I've re-read your article and all I can say no wonder that the ONS answered as they did.
You did almost everything exactly wrong to get a FOI request answered with the information you require. All they are legally obliged to answer are requests for information, documents and so on that actually exist.
I've re-read your article and all I can say no wonder that the ONS answered as they did.
You did almost everything exactly wrong to get a FOI request answered with the information you require. All they are legally obliged to answer are requests for information, documents and so on that actually exist.
Your request did not really outright in plain simple language request this but was a lot of waffle pumping yourself up and talking about someone else's data.
Not one UK Government department will ask for data that exists but they don't admit to having either. The MHRA even admitted to me in writing that the Feb 2020 Pfizer document 5.3.6 was never given to them by Pfizer and when I sent it to them and asked "now will you request it from Pfizer?" they said "No, we rely on the pharmaceutical companies to send us the info, we don't ask them" - see an early substack of mine with all the facts.
If they have the data but don't refuse to issue it the following reasons are normally given:
1 - they plan to publish it "soon" so they don't have to supply the data
2 - it holds confidential commercial data and is therefore exempt under UK FOI law - again in an early substack of mine
3 - it hold personal information that cannot be released so you need to challenge this and tell them to redact it - this they did actually tell you, happened to me and I finally got a redacted copy after much too and fro
4 - they tell you to speak to xxxx - normally the NHS, MHRA, UKHSA etc - as they have the original information
You then appeal, get a lot of waffle back, challenge the appeal, get more waffle then go to the Information Commissioner while submitting FOI requests to whoever they said had the data and information - I did this and got 2 different answers from 2 different departments for the exact same question and when I challenged them both one of them admitted they had basically lied to me. Again see an early substack of mine.
You also told them your plans for the information and asked permission to anonymise it then publish it - no wonder they refused. In the US don't you have an old adage like the UK "sometimes it's better to apologise afterwards than to ask permission beforehand"?
I've re-read your article and all I can say no wonder that the ONS answered as they did.
You did almost everything exactly wrong to get a FOI request answered with the information you require. All they are legally obliged to answer are requests for information, documents and so on that actually exist.
Your request did not really outright in plain simple language request this but was a lot of waffle pumping yourself up and talking about someone else's data.
Not one UK Government department will ask for data that exists but they don't admit to having either. The MHRA even admitted to me in writing that the Feb 2020 Pfizer document 5.3.6 was never given to them by Pfizer and when I sent it to them and asked "now will you request it from Pfizer?" they said "No, we rely on the pharmaceutical companies to send us the info, we don't ask them" - see an early substack of mine with all the facts.
If they have the data but don't refuse to issue it the following reasons are normally given:
1 - they plan to publish it "soon" so they don't have to supply the data
2 - it holds confidential commercial data and is therefore exempt under UK FOI law - again in an early substack of mine
3 - it hold personal information that cannot be released so you need to challenge this and tell them to redact it - this they did actually tell you, happened to me and I finally got a redacted copy after much too and fro
4 - they tell you to speak to xxxx - normally the NHS, MHRA, UKHSA etc - as they have the original information
You then appeal, get a lot of waffle back, challenge the appeal, get more waffle then go to the Information Commissioner while submitting FOI requests to whoever they said had the data and information - I did this and got 2 different answers from 2 different departments for the exact same question and when I challenged them both one of them admitted they had basically lied to me. Again see an early substack of mine.
You also told them your plans for the information and asked permission to anonymise it then publish it - no wonder they refused. In the US don't you have an old adage like the UK "sometimes it's better to apologise afterwards than to ask permission beforehand"?