Search results

I thought it would be worth checking what was happening with this study. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN72645894 The following are attached: 1. A copy of the trial protocol. 2. A copy of the approval by Multicentre Research Ethics Committee (MREC), 19/01/2012, ref: 11/SW/0301. 3. A copy of...

Thanks for all this work, Lucy.

Yes, FOI. I'm doing my best to get all this correspondence, but they only release a little at a time. If they get lots of FOIs they can claim 'campaign' and 'vexatious' and stop completely.

It was pretty general. I'll give you more details in private.

They have 35 calendar days from 20/02 to provide the information. Now, does 20/02 count? Does the 35th day count? Round about 28/03. 6:00 pm on the 27th?

Not that I know of.

I received these a little while ago. See https://www.s4me.info/threads/correspondence-from-the-dwp-for-2003.2682/ 17 files.

I'll start a new thread with them. Thanks for all your work on the summary of these. Edit: https://www.s4me.info/threads/correspondence-from-the-dwp-for-2004.2771/

Last one is too big. Available here https://www.dropbox.com/s/jg51a4hlbpgvyjl/507_19_01%2010%202003_MA%20to%20TA.PDF?dl=0

Oops. Can't count. 21 files in all. Part 4.

Part 3.

Part 2.

I have previously shared the correspondence for 2004. Here it is for 2003. I am getting these as and when I can. There is a limit to how much they will release and how often. Even if someone else asks it won't help as it will be seen as the same request. I'll post more when I get them. I have...

They're being disingenuous. I'd rather not discuss it too much until the process is complete. I'm sure you understand why.

I liked the decision much more on a second reading. It is worth remembering this is a legal process and the ICO does not want to be appealed to the IT. They have to show they're being reasonable and have considered all the points made. It is disappointing the AfME contributions will be redacted...

Update. This actually made me laugh: I have heard back from KCL and... They don't hold the data either apparently. I shall be asking them to review the decision. I have now prepared my appeal on the QMUL decision and shall be mailing it at the start of next week.

Update. I have been reading the thread, but haven't been able to respond for the obvious reason. QMUL has 35 calendar days to provide the information (from the date of the decision). The other questions about redactions etc are answered in the decision itself, which I have now scanned and...

Thanks for your concern, Luther (hehe). 1. So far no it hasn't. I have been doing everything online. The PACE data appeal, which I have been working on this week, will need to go through the post, but printing and mailing should be <£10 so manageable. If it starts requiring massive amounts of...