On International Human Rights Day 2016 ANM hosts an Open Letter from Freedom of Information (FOI) Campaigner Alan Dransfield, to the Lord Chancellor the Rt Hon Elizabeth Truss. This begins ANM’s scrutiny of the use of vexatious process to subvert Human Rights that are deemed necessary in a democracy.
The Right Hon Elizabeth Truss The Lord Chief Chancellor of the
Mr Alan Dransfield – Freedom of Information Campaigner and Social Watchdog
__________________________________________________________________
OPEN LETTER
Rt Hon Elizabeth Truss MP
The Lord Chancellor
10th December 2016
Dear Lord Chancellor
Freedom of Information
Over the last six weeks I have provided you with sufficient demonstrable evidence that the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) are in meltdown and guilty of fraud and theft of Public Funds to enable you to act.
There is also tangible evidence the ICO have been complicit with rogue Public Authorities to pervert the Course of Justice by the consistent misuse and abuse of section 14/1 of the FOIA 2004, i.e., vexatious exemption. Ditto for section 12(4)(b) of the EIRA 204: Manifestly Unreasonable.
The evidence of complicity between the ICO and Public Authorities seeking to avoid obligations under FOI by consistent misuse and abuse of Section 14/1 vexatious exemption is overwhelming.
My allegations originally stem from personal experience of a lack of transparency, leading to me becoming the UK’s leading Court Authority on vexatious exemption via GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield v ICO, which was upheld in the Court of Appeal under C3/2015/1855 Dransfield v ICO but irrefutable evidence held by me shows the legal errors in the GIA/3037/2011 vexatious decision. “Legal errors” would be too kind, I am of the view Judge Wikeley made his vexatious decision via a perverse mindset.
However there is a plethora of other allegations against the ICO, all of which support my claim that the ICO are in meltdown.
They include:
Lord Chancellor, this vexatious claptrap MUST stop and the ICO must be held accountable, for both their fiscal remit and their moral obligations. The buck stop at your desk.
My latest case with the ICO is regarding the Olympic Stadium, which I maintain is unsafe and unfit for purpose during a thunderstorm, because it has not been provisioned with Lightning Protection. The ICO claim 12 (5), national security, public safety claptrap.
Things are SO bad at the ICO you could do a lot worse than sacking Elizabeth Denham and replacing her with yours truly Alan M Dransfield.
For your information, action and files
Yours sincerely
Alan M Dransfield
FOI Campaigner and Social Watchdog
____________________________________________________________________________________
EDITORIAL
What the FOI?
Mr Dransfield’s long experience as a social watchdog on FOI includes both success and failure in gaining public interest information.
Dransfield’s successful appeal, following initial refusal for information about the lack of lightning protection on the Exeter rugby bridge, was subsequently turned over yet again by the above mentioned Judge Wikeley in a further appeal action brought significantly, not by Exeter County Council, but by the ICO itself.
“Vexatious” Scape-goating
It’s hard not to notice that the notion of “vexatious” planted in that second appeal has since been extensively used, citing this very case as precedent, to avoid thousands of public enquiries into matters of public safety by creating Mr Dransfield into a ‘vexatious’ scape-goat, a ready peg for public authorities to hang their hat on when they don’t want to answer the question.
Mr Dransfield has served that purpose for them over 3,800 documentable times, and his superior knowledge of lighting protection systems, and Health and Safety regulations, made him an obvious candidate for the projection of a vexatiousness that more properly should be seen as belonging to the ICO itself.
This is especially true in view of the recent ECHR ruling in the case of Magyar Helsinki Bizottsàg v Hungary which has now established the relevance of Article 10 to freedom of information about matters of public interest, with direct implications for the legion instances Mr Dransfield has highlighted of such requests being treated as “vexatious”.
UK out of step with Article 10?
The United Kingdom was a nay-saying “intervener” in the landmark Magyar Helsinki Bizottsàg v Hungary case, arguing that there was no such obligation to part with information. From para 6;1 of the UK submission:
“As a matter of interpretation of the language of Article 10.1, and having regard to the object and purpose of that provision, it is plain that the right “to receive … information … without interference contained in Article 10.1 protects the right to receive information from a person who is willing to impart it. Article 10.1 does not provide a general right of access to information of public interest held by public authorities”.
