protocol deviations from study as planned, together with reasons.
Recruitment
Dates defining the periods of recruitment and follow-up.
Baseline data
Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of each group. Numbers analyzed
Number of participants (denominator) in each group included in each analysis and whether the analysis was by "intention-to-treat". Could you please state the results in absolute numbers when feasible (e.g., 10/20, not 50%).
Outcomes and estimation
For each primary and secondary outcome, a summary of results for each group, and the estimated effect size and its precision (e.g., including a 95% confidence interval).
Ancillary analyses
Address multiplicity by reporting any other analyses performed, including subgroup analyses and adjusted analyses, indicating which of those were pre-specified and which were exploratory.
Adverse events
All important adverse events or side effects in each intervention group.
Interpretation
Interpretation of the results, taking into account study hypotheses, sources of potential bias or imprecision and the dangers associated with multiplicity of analyses and outcomes.
Generalizability (external validity) of the trial findings.
General interpretation of the results in the context of current evidence.
For studies not yet completed
I would be grateful if you could let me know the protocol for studies that are in progress or not yet completed.
Material relating to each study
I would be grateful if you could give me, for each study, the participant information leaflet, any material given to parents/teachers regarding their participation in the study, and any paperwork relating to how consent to participate was obtained, eg blank consent forms.
And if that all sounds like too much effort…
… then I'll also be appealing their rejection, and pursuing other avenues behind the scenes, so do drop an email to peter.dinsdale@durham.gov.uk and let him know that you support this attempt to obtain adequate supporting scientific information for scientific claims made directly to the media. Copy me in if you like, ben@badscience.net. This circular time consuming farce and secondary formal communication is quite absurd.
It really would have been much easier if the "lead researcher" Dr Madeleine Portwood – to whom you are directed with all technical questions – had simply been polite enough to even return a phone call or email. Meanwhile we got this kind of rather unpleasant activity from someone saying they were not related to Madeleine Portwood. Absolutely, stunningly bizarre. I hate this kind of thing really. Oh well. And did you ever think, if fish oil is so important, how come vegetarians aren't stupid?
Dr Reid said,
November 16, 2006 at 12:49 pm
JHQ.
Quite.
All I am suggesting is that we should perhaps refrain from choosing forms of words which suggest that we might also be guilty of making a priori conclusions.
L.
Noah Quiescence said,
November 16, 2006 at 2:10 pm
jdc325 – I do not mind your poking your nose in: in fact, as somebody who is affected very closely by this whole circus, I consider this thread to be an invaluable instrument of reason and sanity, and everybody contributing to as an ally.
Re: omega-3 in ordinary oily fish and children with ADHD (or indeed omega-3 in ordinary oily fish and ANYBODY ELSE). Although I grew up on an Italian island in the Med and was therefore put under daily pressure to consume oily fish, I decided early on in my life to be an awkward, obstomate. eminently-smackable (as was the custom in those days) brat and constistently refused to eat anything remotely healthy looking.
Although I realise that my experience is only anectodal, in my academic life
I have only ever known As, First Class, Distinctions, Magna Cum Laude etc. (and all this without putting much effort in it either), and not a sardine in sight.
I think that the current levels of (dis)information have reached irrational proportions, and I have had it up to here with people making a living/feeling worthy/considering themselves children’s saviours and/or perfect parents on the basis of scientifically illegitimate claims.
Whilst I know that the people in the pharmaceutical industry are fulfilling their private business agenda through GPs, Paediatricians etc, in their case I am able to make more or less independent checks on their research (including input from the very interesting www.worstpills.com), in the knowledge that they will have had to comply with minimum requirements.
The case is very different where alternatives – the chief one being fish oils, and that’s official – are concerned. Of course I would very much love to tell people to mind their own business. Unfortunately, do you seriously think that it is still possible to question the efficacy of fish oils supplements in most schools/parent groups etc. without your children being universally pitied for having such obtuse, ignorant, out-of-touch parents? I do have to think of the possibility of my son being singled out and teased for having a mad mother.
Enough of this rant.
Do we adjourn co-ordinating our response to Peter Dinsdale to the 8th December then?
Noah Quiescence said,
November 16, 2006 at 2:14 pm
oops, “obstinate” of course
glutam9 said,
November 16, 2006 at 6:16 pm
I go away for a holiday and look what kicks off! Great stuff. I read the article and all sort of miscievous ideas sprung to mind, most have been covered in the huge number of responses.
I have a bit of FOI experience from the recieving end. Mr Dinsdale, if he is anything like the equivalent in my organisation, should be considered the “good guy” from “our” perspective. Its definatley worth taking the “duty to assist” route to try to get the request answered under the cost threshold.
Indentifying documents seems like an excelent idea, surely some kind of report was submitted to the cabinet/council to approve the trialiniatiave. I might put in for that one.
I would suggest writting to councilors and the local press, just to keep the presure on.
My other suggestion, appologies if anyone has come up with it is to try to get the Advertising Standards Agency in on it. If they have had made claims on anything which could be counted as an advertisement, I think there is a fairly broad definition which likely includes any promotional material. The ASA have ruled several times recently on unsubstantiated claims so could be worth a try. All depends on it being in a form on which they can rule on.. Perhaps there aren’t any and that why the choose to (mis)use the media reporting.
In for £10 of course.
skjg said,
November 16, 2006 at 6:19 pm
I got the identical resonse to my e-mail, so I won’t post their reply again.
I wait with interest to see what happens, December 8th sounds about right.
Does anyone know if Durham has an automatic system to reply to these e-mails with a polite letter, or has someone actually read the original?
TimW said,
November 16, 2006 at 7:07 pm
Probably poor Mr Dinsdale has set up an autoreply so that every e-mail he receives gets sent the reply “This is to confirm receipt of your request for information on omega-3 fish oil studies involving Durham County Council.”
glutam9 said,
November 16, 2006 at 8:28 pm
Its normal to send some kind of holding reply while the request is considered.
