Alan Dransfield's Blog

Alan Dransfield's Blog

Freedom of Information and Health and Safety

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.

Carillion and the 6 PFI schools - not vexatious at all

VexatiousPosted by Sheila Oliver Thu, August 23, 2018 19:16:11
Email sent - 23/08/2018 18:53

Attn The President of the Upper Tribunal Mr Justice Charles

Dear Sir

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.

Suggestion

Revisit your decision ref my complaints against Judge Wikely ref GIA/3037/2011.
Revist the UT decision to dismiss my appeal to the UT.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield



  • Comments(0)//blog.olliesemporium.co.uk/#post673

What you get if you ask the ICO about Grenfell Tower

VexatiousPosted by Sheila Oliver Thu, August 16, 2018 05:36:41


From: <casework@ico.org.uk>
Date: 15 August 2018 at 10:09:17 BST
To: <alanmdransfield@gmail.com>

Subject: Complaint to ICO re: Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea[Ref. FS50772688]

15th August 2018


Case Reference Number FS50772688


Dear Mr Dransfield

I am writing with regard to your email of 1 August 2018 in which you explain that you wish bring a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) about the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s handling of a freedom of information request.

As you will re-call, we wrote to you earlier this year on 15 March 2018 and explained that we were not prepared to accept any further complaints from you under section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). A copy of our letter is attached.

We do not consider the circumstances to have changed since that letter was issued. Therefore, we consider your application to the ICO in relation to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s handling of this request to also be frivolous and/or vexatious for the purposes of section 50(2)(c) of FOIA. We will therefore not be accepting this complaint.

Yours sincerely

The Information Commissioner’s Office



  • Comments(0)//blog.olliesemporium.co.uk/#post672

Vexatious to ask about fishing

VexatiousPosted by Sheila Oliver Sun, July 09, 2017 08:07:02
https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2017/2014392/fs50657560.pdf

Email sent - Thu 06/07/2017 22:06

Ben Bradshaw MP for Exeter

Dear Mr Bradshaw

Please bring this ICO decision to the attention of your colleagues at the shadow government. This decision by the ICO cites Dransfield Vexatious decision, which quite frankly smells a bit fishy to me - see para 9.

In light of the Brexit negotiations currently ongoing and in particular the UK Fishing Boundaries and Catch Quotations, it beggars belief the ICO and UK Fisheries can cite vexatious exemptions. This vexatious decision is yet further example of systemic fraud and deception by the ICO.

Yours etc

Alan M Dransfield




  • Comments(0)//blog.olliesemporium.co.uk/#post661

Another unlawful decision by the ICO

VexatiousPosted by Sheila Oliver Sun, June 11, 2017 08:09:56
Email sent - Tue 06/06/2017 20:19

Information Commissioner's Office

Dear Sirs

Please see your Decision Notice below. This decision is unlawful because you have failed to cite the vexatious court precedent which you have relied upon to reach your vexatious decision notice. As your are aware, the GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield v ICO is the UK's leading vexatious court authority.

This Decision Notice is therefore null and void and will need to rescheduled. I wonder if such mistake are commonplace because the ICO does not operate any ISO 9000 series, or is it because they consider themselves above the law?

With thanks

Yours Sincerely

Alan M Dransfield



https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2017/2013908/fs50650170.pdf





  • Comments(0)//blog.olliesemporium.co.uk/#post657

International exposure of ICO corruption

VexatiousPosted by Sheila Oliver Sun, June 04, 2017 18:43:38
https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-adk-adk_sbnt&hsimp=yhs-adk_sbnt&hspart=adk&p=alan+dransfield+project+camelot#id=1&vid=1ffb7f05336433e169ded78555cb4f34&action=clickAlan M Dransfield

  • Comments(0)//blog.olliesemporium.co.uk/#post653

London Legacy, vexatious refusal to disclose details of work-related death

VexatiousPosted by Sheila Oliver Thu, April 20, 2017 19:22:43
Vexatious to question London Legacy about a work-related death.

  • Comments(0)//blog.olliesemporium.co.uk/#post651

An Easter Hallelujah

VexatiousPosted by Sheila Oliver Mon, April 17, 2017 08:59:51
Email sent - Mon 17/04/2017 08:40

Information Commissioners Office

Dear Sirs

This is the first time in five years the Information Commissioner's Office has reached a correct, non-vexatious decision. I refer to the following ICO decision which has refused a vexatious decision from Camden Council. Oh my God, wonders will never cease.

In respect of this particular Decision Notice, the ICO has been seen to doing the job properly and professionally by overturning Camden CC vexatious decision.

Does this mean the ICO is now prepared to hold a forensic investigation into the 6,000 wrongful vexatious decisions based on the Dransfield GIA/3037/2011?

I wonder why the Information Commissioner has suddenly decided to apply common law and common sense to this Vexatious claptrap from the Camden Council.

Whilst this is a step in the right direction, it is too little too late, as I will not change my mind that the ICO is rotten to the core .........

with thanks

Alan M Dransfield


https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2017/2013905/fer0637810.pdf





  • Comments(0)//blog.olliesemporium.co.uk/#post650

Unlawful Decision Notices

VexatiousPosted by Sheila Oliver Fri, April 14, 2017 06:50:40
Email sent - 13/04/2017 11:53

Information Commissioner's Office

Attn Elizabeth Denham

Dear Madam

I draw your attention to the following two(2) decision notices, which are unlawful.

The first case is a complaint brought against the Information Commissioner's Office, in which the ICO has investigated against themselves. This is not acceptable because the ICO lose their independence and it is a gross conflict of interest. Any fair-minded person would agree that this is not conducive to transparency and accountability.

I am not aware how many times this has happened, but I would suggest you check your files and initiate a forensic inquiry into ICO v ICO Decsion Notices. For sure, there are at least 1/2 Dransfield v ICO decision notices. Being able to self-examine and self -investigate beggars belie,f but nothing surprises me anymore with the ICO. They appear to be above the law. This may well be happening because of fiduciary failure in the chain of command right through to the Secretary of State, Karen Bradley, who is more than guilty of wilfull blindness.

The second case is related to the Cabinet Office in which they have used the section 14/1 vexatious exemption. This decision is unlawful because you have failed to cite the Court Precedent/Authority to the complainant. We must assume you were relying upon the Dransfield vexatious hogwash Decision GIA 3037/2011, but you failed to include it in your Decision Notice; hence, that DN is unlawful.

As you are aware, all my correspondence to the ICO is being thrown straight into the bin or at least not acknowledged.

It strikes me your Case Management Team need further training into the FOIA 2000.

It is also very apparent that the ICO is not double-checking their Decision Notices before publication. The fact the ICO does not operate an ISO 9000 QA-QC is serious, which would explain the root cause of such cock-ups.

I will take this opportunity to report your Northern Ireland Representative Ken Macdonald who has failed to respond to my FOIA requests against the HSE in Northern Ireland. At best, the ICO both HQ and NI are treating me in a shabbily cavalier manner, and at worst they are circumventing the FOIA 2000, section 77 in particular, with an aim to pervert the course of Justice. I suggest the latter.

I do believe the time has come for a forensic investigation into the conduct of the ICO Management

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

FOIA Campaigner & Social Watchdog.









  • Comments(0)//blog.olliesemporium.co.uk/#post648
Next »