This point of view matches Mr Dransfield’s experience and observation of the UKs outlook on FOI, and indeed, the very same lawyers from law firm KBW who receive a starkly disproportionate amount of ICO business domestically according to Mr Dransfield’s research, and who have argued against his requests for information relating to public health and safety, were the lawyers appearing in Strasburg to put forward the above point of view.
Some of these same lawyers are also now taking a high profile role in seeking to close down parliamentary scrutiny of Article 50 in Brexit.
Human Rights Obligations
Mr Dransfield’s Open Letter, appropriately published on International Human Rights Day, is a request to return to sanity regarding transparency of public interest information, as the ECHR ruling by the Grand Chamber at 15 votes to 2 that there is indeed an obligation under Article 10 to provide information to those wishing to impart it widely in the public interest. From the Strasburg Observers case summary:
It is nonsense to suggest that the public have no interest in the lack of lightning protection on a sports stadium or bridge, or in other failures to adhere to Health & Safety Directive rules for providing safe public spaces for education, work and relaxation, all matters on which Mr Dransfield has sought, and been refused, information.
The Grand Chamber further decided by 15:2 to clarify matters about the threshold:
The Information Commissioner’s Office
These Human Rights obligations, conflicts of interest, as well as transparency and compliance in procurement practises of HM Government and it’s agencies should be of great interest the new Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham, especially as they appear to concur with remarks she made herself at an event marking 250 years of freedom of information held at the Free Word Centre, London on 8th December 2016:
Unfortunately, since her commencement as Commissioner in the summer, Mr Dransfield has tried to address with the Commissioner the inappropriate use of 14.1 “vexatious” to bat away questions of public interest, resulting in his extensive scapegoating, now confirmed by the recent ECHR ruling as unlawful.
At the time of publishing he has received no response.
_______________________________________________________________________
Should citizens have access to public interest information, whether or not departments want to part with it?
Let us know what you think in the comments.
@Amazonnewsmedia, Alex Goantis, ANM, Article 10, C3/2015/1855 Dransfield v ICO, CASE OF MAGYAR HELSINKI BIZOTTSÁG v. HUNGARY, Eizabeth Truss, Elizabeth Denham, Exeter City Council, FOI, Freedom of Information, GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield v ICO, Grand Chamber, Health and Safety, Human Rights Day, ICO, Information Commissioner's Office, International Human Rights Day, KBW, Lord Chancellor, Open Letter, Rt Hon Elizabeth Truss, Stockport Council
It is inconceivable that the ICO should not publish their Register of Interests. They are imposing huge fines on Public Authorities whom make similar errors. This Dransfield vexatious BS is at best, a tool to assist the passage of fraud and theft of public funds and at worst, a tool to pervert the course of justice. I suggest the latter.
May I wish Mr Dransfield every success in his pursuit of the issues surrounding the use of the “GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield v ICO”. The use of this exemption has been over used; as I understand it now, since the case this year which is highlighted there is now no longer any way that it can stand up to anything but a denial of fundamental human rights. Those agents of the Public sector who have come to rely on its use is simply a lazy, shows a disrespect for lawful and and concerned individuals. Sadly my one simple FOI request too, the subject of which was a local council enquiry. The reason for the denied request was the subject of interest of a public enquiry and sought to access the financial costs of a project funded by ERDF. The records, which should remain fully accessible (as a requirement of the funders) may well contain a financial irregularity to the value of £100k from the ERDF purse. IMHO the unreasonable application of “GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield v ICO” has totally denied access. This was a scandalous but simplistic action by the Council concerned, and it was supported at appeal by the ICO. What is going on? Why is this, now disproven use of a disrespected action being allowed to continue to protect potentially criminal or certainly disputable defences?
Unfortunately John the Dransfield case is now being used as a get out of jail free card to prevent Joe Public getting public Information.
