Independent advisory group for the full update of the Cochrane review on exercise therapy and ME/CFS (2020), led by Hilda Bastian

Caroline Struthers said:
Assuming the Charity Commission refuse to send me a copy of their "reminder" letter to the Cochrane trustees, can I obtain it via FOI?
Click to expand...

Yes, as per NelliePledge I'd expect that the Charity Commission would have to disclose their "reminder" letter to the Cochrane trustees. Relying on memory but the exemptions, from FOI, are limited e.g. legal advice, commercial and I can't think of any that are relevant in this case. They may e.g. redact the name of junior [Charity Commission] officials but nothing substantial.

Thanks for chasing this; I still think the APPGs might be a route to put pressure on Cochrane - maybe worth trying when the summer recess is over (September?).
 
FMMM1 said:
Yes, as per NelliePledge I'd expect that the Charity Commission would have to disclose their "reminder" letter to the Cochrane trustees. Relying on memory but the exemptions, from FOI, are limited e.g. legal advice, commercial and I can't think of any that are relevant in this case. They may e.g. redact the name of junior [Charity Commission] officials but nothing substantial.

Thanks for chasing this; I still think the APPGs might be a route to put pressure on Cochrane - maybe worth trying when the summer recess is over (September?).
Click to expand...
OK. I will submit a FOI request and see what happens. And yes, I have still heard nothing from the trustees, so I will contact the APPGs in September
 
Caroline Struthers said:
Just done the FOI request...nice system. I think it might get addictive!
Click to expand...

I received a reply saying the Chrarity Commission are not going to disclose its telling-off letter to Cochrane as it might deter Cochrane from engaging with them in the future or something. So not in the public interest.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/requ...ation to C Struthers.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1.

I haven't heard back from COPE yet. They also have no regulatory power, and also demand that details of their investigation and any contact with Cochrane stay off social media etc. I have complained that Cochrane have refused to investigate my "whistleblower" complaint about Karla Soares-Weiser which contained "specific and detailed evidence". Refusing to investigate is not following the COPE guidelines. https://publicationethics.org/sites/default/files/respond-whistleblowers-concerns-cope-flowchart.pdf. So they will have to justify that to COPE. I am sure they will do so, but it will be interesting to see how they do it.
 
Caroline Struthers said:
I received a reply saying the Chrarity Commission are not going to disclose its telling-off letter to Cochrane as it might deter Cochrane from engaging with them in the future or something. So not in the public interest.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/requ...ation to C Struthers.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1.
Click to expand...

As you know my knowledge is limited but if I (at work) refuse to disclose something then I'd need to rely on one (of the few) specified exemptions under FOI. Also, I'd need to "clear" the approach since ultimately the "organisation" can be hauled up in front of the FOI Commissioner.
There are tiers [EDIT - tiers of appeals against refusal to disclose]: first tier is internal i.e. someone independent of those who made the decision not to disclose; second is external - outside organisation. You may wish to consider complaining re the decision.
Thanks for doing this.
 
Last edited:
FMMM1 said:
As you know my knowledge is limited but if I (at work) refuse to disclose something then I'd need to rely on one (of the few) specified exemptions under FOI. Also, I'd need to "clear" the approach since ultimately the "organisation" can be hauled up in front of the FOI Commissioner.
There are tiers of complaints: first tier is internal i.e. someone independent of those who made the decision not to disclose; second is external - outside organisation. You may wish to consider complaining re the decision.
Thanks for doing this.
Click to expand...
OK. I will have a look at doing that. I need to get my head round it...which may take a bit of time!
 
Caroline Struthers said:
OK. I will have a look at doing that. I need to get my head round it...which may take a bit of time!
Click to expand...
Yea, the first stage seems to be I don't agree e.g. you've misinterpreted the defence - but that's an unthought out (knee jerk) reaction. Best, as you say --- I need to get my head round it...which may take a bit of time!
If the use a "not in the public interest" (but not more specific) then that strikes me as open to interpretation - interesting to get an independent take on it.
 
FMMM1 said:
Yea, the first stage seems to be I don't agree e.g. you've misinterpreted the defence - but that's an unthought out (knee jerk) reaction. Best, as you say --- I need to get my head round it...which may take a bit of time!
If the use a "not in the public interest" (but not more specific) then that strikes me as open to interpretation - interesting to get an independent take on it.
Click to expand...
I said in a Tweet that it seems a poor defence to tell me in an email, which was not confidential, that they have contacted Cochrane. But then to say they can't disclose the content of what they sent, because it's not in the public interest. Surely it is in the public interest to know that the Charity Commission did what they said they had done. It would increase public trust in the Charity Commission. Is that enough to challenge their decision?
 
Caroline Struthers said:
I said in a Tweet that it seems a poor defence to tell me in an email, which was not confidential, that they have contacted Cochrane. But then to say they can't disclose the content of what they sent, because it's not in the public interest. Surely it is in the public interest to know that the Charity Commission did what they said they had done. It would increase public trust in the Charity Commission. Is that enough to challenge their decision?
Click to expand...


Agree fully i.e. it is surely in the public interest. Yes what you have outlined above seems sufficient to me but I think you may need to go to the second level of appeal (external to Charity Commission) i.e. to get a independent take on the Charity Commission's interpretation. Seems the way to get around FOI is to have a policy that disclosure is not in the public interest since --- pick whatever reason comes to mind!
EDIT - thanks for doing this & good luck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom