Video summary
The session begins with a discussion on the personal approach to making Freedom of Information requests, specifically whether to use the public platform WhatDoTheyKnow or submit requests privately. Martin explains that while he highly regards WhatDoTheyKnow as an excellent resource for researching existing requests and learning the correct terminology used by authorities, he personally prefers to keep his own requests private to maintain full control over the process. He notes his secretive nature leads him to handle inquiries individually rather than publicly. Another audience member shares a similar sentiment but asks if there is a way to submit requests privately first and then publish them later; this is not currently possible on the platform, as the system requires a request to be filed through WhatDoTheyKnow to verify its legitimacy and ensure that responses have not been tampered with.
The conversation then shifts to whether filing a request publicly versus privately influences how authorities respond or handle the inquiry. While some research suggests that public requests might yield better results, panelists note that experiences vary significantly across different organizations. Some authorities may feel compelled to provide more context in their responses when they know the information will be published online, whereas others treat all requests identically regardless of the filing method. There is also a complex dynamic regarding how authorities perceive FOI requests; some view them as antagonistic, while others, particularly journalists, are often given extra explanatory details because it is assumed they will report on the findings. The panel acknowledges that while publicizing complaints can generate public discussion and support, the actual administrative handling of the request by the authority remains largely consistent.
A significant portion of the Q&A addresses the validity and practicality of submitting FOI requests via social media, as well as the challenges surrounding disclosure logs. Although the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has ruled that social media submissions are legally valid, experts advise against using this method due to character limits that prevent detailed explanations and the risk of requests being overlooked. The discussion also highlights a major hurdle in encouraging public bodies to maintain disclosure logs, which are records of information already held by an organization. Many authorities, including police forces and NHS trusts, have abandoned or never adopted these logs because they fear inadvertent disclosures could lead to worse consequences than simply responding to individual requests. While some councils like Barnet found that comprehensive logs reduced the volume of repetitive requests by clarifying what information was available, many others remain skeptical, believing that publishing more data will only stimulate more inquiries rather than reduce them.
In conclusion, the session underscores the tension between transparency and the administrative burdens faced by public authorities. Although there is a clear expectation for organizations to publish significant decisions, the development of universal disclosure logs has been slower than anticipated due to concerns about workload and potential liability. The panelists express a collective desire to see a central repository where disclosure logs from various authorities, such as the Scottish Government, could be aggregated to improve public access to information. Ultimately, while platforms like WhatDoTheyKnow facilitate transparency and community support, the reality of FOI work involves navigating varying institutional attitudes, legal constraints, and the practical difficulties of encouraging consistent record-keeping across different sectors.
Read the full video transcript
Welcome to FOI Fest 2026.
[music] Let's start with one online,
which is to you, Martin. Which is, do
you make requests publicly on
WhatDoTheyKnow, or mostly privately?
>> Answer honestly, it's okay.
>> So, I always make my requests privately
rather than use WhatDoTheyKnow because
uh I like to have my own complete
personal control over the process. Uh I
have to say, I do think WhatDoTheyKnow
is a wonderful thing. It's a great
resource. I look at it all the time. And
it's very, very useful from the point of
view of seeing what requests have been
answered already.
Uh very useful, often I think, to get
the right phraseology of a request.
Um is to see the phraseology, the
jargon, the terminology the public
authority has used itself in the past. I
find it particularly useful for that
reason.
Uh
but um when I make a request, I've got
to say I, personally, am really
secretive, and I just do it myself.
>> Brilliant. Thank you. Uh do you have any
questions in the audience? We do indeed.
>> Uh hi. This is actually uh I'm also very
secretive, so I also do them myself.
But, I was wondering uh because I also
use WhatDoTheyKnow as a kind of way of
figuring out like like Martin, what's
already been done. It helps me shape my
requests and everything. And so, to give
something back, I I I would Is there a
way for me to then give you my requests
afterwards after I've I've had my way
with them?
>> So, unfortunately not at the moment. Um
you've got to have to make your request
on WhatDoTheyKnow for it to appear
there. The reason for this is mainly so
we can kind of prove that this request
did come from an authority, not that
we've just uploaded some, you know,
random information. You know, we don't
without it being made and the process
going through WhatDoTheyKnow, we can't
really prove, you know, whether that
whether the information released or the
responses were, you know, modified in
any way. Um and just on the complete
privacy point with the um privacy
period, you can always keep extending
that privacy period if you wish um and
on WhatDoTheyKnow. [snorts]
>> Um so, I was just curious. I've always
wondered if you've seen a difference in
when
in FOI requests being filed individually
versus what they know because obviously
what they know is exposed to
they know it's being filed through what
they know, so they know it's going to be
public afterwards. Um, and I was
wondering if that has any impact on
whether you've been filing them
privately because you're worried about
that. Um, also the same question to the
what they know team. Do you are you
aware of requests being handled
differently because they're being filed
through what they know?
>> Well, I can't answer that directly, but
a lot of people publish via
WhatDoTheyKnow because they want to
publicize their request and their
complaint to other people.
Uh, there's often, you know, very angry
comment by the poster and so on and it's
impossible to see that that makes any
difference to, you know, to the
authority. They will just deal with the
request in the same Well, I assume in
the same way as they would if it came
through email individually.