Thanks for your comment John and information and the blatant situation re FOI does make the whole human rights conversation in the U.K. look like puff semantics doesn’t it.
The vast majority of FOI requests in the UK are answered without recourse to the vexatious provisions, despite Mr Dransfield’s exaggerations. I have made hundreds of FOI requests over the years and I have never been refused as vexatious. Mr Dransfield’s engagements with the new Commissioner include describing her as a ‘useless cow’ on Twitter a few weeks before sending this letter was published. Whatever the flaws in Denham’s approach, it is not difficult to imagine why she chooses to ignore him.
Thanks for your comment. And yet thousands also have Dransfield’s name on them. Those are the requests at issue here, not your personal ones, although I’d be interested to know in what capacity you’ve submitted hundreds of them. 🙂
It’s a truism of Bullying 101 that you provoke a target until they react and then point the finger. Mr Dransfield’s colourful language perhaps reflects the insult of having your name unreasonably scape-goated for half a decade – and it’s not a suitable point to hang a serious discussion of freedom of information on in my opinion.
I’ve submitted 100s of FOI requests in my capacity as a citizen of the UK, like thousands of others.
Mr Dransfield isn’t being bullied and he isn’t a scapegoat. He used the FOI system and it didn’t give the result he wanted because of his own behaviour. He challenged using the courts, and he lost. All of his bluster and finger-pointing cannot mask the fact that generally, FOI delivers. If you read the Court’s decisions, you will see an intemperate and angry man who has no backing in the health and safety sector for his theories. He is an odd choice of FOI hero, when so many journalists and campaigners deserve credit for what they have achieved with FOI. Just yesterday, Dransfield was on Twitter saying he wanted to spit in my face and ‘put me to sleep’, presumably because I had had the temerity to comment here. Not a big fan of free speech, it seems.
I have published your comment, but I want to make clear that I will not tolerate insults or trolling on my blog.
There is no evidence for your extrapolation that his tweet had anything to do with this site – and you need to respect that if you want to comment here.
I don’t agree with threats or insults at all and Alan knows that, but don’t use my concern with the FOI issue to troll me in order to bring personal business in here. It’s clear there is history between you that doesn’t concern ANM.
I certainly don’t agree that his initial request was in any way vexatious – and I’m not easily persuaded to take as read Court decisions as God given, especially at this time of societal and political transition, neither am I a big fan of paternalism.
In a nutshell I know enough about the vexatious exemption racket to believe it bogus which is why I have published the letter – the editorial makes it clear that the ICO are the ones who “couldn’t let it lie” and that in itself is an abuse.
Thanks for your patience. 🙂
You can play around with all the catchphrases you like – Dransfield’s case is the law. It is the ICO’s role to make decisions and then defend them – if their defence of their decision was an abuse of the process, the Tribunal had the opportunity to say so. It did not. Mr Dransfield has had several opportunities to persuade differently constituted Tribunals of his case. He has failed. You may believe the UK court system is a conspiracy against the little man – that is your right. It doesn’t matter whether you think Dransfield’s initial request was vexatious – the court saw it in the context of Dransfield’s wider behaviour, which is precisely why I brought his attitude up.
How much or how little you know about vexatious refusals is immaterial. The European Court will have no say in the implementation of Dransfield’s case, and Liz Truss will not intervene in the court process either – it would be an outrage if a politician interfered with the legal system in the way that Dransfield hopes. Everything above is, like it or not, just froth. Like all of Dransfield’s efforts, it changes nothing about the reality of how FOI works in the UK.
“It is the ICO’s role to make decisions and then defend them”
So not to make public interest information available to the public then, at least we are clear about that.
I think we’ve got the message – and understand that process simply can’t get it wrong or be corrupted – and It must be equally obvious to you by now that this is a point of contention.
It may give you a warm feeling to think that Mr D deserves to be treated vexatiously, and of course nobody is assuming power isn’t backed up with an iron fist. We all know it is.
As for the future – I don’t think any of us can count on that which is a lesson even the most complacent will have to learn.