Has the refusal to relase the information been posted anywhere?
r0bb1e said,
November 16, 2006 at 9:42 pm
One option is simply not to take ‘no’ as an answer. They should have advised you of your right to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (if they didn’t that in itself is grounds for a complaint to ICO), so step 1, go through Durham Council’s complaints procedure (ICO expects that as a first recourse), then assuming they still turn you down, step 2, complain to the ICO (it’s free, and fairly simple – instructions of how to do it on the ICO website), Durham Council will then have to justify their refusal to the IC’s satisfaction. If you can persuade him it’s in the public interest hat it should be disclosed he can make a formal “decision” requiring them to publish
Teek said,
November 17, 2006 at 9:21 am
apologies for the late arrival to this e-mail malarkey, just got round to it – here goes:
Dear Mr. Dinsdale,
Following the recent media coverage of the use of omega-3 supplements in schools across Durham, I am writing to make a formal request for further details on these alleged studies under the Freedom of Information act.
Specifically, I am interested in how well, if at all, the subjects in these studies were blinded, assigned treatment groups and assessed with regards to outcome measures. All of these criteria are integral to a well-conducted scientific study, and it is of vital importance that the company concerned (Equazen) share their methods and findings with the general public so that we may make informed choices when they promote the use of their product in school children.
Below are the specific points I would like addressing as part of my FOI request.
Baseline data
Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of each group. Numbers analyzed
Number of participants (denominator) in each group included in each analysis and whether the analysis was by “intention-to-treat”. Could you please state the results in absolute numbers when feasible (e.g., 10/20, not 50%).
Blinding (masking)
Whether or not participants, those administering the interventions, and those assessing the outcomes were blinded to group assignment.
How the success of blinding was evaluated.
Randomization
Were the participants randomly allocated to different treatments? Method used to generate the random allocation sequence, including details of any restrictions (e.g., blocking, stratification)
Method used to implement the random allocation sequence (e.g., numbered containers or central telephone), clarifying whether the sequence was concealed until interventions were assigned.
Who generated the allocation sequence, who enrolled participants, and who assigned participants to their groups.
Statistical methods
Statistical methods used to compare groups for primary outcome(s); Methods for additional analyses, such as subgroup analyses and adjusted analyses.
I appreciate your help in this matter, and request that you acknowledge receipt of this message.
In anticipation of a prompt response,
Best regards,
Big_Les said,
November 17, 2006 at 10:19 am
AFAIK, you aren’t allowed to send a holding reply as such in response to an FOI enquiry, and it certainly doesn’t “stop the clock” as far as FOI is concerned.
johnlil said,
November 17, 2006 at 10:39 am
…added my 5 penn’orth…
Dear Mr Dinsdale,
I participated as a ‘guinea pig’ in a fish-oil study at Southampton University and consequently I am interested in the evidence supporting the claims regarding the use of omega-3 fatty acids. I have been following the analysis by Dr Goldacre of your studies and am very disappointed you have not seen fit to respond with the information he is asking for. You may think this is one troublesome journalist nit-picking about details, but I assure you it is far more important than that. The very structure of scientific method depends on publishing all of the observations regarding one’s hypothesis for public scrutiny and informed debate on their implications. Much of the confusion about foods and medicines in the public’s mind today is generated by unsubstantiated claims, often by unscrupulous individuals seeking their own ends. I am sure you would welcome the opportunity to show that the Durham studies do not fall into this category.
As you are no doubt aware, Equazen use your study as a marketing reference on their website and hence you are, in effect supporting a commercial company’s marketing efforts and hence it is vitally important to demonstrate publicly that the findings are valid. Let me point out that at this stage, I am not doubting the claims made by Durham CC or Equazen, but I do need to see the evidence, either directly or analysed by a trusted third party such as Dr Goldacre.
If you are worried about the cost-effectiveness in time needed to respond to one FoI request, I am adding my voice in making a formal request to help you justify the effort.
Accordingly, under the Freedom of Information Act, I am asking you for documents concerning the Durham studies which reference the following:-
– Interpretation of the results, taking into account study hypotheses, sources of potential bias or imprecision and the dangers associated with multiplicity of analyses and outcomes.
– Generalizability (external validity) of the trial findings.
– General interpretation of the results in the context of current evidence.
To underline the formality of this request, I am also sending you a letter restating the request.
Please acknowledge receipt of this email.
John Lillywhite
stever said,
November 17, 2006 at 1:44 pm
1. Lets be careful not to have a go at Dinsdale here. He’s simply the person that fields the Foi requests and has nothing atall to do wih the trial, Portwood, Equizen, or the Government. Im sure he’d be more than happy to pass on any information that he had – if it had been forthcoming. I’ve also no doubt that given all the requests, he will be doing his best to chase up the relevant info and will be energetically reviewing the situation given the volume of very well arguied and reasonable requests flooding in.
2. A holding reply is totally standard procedure – especially bearing in mind that people had specifically asked for a confirmation of reciept. You can only complain if the time period for a full reply elapses, so dont be worrying about that yet. He will no doubt be reading this thread, and we need to see him as an ally in these attempts to clarify the durham research – he certainly isnt the problem, so reserve your ire for those unwilling to release there research info, and dont shoot the messenger.
Ben Goldacre said,
November 17, 2006 at 3:14 pm
i agree, peter dinsdale, the FoI coordinator is very helpful. couple of mentions for this project elsewhere,
press gazette:
www.pressgazette.co.uk/blog/2006/11/11/networked-journalism-distributed-foi-requests/
and the bbc’s “pods and blogs” show, in the coveted radio5 2am slot:
www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/shows/rpms/fivelive/podsandblogs.ram
it’s 32 minutes in, i say “erm” and “sort of” a lot, because even the pre-rec was after my bedtime and i’d been up since 7am. and because it is very very weird doing an interview over skype in an echoey kitchen. i express my gratitude to you lot, otherwise nothing new to what’s here really.
