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.

'Vexatious' can not be defined contextually as 'manifestly unreasonable'

VexatiousPosted by Sheila Oliver Sun, April 07, 2019 18:18:32

In Stocker v Stocker (SvS) dated 3rd April 2019 v the Supreme Court (SC) concluded, inter alia, that lower court judges unlawfully fettered their reasoning when relying on an external definition, absent context, upon which their judgement turned, especially when the contentious issue was proven to be true.

Using the same rationale put by the SC in S v S, it must follow that the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court misdirected itself and erred in law when deciding Dransfield (2015 EWCA /454 Civ because not only can 'vexatious' not be defined contextually as 'manifestly unreasonable', but it has been subsequently proved that the issue of vexatiousness never existed in the first place, within Dransfield, and also that disclosure of the information sought was proved not to be manifestly unreasonable.

Therefore, both logic and justice dictate that the SC voluntarily revisit Dransfield and strike out all lower court decisions blocking Dransfield's access to information that has now been freely placed in the public domain on the grounds that publication is justified not least on grounds of health and safety, as originally stated by Dransfield in his FoIA request.






  • Comments(0)//blog.olliesemporium.co.uk/#post683

Vexatious on the whim of any passing lunatic

VexatiousPosted by Sheila Oliver Thu, February 07, 2019 19:33:40
https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2017/2013939/fs50610253.pdf

"83. The term “vexatious” is not defined in the FOIA. The Upper Tribunal (UT) considered the issue of vexatious requests in the Information Commissioner v Devon CC & Dransfield (UKUT 440 (AAC), 28 January 2013).1 The UT commented that “vexatious” could be defined as the “manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of a formal procedure”. This definition clearly establishes that the concepts of proportionality and justification are relevant to any consideration of whether a request is vexatious."


  • Comments(0)//blog.olliesemporium.co.uk/#post680

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
Next »