Robert Henderson
2009-02-12 11:43:05 UTC
11 February 2009
Mrs Rosemary Warner
Senior Complaints Officer
Information Commissioner's Office
13th Floor, Millbank Tower, Millbank, London SW1P 4QP
Tel: 0300 051 1545 (Tues-Thurs)
Email: ***@ico.gsi.gov.uk
www.ico.gov.uk
Dear Ms Warner,
Complaint to the Information Commissioner against the BBC (your
ref:FS50188859)
Thank you for your email of 10 February. I want the Commissioner to
issue a formal Decision Notice because I believe the refusal of my
complaint is mistaken on matters of fact and logic and I want what I
consider to be a seriously erroneous judgement to be on the public
record. My reasons for believing this are as follows:
1. The vast majority of people make calls to BBC phone-ins from their
own phones. If the phone rings they have no reason to believe the call
is being deliberately disregarded. Moreover, to make calls from a phone
other than their own will in most cases be impossible because they do
not have immediate access to another phone. The effect of both the lack
of knowledge of the blocking and, if they do know or suspect something
is happening, of not having access to another phone, is to affect their
ability to join in public debate on the BBC.
2. If callers do not know they have been blacklisted they cannot
challenge the blacklisting. This denies natural justice and allows the
BBC to hide the censorship and progress their own agenda.
3.You write "From the information provided to the Commissioner by the
BBC it is clear that there is no co-ordination between the 39 phonebox
systems situated, and receiving calls, in the various business units,
and it would be up to each business unit to provide its own
analysis/interpretation to obtain the information you are seeking. This
has been illustrated by the actions of Radio 5 which was able to obtain
a raw figure of 239 banned numbers using a particular web page interface
which is not, as far as it has been possible to establish, employed by
the remaining 38 business units." The Radio 5 web page you mention is
almost certainly a product of the telephone system which is common to
the 39 phone-box systems. Hence, the other 38 should be able to generate
the details as easily as Radio 5. The cost of doing this would be
minimal because all they would need to do is put the same query into
each system and then send the results for each business system to me.
There is no need to collate. I can do that. You need to investigate
exactly how the R5 web page is generated, i.e., is it something which
comes from the common telephone system used by the business 39 units.
4. You write that the BBC's states that "the ability to tag a number was
intrinsic and a conscious effort would have to be made to disable it. "
The point is not whether it is disabled but whether it is used. The act
of tagging a phone number requires a deliberate effort by someone at the
BBC.
5. You write " the Commissioner's likely finding would be that the BBC
does not hold details of those who authorised the banning of numbers, no
such specific authority having been given." There is no logical
connection between the fact of the ability to flag numbers as banned and
the authority to do so. Someone must authorise people to use the
flagging system otherwise presumably the flagging ability would remain
unused because none of those taking calls would feel they had the
authority to do it. Nor would those in authority know that it was
happening - which my correspondence with Radio 5 demonstrates - unless
it was BBC policy.
I ask you to take these objections to your present interpretation into
account when making the formal Decision Notice decision.
Please acknowledge receipt of this email by return.
Yours sincerely
Robert Henderson
In message <***@mswhex02.ico.local>,
Rose Warner <***@ico.gsi.gov.uk> writes
For the attention of Mr Robert Henderson
Dear Mr Henderson
In my email of 9 October 2008 (attached for ease of reference) I
explained that I was making enquiries of the BBC, and would let you know
when I received its response. The BBC replied on 26 January 2009. May I
first say that I recognise that the resolution of your complaint has
taken much longer than any of us would have liked, for which I
apologise.
The BBC has explained that each time an audience member rings the BBC an
operator takes their call, records their number and puts this into a
database. If the operator deems that the caller has been offensive or
abusive it is likely that the number will be tagged with a warning for
future reference. The BBC said that the call is not ?blocked? ? the
system will not allow this. The phone will still ring, although a symbol
will appear on screen so the operator has the discretion whether or not
to answer the call. The BBC does tag numbers but not callers themselves,
as they may simply ring in from another number.
From the information provided to the Commissioner by the BBC it is clear
that there is no co-ordination between the 39 phonebox systems situated,
and receiving calls, in the various business units, and it would be up
to each business unit to provide its own analysis/interpretation to
obtain the information you are seeking. This has been illustrated by the
actions of Radio 5 which was able to obtain a raw figure of 239 banned
numbers using a particular web page interface which is not, as far as it
has been possible to establish, employed by the remaining 38 business
units. In view of this and the considerable difficulty in interrogating
the system on each of the other 38 sites without this interface, the
Commissioner's likely finding, if there were to be a formal Decision
Notice issued in this case, would be that obtaining the BBC-wide
information that you seek, would exceed the cost limits, and the BBC
would not be required to provide you with that information.
As to your request for details of those who have authorised the use of
the system for banning numbers, the BBC has said that that system came
as part of the phone package. There was no specific authority for the
tagging to be used: the ability to tag a number was intrinsic and a
conscious effort would have to be made to disable it. In view of this,
the Commissioner's likely finding would be that the BBC does not hold
details of those who authorised the banning of numbers, no such specific
authority having been given.
You will understand from the above that a formal decision by the
Commissioner is unlikely to find that the BBC should release to you any
further information. Whilst I fully understand that this is not the
outcome you were seeking, it is debatable whether any useful purpose
would be served by the issue of a formal Decision Notice. However, if
you wish the Commissioner to proceed to issue such a Notice, please let
me know by 9 March 2009.
Yours sincerely
Rose Warner
Mrs Rosemary Warner
Senior Complaints Officer
Information Commissioner's Office
13th Floor, Millbank Tower, Millbank, London SW1P 4QP
Tel: 0300 051 1545 (Tues-Thurs)
Email: ***@ico.gsi.gov.uk
www.ico.gov.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: Rose Warner
Sent: 09 October 2008 13:50
To: '***@anywhere.demon.co.uk'
Subject: Mr Robert Henderson's complaint to the Information Commissioner
against the BBC (Our ref:FS50188859)
Dear Mr Henderson
Further to the email of 22 September 2008 in which it was explained that
your complaint against the BBC was awaiting assignment, I am the case
officer to whom it has been allocated. I would like to add my apologies
to those that you have already received for the length of time that it
has taken to progress your case.
To take matters forward, I have today initiated enquiries of the BBC
regarding your complaint that it failed to provide you with information
you had requested, namely the number of occasions its system for
banning/blocking callers had been used during the 5 years prior to your
information request of 24 September 2007 and the names of the people who
had authorised the use of the system.
I will let you know when I have received the BBC?s response. I will also
keep you informed of any other developments.
You will wish to know that your case is being dealt with by the
Information Commissioner?s London office, and my contact details are
shown below.
Yours sincerely,
Rose Warner
Mrs Rosemary Warner
Information Commissioner's Office
13th Floor
Millbank Tower
Millbank
London
SW1P 4QP
Tel: 0207 217 4499 (Tues-Thurs)
Fax: 0207 217 4000
e-mail: ***@ico.gsi.gov.uk
__________________________________________________________________
The ICO’s vision is a society where information rights and
responsibilities are respected by all.
If you are not the intended recipient of this email (and any
attachment), please inform the sender by return email and destroy all
copies. Unauthorised access, use, disclosure, storage or copying is not
permitted.
Communication by internet email is not secure as messages can be
intercepted and read by someone else. Therefore we strongly advise you
not to email any information, which if disclosed to unrelated third
parties would be likely to cause you distress. If you have an enquiry of
this nature please provide a postal address to allow us to communicate
with you in a more secure way. If you want us to respond by email you
must realise that there can be no guarantee of privacy.
Any email including its content may be monitored and used by the
Information Commissioner's Office for reasons of security and for
monitoring internal compliance with the office policy on staff use.
Email monitoring or blocking software may also be used. Please be aware
that you have a responsibility to ensure that any email you write or
forward is within the bounds of the law.
The Information Commissioner's Office cannot guarantee that this message
or any attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended.
You should perform your own virus checks.
