Talk:Freedom of Information Act 2000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Questions were raised over government actions in the run up to implementing the act. Document shredding increased in government departments, sometimes by as much as 200%. The Cabinet Office also implemented a policy of deleting all e-mail messages more than three months old unless they contained vital information."

Where did *any* of this information come from? It is also vague.

This article needs some serious editing (by someone who knows the content well) to make it readable and understandable to the lay man. --Andrew Phelps 08:51, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The accusations can easily be found in the media. For example, the Daily Telegraph carried stories about the email deletions and the shredding increases. David Newton 11:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've added a chunk on the FoI(Scotland) Act; is it worth splitting it out into an extra page? They do broadly cover the same issues, and the political context is much the same, but when you get down to the details there's a lot of differences, and discussing both in the same article could get confusing. Shimgray 02:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is another instance where they selectively release stuff. May be, they should rename it "Partial freedom of information act" [1]

[edit] Moved

I've moved this back to our absolutely standard formation for Acts of Parliament for the United Kingdom.

James F. (talk) 00:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Probably worth splitting out the Scottish act, then... Shimgray 17:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation page needed

This entry has the same name and is easily confused with the Freedom of Information Act in the United States.

Freedom of information legislation is effectively a disambiguation page. Freedom of Information Act redirects to Freedom of Information Act (United States). The US act was passed in 1966, so the "2000" ought to be sufficiently disambiguating, no? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I posted the question originally and I agree that it's disambiguated. Does this mean we'll need a new entry every time a bill is renewed though? :-) Antonrojo 21:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, no - the legislation still keeps the original name, unless they pass a whole new Act, and even then we'd probably keep this one.

Internationally, from 2000, we have a Slovakian "Act on Free Access to Information", a Moldovan "Law on Access to Information", an Estonian "Public Information Act", and a Bulgarian "Access to Public Information Act". None of these should require this page to disambiguate.

As regards ones with a similar name, though... there's at least a dozen called "Freedom of Information Act [year]", so perhaps it might be worth changing the US redirect to a disambiguation page in the future. (At least one - the Australian act - will almost certainly be written about at some point, and the Irish act's pretty likely to get an article too.) Shimgray | talk | 21:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)