User talk:Cmain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Reliable sources

Hi, the reason I said that I do not think that http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/ is a reliable source for the Peter Power article was based firstly on the need for contentious information in biographies to have impeccable sources (see WP:BLP) and secondly because the website publishes with a particular agenda and hence could be classified as an extremist source (see WP:RS#Extremist sources and WP:V#Questionable sources). However, contrary to what you implied, remember that just because I am an administrator that by no means implies that I am automatically correct; this is still a judgment call and my judgment is as fallible as anyone else's. CIreland (talk) 16:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS#Extremist sources uses the phrase "widely acknowledged as extremist". That is a subjective opinion, a judgment call, and your judgment is obviously more neutral than mine, so I will not dispute it. WP:V#Questionable sources, however, uses the phrase "a poor reputation for fact-checking". That is clearly untrue of J7. We have checked the facts of the Home Office Narrative sufficiently thoroughly to force two official corrections already. We checked the facts that BBC Panorama supplied about Peter Power's career and found them to be false. We checked Patrick56's claim that Power retired after the CPS decision and found that it was false. So, if nothing else, our "reputation for fact-checking" ought to be higher than that of the Home Office, the BBC and Patrick56 (and presumably Wikipedia considers the first two of those to be reliable?). Cmain (talk) 11:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FOI from CPS on when decision whether or not to prosecute Peter Power was made

(By the way, I was not the person who submitted this request).

From:  Freedom of Information Unit <FOIUnit@cps.gsi.gov.uk>
Subject:  Freedom of Information Act Request (Ref 1204)
Date:  Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:33:10 -0000

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST

Dear Mr XXXXXXXXXX

I refer to your Freedom of Information Act request dated 23 February 2008 for information about the case file of Peter Power, 
ex Superintendent at Dorset Police. 

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 creates a statutory right of access to information, not documentation, 
held by public authorities, i.e. the Crown Prosecution Service. This right is to be informed whether the information requested is 
held by the public authority or not, and if the information exists, for it to be communicated. A public authority must reply to such 
a request promptly and in any event, not later than twenty working days after receipt.

The individual’s right to information is not unqualified and is subject to a number of exceptions and exemptions that are contained 
within the Act. The majority of these exemptions are qualified, that is to say that the decision to confirm or deny the information’s 
existence or to disclose the requested material will be subject to a public interest test.

The Freedom of Information Act is a public disclosure regime, not a private regime. Any information disclosed under it is thereafter 
deemed to be in the public domain, and therefore freely available to the general public. 

Please note that due to the passage of time it is most likely that this file was destroyed in accordance with the CPS records retention 
policy in place at the time. The CPS has located an archive record and there is an indication that this file would have been retained for 
a period of 10 years and then subsequently destroyed in 2003. 

Additionally, I can confirm that from this record it would appear that the file was received by the CPS on or about 19th/21st July 1993. 
There is also an indication that a decision on how to proceed with this case was made on approximately 28th October 1993. Without 
the case file I am unable to confirm when this decision was communicated to the police. However, I would assume that the decision 
was communicated to them shortly after the CPS’s decision had been made. 

The decision would have been made by a Crown Prosecutor and not by Dame Barbara Mills, who was the Director of Public Prosecutions 
for the CPS at that time. 

If you are unhappy with the decisions made in relation to your request from the Crown Prosecution Service you may ask for an internal 
review within two calendar months of the date of this letter. If you wish to request an internal review, please contact the Freedom of 
Information Unit (Appeals), 50 Ludgate Hill, London, EC4M 7EX.


If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for 
a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

            Information Commissioner’s Office 

            Wycliffe House 


            Water Lane
            Wilmslow

            Cheshire

            SK9 5AF



Yours sincerely 



Miss R Baverstock

Information Management Unit

Cmain (talk) 23:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FOI from CPS on decision not to prosecute Peter Power

From:  Freedom of Information Unit <FOIUnit@cps.gsi.gov.uk>
Subject:  Freedom of Information Act Request (Ref1204)
Date:  Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:24:32 -0000

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Dear Mr XXXXXX,

Further to your email dated 7 March, I can confirm that the CPS archive record shows no further action was taken 
and subsequently no CPS prosecution followed.  

Yours sincerely 

Miss R Baverstock

Information Management Unit

Cmain (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)