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.

Fraud at the Information Commissioner's Office?

VexatiousPosted by Sheila Oliver Sun, January 29, 2017 07:32:39
Email sent - 29/01/2017 05:37

Information Commissioner's Office

Dear Mr Bailey and Mr Arnold

There is another major discrepancy with your total figures for the ICO Decision Notices. Today's total is 7614 and yesterday's total was 9670. There can be only three explanations for these false figures

1. Gremlins in your IT System.

2. Incompetence of the person(s) inputting this data.

3. ICO massaging their Decision Notice figures to assist fraud.

I would suggest the latter.

It is nearly two weeks since I alerted you two gentlemen to this anomaly. What have you done about it?

It should be noted also that you have not published one single Decision Notice since 12th Jan 2017.

For your information, action and files

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

https://search.ico.org.uk/ico/search/decisionnotice







  • Comments(0)//blog.olliesemporium.co.uk/#post632

Yet another decision notice discrepancy

VexatiousPosted by Sheila Oliver Sat, January 28, 2017 16:05:56
Email sent - Fri 27/01/2017 05:30

Information Commissioner's Office

Dear Mr Bailey and Mr Arnold

Your website total number being displayed today is 7868 and the figures column in the left hand side don't add up either.

The is the seventh total discrepancy this week. Please give me the name and title of the person responsible for publishing the Decision Notice's total figures.

For clarity it was 7598 yesterday at this time and today is 7868. That's a discrepancy of 270 DN's because not one single new DN has been added to the website.

For your information, action and files

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

https://search.ico.org.uk/ico/search/decisionnotice









  • Comments(0)//blog.olliesemporium.co.uk/#post631

Radio inverview with vexatious Mr Dransfield

VexatiousPosted by Sheila Oliver Sun, January 22, 2017 09:26:36
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomtalkradioscotland/2017/01/20/allan-dransfield-len-lawrence

  • Comments(0)//blog.olliesemporium.co.uk/#post630

Miss Denham, ICO, get a grip girl

VexatiousPosted by Sheila Oliver Sun, January 22, 2017 08:31:52
Email sent - Sun 22/01/2017 06:56

Information Commissioner's Office

Dear Mr Bailey

Please see the ICO website page ref the ICO Decsion Notices (DN) which claims the ICO total DN's is only 4845.

As I am a regular visitor to this particular website; I recall the total DN's to be in the region of 10K plus.

Please confirm the total number of DN's is only 4845.

I find this figure hard to believe because there are approx 6000 DN's on record that are either Vexatious or Manifestly Unreasonable.

According to these figures the ICO are handing down 403 Decision Notices per year which does not Justify either your staffing levels or your fiscal budget.

If this is not a genuine typo error with regard to the total number of DN's, then is the ICO massaging their DN Notice totals for whatever reason?

For you information action and files

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

PS I note the ICO is still non compliant with statutory regulations for Register of Interest Details.









  • Comments(0)//blog.olliesemporium.co.uk/#post629

Untrained ICO Solicitors

VexatiousPosted by Sheila Oliver Sun, January 22, 2017 08:22:30
Email sent - Sat 21/01/2017 06:10

Ms Elizabeth Denham. Information Commission.

Dear Madam

May I suggest you either arrange further night school training for your ICO solicitors or have them replaced with experienced solicitors. I say this with the greatest of confidence because it would appear your legal staff are not aware of common law or stare decisis.

The ICO are handing down Decision Notices(DN) without legal precedents, which is clearly against their own policies and procedures and clearly against the doctrine of Common Law and Stare Decisis. I have taken the liberty in sending you some assistance and advice on these matters and I would be grateful if you could ensure the ICO Solicitors are duly briefed with it's use and legal requirements.

In particular, the ICO should decease and desist from handing down further Vexatious Exemption Decisions which are devoid of any legal precedents as is the case with the recent 4 decisions to North East Lincolnshire and one to Morecambe Bay Hospital on the 11th and 12th of Jan 2017.

For the last 4 years you have used the GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield Vexatious Court Precedence, whilst knowingly and wilfully turning a blind eye to the fact the GIA/3037 case was in fact a rogue vexatious decision from a rogue Judge, ie Judge Nicholas Wikley from the Upper Tribunal.

However, it would appear the ICO has recently suspended the use of the Dransfield Vexatious Court Authority and are now handing down decision notices which are devoid of any court precedence period. THIS IS AN UNLAWFUL PRACTICE.

Suggestions and recommendations

1. Decease and desist from issuing any further Vexatious Decision until an alternative Vexatious Decision is established .

2. Withdraw the 38 page vexatious guidelines which is now obsolete owing to the consistent reference to the GIA /3037/2011 Dransfield Case.