Fyse said,
November 17, 2006 at 4:29 pm
No formal request, but have added my support to the cause…
Dear Mr Dinsdale,
I am writing with regards to the FoI request placed by Dr Ben Goldacre for details of the Fish Oil trials conducted in schools in your area. I am not at this stage making a formal request of my own, but wish to register my support for the claims already made. I realise the lack of positive response is likely not your fault, but wish to register my views so they can be added to the voices already present and passed along to the relevant person. The issue of transparency in science is very important to me and I am willing to make my own formal requests if this will help to speed things along.
Thank you for your time,
—- —–
chloella said,
November 18, 2006 at 12:37 pm
Re: Post 154 and the ASA.
Equizen are indeed advertising as being scientifically proven to improve behaviour – I picked up a flyer in Boots on the subject. In fact it claims that the Durham scools trial has already proved it useful.
I put it away meaning to get in touch with you guys but promptly lost it again – been a bit busy lately. I’m going to try and get hold of another one as I think the ASA might be another route to try.
BTW, are fish oils really safe? Because I thought oily fish weren’t any more, what with being full of mercury residues etc.
oneoffmanmental said,
November 18, 2006 at 10:44 pm
BTW, are fish oils really safe? Because I thought oily fish weren’t any more, what with being full of mercury residues etc.
Most aren’t no. Some fish oils are advertised as “pharmaceutical grade”, implying that they’ve been cleaned up as regards to contaminants. MorEPA, for example claim that 100 gallons of fish oil are used to create a single gallon of their concentrate.
What concerns me is the environmental impact. These companies are using deep sea arctic fishes for their lower contaminant levels, but yet many fish stocks have collapsed in these areas. We’re clearly doomed to be stupid after 2050 if the ecologists are correct…
Dr Aust said,
November 19, 2006 at 10:21 pm
As of now the “pledge to pay a tenner towards Durham’s photocopying costs” has reached £660 (66 people) – see:
www.pledgebank.com/fishoils
Strikes me as near enough to £ 750 that Durham’s comments about cost are out of the picture. Let’s see if they have any other objections, or whether FoI will win the day.
stever said,
November 20, 2006 at 11:21 am
and the remainder is less than bens fee for the column so I think weve made the target.
nice
DavidJ said,
November 21, 2006 at 9:49 am
I’ve just added my tenner. Just 3 to go.
Scooby said,
November 21, 2006 at 2:22 pm
I was wondering if there is any mileage in similar FOI requests to Middlesbrough Council?
According to a press release from Swinburne University in Australia
www.swin.edu.au/corporate/marketing/mediacentre/core/releases_article.php?releaseid=757
Dr Portwood, is Specialist Senior Educational Psychologist at the Durham Learning and Education Authority in the UK, and has conducted extensive research into the effect of fatty acids on children’s behaviour and learning. She is the lead researcher for two major UK studies in the field known as The Durham Trial and The Middlesbrough Trial.
Her research shows the potential of particular essential fatty acids in assisting children suffering with various learning disorders such as Dyslexia, Dyspraxia, Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD).
The Durham Trial showed dramatic results in school age sufferers of DCD. Within just three months of the six-month study, children who previously had difficulties in coordination, concentration, perception and reading, showed spelling, reading and behaviour gains over and above their chronological age. The group that were given a placebo showed no overall improvement.
“In some cases, we saw reading age gains of between 18 months and four years and attention gains of as much as 400 per cent,†Dr Portwood said.
The Equazen leaflets that Teek pointed out refer to both the Durham and Middlesbrough Trials without noting that it was the same lead researcher…
stever said,
November 21, 2006 at 4:16 pm
Im the 76th pledger – so theres a bit extra to buy the good mr dindale a frothing pint of ale or two in thanks for all his hard work.
Ben Goldacre said,
November 21, 2006 at 5:05 pm
hah! what a larf. i don’t think they’re able to take our money in return for the data but it’s very very very very very very funny indeed to be able to offer.
TimW said,
November 21, 2006 at 7:15 pm
Meanwhile it’s 10 days since the first follow-up FoIs went in. Does anybody think there’s a chance there will be anything forthcoming before the 8th December? Maybe we could start placing bets.
Or are you just a bunch of cynics who think the council will delay any response as long as legally possible?
Eric T Zipper said,
November 24, 2006 at 10:40 am
Hm! I have been watching this develop for a while. The interest in fatty acid research over the past few years has produced some good research but equally there does seem to be some stretching of conclusions. It may also be that some people from the science community are making money by lending their names and credentials to companies who are only interested in making a fast buck. So, I have joined up and sent off a nice email to Dinsdale. I just hope that he doesnt have a brother called Doug!
Tristan said,
November 28, 2006 at 4:14 pm
I’ve had a response. Not good news I’m afraid. I think we’ve been rumbled!
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 – REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
Your request for information on the fish oil trials / studies / initiatives at Durham has been considered.
It has become apparent that the recent influx of requests received by Durham County Council on this subject is as a result of an article by Ben Goldacre, published in The Guardian (11 November 2006) and on the website www.badscience.net. It is also apparent that these requests have been sent by different persons who are acting in concert or in pursuance of a campaign. We consider these requests to be vexatious, and they are therefore refused under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the FOI Actâ€Â).