__________________________________________________________________
http://www.ico.gov.uk or email: ***@ico.gsi.gov.uk
Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 01625 545 700 Fax: 01625 524 510
Mrs Rosemary Warner
Senior Complaints Officer
Information Commissioner's Office
13th Floor, Millbank Tower, Millbank, London SW1P 4QP
Tel: 0300 051 1545 (Tues-Thurs)
Email: ***@ico.gsi.gov.uk
www.ico.gov.uk
Dear Ms Warner,
Complaint to the Information Commissioner against the BBC (your
ref:FS50188859)
Thank you for your email of 10 February. I want the Commissioner to
issue a formal Decision Notice because I believe the refusal of my
complaint is mistaken on matters of fact and logic and I want what I
consider to be a seriously erroneous judgement to be on the public
record. My reasons for believing this are as follows:
1. The vast majority of people make calls to BBC phone-ins from their
own phones. If the phone rings they have no reason to believe the call
is being deliberately disregarded. Moreover, to make calls from a phone
other than their own will in most cases be impossible because they do
not have immediate access to another phone. The effect of both the lack
of knowledge of the blocking and, if they do know or suspect something
is happening, of not having access to another phone, is to affect their
ability to join in public debate on the BBC.
2. If callers do not know they have been blacklisted they cannot
challenge the blacklisting. This denies natural justice and allows the
BBC to hide the censorship and progress their own agenda.
3.You write "From the information provided to the Commissioner by the
BBC it is clear that there is no co-ordination between the 39 phonebox
systems situated, and receiving calls, in the various business units,
and it would be up to each business unit to provide its own
analysis/interpretation to obtain the information you are seeking. This
has been illustrated by the actions of Radio 5 which was able to obtain
a raw figure of 239 banned numbers using a particular web page interface
which is not, as far as it has been possible to establish, employed by
the remaining 38 business units." The Radio 5 web page you mention is
almost certainly a product of the telephone system which is common to
the 39 phone-box systems. Hence, the other 38 should be able to generate
the details as easily as Radio 5. The cost of doing this would be
minimal because all they would need to do is put the same query into
each system and then send the results for each business system to me.
There is no need to collate. I can do that. You need to investigate
exactly how the R5 web page is generated, i.e., is it something which
comes from the common telephone system used by the business 39 units.
4. You write that the BBC's states that "the ability to tag a number was
intrinsic and a conscious effort would have to be made to disable it. "
The point is not whether it is disabled but whether it is used. The act
of tagging a phone number requires a deliberate effort by someone at the
BBC.
5. You write " the Commissioner's likely finding would be that the BBC
does not hold details of those who authorised the banning of numbers, no
such specific authority having been given." There is no logical
connection between the fact of the ability to flag numbers as banned and
the authority to do so. Someone must authorise people to use the
flagging system otherwise presumably the flagging ability would remain
unused because none of those taking calls would feel they had the
authority to do it. Nor would those in authority know that it was
happening - which my correspondence with Radio 5 demonstrates - unless
it was BBC policy.
I ask you to take these objections to your present interpretation into
account when making the formal Decision Notice decision.
Please acknowledge receipt of this email by return.
Yours sincerely
Robert Henderson
In message <***@mswhex02.ico.local>,
Rose Warner <***@ico.gsi.gov.uk> writes
For the attention of Mr Robert Henderson
Dear Mr Henderson
In my email of 9 October 2008 (attached for ease of reference) I
explained that I was making enquiries of the BBC, and would let you know
when I received its response. The BBC replied on 26 January 2009. May I
first say that I recognise that the resolution of your complaint has
taken much longer than any of us would have liked, for which I
apologise.
The BBC has explained that each time an audience member rings the BBC an
operator takes their call, records their number and puts this into a
database. If the operator deems that the caller has been offensive or
abusive it is likely that the number will be tagged with a warning for
future reference. The BBC said that the call is not ?blocked? ? the
system will not allow this. The phone will still ring, although a symbol
will appear on screen so the operator has the discretion whether or not
to answer the call. The BBC does tag numbers but not callers themselves,
as they may simply ring in from another number.
