Email sent – : 27 July 2016 06:41
To: guardian.readers@theguardian.com
Subject: COMPLAINT AGAINST A GUARDIAN ARTICLE
Dear Sirs
I wish to make a formal
complaint against the following Guardian article and in particular against the
author of the attached article Mr Tim Turner.
Mr Turner failed to investigate
the subject title before he published his article because there is consistent
tangible evidence that my original FOIA request was not vexatious.
I am sure the Guardian are conscious of the fact that a FOIA
request cannot be refused under section 14/1 vexatious exemption if:
1.There is serious purpose behind the request.
2.The request is made in the Public Interest
3.The request is the first
request.
Had Mr Turner checked the facts of this case, he
wouldn’t have reached his final conclusion, i.e Dransfield FOIA was vexatious.
It would appear to me your Mr
Turner has a very cozy relationship with the ICO, to the extent he has ICO
blood running through his veins.
May I suggest you withdraw your
article under the title of Dransfield is NOT Vexatious and print the facts that
the ICO are complicit with HM Judges and Ministry of Justice along with a public apology for damaging my good name.
UK Journalists have a duty of care to check their
facts prior to publication and it is consistently apparent your Mr Turner is
ignorant of the FOIA 2000 and in particular section 14/1 of the said act.
Please do not hesitate to
contact me should you need further information/clarification. I will gladly give
the Guardian an exclusive interview which will reveal the facts, i.e Ministry
of Justice complicit with the ICO/HM Judges and rogue public authorities to
pervert the Course of Justice.
With thanks
Yours sincerely
Alan M Dransfield
UK’s Leading Court Authority on Vexatious Requests
https://www.theguardian.com/local-government-network/2013/nov/18/freedom-of-information-requests-dransfield-case