There’s been a bit of a debacle on Twitter about Tim Turner’s further comment. I didn’t publish it, so he accused me of censorship. In fact I several times invited him to provide the new information in the comment and leave out the insults, repetitions of opinions he’d already expressed, and condescending mansplaining about what the law ‘is’.
He declined, rushing off to blog about that instead. As he did, I’m going to quote the relevant information from that comment he declined to give here.
“If you want to stop vexatious decisions being made under Dransfield, someone needs to take a case all the way to the Court of Appeal and get Dransfield overturned. Alternatively, the FOI Act will have to be amended in Parliament.”
In fact, he’s subsequently amended even that in his own blog post, as he has been made aware that it’s only the Supreme Court that can overturn it, making it even more difficult.
Like Tim, I’m appreciative of the information and still interested in FOI.
He wasn’t censored, and I haven’t banned him or anything, but he didn’t like not being able to talk down to me, and started banging on about me not being willing to publish comments I don’t like, which given the comments I’ve already published is obvious rubbish. Tim made allegations that turned out to be true, so I had to publish them even though it showed my guest in an extremely bad light.
That doesn’t mean I have to let Tim or any man (or woman) gratuitously condescend to me, and I wish more people could tell the difference. One thing I’m grateful for is that Tim asked me for my comment policy, and I don’t think I’ve redone that since the site moved to WordPress, so I’ll attend to it.
It’s not hard to confess to being shocked by aggression and the obvious personal animosity between these two men, which clearly has history, but which couldn’t go anywhere without spilling out all over this piece.
After a busy week I’ve attended to the comments policy which you can find here:
http://amazonnewsmedia.com/articles/comments-anm/
Fully appreciate the owner of the site holds vicariously liability hence must dictate the rules. Tim Turner is an Information Commissioner wannabe and bleeds ICO blood when the ICO are attacked. He also believes my Foia requests are without merit and I am a general nuisance and trouble causer.
Turner is entitled to his opinions.
He claims the ICO can do no wrong. Let me give you just one example of a major screw up by the ICO. IE the ICO have not yet published their Register if interests. Turner claims the ICO are fully compliant with their register of interests
Tim Turner claims the ICO top brass Denham, Entwhistle and Wood have published their register of interest documents on the ICO website.
My response to that is hogwash because all three forms are blank. Can Turner explain why these register of interest forms are blank?!
Perhaps Tim will provide the compliant register of interests info if it exists?
Thanks for the acknowledgement Alan – I hope you have read my comment policy (top of the sidebar) and I appreciate that you were not the person bringing “outside” personal information in – even though it was quite shocking!
Let’s keep it clean eh gents?
That certainly doesn’t mean you cannot obliterate one another’s arguments or expose facts. I hope the site’s comment policy makes the difference clear and I am ready to discuss.
I hope the policy also makes it clear how careful you have to be if subject to stalking and harassment by proxy trolls working for harassers determined to remain hidden.
The register is available on the ICO’s website. If Mr Dransfield or any other person can point to the law that says that the Register is unlawful in its current form, I would fascinated to hear which specific law that is. An assertion that something is unlawful is very different to being about cite the relevant law.
As Mr Dransfield has been given the opportunity to claim that I bleed ICO blood, and I am immortalised in the comments policy as an ‘apologist’, I hope I am allowed to say that I have been a longstanding critic of the ICO for many years, both on my blog and elsewhere. Indeed, the only reason why Dransfield can complain about the conflict of interest over managers moonlighting as politicians in his open letter is because I worked it out and wrote about it.
Hi again Tim – there is obviously plenty of history between you and Mr Dransfield and I’d like to remind you that you took the opportunity to bring that in here which you certainly didn’t mind doing.
That means we’ve got off on the wrong foot as it were, but I am not Mr Dransfield, and I responded to you as you were coming across to me.
My comment policy thoughts will doubtless change again as I assume you noticed that it wasn’t all about you but about ongoing gang stalking?
If indeed you are providing genuinely helpful information to open democracy then there shouldn’t be any problem acknowledging that but that makes the obvious hostility between you even less comprehensible to an outsider.