Section 14(1) of the FOI Act states that:
“Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.â€Â
In his guidance note No. 22 on Vexatious and Repeated Requests, the Information Commissioner gives further detail as to what may constitute a vexatious request:
“Where a request, which may be the latest in a series of requests, would impose a significant burden and:
· Clearly does not have any serious purpose or value;
· Is designed to cause disruption or annoyance;
· Has the effect of harassing the public authority; or
· Can otherwise fairly be characterised as obsessive or manifestly unreasonable.â€Â
Between 11th and 26th November 2006, Durham County Council received 106 requests for information as a result of this campaign, along with 18 further emails of support for Ben Goldacre. In 2005 as a whole, Durham County Council only received 165 requests under the FOI Act. This clearly demonstrates that these requests have imposed a significant burden on the Council.
In determining that these requests are vexatious we also had regard to what appeared to be the purposes of these requests, which became evident from comments in the emails themselves and on the Bad Science website:
· As an attempt to circumvent the Fees Regulations, as Ben Goldacre’s second FOI request had been refused as the cost of complying exceeded the appropriate limit of £450. In his article in The Guardian he had suggested that readers might send in parts of his request under their name, as he believed that this might enable the information to be fully disclosed, albeit in small parts to several individuals;
· To pressure Durham County Council into disclosure of information in response to Ben Goldacre’s second FOI request, even though a legitimate refusal notice had been issued and, at the time, no appeal had been received against this refusal notice;
· As the campaign appears to be solely concerned with pressuring the Council into providing information to Ben Goldacre, it is apparent that the requests have been sent in as a form of protest against the decision to refuse Ben Goldacre’s second FOI request. They are designed to cause disruption or annoyance and they have had the effect of harassing the public authority.
It is for these reasons, taking into account the effect of the requests in imposing a significant burden on the Council and the apparent purposes of the requests, that we consider your request to be vexatious. This is therefore a refusal notice under section 17 of the FOI Act.
While we are refusing your request for information under the FOI Act, we do recognise that there is an interest in the disclosure of information relating to these studies. Attached is a document that outlines published scientific studies into dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids. This information was provided to Ben Goldacre on 16 October 2006 in full response to the first of his two requests for information under the FOI Act. This clearly sets out all of the studies that have been undertaken by Durham County Council. You will note from the details that there have been three randomised controlled trials and other open label studies carried out using fatty acid supplements by staff employed by Durham County Council.
The Oxford-Durham Trial – Dr AJ Richardson (a Research Fellow at Mansfield College, Oxford University) published the preliminary results: – Clinical trials of fatty acid supplementation in dyslexia and Dyspraxia: in Glen AIM, Peet M, Horrobin DF. (eds.) Phospholipid Spectrum Disorder in Psychiatry and Neurology. Carnforth: Marius Press, October 2003: 491-500.
The first peer-reviewed results were published by Dr Richardson and Dr Paul Montgomery (Lecturer, Department of Social Policy and Social Work, Oxford University): – The Oxford-Durham study: a randomized, controlled trial of dietary supplementation with fatty acids in children with developmental coordination disorder. Pediatrics. 2005 May;115(5):1360-6
In accordance with scientific protocol, you should address any requests for further details on this study to the authors of the paper, at Mansfield College.
Sunderland – Dr Madeleine Portwood presented the first paper on 31st October 2006 at the World Autism Conference, Cape Town, hence the details of this study are now in the public domain. Please find attached a copy of the paper.
Middlesbrough – It is intended that details of this study will be submitted for publication next year. In common with accepted scientific practice, we will not release unpublished detailed information, as that would prejudice its ultimate publication in a peer-reviewed journal. We are, however, attaching a copy of the recruitment and trial protocol.
Greenfield / SureStart open label studies – The paper detailing the results of these two studies has now been published (Nutrition and Health, 2006, Vol. 18(3), pp233-247), hence the details of this study are now in the public domain.
Ethical approval was sought before any of the three randomly controlled trials were carried out: the protocol of the Oxford-Durham Study was approved by the Durham Local Research Ethics Committee; the protocols of two further trials completed last year were submitted to the University of Sunderland and Sunderland Primary Care Trust ethics committees, and the Middlesbrough Primary Care Trust research ethics committee respectively. The former was approved by those two committees, and the response of the second was that ‘as this trial was being implemented by the education authority it would not require their ethical approval and that the trial could simply proceed’.
The respective research ethics committees did not at any time instruct the investigators of these trials to make a clinical trial application to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), regarding the use of supposed ‘investigational medicinal products’ in human trials. Therefore as the researchers of the trials believed that they were using safe levels of nutritional supplements, the need for registration to trials databases was not deemed essential at the times that they commenced, as they are in the case of drug trials. In addition, the researchers believe that publications resulting from these trials will be considered for peer-review publication because the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ published policy (2004) states that only clinical trials starting patient enrolment on or after 1st July 2005 would not be considered. Each of the three trials started enrolment before this date and should therefore still be publishable without the existence of a EUDRACT code or equivalent.
In addition to these, Ben Goldacre was also supplied with the details of many other studies that are detailed in the attachment that outline the rationale for Durham’s support and involvement in research and initiatives relating to fatty acids and learning.
If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request please contact me at the address below, or by telephone (0191 370 8803) or e-mail (peter.dinsdale@durham.gov.uk) to appeal under the County Council’s Corporate Complaints Procedure.
After you have exhausted our internal appeals procedure you also have a right of appeal to the Information Commissioner at:
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Telephone: 01625 545 745
Fax: 01625 524 510
Email: enquiries@ico.gsi.gov.uk
Most of the documents that we provide in response to Freedom of Information Act requests will be subject to copyright protection. In most cases the copyright will be owned by Durham County Council. The copyright in other documents may be owned by another person or organisation, as indicated on the documents themselves.
You are free to use any documents supplied for your own use, including for non-commercial research purposes. The documents may also be used for the purposes of news reporting. However, any other type of re-use, for example, by publishing the documents or issuing copies to the public will require the permission of the copyright owner.