>> Yeah, if I could just say from my point
of view, I not really noticed that there
is any particular It might be the case
that authorities, cuz it's going to be
on WhatDoTheyKnow, think, "Okay, we've
got to put this bit of context in order
to explain what the answer is because we
know anybody could read this." But
sometimes they if you're a journalist
request, they will add that kind of bit
of context anyway cuz they think you're
going to report it and they want you to
use that extra bit of information. So, I
can't say that I have noticed a
difference in that regard.
>> We're definitely aware of some research
which suggests that requested in public
does get better responses. Um, but
yeah, I'm sure there are lots of
different um ways that individual public
authorities might perceive a request in
public versus a private request. I think
someone mentioned earlier that sometimes
FOI can be seen as a little bit
antagonistic. Um, so you know, I think
some people do feel that as well. So, I
think it's a complex area.
>> Yeah, Stuart, isn't it? From Privacy
Laws & Business. Um, two points. So,
when I
was working with Consumer Association
many years ago, it was very active in
the Freedom of Information field. So,
simple question is, is Consumer
Association still active? Second
question is, the ICO says that if people
are making a subject access request
under the Data Protection Act,
organizations should realize that people
might um
apply for free sorry, Data Protection
access via social media. Today, we've In
the original old days, it was always
letters. Then it was now it's all
emails. But, do organizations actually
accept a Freedom of Information requests
via social media?
>> Uh
yeah, so on the second point, uh
organizations certainly are meant to
accept requests via social media, and
there have been cases where the ICO has
ruled um that a request made via social
media is a valid request. Uh from my
point of view, it's not a sensible way
to make an FOI request because you've
got character limits, you can't really
explain everything in detail.
Uh and it may well easily be missed and
not treated as an FOI request. So, it's
it's not a sensible way to make an FOI
request, um but it is a legal way to
make an FOI request. Uh and I think the
people who are doing it were basically
doing it largely to prove a point. Uh I
don't know the answer to the first
question, Morris, do you?
>> So, that the first question, information
not held is the
I'm afraid the response to that.
>> On disclosure logs, uh is there a way
that we can encourage organizations to
have disclosure logs in Norfolk? The
police, who were criticized by the ICO,
no longer have one. Our integrated care
board doesn't have one. The NHS trust
don't have one. And most of the councils
don't have one that is publicly
available.
>> Uh so, um I thought there would be much
more of a development of perhaps even a
universal development of disclosure logs
than there has turned out to be. And
there's been quite a few examples of
authorities actually and the hospital in
Norwich is one example of this from many
years ago having their own disclo-
disclosure logs and then dropping them.
And talking to FOI officers, what they
say to me about it is
it's a it involves a lot of work.
They weren't consulted very much. They
were hoping that people would look at
the log before they put in their FOI
request and it would save them time from
that point of view. And actually request
is don't do that. And also organizations
like police, I know from talking to
police FOI officers,
are worried about if they make a mistake
in this inadvertent disclosure of
information to an FOI request which has
happened. If they put it on a disclosure
log, the consequences are worse than if
they've just sent it off to one
individual requestor. So, the police
were certainly adopting a policy of
trying to stop local forces from having
disclosure logs for that reason. So, I
think there's a number of reasons why
they haven't developed in the way that I
did actually think that they would.
>> I mean, I think the direct answer is
there is no obvious way of persuading a
public authority that doesn't want to
have a disclosure log to have it. It's
described as good practice.
Um we were asked to do some consultancy
work for the MOJ years ago about the
case and the impact of it, which we did
and it's not gone beyond that.
Uh
The the the expectation is that
authorities will publish significant
decisions, not all decisions.
Um but if you look at Barnet, we looked
at a few years ago, were publishing very
comprehensive disclosure logs and they
calculated that it had a significant
impact on the number of requests they
received about council tax and parking,
which were levels of high FOI requests.
Um the combination of the disclosure log
and the data sets they published, they
calculated led to a something like I
can't remember what it was, a 30% 20 or
30% drop in the expected number of FOI
requests in those areas. So, there is an
issue of self-interest where it may
benefit the authority.
They never believed that when you told
them if you publish more information, it
will reduce the number of requests
because authorities say the more you
publish, the more requests you will
stimulate. But actually Barnet found
that wasn't the case.
>> Thanks. I just goes back to the the
point about um recording other requests.
Um I know for example Scottish
government, all their FOI requests are
published online. I'm just wondering is
there a a central repository that Is
anyone
collecting these
in a central way
that you anyone is aware of and are
there other
authorities are doing it?
>> Oh, so is anyone uh like collecting a
central archive of disclosure logs, for
example? Uh not that I'm aware of, but I
would love to see it happen. I've It's a
thought I've had of can we do this on
What They Know, but
>> Well, Maurice, Martin, Julia, and
Gareth, thank you very much indeed.
>> Hello to our most completest listeners.
If you're still listening, thank you so
much for sticking with this right to the
end.
I'm Mif from MySociety, and it's my job
to put these podcasts together.
And you know what? It would be really
helpful for us to know a bit more about
how and why you are listening to them.
So, [music] if you have a moment, please
do take a look at the show notes, where
you'll find a link to a very short
survey.
>> [music]
>> It would help us so much if you could
fill that in.
Thank you.
>> [music]