3. Revoke all the Vexatious Decision Notices under the Dransfield Vexatious Court Precedents and all the manifestly unreasonable Decision Notices. Approx 6000 decisions on these two exemptions need to be revoked.

4. Your position of Information Commissioner is now untenable and you should resign immediately owing to all these Vexatious shenanigans

5. I am copying this letter to my MP Ben Bradshaw with a request for him to call for a Public Inquiry into this Vexatious hogwash and to also call for a parallel criminal investigation into your conduct and that of your predecessor Mr Christopher Graham/Richard Bailey/Paul Arnold/Steven Dickinson and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all.

6. My previous offer to meet you and your staff personally and sort out this mess is now withdrawn owing to the gravity of my allegations.

For your information action and files

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

FOIA Campaigner and Social Watchdog









  • Comments(0)//blog.olliesemporium.co.uk/#post628

Has Information Commissioner Denham realised what a Horlicks she has made of everything?

VexatiousPosted by Sheila Oliver Fri, January 20, 2017 18:27:41
Email sent - Fri 20/01/2017 11:41

Information Commissioner's Office

Dear Sir

Under the protection of the FOIA 2000 please provide me with the following information related to the current legal stance ref the Vexatious court precedence.

The reason I ask this question is because between Jan 2013 to 12th Jan 2017 the GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield V ICO has been used by the ICO as the UK's Court Precedence. However, since 12th Jan 2017, Five (5) Vexatious decisions have been upheld by the ICO which does not rely on the Dransfield Court Authority or indeed does not rely on any Court Authority .Please provide PDF copies of:

1. Minutes to any ICO internal meetings to discuss the removal of the Dransfield Vexatious Court Precedence.

2. Who at the ICO or Ministry of Justice took the decision to cease and desist from using the Dransfield Court Precedence?

3. Copies of any internal memo, email etc which discuss the discontinuation of the Dransfield Vexatious Court Authority.

4. Copies of all correspondence between the Information Commissioner's Office and any oversight authority on this topic.

5 .Please confirm that the ICO does not intend to use the Dransfield Vexatious GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield v ICO ever again and the full reasons why not.

I think it is safe to say this is my first FOI request on this particular topic and it is politely written and in the public interest and of serious purposes, therefore should not be construed as vexatious but even if you did, I doubt you would use the Dransfield GIA/3037 as a support tool. Oh what a web we weave when we set out to deceive.

For your information action and files

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

For your information action and files

With thanks





  • Comments(0)//blog.olliesemporium.co.uk/#post627

Asking about the deaths of mothers and babies is "vexatious"

VexatiousPosted by Sheila Oliver Thu, January 19, 2017 19:35:10
Email sent -

Dear Miss Denham

The latest vexatious decsion upheld by the ICO is related to numerous avoidable deaths of Mother and Babies at Morcombe Bay Hospital. Please see the report into the incident(s).

It beggars belief the ICO upheld the Public Authority Vexatious decision. In essence the ICO are covering up serious crimes at the Morcombe Bay Hospital by upholding this vexatious claptrap. In essence you are preventing the flow of information to the families and relatives who lost loved-ones at Morcombe Bay,which denies final closure.

Moreover and more importantly you have now released a vexatious decision into the public domain which is unlawful by virtue it does not carry the Dransfield Vexatious GIA/3037/2011 Precedence. The author of the ICO decision Mrs Pamela Clement is an experienced ICO Officer, please note , I say experience, please do not take that as I refer to her as Honest and with Integrity because I certainly do not.

This is just another clear example of BAD LAW being used by the ICO.

For your information action and files

Alan M Dransfield







https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/408480/47487_MBI_Accessible_v0.1.pdf



  • Comments(0)//blog.olliesemporium.co.uk/#post626

Eh up! What's going on 'ere, then?

VexatiousPosted by Sheila Oliver Thu, January 19, 2017 19:09:02
Email sent - Thu 19/01/2017 18:26

Information Commissioner Ms Elizabeth Denham

Dear Madam

Please see you very latest vexatious decsion from your website. This particular decision notice is unlawful because you have not relied upon the Dransfield Vexatious Court Precedence as per GIA/3037/2011. Does this mean you have now realised the Dranfield Vexatious Decision is also unlawful and thus, you cannot use it as a Court Precedence? There must be a reason for not relying upon the Dransfield Case Authority after three years continuous use and over 6000 vexatious cases. Please provide me with a full explanation why you have not relied upon it.

I also consider this decision is yet further evidence the ICO is in Contempt of the ECoHR via the Magyar Helsinki Bizottsag Case.

For your information action and files

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield





https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2017/1625700/fs_50640819.pdf



  • Comments(0)//blog.olliesemporium.co.uk/#post625
« PreviousNext »