From the information provided to the Commissioner by the BBC it is clear
that there is no co-ordination between the 39 phonebox systems situated,
and receiving calls, in the various business units, and it would be up
to each business unit to provide its own analysis/interpretation to
obtain the information you are seeking. This has been illustrated by the
actions of Radio 5 which was able to obtain a raw figure of 239 banned
numbers using a particular web page interface which is not, as far as it
has been possible to establish, employed by the remaining 38 business
units. In view of this and the considerable difficulty in interrogating
the system on each of the other 38 sites without this interface, the
Commissioner's likely finding, if there were to be a formal Decision
Notice issued in this case, would be that obtaining the BBC-wide
information that you seek, would exceed the cost limits, and the BBC
would not be required to provide you with that information.
As to your request for details of those who have authorised the use of
the system for banning numbers, the BBC has said that that system came
as part of the phone package. There was no specific authority for the
tagging to be used: the ability to tag a number was intrinsic and a
conscious effort would have to be made to disable it. In view of this,
the Commissioner's likely finding would be that the BBC does not hold
details of those who authorised the banning of numbers, no such specific
authority having been given.
You will understand from the above that a formal decision by the
Commissioner is unlikely to find that the BBC should release to you any
further information. Whilst I fully understand that this is not the
outcome you were seeking, it is debatable whether any useful purpose
would be served by the issue of a formal Decision Notice. However, if
you wish the Commissioner to proceed to issue such a Notice, please let
me know by 9 March 2009.
Yours sincerely
Rose Warner
Mrs Rosemary Warner
Senior Complaints Officer
Information Commissioner's Office
13th Floor, Millbank Tower, Millbank, London SW1P 4QP
Tel: 0300 051 1545 (Tues-Thurs)
Email: ***@ico.gsi.gov.uk
www.ico.gov.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: Rose Warner
Sent: 09 October 2008 13:50
To: '***@anywhere.demon.co.uk'
Subject: Mr Robert Henderson's complaint to the Information Commissioner
against the BBC (Our ref:FS50188859)
Dear Mr Henderson
Further to the email of 22 September 2008 in which it was explained that
your complaint against the BBC was awaiting assignment, I am the case
officer to whom it has been allocated. I would like to add my apologies
to those that you have already received for the length of time that it
has taken to progress your case.
To take matters forward, I have today initiated enquiries of the BBC
regarding your complaint that it failed to provide you with information
you had requested, namely the number of occasions its system for
banning/blocking callers had been used during the 5 years prior to your
information request of 24 September 2007 and the names of the people who
had authorised the use of the system.
I will let you know when I have received the BBC?s response. I will also
keep you informed of any other developments.
You will wish to know that your case is being dealt with by the
Information Commissioner?s London office, and my contact details are
shown below.
Yours sincerely,
Rose Warner
Mrs Rosemary Warner
Information Commissioner's Office
13th Floor
Millbank Tower
Millbank
London
SW1P 4QP
Tel: 0207 217 4499 (Tues-Thurs)
Fax: 0207 217 4000
e-mail: ***@ico.gsi.gov.uk
__________________________________________________________________
The ICO’s vision is a society where information rights and
responsibilities are respected by all.
If you are not the intended recipient of this email (and any
attachment), please inform the sender by return email and destroy all
copies. Unauthorised access, use, disclosure, storage or copying is not
permitted.
Communication by internet email is not secure as messages can be
intercepted and read by someone else. Therefore we strongly advise you
not to email any information, which if disclosed to unrelated third
parties would be likely to cause you distress. If you have an enquiry of
this nature please provide a postal address to allow us to communicate
with you in a more secure way. If you want us to respond by email you
must realise that there can be no guarantee of privacy.
Any email including its content may be monitored and used by the
Information Commissioner's Office for reasons of security and for
monitoring internal compliance with the office policy on staff use.
Email monitoring or blocking software may also be used. Please be aware
that you have a responsibility to ensure that any email you write or
forward is within the bounds of the law.
The Information Commissioner's Office cannot guarantee that this message
or any attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended.
You should perform your own virus checks.
__________________________________________________________________
http://www.ico.gov.uk or email: ***@ico.gsi.gov.uk
Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 01625 545 700 Fax: 01625 524 510
--
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk