個人積分：2489分
文章編號：85288216
英國從二戰後都惟美國馬首...美國是蔡的後盾
個人積分：394分
文章編號：85288240
個人積分：5741分
文章編號：85343546
https://richardsonreports.wordpress.com/2022/07/12/complaint-filed-with-information-commissioner-john-edwards-against-university-of-london-over-missing-examination-regulations/
他說的內容挺有意思。
基本上就是跟 UL 要不到口試委員名單，就只好轉換跑道。
既然委員名單是個資，那當時的口試規則總是公開的資料吧？
這次沒上 ico，UL 就給啦，不過拖拖拉拉，在一年之後交出來的。
另外沒想到的是。。。。。這口試規則居然。。。。。缺頁。。。。UL 還不解釋，你咬我啊。
懶驢打滾，厲害厲害。
Richardson 也不爽了，又一狀告上了 ico。
這劇看來會拖很久。
不知道如果再去要案發前後年的口試規則做參考，會不會還繼續缺同樣幾頁。
詳情請看原文，我就不多嘴了。
個人積分：394分
文章編號：85423472
個人積分：394分
文章編號：85571369
個人積分：394分
文章編號：85571714
個人積分：2661分
文章編號：85571932
hotonpone 我以為怕被余正煌告，躲起來避風頭了！！[咖啡]
四靠上次被我告恐嚇，妨害自由後，我就把它放到黑名單裡！
個人積分：394分
文章編號：85610136
個人積分：79分
文章編號：85611332
hotonpone wrote:
揭露口委名單會造成蔡英文「傷害與痛苦」
新的說法是揭露口委名單會造成「巨大的壓力」(immense pressure)
個人積分：79分
文章編號：85623626
tommy_kang wrote:
論文四靠怎麼都不見了？？
8月31日，英國法庭將舉行倫敦大學論文門上訴案的線上聽證會
回顧一下目前在英國法院的最新進度吧。
矛盾百出的 LSE，到底還要說多少謊?
2022年6月20日英國行政資訊法院（First-tier Tribunal）法官Alison Mckenna對LSE下通牒，在判決主文中要求LSE在28天內就所保有的蔡英文口試委員資訊做出一個新的回應，就是揭露這個資訊，或是提出相關豁免揭露的請求。2022年8月1日LSE的Rachael Maguire通知Michael Richardson，不否認LSE持有蔡英文口試委員姓名，但強調一旦揭露口試委員，會產生「巨大的壓力」 :“In deciding on the fairness of release, we considered whether there was a public interest reason for releasing the names, but on balance do not think there is. The examination was nearly forty years ago. Neither LSE or University of London believe there is any reason given by any third party that the examination did not come to a proper conclusion that Ing-wen Tsai had passed the viva. Considering the interest in the case, we believe that there would be immense pressure put on the individuals concerned if we released their names that they could not have expected almost forty years ago when they agreed to be the viva examiners and which we cannot lay on them or those associated with them now.”Rachael Maguire卻沒有解釋，Kevin Haynes向台灣司法單位透露口試委員姓名時，為何就不會對當年的口試委員產生「巨大的壓力」?另外Rachael Maguire也不否認如判決書中所述，蔡英文學生檔案中的口試委員資訊「可能不正確」:
Its submission to the Tribunal dated 14 March 2022 it stated that “…the information we hold on file is only there accidentally…we cannot be certain that this information is accurate”.
LSE states that its review found that the information provided by LSE in that email was “likely inaccurate. This was based on a hurried view of a scanned file that cannot be key word searched. ”
We have not seen the reply to that email. We note that LSE has not disputed that the email of 16 December 2020 was sent, only that it now doubts the accuracyof its contents.
LSE的回應，會對繫屬中的Michael Richardson 上訴案，造成什麼影響?
在2021年9月13日法官Sophie Buckley駁回Michael Richardson對ICO提起的訴訟案，有提到:
We have read and taken account of an open and a small closed bundle of documents.
The tribunal records that the closed bundle is limited to a document containing the requested information i.e. the names of the examiners and the date the examiners signed approval of the thesis”
另外2021年12月11日法官Hazel Oliver駁回徐永泰博士的判決書中，也有下面這段文字紀錄:
“By way of evidence and submissions we had the following, all of which we have taken into account in making our decision:
b.A closed bundle of documents containing the withheld information (the examination records).”
“The Tribunal has seen the withheld information. We are not able to provide details about this information as it is President Tsai’s personal data. However, we can confirm that this information is consistent with the public statements that have already been made by the University. There is no indication that the University has lied in its previous responses, and no evidence of academic fraud. There is nothing in the withheld information that causes us concern in relation to these matters. In the absence of any evidence of fraud or other inappropriate behaviour, the limited interests in disclosure are clearly outweighed by President Tsai’s privacy rights.”
不論倫敦大學提供給法院的密封文件為何，法官Sophie Buckley和法官Hazel Oliver看到的口試委員資訊，應該不至於和LSE不同，但LSE持有278頁蔡英文的學生檔案中，多出來的第三位口試委員，根本就和倫敦大學聲明的二位口試委員不一致。
法官Sophie Buckley認為對於蔡英文論文真假的關切，可藉由倫敦大學有一份書面檔案記錄了姓名與日期而得到滿足。這對相關人士隱私的侵擾，也比把姓名與日期提供給外界要小。
We find that the legitimate interest can be achieved by the University’s confirmation that there is a written record of the names of the examiners and of the date that they signed approval of the thesis, and we find that this interferes less with the privacy of the data subjects than releasing the specific date or the names of the examiner. Accordingly, it is not reasonably necessary for the names or the date to be released.
法官如果要真相，需要理出以下前後不一的矛盾
2019年10月8日LSE在官網上的聲明中說，
“The Senate House Library records confirm that a copy was received and sent by them to the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (IALS). ”，
但是倫敦大學在2022年1月11日WDTK上卻說，
“The University of London has not published this thesis as no physical copy of the thesis was received into the University from the examiners.”。
2019年10月8日LSE在官網上的聲明中說，
“Dr Tsai Ing-wen, who is now the President of Taiwan, was awarded a PhD in February 1984 following the submission and examination of her thesis by two examiners. ”，
但是2011年7月13日LSE電郵卻說，
“I have Ing-Wen Tsai's paper file from our archives. According to that she was registered at LSE, on the PhD in Law, from October 1980 until June 1982. She submitted her thesis, entitled “unfair trade practice and safeguard actions” to the UoL for examinations, and was awarded the PhD on 14 March 1984.”。
倫敦大學和LSE的官方聲明中，都有互相矛盾的的地方，現在LSE自承可能不正確的口試委員，如何達成法官Sophie Buckley所稱的“legitimate interest can be achieved”?
