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.
Ms Elizabeth Denham
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.
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.
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.