As the host of this Open Letter it’s difficult to manage that without encouraging more fighting, and off-topic ad hom.
On the other hand the issues are important, so hopefully it won’t ignite fury if I simply risk this observation:
There’s a vast difference between being a critic of any organisation, group or Government, and being a target of it.
Tim Turner is on record that my original FOIA was made out of mischief and was not related to any H&S related matters. Strange that the DCC and the ICO went on record, “we do not consider Mr Dransfield FOIA request was designed to cause disruption or annoyance”. Therefore Turner’s statement about my motive being driven by myschief crashes on take off.
I think he worked for the ICO or a PA somewhere hence, he takes a dislike to most FOIA requesters. He is on record saying ,” I dont know much about the FOIA as I am Data Specialist”. Too tru he doesnt know much about the FOIA and he knows even less about Construction and Lightning Protection.
and by his own admission , he knows FA about my case and less about the motives. Surely, even he knows the FOIA is motive blind.
In response to Mr Turner’s request for the Law ref Register of Interest at the ICO. I refer to the Localisim Law 2011. Mr Turner defends the ICO failure to ensure ALL senior Managers are required to publish the Register of Interest Docs.
MPs do it, Councillors do it but the ICO do NOT.
Ms Denham was in the Chair for 6 months before she made a declaration, hardly leading by example, is it?
The whole idea of Register of Interest Docs is to demonstrate the PA have Policies and Proceedures in place to protect transparency, accountability and security (TAS). TAS MUST be seen to be working and it AINT seen to be working at the ICO, ditto for the Lord Chancellor.
It would appear the ICO have dropped the Dransfield Vexatious decision GIA/3037/2011 as a Court Precedence. Since Jan 2013 the ICO have used the GIA/3037 case as a Court Precedence but since the 12th of Jan this year, they have handed down 5 Vexatious decisions which have not relied upon the Dransfield Vexatious Court Authority??!! Indeed, these 5 vexatious decisions are devoid of any Court Precedence period,rendering them null and void.
I would be very interested to hear Tim Turner Opinion on this U Turn.
I must say it is surprising and disappointing that the Lord Cheif Chancellor has ignored my Open Letter above about the vexatious BS .Notwithstanding the veracity of my allegations, the gravity of my assertions do require her intervention. I suppose this is a direct result of putting Baker in Charge of a Nucear plant.??!!
It would also appear the ICO are massaging their Decision Notice total and for the last three days, they have reported three diffferent Total Number of their Decsion notices,i.e 4850-9600-8061
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhU8tkkkdTo
It is paramount for democracy that the General Public SHALL not be gagged and we must be allowed unfettered access to Public Information. Enough is enough of this Dransfield Vexatious CLAPRAP
According to the HSE, the Olympic Stadium is not a Construction Site. At least that is what they said when they were called to the London Olympic Stadium on June 28th 2015 to investigate a Fatal Fall from the Stadium Rooftop.
At that time, the Olympic Park was the biggest Construction Site in Europe. How bizzare?
Alan this is interesting – have you got any sources for the denial? Or for your claim of it being the biggest construction site?
Please see the HSE letter at following link. This letter confirms the Balfour Beatty Employer who fell off the roof was NOT WORK RELATED, which quite frankly is HOGWASH,. Of course it is a frigging Work Related Incident because he WAS a BB Employee,albeit a subby, and he was working onthe roof.
This letter confirms the HSE and Met police have conspired with the London LegacyAuthority and Balfour Beatty to cover up Gross Negligent Manslaughter
http://blog.olliesemporium.co.uk/#{%22status%22:%22TOOLBAR_READY%22,%22toolbarId%22:202980021}
The HSE letter above confirms the HSE/Met Police did not follow the HSE protocol for Investigating Work Deaths as shown below. It also confirm the Met Police did not assume Primacy as required by the protcol below. It also confirms the HSE and Met Police Officer had reached a decision on the same day as the death that it wasn’t a work related death which quite frankly be.ggars belief
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/wrdp2.pdf
Another clear example of fiduciary failings by ALL the Oversight Authorities on the London Olympic Stadium is the Completion Certificates were signed 9(nine) months post World Cup Ruby Final, ie Final played on 31st Oct 2015 Completion Certificate signed on the 13th July 2016.
For the uninitiated the Completion certificate is “usually” signed BEFORE use. Not rocket is it.
This section has been highlighted by someone to me due to our experience in Wales. Will try keep it simple.
We raised a complaint against Cardiff CC planning department through the Welsh Ombudsman processes. As part of the process we received in writing that Cardiff CC would not support our neighbour building something. 9 months later it was built. It transpired that 4 weeks after we have the complaint response, Cardiff CC planning department went in a dark room and changed their mind, they told no one, not even the Ombudsman. We challenged Cardiff CC as to what they did, in the words of a head of directorate there, ‘the ombudsman’s processes are not relevant to planning’.
We then complained to the Ombudsman on 2 fronts, why did Cardiff CC change their mind and second, how can he have a legally valid complaints process if the Council can change their input to his process and tell no one? We have had a response from the Ombudsman but it does not address the actual complaint. Even our Assembly member and minster in the welsh government agreed that it had not been answered.
We then asked the Ombudsman under the FOI for the communication between his office and Cardiff CC. It then gets very bizarre. We have been told we must sign a gagging order to receive the communication, yes a gagging order. An Ombudsman is insisting we sign a gagging order on information relating to a complaint about his own service, why? This is the order.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B58r3YTiZhMXaTAyLVZVTEtGMTQ
This has been ongoing nearly 4 years now and presently sits with Welsh Government and National Assembly for Wales. The Ombudsman is threatening us legally for questioning publically his behaviour but he will not answer why he is using a gagging order on information in relation to a complaint on his services or why he won’t answer our complaint. Begs the question as to what is being hidden and why? Gagging orders please, that’s not democracy…!!!!!
I think the Secretary of State for the HSE Penny Mordaunt needs to look at the relationship between the HSE and Balfour Beatty contractors who appear to have their fair share of fatal accidents Nationwide. Take this one for example:
Balfour Beatty Health and Safety Policy purports to take Health and Safety very seriously and have a ZERO HARM policy.
Granted, on paper it looks superb but it is all a SCAM to mitigate damages in the event of a FATAL INCIDENT, which they have plenty. In actual fact Balfour Beatty are the runnerway leader of the Construction DEATH LIST every year.
The URL below is a typical BB Construction Site FATAL Incident and this is a UK RECORD Fine of £2.6 million. It also reflects the COZY relationship between Balfour Beatty and the HSE. Please note, I refer to INCIDENTS NOT accidents like Balfour Beatty and the HSE. ALL Balfour Beatty deaths could and should have been avoided. This particular death is most disconcerting because they broke every rule in the HSE Rulebook.
It’s amazing how BB Management always avoid Criminal Negligence/ Corporate Manslaughter.??!!
Zero Harm my Ass.
http://www.shponline.co.uk/balfour-beatty-fined-2-6m-after-trench-fatality/
Some 4 months later the Lord Chancellor has not responded to my Open Letter. What are they hiding.
This is an extract from Tim Turner’s comments on my open letter.
Quote
“They have made a fatal error in their analysis of Dransfield’s case. The editorial states that Dransfield enjoys “superior knowledge of lighting protection systems, and Health and Safety regulations” – the problem is that this is irrelevant to the case. S14 of FOI has no public interest test – it’s not about the information, but the process.
The Information Commissioner, the two Tribunals and the Court of Appeal are not supposed to decide whether Dransfield is right about the unsafe buildings. For the record, I think the conspiracy is a complete fantasy, and Dransfield’s requests are the result of a grudge against his former employer, Balfour Beatty. None of Dransfield’s blood-curdling predictions about fatal lightning strikes have come true, and I am not aware of anyone in the UK Health and Safety sector who backs his theories (I’m famously an arsehole and lots of people agree with me about Data Protection despite this impediment).
None of this matters. The question in play is not one about Health and Safety. The question is whether Dransfield’s torrent of requests, complaints and other correspondence were an abuse of the FOI system. Dransfield had every opportunity to put his case before four independent bodies – one of them agreed with him, and the others did not. It’s not impossible for Dransfield to be right about the buildings (as unlikely as this may seem) and yet, because of his hostility, his stubbornness and the sheer weight of his requests, they tip into vexatiousness.”
Unquote
Its fairly obvious that Tim Turner is ignorant of the FOIA and apparently he is a DATA Guru??!!. In the event a FOIA request raises serious H&S issue which my original FOIA did, it SHOULD not be classed as vexatious. Pure and simple. I have now produced concrete evidence that the Exeter Chief Rugby Ground has been devoid of any Lightning Protection for the last decade,hence, just how Judge Wikeley reached his Vexatious Nonsense is beyond me. We also now know that the Tory Chairman Sir Patrick Mcloughlin is chief ADMINISTRATOR to the ICO.
EXETER PFI SCHOOLS DEVOID OF ANY FIRE CERTIFICATES FOR FOUR YEARS
In light of the breaking alarming news about PFI schools Health and Safety issues Nationwide , I really do believe there is an urgent need for a full H&S Audit on the 6 Exeter PFI Schools. Looking thru some old records, I note all the Exeter PFI schools Completion Certificates were signed 4 years AHEAD of the Fire Certificates.In laymans language this is the Cart before the Horse.
The Completion Certificate should NOT be approved and signed BEFORE the Fire Inspection has been carried out. Not rocket science, is it .? It is most suspicious that the Exeter City Council claim they Inspected all 6 Schools for Fire Certifcation on the 9th May 2011. It is physically not possible to conduct a Fire Inspection on 6 LARGE PFI Schools on the same day. It should be noted also that the Mechanical and Electrical Sub Contractors Works on the 6 PFI Exeter Schools have admitted to a number of Fire Hazards in a number of PFI Schools and Hospital Nationwide.Quell surprise Balfour Beatty Fraudsters.
It beggars belief that the Exeter City Council (Building Controllers) would allow 6 PFI schools to operate WITHOUT a Fire Certificate for 4 years. Most Bizzarre.
Mr Andrew Brewer has submitted a long list of irregularities and anomalies with these schools but he didn’t mention the 48 months ABSENCE of the Fire Certificate? What about other important tests,i.e Air Tests, Legionella tests, Electrical Test, Lightning Tests, etc.The Upper Tribunal refused my FOIA Hearing last year because they claim my Request was vexatious.
Operating 6 schools without Fire Certificate is at best, remiss and at worst, criminally negligent,I suggest the latter. These 6 PFI schools were not certified for Fire protection some 4years + after the Completion Certificates.
The Upper Tribunal and ICO and ask them to revisit their vexatious decions because it would appear Dransfield’s FOIA request is NOWHERE NEAR vexatious. There no doubt in my mind you will not take the needful action but it will suffice my records,that I have made such a request.
Skeptics might say, there’s no big deal, no fires,no deaths and no injuries.My brain doesn’t work like that, I want to know why the Exeter City Council CHIEF BUILDING Controller Mr Alan Stoke (retired) appears to have lost his moral compass and allowed school to operatein a LEGAL VOID for over 4 years.The Upper Tribunal Judge Wikeley is on record that I was abusing the FOIA System and Manifestly unreasonable and that my request was without serious purpose or public Interest.My response to that is HOGWASH. These Fire Certicates are further concrete evidence that my original FOIA request was benign,straightforeward and BOTH in the Public Interest and Serious Purpose
Yes, I have a copy of the HSE letter which states the Incident at the Olympic Stadium on 28th June 2015 was NOT A WORK related death. Very strange that the deceased ID never published ,ditto for the Coroners Report. It is inconceivable the HSE/Met police could/would say this is NOT A WORK RELATED death.
Hi Alan, I see you have submitted an FOI to Met Police on this matter stating:
“I seek this information not only under protection of the FOIA2000 but also the Magyar Helsinki Bizottsag decsion from the Grand Jury 18030/11 dated 6th June 2016 which allows me a full unredacted copy of the Met Police Report to the Construction worker death/incident at the Olympic Stadium on Sun 27th June 2015.It also allows me to obtain Met Police Force Personal details which WAS protected under the Data Act98 but is not now protected under exemption owing to the Helsinki Bizzttsage Case Law.”
How hopeful are you of receiving these details, of mortality of an as yet un-named person, so far after the event?
Perhaps we should open a book on it?
There is no doubt in my mind the Kent Police will use the tried and tested Dransfield Vexatious BS GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield . Do you mean a BETTING Book or a FICTION BOOK about the CO and Timmy Turner ICO Wannabee?
A VEXATIOUS poem which I cannot take any credit for. It has been written by a fellow VEXATIOUS Campaigner who had one of her children stolen via a forced adoption.The truth WILL OUT.
They’ll consider them vexatious,
The requests that they will make,
But what you will not realise,
Is what they’re using is so fake.
You see there is a case law,
None goes as high as that,
Already used against thousands,
Which puts an end to that.
So ask whatever you will,
Important as it may be,
Because I’m telling all of you,
It’s as corrupt as corrupt can be.
There’s genuine appeals,
With facts and figures galore,
With evidence that’s proven,
They overlook and ignore.
So whether it’s your benefits,
A life that has been lost,
A miscarriage of justice in any shape,
It all just ends up glossed.
Law is not being used properly,
From the highest to the low,
They see no appeal is strong enough,
Than the one they use make grow.
So data is being concealed,
Although leaked then restrictions apply,
You risk getting gagged or restricted next,
Then they expect you to comply.
So the best thing you can do,
Is apply to prosecute,
Expose it all if you must,
Or start a civil suit.
With whistleblowers everywhere,
You can research a lot on line,
I’m merely trying to advise you,
Where not to waste your time.
For the family who lost a relative,
To the child who was abused,
I’m sorry to share my truth with you,
I too am not amused.
To the failed mother in the nursing home,
To the dad who they let down,
From one corner to the other,
They’ll find an excuse around.
The case law is not real law,
It’s just used as a plot,
To get out of responding as they should,
To the very day we rot.
I mean a betting book – but also what does Mr Turner want to be, in your opinion, information commissioner?
Tim Turner odds on wants to be the next Information Commissioner.
Don’t you find it a wee bit strange and a tad conflict of interest that the Tory Chairman holds sole remit for any Sect 45 changes to the FOIA. I certainly do.
That would be quite irregular surely, can you explain this a bit more please – how can that be?
That would be for him to say I guess. How about you Alan, maybe you two should do it on a job share?
Let me explain
The Tory Chairman (Chief Whip) is Sir Patrick Mcgloughlin who is also the Chancellor to the Duchy of Lancaster(HM QUEEN).
Sir Partrick hold primacy remit for any amendments to Section 45 of the FOIA. Just a tad conflict of interest sez me.
In essence, the Tory Party can amend the FOIA . No doubt Sir Pat can update Queeny on such issue.
Yes I could do a better job than any of them.
The ICO has been running for 17 years WITHOUT any oversight authority??!!
Ref my comment above please the ICO guidelines for the sect 45 and in particular page 1 the OVERVIEW and page 3 section 8.
This is fairly new ICO Guidliens only 6 months old.No wonder Sir Patrick got a knighthood ,is there.
Don’t you think it is tad bias toward the Tory Party
This supports my claims the ICO are a Government Gatekeeper.
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?hspart=adk&hsimp=yhs-adk_sbnt&type=st_appfocus165_ff¶m1=20170331¶m2=dbf94420-4c13-47f9-83ec-7a8f95179cda¶m3=speedtest_0.2.0~GB~appfocus165¶m4=tt~Firefox~Sect+45++chancello+and+Duchy+of++Lancaster&p=Sect+45++chancello+and+Duchy+of++Lancaster
a quicker URL
https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1624144/section-45-code-of-practice-request-handling-foia.pdf
According to the Office of the Judicial Conduct GOONS the Lord Chancellor doesn’t come under their remit.Another toothless watchdog,sez me