For documents where the copyright is owned by Durham County Council, please contact me for details of the conditions on re-use.
For documents where the copyright is owned by another person or organisation, you would need to apply to the copyright owner to obtain their permission.
Yours sincerely
Peter Dinsdale
Freedom of Information / Data Protection Coordinator
Durham County Council
Culture & Leisure
Rivergreen Centre
Aykley Heads
Durham
DH1 5TS
stonybonytony said,
November 28, 2006 at 4:23 pm
If anyone is still reading this…my request under the FOI has just been refused, as it is considered ´vexatious´ as being part of a group effort which is placing an unfair burden on the poor council. Apparently I am causing disruption or annoyance, and am harassing the public authority.
Tristan said,
November 28, 2006 at 4:38 pm
That’s exactly what my letter above said too. Booo to the council!
Noah Quiescence said,
November 28, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Fresh from Durham Council
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 – REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
Your request for information on the fish oil trials / studies / initiatives at Durham has been considered.
It has become apparent that the recent influx of requests received by Durham County Council on this subject is as a result of an article by Ben Goldacre, published in The Guardian (11 November 2006) and on the website www.badscience.net. It is also apparent that these requests have been sent by different persons who are acting in concert or in pursuance of a campaign. We consider these requests to be vexatious, and they are therefore refused under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the FOI Actâ€Â).
Section 14(1) of the FOI Act states that:
“Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.â€Â
In his guidance note No. 22 on Vexatious and Repeated Requests, the Information Commissioner gives further detail as to what may constitute a vexatious request:
“Where a request, which may be the latest in a series of requests, would impose a significant burden and:
· Clearly does not have any serious purpose or value;
· Is designed to cause disruption or annoyance;
· Has the effect of harassing the public authority; or
· Can otherwise fairly be characterised as obsessive or manifestly unreasonable.â€Â
Between 11th and 26th November 2006, Durham County Council received 106 requests for information as a result of this campaign, along with 18 further emails of support for Ben Goldacre. In 2005 as a whole, Durham County Council only received 165 requests under the FOI Act. This clearly demonstrates that these requests have imposed a significant burden on the Council.
In determining that these requests are vexatious we also had regard to what appeared to be the purposes of these requests, which became evident from comments in the emails themselves and on the Bad Science website:
· As an attempt to circumvent the Fees Regulations, as Ben Goldacre’s second FOI request had been refused as the cost of complying exceeded the appropriate limit of £450. In his article in The Guardian he had suggested that readers might send in parts of his request under their name, as he believed that this might enable the information to be fully disclosed, albeit in small parts to several individuals;
· To pressure Durham County Council into disclosure of information in response to Ben Goldacre’s second FOI request, even though a legitimate refusal notice had been issued and, at the time, no appeal had been received against this refusal notice;
· As the campaign appears to be solely concerned with pressuring the Council into providing information to Ben Goldacre, it is apparent that the requests have been sent in as a form of protest against the decision to refuse Ben Goldacre’s second FOI request. They are designed to cause disruption or annoyance and they have had the effect of harassing the public authority.
It is for these reasons, taking into account the effect of the requests in imposing a significant burden on the Council and the apparent purposes of the requests, that we consider your request to be vexatious. This is therefore a refusal notice under section 17 of the FOI Act.
While we are refusing your request for information under the FOI Act, we do recognise that there is an interest in the disclosure of information relating to these studies. Attached is a document that outlines published scientific studies into dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids. This information was provided to Ben Goldacre on 16 October 2006 in full response to the first of his two requests for information under the FOI Act. This clearly sets out all of the studies that have been undertaken by Durham County Council. You will note from the details that there have been three randomised controlled trials and other open label studies carried out using fatty acid supplements by staff employed by Durham County Council.
The Oxford-Durham Trial – Dr AJ Richardson (a Research Fellow at Mansfield College, Oxford University) published the preliminary results: – Clinical trials of fatty acid supplementation in dyslexia and Dyspraxia: in Glen AIM, Peet M, Horrobin DF. (eds.) Phospholipid Spectrum Disorder in Psychiatry and Neurology. Carnforth: Marius Press, October 2003: 491-500.
The first peer-reviewed results were published by Dr Richardson and Dr Paul Montgomery (Lecturer, Department of Social Policy and Social Work, Oxford University): – The Oxford-Durham study: a randomized, controlled trial of dietary supplementation with fatty acids in children with developmental coordination disorder. Pediatrics. 2005 May;115(5):1360-6
In accordance with scientific protocol, you should address any requests for further details on this study to the authors of the paper, at Mansfield College.
Sunderland – Dr Madeleine Portwood presented the first paper on 31st October 2006 at the World Autism Conference, Cape Town, hence the details of this study are now in the public domain. Please find attached a copy of the paper.
Middlesbrough – It is intended that details of this study will be submitted for publication next year. In common with accepted scientific practice, we will not release unpublished detailed information, as that would prejudice its ultimate publication in a peer-reviewed journal. We are, however, attaching a copy of the recruitment and trial protocol.
Greenfield / SureStart open label studies – The paper detailing the results of these two studies has now been published (Nutrition and Health, 2006, Vol. 18(3), pp233-247), hence the details of this study are now in the public domain.
Ethical approval was sought before any of the three randomly controlled trials were carried out: the protocol of the Oxford-Durham Study was approved by the Durham Local Research Ethics Committee; the protocols of two further trials completed last year were submitted to the University of Sunderland and Sunderland Primary Care Trust ethics committees, and the Middlesbrough Primary Care Trust research ethics committee respectively. The former was approved by those two committees, and the response of the second was that ‘as this trial was being implemented by the education authority it would not require their ethical approval and that the trial could simply proceed’.
