HS2 Rail SchemePosted by Sheila Oliver Sun, June 11, 2017 07:09:06
Email sent - 11/06/2017 05:10
Under the protection of the
FOIA please provide me with a PDF copy of the ICO report ref the subject title
and following link. For clarity, this is my first request on the subject
title. Hence, please do not rely on your usual vexatious claptrap.
Alan M Dransfield
HS2 Rail SchemePosted by Sheila Oliver Sun, May 14, 2017 06:29:22
Email sent - Sun 07/05/2017 05:51
To: Information Commissioner
Christopher Graham (former Information Commissioner) is on record calling for a forensic inquiry into HS2; please see following URL link.
We now know the Tory Chairman, Sir Patrick McLoughlin, has sole primacy for the Freedom of Information Act, as
Chancellor to the Duchy of Lancaster.
What are you going to do
about this matter and what are you going to do about the fact the Tory
Chairman holds sole remit for the FOIA/ICO?
The situation at the ICO
is far worse than I had envisaged. The Tory Chairman can amend, distort and
renew section 45 of the said act on a whim.
You knew, or should have known, the ICO had lost their independence when Sir Patrick McLoughlin took over
the reins of the FOIA/ICO.
Yours in disgust
VexatiousPosted by Sheila Oliver Thu, April 20, 2017 19:22:43
Vexatious to question London Legacy about a work-related death.
VexatiousPosted by Sheila Oliver Mon, April 17, 2017 08:59:51
Email sent - Mon 17/04/2017 08:40
Information Commissioners Office
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 .........
Alan M Dransfieldhttps://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2017/2013905/fer0637810.pdf
PFI SchoolsPosted by Sheila Oliver Fri, April 14, 2017 06:59:53
Email sent - 13/04/17
Scottish Government - James.White@gov.scot
Dear Mr White
..Breaking news that 70 + PFI schools were
damaged in the storm last year, nearly twice the number of reported damaged schools. Furthermore, the Scottish First Minister stated she
would ensure a full investigation into all PFI Projects in Scotland not
just schools. It would appear the Scottish First Minister is paying lip service
to these very serious issues.
The next letter I get from the Scottish Government, I would
like to see the First Minister's signature on it please.
Alan M Dransfield
FOIA Campaigner and Social Watchdog.
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
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
I do believe the time has come for a forensic
investigation into the conduct of the ICO Management
Alan M Dransfield
FOIA Campaigner & Social Watchdog.
VexatiousPosted by Sheila Oliver Mon, April 10, 2017 06:37:55https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2017/2013864/fer0646554.pdf
"The term ‘vexatious’ is not defined in the legislation. In Information Commissioner vs Devon County Council & Dransfield1, the Upper Tribunal took the view that the ordinary dictionary definition of the word vexatious is only of limited use, because the question of whether a request is vexatious ultimately depends upon the circumstances surrounding that request. The Tribunal concluded that ‘vexatious’ could be defined as the “…manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of a formal procedure” (paragraph 27). The decision clearly establishes that the concepts of ‘proportionality’ and ‘justification’ are central to any consideration of whether a request is vexatious."