Coroner's comments re helmets-reply received.

spindrift said:

There will be no further correspondence.

So there! :-/

Quoted message said:

The transcripts show that the Press report to which you refer did not
accurately represent Mr Gotheridge's judgement.

Best have a look at the transcripts to see what he did say.

Not sure where the rest of the letter was going. I presume most of it was
a form letter sent to everyone whose letters were put into the 'cycle
helmets wouldn't have helped' basket.

spindrift said the following on 31/05/2006 12:09:
(quoting Fuddy Duddy)

Quoted message said:

There will be no further correspondence.

That phrase alone would be like a red rag to a bull!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Mark Thompson said:

Quoted message said:

The transcripts show that the Press report to which you refer did not
accurately represent Mr Gotheridge's judgement.

Best have a look at the transcripts to see what he did say.

Not sure where the rest of the letter was going. I presume most of it was
a form letter sent to everyone whose letters were put into the 'cycle
helmets wouldn't have helped' basket.

It's noticeable that three out of the four other examples he gives are
legal requirements, bicycle helmets are not. I await my copy of the
letter and will probably make an FoI request for the transcript.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

I've asked the newspaper if the coroner's words were reported
faithfully. If so I will complain to the Home Office.

Mr Duddy's letter is semi-literate, as well as a pro-forma sent to at
least two other people I know of.

Tony Raven said:

Mark Thompson said:

Quoted message said:

The transcripts show that the Press report to which you refer did not
accurately represent Mr Gotheridge's judgement.

Best have a look at the transcripts to see what he did say.

Not sure where the rest of the letter was going. I presume most of it was
a form letter sent to everyone whose letters were put into the 'cycle
helmets wouldn't have helped' basket.

It's noticeable that three out of the four other examples he gives are
legal requirements, bicycle helmets are not. I await my copy of the
letter and will probably make an FoI request for the transcript.

I don't think you need to make an FoI request. They should be available
for a small fee along with any depositions, and notes of evidence and
any documents entered into evidence. Rule 57 of the Coroners Rules 1984.

It might be an idea to FoI any emails, documents, notes or letters that the
Coroner has on (or mentions) cycle helmets that may have informed his
decision but were not in themselves entered as evidence.

--
Andy Leighton => [email hidden]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

On 31 May 2006 04:09:38 -0700 someone who may be "spindrift"
<[email hidden]> quoted this:-

I got the same e-mail.

Quoted message said:

-----------------------------------------
I have been directed by Mr Gotheridge to reply on his behalf, as he
does not enter into personal communication over individual Inquests.

Does he not? Then I think that the phrase, "arrogant little [censored]",
is a justified comment on Mr Gotheridge's attitude.

Quoted message said:

This Inquest has generated much correspondence, most of which is in
favour of helmets being worn.

This bod does not provide any evidence of this assertion.

Quoted message said:

There will be no further correspondence.

Then I think that the phrase, "arrogant little [censored]", is a
justified comment on Mr Duddy's attitude.

Quoted message said:

Direct Line: 0115 - 9644801
Fax: 0115 - 9500141

Both numbers are very tempting. Those in the same country may wish
to take it up.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Paul Boyd said:

spindrift said the following on 31/05/2006 12:09:
(quoting Fuddy Duddy)

Quoted message said:

There will be no further correspondence.

That phrase alone would be like a red rag to a bull!

Do you really have 'civil' servants like that? I'm appalled that a CS
would be that rude plus that stupid to put that in writing.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
(who has written one or two get lost letters himself but never that
stupidly.

In article <[email hidden]>,

John_Kane () said:

Paul Boyd said:

spindrift said the following on 31/05/2006 12:09:
(quoting Fuddy Duddy)

Quoted message said:

There will be no further correspondence.

That phrase alone would be like a red rag to a bull!

Do you really have 'civil' servants like that? I'm appalled that a CS
would be that rude plus that stupid to put that in writing.

Well, they do say of civil servants that they are neither civil nor
servile...

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
%VMS-W-IVWORD, unrecognized word "downtime" - check validity and
spelling

Paul Boyd said:

Quoted message said:

There will be no further correspondence.

That phrase alone would be like a red rag to a bull!

Or indeed a red bull to a rag... Cycling Weekly?

-Rob

John_Kane said:

Do you really have 'civil' servants like that?

