This document can be more clearly read via this link:
This blog is aimed at shaming those who ignore health and safety and those who abuse the Freedom of Information Act out of laziness, corruption or to cover up incompetence.
Information Commissioners Office
Under protection of the FOIA 2000 please provide me with copies of the following
1. All correspondence between the ICO and David Lidington ref the recent changes to sect 45 of FOIA
2. Records of all phone calls, meetings etc and personal notes from Ms Denham to the Queen on same subject.
3. Copies of all correspondence from your office pertaining to sect 45 changes and responses from the Cabinet Office. This request is neither vexatious, wide or unfocused.
Alan M Dransfield
Attn The President of the Upper Tribunal Mr Justice
In light of last nights documentary on the Channel 4 Dispatches programme ref the Carillion Collapse (CC), I ask the UT President to revisit his earlier decision that Judge Wikely had acted within the law ref Case GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield v ICO. I reiterate Judge Wikely was complicit with the ICO to pervert the course of justice ref the Dransfield Vexatious Court Precedence.
In mid 2016 my appeal to the UT relating to 6 PFI schools
in Exeter was rejected based on the Court of Appeal C3/1855/2015. Moreover and
more importantly the Dispatches programme supports my claims the 6 PFI school in
Exeter were/are substandard and unsafe. It also supports my allegation that you
have acted unlawfully by not taking my allegation against Judge Wikely
seriously. In essence, you have been complicit with Judge Wikely and the ICO to
cover up serious crimes and to circumvent the ICO.
Revisit your decision
ref my complaints against Judge Wikely ref GIA/3037/2011.
Revist the UT decision to dismiss my appeal to the UT.
Alan M Dransfield
15th August 2018
Case Reference Number FS50772688
Email sent - Thu 26/07/2018 20:17
Attn Karla Bailey Lead Case Officer
I now wish to elevate my complaint to the next level of the ICO complaints procedure, as I fervently believe the ICO have breached my Information rights by refusing my Subject Access Request ( SAR) on grounds my request is Manifestly Unreasonable.
No person applying a right and proper mind could refuse my SAR under such exemptions.
As you are aware, the ICO has consistently refused my FOI requests under section 14/1 vexatious exemption and now for the first time my SAR has been refused. It is consistently obvious to me that ICO senior managers including Elizabeth Denham are acting in concert to harass me. At best, your refusal decision is a Wednesbury Principled decision, and at worst, a decision to pervert the course of justice. I suggest the latter.
In the event I have not received a response to this letter within 14 days, I intend to pursue a private prosecution commencing at Chester Magistrate Court under protection of The Fraud Act 2006 and the Data Act 98
Alan M Dransfield
Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham
As you are aware, the ICO have instructed court bailiffs to recover nearly £4000 legal costs in connection with The Court of Appeal Case C3/1855/ 15th May, Dransfield v ICO.
Are you not aware that a public authority cannot use taxpayers money to seek legal redress?
Therefore, please advise your bailiffs to cease and desist harassing me for such legal costs.
I will take this opportunity in submitting a FOIA request to the ICO for all cases in which the ICO have pursued legal costs against any FOIA complainant/requester since Jan 2013.
Yours sincerelylan Dransfield