Thanks. That's interesting. I was reading through the stuff yesterday evening, and the study was a disaster. They couldn't get participants. The whole thing is a massive misadventure.
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...
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.
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?
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/
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...
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...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.