I think they have to pass stringent entrance exams to make sure only
that sort get in.

Dear Sir

I have discussed your request with the Coroner who has advised me that
transcripts of Inquests are not available to members of the public.
Furthermore, The Freedom of Information Act does not apply to Coroner's
and
we are therefore unable to oblige.

Regards

Des Duddy
H.M. Coroner's Officer/
Corporate Services Manager
Direct Line: 0115 - 9644801
Fax: 0115 - 9500141

Dear Mr Duddy.

Once a coroner's records have been selected for permanent preservation
and transferred to a place of deposit under s 4(1) they become the
responsibility of the authority running the place of deposit, acting on
behalf of the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor is a 'public
authority' for the purposes of FOIA, and therefore potential rights of
access will apply to information contained in these records, including
records which would have been 'closed' under the pre-2005 wording of
the Public Records Act.

Understandably, some coroners have found it difficult to respond to
consultation requests from places of deposit under s 66 of FOIA, given
that they do not normally have to deal with the legislation on a day to
day basis, and are therefore not familiar with application of the
potential exemptions contained in the Act. From January 2005, coroners
also need to inform places of deposit whether newly-transferred records
can be regarded as open to the public, or are subject to exemptions
specified in FOIA.

www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/services/pdf/foi_update_autumn2005.rtf

Please advise when Section 4 (1) has been applied.

Regards

spindrift said:

Dear Sir

I have discussed your request with the Coroner who has advised me that
transcripts of Inquests are not available to members of the public.
Furthermore, The Freedom of Information Act does not apply to Coroner's
and
we are therefore unable to oblige.

What possible justification can there be for keeping the transcript of
an inquest secret in cases that do not involve national security? Sir
Humphrey lives on.

--
Dave...

dkahn400 said:

spindrift said:

Dear Sir

I have discussed your request with the Coroner who has advised me that
transcripts of Inquests are not available to members of the public.
Furthermore, The Freedom of Information Act does not apply to Coroner's
and
we are therefore unable to oblige.

What possible justification can there be for keeping the transcript of
an inquest secret in cases that do not involve national security? Sir
Humphrey lives on.

It would seem that it correct to a point:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/services/pdf/foi_update_autumn2005.rtf
Coroners’ records
The application of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to coroners'
records held by places of deposit under s 4(1) of the Public Records Act
1958 has generated a number of queries to The National Archives (TNA)
recently. Coroners are not themselves 'public authorities' within the
meaning of the Act, and therefore there is no statutory right of access
to information held by them under FOIA.

However, once a coroner's records have been selected for permanent
preservation and transferred to a place of deposit under s 4(1) they
become the responsibility of the authority running the place of deposit,
acting on behalf of the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor is a
'public authority' for the purposes of FOIA, and therefore potential
rights of access will apply to information contained in these records,
including records which would have been 'closed' under the pre-2005
wording of the Public Records Act.

Understandably, some coroners have found it difficult to respond to
consultation requests from places of deposit under s 66 of FOIA, given
that they do not normally have to deal with the legislation on a day to
day basis, and are therefore not familiar with application of the
potential exemptions contained in the Act. From January 2005, coroners
also need to inform places of deposit whether newly-transferred records
can be regarded as open to the public, or are subject to exemptions
specified in FOIA.

TNA has provided a short briefing on this situation to the Secretary of
the Coroners' Society, and we understand that the matter is to be raised
at the next meeting of the Society's Council in November. The issue has
also been raised with colleagues in the Department for Constitutional
Affairs, who now have sole responsibility for the coroner service within
central government, and we hope that a meeting of interested parties to
discuss the issue of detailed guidance to places of deposit and coroners
will take place shortly.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

"spindrift" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've asked the newspaper if the coroner's words were reported
faithfully. If so I will complain to the Home Office.

And you'll accept its assertions as the absolute truth?

C'mon if you are going to make a complaint to the Home Office make sure that
you are in possession of the facts.

What measures will you take if the newspapaper has mis-reported the coroner?

"spindrift" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've asked the newspaper if the coroner's words were reported
faithfully. If so I will complain to the Home Office.

And you'll accept its assertions as the absolute truth?

C'mon if you are going to make a complaint to the Home Office make sure that
you are in possession of the facts.

What measures will you take if the newspapaper has mis-reported the coroner?