The respective research ethics committees did not at any time instruct the investigators of these trials to make a clinical trial application to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), regarding the use of supposed ‘investigational medicinal products’ in human trials. Therefore as the researchers of the trials believed that they were using safe levels of nutritional supplements, the need for registration to trials databases was not deemed essential at the times that they commenced, as they are in the case of drug trials. In addition, the researchers believe that publications resulting from these trials will be considered for peer-review publication because the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ published policy (2004) states that only clinical trials starting patient enrolment on or after 1st July 2005 would not be considered. Each of the three trials started enrolment before this date and should therefore still be publishable without the existence of a EUDRACT code or equivalent.
In addition to these, Ben Goldacre was also supplied with the details of many other studies that are detailed in the attachment that outline the rationale for Durham’s support and involvement in research and initiatives relating to fatty acids and learning.
If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request please contact me at the address below, or by telephone (0191 370 8803) or e-mail (peter.dinsdale@durham.gov.uk) to appeal under the County Council’s Corporate Complaints Procedure.
After you have exhausted our internal appeals procedure you also have a right of appeal to the Information Commissioner at:
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Telephone: 01625 545 745
Fax: 01625 524 510
Email: enquiries@ico.gsi.gov.uk
Most of the documents that we provide in response to Freedom of Information Act requests will be subject to copyright protection. In most cases the copyright will be owned by Durham County Council. The copyright in other documents may be owned by another person or organisation, as indicated on the documents themselves.
You are free to use any documents supplied for your own use, including for non-commercial research purposes. The documents may also be used for the purposes of news reporting. However, any other type of re-use, for example, by publishing the documents or issuing copies to the public will require the permission of the copyright owner.
For documents where the copyright is owned by Durham County Council, please contact me for details of the conditions on re-use.
For documents where the copyright is owned by another person or organisation, you would need to apply to the copyright owner to obtain their permission.
Yours sincerely
Peter Dinsdale
Freedom of Information / Data Protection Coordinator
Durham County Council
Culture & Leisure
Rivergreen Centre
Aykley Heads
Durham
DH1 5TS
Kells said,
November 28, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Ditto on the response – I would disagree entirely that my request was vexatious according to any of the points in their definition
“Where a request, which may be the latest in a series of requests, would impose a significant burden and:
· Clearly does not have any serious purpose or value;
· Is designed to cause disruption or annoyance;
· Has the effect of harassing the public authority; or
· Can otherwise fairly be characterised as obsessive or manifestly unreasonable.â€Â
I am more than vexed by this I am positively irritated. I feel the need to contest their judgement with an appeal.
stewartmacdonald2000 said,
November 28, 2006 at 5:35 pm
I assume all of us will get this response. I’m looking forward to Saturday’s article.
My concern is with “has the effect of harassing the public authority” by that means any sustained campaign for information would be harassment.
skjg said,
November 28, 2006 at 6:15 pm
I got the same response, and it is worrying. When is asking for information “harassment”? does that have a legal definition?
So what now?
I looked at the attachments to the e-mail – and they are no help. The autism paper and the recruitment and protocol for trials have no data from results in them. The Bryan, Stevens and Richardson papers only deal with children with ADHD, the Fontani paper looks promising, but gives no details of who was tested (except that they were “healthy”), the other Richardson paper looked at children with DCD, the Morale, Auestad, Helland and Colombo papers looked at infants or very young children (NOT year 11!), the Hamazeki paper looked at aggression, the Portwood study says they got good results but gives no details.
Would it be possible for one person to ask Durham, politely, how we can get this information in a way that they do not find “harassing”?
Noah Quiescence said,
November 28, 2006 at 6:37 pm
I’m crap at maths, but indulge me for a minute (unless I am getting this horribly, horribly wrong – I plead for your understanding, I’m only the Mother of the original (as opposed to the, later extended, main) target of this fish oil scam. P. Dinsdale & Co. (Durham) state that
“Between 11th and 26th November 2006, Durham County Council received 106 requests for information as a result of this campaign, along with 18 further emails of support for Ben Goldacre. In 2005 as a whole, Durham County Council only received 165 requests under the FOI Act. This clearly demonstrates that these requests have imposed a significant burden on the Council. ”
Come again?
2006 – 106 + 18 = 124. Definitely vexatious
2005 – “as a whole” “ONLY” 165. ? …………………….
I think that there is a definite improvement in the burden imposed on Durham Council in the last year, all things considered.: 41 fewer requests, to be exact. So it should be a piece of cake for them this year. No?
Noah Quiescence said,
November 28, 2006 at 6:52 pm
Just in case I have been horribly wrong, I just sent this:
Thank you for your e-mail and its attachments.
I am intrigued by your statement that:
“Between 11th and 26th November 2006, Durham County Council received 106 requests for information as a result of this campaign, along with 18 further emails of support for Ben Goldacre. In 2005 as a whole, Durham County Council only received 165 requests under the FOI Act. This clearly demonstrates that these requests have imposed a significant burden on the Council”.
and would be most interested in knowing – as a measure of the general interest in these trials (about which, as the mother of a main-target child, I am extremely interested in) – what the 2006 total of the requests for information was as at 26th November 2006.
Do they have a year-on-year, month-by-month clause somewhere?
scox said,
November 28, 2006 at 8:35 pm
Good to know (from Mr Dinsdale’s reply quoted at #175) that he’s reading this thread, so ‘Hello, Mr Dinsdale! – don’t be a lurker – be a poster!’
Durham’s long reply (#175) is surely a partial victory for the ‘mass FOI’ approach, even if is a grudging PS to a ‘vexed’ formal response (unless they had already sent all that to you, Ben)? Anyway, the Portwood paper to the World Autism Conference is new.
