Dear Mr Bailey

Can you please tell me why you are not
updating your readers by adding to your referral statements that the content of
the guidance document is now subject to appellate action? You
should link a copy of the Lord Justice Briggs finding or URL: anything
less is deliberately misleading. In particular, I refer to your vexatious
guidelines published in May 2013. Why are these guideline not date stamped

ICO should immediately withdraw access to the guidance until a new decision is
reached to comply with Lord Justice Briggs; otherwise, it could be construed
that the Wikeley decision has precedent validity.

I would also argue that in the event the
Court of Appeal overturns the Wikeley vexatious decision in GIA /3037/2011 your
guidance will become null and void and approximately 300 ICO decisions will
need revoking.

I would also like
to know why the ICO refer to their vexatious guideline as new. They are not
new; they are over 12 months old now. I would argue that document is
at best a tool to assist the passage of fraud and at worst an attempt to cover
up serious crimes and pervert the course of justice.

I am sure you are
aware that any obstruction of the FOAI 2000 and in particular Section 77 is a
prisonable offence.

For your
information action and files.

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield