From: alan dransfield
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 7:08 AM
Subject: Complaint against Upper Tribunal Judge SM Wright
Mr Justice Charles
Upper Tribunal President
I wish to make a complaint of misconduct against Judge SM Wright in the manner he has handled a recent UT Case and his subsequent final decision notice.
In particular,I refer to the UT hearing in London on the 16th Oct 2014 ref GIA/1642/2014 Dransfield v the ICO and House of Lords.
Judge SM Wright upheld the ICO decision, "DO NOT HOLD THE SOUGHT AFTER
No person applying a right and proper mind could have reached such a decision because the House of Lords(HoL) have a legal obligation to hold the sought after data, i.e. Lightning Risk Assessment (LRA) for the Westminster Parliament Premises.
As you are aware, I have a long running complaint against another UT Judge, i.e Judge Wikeley ref GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield v ICO &Devon County County Council, which you have refused to investigate pending the Court of Appeal Hearing in London on the 27/28th Jan 2015.
I accept that the GIA/1642/2014 is not VEXATIOUS related but it would appear the Upper Tribunal are determined to obstruct Justice in cases involving Dransfield.
Judge Wright claims in his decision notice that it is NOT the duty of the FTT/ICO or the UT to investigate if the HoL "SHOULD" hold the sought after data.
It is inconceivable that a Upper Tribunal Judge would not investigate the Legal Obligation of the Public Authority to HOLD the sought after data.
Therefore, the emphasise of my complaint is Judge SM Wright MINDSET ref "SHOULD HOLD" definition.
In all probability, the House of Lords have a legal obligation under UK and EU Laws to hold the sought after data and the ICO/FTT and the UT were very wrong to not investigate this matter. Indeed, it is not a question of fact if they should hold the Lightning Risk Assessment as it is well documented in Statutory Law.
Any right minded person would investigate if the House of Lords held a legal remit to hold the Lightning Risk Assessment.
Judge SM Wright was very wrong to dismiss my appeal based on the fact the HoL claimed they did not hold the LRA documents.
My allegations of wrongdoing falls under the UT Rules and Procedures related to "Judicial
Misconduct ie Rule 34(b).
There is evidence to support my claims the FTT and the UT are part of a wider conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and to circumvent the FOIA 2000.
At this juncture, there are two UT decisions which debar the general public access to the FOIA 2000.
A1. The GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield v ICO &DCC. (Vexatious).
A2. The GIA/1642/2014 Dransfield v ICO& House of Lords.( Do not hold)
I claim the UT Judges are conspiring to pervert the Course of Justice and I request the Upper Tribunal to add my complaint against Judge SM Wright to my complaint against Judge Wikeley.
It is fact that the ICO/FTT/UT appear to be bending over backwards to obstruct the general public's access to the FOIA 2000 and the two above cases are prima facie evidence of that fact.
It should be noted that Judge Wright has subsequently refused permission for me my leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Please be informed that I now intend to appeal Judge Wright's GIA/1642/2014 decision to the Court of Appeal.
Alan M Dransfield.
Dear FoI Officer
Thank you for your response, which I will pass on to the people fighting blacklisting. But I have to ask, why did LibDem Council Leader, Councillor Derbyshire, make a promise in the full council meeting not to use blacklisting firms and then promptly gives one a £350m contract? LibDems eh! If their lips are moving they are lying.
From: FOI Officer
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 11:14 AM
Subject: RE: Early contractor involvment - "Cheadle Constituency Link Road" - ref 9178 - Response
Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing in response to your request for information (ref FOI 9178) regarding the above.
The information has been prepared by the relevant Council service and is as follows:
Under the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 there is only one relevant discretionary ground for excluding a contractor where blacklisting is alleged to have taken place and that is if the bidding organisation has committed an act of grave misconduct in the course of its business or profession. However, in such cases the Local Authority is obliged to consider mitigating circumstances and to permit economic operators to demonstrate “self-cleaning”.
Of the major companies implicated in blacklisting, Balfour Beatty, Carillion, Costain, Kier, Laing O'Rourke, Sir Robert McAlpine, Skanska UK and Vinci Construction have all apologised for their involvement with The Consulting Association (the company operating the database) and any impact that its database may have had on any individual construction worker. These companies have joined together to make amends by establishing a Construction Workers’ Compensation Scheme. The scheme is intended to make it as simple as possible for any worker with a legitimate claim to access compensation. Carillion maintain their involvement came about through its subsidiary Crown House, which was sold to Laing O’Rourke in 2004. They argue that the practice of using the database was to identify workers involved in criminal offences and unlawful strike activity.
CSS Senior Officer
Information Governance Team
Stockport SK1 3XE
Tel : 0161 474 4048
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2014 5:54 AM
Subject: FOIA REQUEST REF UK BLACKLISTING .
Information Commissioners Officer
Under protection of the FOIA 2000, please provide me copies of all
correspondence held by the ICO regarding their involvement/inquiry with the
Consulting Association (CA) ref the Blacklisting Scandal in the UK
I refer to the following.
1. All correspondence between the ICO and CA including email and faxes.
2. Copies of Telephone conversations between the ICO & CA.
3. Total cost to the ICO ref the Blacklisting inquiry.
Alan M Dransfield
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2014 5:07 AM
Subject: British Business Ambassador
Dear Mr Bradshaw
I wish to record my dissatisfaction and displeasure at the recent Government Appointment of the Balfour Beatty CEO Andrew McNaughton as British Business Ambassador.
Quite frankly, this appointment is disgraceful because B&B have been the ringleadersin the heinous crimes of blacklisting over the last decade and I urge my MP to write to the Prime Minister and complain about this appointment and request the PM to terminate this position a.s.a.p.
Balfour Beatty's criminal record over the past decade is hardly conducive for such an appointment,i e Multi million pound fraud and bribery conviction, bid riggings, blacklisting etc.
I believe Andrew McNaughton is unsuitable for such a prestigious position and his name will bring shame on the British Government and the UK construction industry.
Yours in disgust at this appointment
Alan M Dransfield
Ex Balfour Beatty Employee.
Andrew McNaughton appointed by HM Government as British Business Ambassador
24 January, 2014
Andrew McNaughton, Chief Executive of Balfour Beatty plc, the international infrastructure group, will be appointed today by HM Government to be a Business Ambassador promoting the British infrastructure capabilities to an international audience. This role will be for the period to July 2015.
Each Business Ambassador will undertake a programme of activity including at least two overseas activities and four UK-based activities supported by the UKTI Ministerial & Strategic Engagement Unit.
Commenting today, Andrew McNaughton, Balfour Beatty CEO said, “I am delighted to be asked to assist the Government in promoting Britain as a great place to do business and to promote British skills into international markets.
“Balfour Beatty has a strong track record in this area. The Group undertook its first international work in 1924; some 90 years ago. Today we have operations in over 80 countries where we provide the infrastructure.