Some stock-taking:
– one real beef is that Durham/Equazen plug the product on the basis of research which isn’t ready for publication yet (the Midlesbrough study) – which suggests an ASA approach about inappropriate advertising – the code is on the ASA website and is useful on these kinds of issues (#165 and passim)
– a second concern is that Portwood is quick to say what she’s found, but slow to back it up. Does her paper to the World Autism Conference relate only to children with autism – or does it make wider claims ? Since Durham seem to know a lot about this work, maybe FOI for the protocol and data for that should be pursued.
Anyway, we now have the money pledged now to meet Durham’s charge for responding to Ben’s original request (£790! – though worryingly my name seems to be there twice). So why not call in the money, Ben, and send them a cheque? (On second thoughts, probably best to ask DCC first since if they won’t take the money, you’ll spend it getting it back to us). That will pull the rug (morally, at least) from under ‘vexatious’ and ‘harrassment’.
The Department for Education and Science’s “SCHOOL FOOD & HEALTHY SCHOOL’S TEAM” (punctuation as per original!) wrote me today saying:
“I refer to your request received on 11 November under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for information provided by Durham County Council (DCC) to the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) since January 2005 about the studies conducted by DCC into the effect of the consumption of fish-oil supplements by children.
I am writing to advise you that following a search of our paper and electronic records, I have established that the information you requested is not held by this Department.”
So its not just the public DCC don’t want to know the detail- they don’t want central government dealing with school food to know anything about it!
No reply yet to other FOI requests to central government departments.
Seahorse said,
November 29, 2006 at 12:54 pm
I haven’t the heart to do this, but it would be interesting to make a FoI request for the cost of the legal services that were used to draft the reply that we’ve all apparently received.
TimW said,
November 29, 2006 at 2:18 pm
I notice that the decision notice says:
“it is apparent that the requests have been sent in as a form of protest against the decision to refuse Ben Goldacre’s second FOI request. They are designed to cause disruption or annoyance and they have had the effect of harassing the public authority.”
That’s not true though, is it? It’s not a protest; the requests have been sent in to find out what trials Durham have any info about. And the requests are not “designed to cause disruption or annoyance”; they’re designed to obtain the information, bit by bit.
The “apparent purpose” of the requests is one of the reasons the FoIs were refused, and it seems a flakey excuse to me.
Chris said,
November 29, 2006 at 7:47 pm
I’ve just got my refusal.
I agree with TimW. Perhaps the words “form of protest” are mentioned in the Act as being valid reasons for an information holder to refuse to disclose. Obviously receiving a number of requests in one go in response to a plea in a national newspaper is going to look fairly “protesty” on the face of things – if you don’t want to look too deeply into it.
The reality is completely different: I didn’t send in my request as a way of protesting against DCC. I sent it because I genuinely want to know what data they have on the trials they conducted; data that any organisation that had conducted their trials responsibly would have at their fingertips, no matter how great the number of requests.
We’ve been sold short here. Perhaps skjg has a point (posting #181): one of us should make a request in a few months’ time, when DCC can’t use the same excuse. I’d be happy to do it.
Chris said,
January 2, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Just for the record, I submitted an appeal to Durham against their decision not to release information on trials they had conducted. The appeal was refused. Below is a record of the correspondence.
Dear Mr. Dinsdale,
Thank you for your recent letter refusing my request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
I would like to appeal against the refusal on the following grounds:
1) In determining the request as vexatious, you have pointed out the sudden increase in FOI requests between 11th and 26th November. I note that there were 106 requests. If the trials you have done have been performed in a scientific manner, then the information I require should already be in a convenient format, for example a pdf file, or easily rendered into such a format. Emailing this information to one or a hundred and six recipients should not therefore be an issue for you. My own computer is used regularly to email information to thirty or more recipients, and usually does not take longer than fifteen minutes to do so. I cannot see that the number of people wanting the information should place a significant burden on your council’s computers.
2) Your assumptions about the purpose of my request aggregates the emails you have received into one body and fails to take into account the reasons I clearly stated on my original email. I said “As a concerned member of the public I am interested to know that there is adequate supporting information for scientific claims made directly to the media.†Why does it make a difference that the information about your trials was conveyed to me and others by a third party?
3) I believe that your description of the purpose of my email as a “form of protest†is an attempt to twist my intentions into a framework that makes it easy for you to refuse my request under a provision of the Act. My email was sent for the reasons stated in (2) above, and I resent your implication that it was otherwise.
I find the tone of your email to be both condescending and disapproving. Your council has acted as though a newspaper columnist is the only person interested in obtaining information from you.
I would be very grateful if you would send me confirmation of this email.
Yours Faithfully,
Chris
Here is the reply I received from the Assistant Head of Legal Services (curly brackets are mine):
2 January 2007
Dear {Chris}
Re Request for Information Under the Freedom of Information Act
The complaint arises out of your appeal against a response from Peter Dinsdale, the Freedom of Information/Data Protection Coordinator indicating the Council considered your request to be vexatious and refused it under Section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
The response, was not however a blanket refusal to provide information and acknowledging, that there is a public interest in disclosure of information relating to the fish oil trials, supplied information regarding the studies and in particular, three papers.
Freedom of Information Act
Section 14(1) of the Act removes the obligation of a public authority to reply with a request for information if the request is “vexatiousâ€Â.
Mr Dinsdale quoted guidance note 22 from the information commissioner. Within paragraph 2 of that guidance, the Commissioner states the following:
“The Commissioner considers that the exception in the Act for vexatious and repeated requests is important, especially as no fee would be charged for most requests. His approach will be influenced by the desirability of keeping compliance costs to a minimum and to avoiding damage to the credibility or reputation of the Freedom of Information frameworkâ€Â.
