Key Public Interest Questions Under Inquiry

---

These are the key public interest inquiries currently under investigation and currently being litigated

The Good State Project highlights the essential questions that public bodies should be addressing to ensure public body accountability and enhanced transparency in their operations

Has a government department designed and operated an information channel that compromises the security of millions of personal medical records?

Has a public body tasked with independent rigorous assessment been producing work for highly sensitive policies that lacks proper accountability and transparency, based on manipulated narrative and no reasonable basis? 

Plainly, has it been fudging numbers to support nightmare storytelling by the state, undermining transparency in public bodies and the integrity of public interest inquiries?

Is this public body still fit for purpose? 

Does it engage properly with FOI requests, or is it more focused on shielding public authorities than ensuring transparency in public bodies? 

Does it only respond when driven by political motivations and gain? Or does it spend the rest of the time undermining public body accountability and suppressing the rights of UK citizens while improperly covering for public bodies?

Is this tribunal fit for purpose? 

Is it contributing to a toxic information access rights system in the UK, undermining government accountability and the public interest inquiries that are essential for fostering transparency in public bodies?

Does its Administrative Appeals Chamber grasp the fundamental scope of its responsibilities in reviewing and enforcing accountability in the information rights sector for the public? 

Has it unlawfully denied access to information for members of the public, failing to enforce the lawful scope of judicial assessment as outlined in FOIA legislation, while also turning a purposeful blind eye to the toxic state of the GRC/ICO partnership? 

Is it one of the parties fundamentally responsible for creating a toxic information access rights system in the UK, undermining public interest inquiries and working against the interests of the public?

Has the government been carrying out thousands of prosecutions of members of the public while withholding crucial information about potentially faulty cameras? 

This raises serious questions about police, surveillance and state accountability

Has it been making materially false public statements regarding its camera network?

If the state uses automated machines and systems to accuse people, does it have a responsibility to ensure that those machines and systems are functioning properly?

In the context of public interest inquiries, can a public authority rely on automated systems to progress its own activities, such as prosecuting members of the public, while structurally insulating itself from the knowledge those systems produce—especially regarding data that concerns the integrity of the function being performed? 

Has it been designed to be structurally incapable of self-correction? 

Does its current structure limit oversight of ombudsman decisions in public interest inquiries?

Are there any internal guardrails to ensure that members of the public are treated fairly, promoting transparency in public bodies, rather than merely giving a weak, false impression of justice when they complain about corporations?

Is it refusing to comply with court and tribunal orders, raising concerns about government accountability? 

Is it unlawfully coercing vulnerable individuals into its assessment processes without any lawful or transparent basis, undermining transparency in public bodies and the integrity of public interest inquiries?

Has the agency purposefully engineered an unlawful discriminatory psychometric testing tool to ensure only impressionable, compliant individuals are allowed to join the organization? 

What does this mean for authoritarian power inside our own intelligence agencies? Does this dilute and weaken the moral and ethical fiber of our intelligence agencies? 

With such an operating model, can the public trust the agency to protect its interests? 

This raises critical issues about government accountability and transparency in public bodies. What happens if authoritarian power at its highest levels begins to serve its own interests without any internal guardrails? 

Does this make the agency a long-term threat to the safety and prosperity of UK citizens, undermining the integrity of public interest inquiries?