Alan Dransfield's Blog

11 KBW and FacebookInformation Commissioner

Posted by Sheila Oliver Sun, July 21, 2019 18:40:17

From: alan dransfield []
Sent: 11 July 2019 11:49
To: elizabeth.denham; <>
Subject: Fwd: Panopticon: The Facebook Appeal and Procedural Grounds

Elizabeth Denham

Information Commissioner

Please see this article ref the ICO and Facebook. In particular, scroll down to the list ofQC's who represented the ICO and Facebook, all of which work for 11KBW. Are you aware of this irregularity? Is this not conflict of interest?

As you are aware I had a FOIA request on this topic refused under Section 14/1 and section 50 (2) (c) about 12 months ago.

May I take this opportunity to submit a FOIA request seeking copies of all 11 KBW invoices for legal service to the ICO for this particular case please? I do concede this may well appear to be a repeated request, but in the event of a serious legal irregularity, I suggest my FOIA request is benign, politely written, in the interest of the general public and serious purpose and, therefore, should not be deemed vexatious or frivolous under either section 14/1 or 50 (2) (C) of the FOIA 2000.

As you are well aware, the ICO has advised me before via your Mr Adam Sowerbutt that all future FOI requests from me will be treated as vexatious or frivolous without due process. Could this be the main reason why 99% of UK QC's are self Employed as a legal loopholes to circumvent conflict of interest regulations?

With thanks

Alan M Dransfield.

FOI Campaigner and Social Watchdog

Very strange decision from ICO who now claim (wrongly) to protect Dransfield's best interestsInformation Commissioner

Posted by Sheila Oliver Sun, July 21, 2019 18:33:57

Should the ICO really be doing this?Information Commissioner

Posted by Sheila Oliver Sun, July 21, 2019 18:29:35

This is the ICO Flowchart which is available at their website.

I do not accept it is the role of the ICO to train public authorities how to deal with FOIA complaints. How much did this flow chart cost the taxpayer? How much did the 48 page Vexatious Guidelines cost the taxpayers.

It appears to me the ICO is coaching these rogue public authorities how to body-swerve

GCHQ spying on TrumpOh, Boris

Posted by Sheila Oliver Mon, June 17, 2019 21:15:36

Non-construction deathOlympic Stadium

Posted by Sheila Oliver Mon, June 17, 2019 19:51:37

Blog image

Why is Denham complicit in school contamination cover-up?Buchanan School, Scotland

Posted by Sheila Oliver Mon, June 03, 2019 07:16:41

Email sent - Sun 02/06/2019 09:19

Ms Elizabeth Denham
Information Commissioner

Dear Madam

The Vale View school in Stockport was built on top of an active landfill site in 2006 which is still gassing to date. There is breaking news from the Buchanan school in Scotland that contaminated drinking water has/will cause cancer in teachers and students because that school was built on top of a landfill Site.

If you check you ICO records you will see that Mrs Sheila Oliver submitted a FOIA request to Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC) for technical data at the school but the SMBC refused under section 14/1 vexatious and the ICO upheld that vexatious decision.

There is no doubt in my mind the ICO have got blood on their hands from this Stockport Vale View school. Ditto for the 6 Exeter PFI schools. Sheila Oliver is a relentless FOIA Campaigner and the ICO has failed its fiduciary duty of care to assist her with the FOIA.

In your defence these appalling breaches of Section 77 happened before you took up your post. Neverhless, you have acted in a similar cavalier manner. Basically, the ICO is aiding and abetting serious fraud, misfeasance and abuse of power.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

To compound matters further, the ICO Senior Manager Mr Alex Goantis who also held a senior full time Managers Role at the ICO failed to see such problems.

Buchanan School Contamination problemsBuchanan School, Scotland

Posted by Sheila Oliver Mon, June 03, 2019 07:15:29

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

Posted 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.