Whilst stressing that Authorities should not conclude that a request is vexatious or repeated unless there are sound grounds for such a decision, the guidance goes on to say:
“While giving maximum support to individuals, genuinely seeking to exercise the new right to know, the Commissioner’s general approach would be sympathetic towards Authorities where a request, which may be the latest in a series of requests, would impose a significant burden and clearly does not have any serious purpose or value, is designed to cause disruption or annoyance, has the effect of harassing the Public Authority or can otherwise be fairly characterised as obsessive or manifestly unreasonable.â€Â
There is no definition of vexatious request. Whilst referring to a case of Attorney General -v- Barker in 2000 which suggested a definition of:
“Designed to subject a Public Authority to inconvenience, harassment or expense.â€Â
-The guidance goes on to say that a wide approach is necessary in the context of FOI requests “made without charge and with the minimum of formality to Public Authoritiesâ€Â. It suggests that effect needs to be considered as well as intention.
Thus, although it may not be the intention of the enquirer to cause inconvenience or expense, if a reasonable person would conclude that the main effect of the request would be disproportionate inconvenience or expense, then it will be appropriate to treat the request as being vexatious.
Your request for information was one of 106 requests for information on this subject received between the 11th and 26th November. Within that period, this Authority received 18 further e-mails of support for Ben Goldacre.
On 11th November 2006, Mr Goldacre’s Bad Science contained an article advising readers that this Authority had declined a Freedom of Information request that he had made and advising, if not encouraging readers, to make their own application and refers them to the Consort Guidelines. At one point he states:
“I suggest that each person requests just two or three sections each, going through them in order to avoid confusion, plus what they requested and ideally the full e-mail request they sent in the comments below, so everyone can see how far we have got and what is left to be requested. Remember, for each request to say that you want the information for each and every one of the many different trials or studies into Omega-3 fish oils that have been performed in children by Durham employees in the last five years, God knows how many there really are.â€Â
Later, he adds:
“Good luck, have fun and don’t forget to post the replies you get from Durham in the coming weeks. Don’t worry about doubling up with what other people have requested. It’s better to be belt and braces …â€Â
Peter Dinsdale advised in his response to you the reasons for regarding your request as vexatious.
It needs to be stressed that the reasons are based upon the fact that yours was one of many requests for information about this matter within a short period of Mr Goldacre’s article and that in the year 2005, the County Council received only 165 requests in total under the Freedom of Information Act. This influx of enquiries, all on the same subject was an unusual pattern and I do not consider it unreasonable for Mr Dinsdale to have concluded that they were sent in pursuance of a campaign.
When giving reasons for finding your claim to be vexatious, Mr Dinsdale took into account the purposes of the request, comments in the e-mails themselves and the bad science website and reached the following conclusions:
1. This was an attempt to circumvent the fees regulations as Mr Goldacre’s second FOI request had been refused because of the costs of compliance and that in his article he had suggested that readers might like to send questions, albeit in smaller parts.
2. That its purpose was to pressurise Durham County Council into disclosure of information in response to Ben Goldacre’s second FOI request, even though a legitimate refusal notice had been forwarded to him and at that stage no appeal had been lodged against that refusal.
3. That the campaign appears to be solely concerned with pressurising the Council into providing information to Ben Goldacre, it was apparent that the requests had been sent as a form of protest against the decision and were designed to cause disruption or annoyance and that they have the effect of harassing the Public Authority.
When he reached that conclusion, Mr Dinsdale informed you that his response was a refusal notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act.
Having considered: –
• The circumstances in which the requests were received
• Their apparent purpose
• Their effect
• That your request was one of that of a large number of applications previously described
– I uphold Mr Dinsdale’s view.
I note your view that the information you requested should be easily accessible and your objection to your request being aggregated with e-mails from other enquiries. I also note that you found the tone of Mr Dinsdale’s e-mail to be both condescending and disapproving.
Having looked carefully at Mr Dinsdale’s response, I do not consider it to be condescending and disapproving. In my view it carefully explained why the request was being turned down and included some published information; signposts for any remaining enquiries that you had with an explanation why currently unpublished information would not be revealed prior to being published in a peer review magazine.
This is not to suggest that Durham County Council considers you to be vexatious, but Mr Dinsdale’s approach of taking into account the contents of the bad science website; the intensity of the requests in a short period of time immediately following publication of the article, supports the view that this was part of a campaign instigated by the article and had the apparent purposes set out by Mr Dinsdale in his response as the reasons for deciding that the applications were vexatious.
I would also add that regardless of the apparent purpose, taking into account the information Commissioner’s advice, the effect of the requests in total were to cause disproportionate inconvenience and expense to a Public Authority dealing with FOI requests without charge and the minimum formality.
I therefore regret to inform you that your appeal is not upheld.
If you are dissatisfied with the outcome of this appeal, you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at:
Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SX9 5AF, telephone 01625 545 745, website www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Yours sincerely
Colette Longbottom
Assistant Head of Legal Services
BobP said,
January 11, 2007 at 11:13 am
Oh dear, Durham has plummetted in the national schools league tables.
Reported here – www.sunderlandtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=1512&ArticleID=1966882
Quote
……while Durham has fallen 30 places to 103
Unfortunately, I can’t find the table which this is based upon – the detailed statistics are at www.dfes.gov.uk/performancetables/ but I can’t find an overview.
jiangjiang said,
December 8, 2009 at 2:13 am
ed hardy ed hardy
ed hardy clothing ed hardy clothing
ed hardy shop ed hardy shop
christian audigier christian audigier
ed hardy cheap ed hardy cheap
ed hardy outlet ed hardy outlet
ed hardy sale ed hardy sale
ed hardy store ed hardy store
ed hardy mens ed hardy mens
ed hardy womens ed hardy womens
ed hardy kids ed hardy kids ed hardy kids