Blog Image

Alan Dransfield's Blog

Freedom of Information and Health and Safety

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.

Judge McKenna leaves

Information Commissioner, Vexatious Posted on Sun, August 15, 2021 14:13:18


As Built Health and Safety File – Exeter Chiefs Rugby Bridge

Exeter Chiefs Posted on Sun, August 15, 2021 08:19:55

http://amazonnewsmedia.com/articles/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/ABHSF-rugby-bridge.pdf



ICO Judge’s Suspension?

Information Commissioner Posted on Sun, August 15, 2021 08:14:50

Email sent – 17/07/2021 07:16

First Tier Tribunal

Under protection of the FOIA 2000 please provide me with details about Judge McKenna’s Suspension.

1. Date of Suspension.

2. Type of Suspension, eg Gardening leave.

3. Cause for Suspension

4. List of FOI Cases Judge McKenna has been in charge of for the last 3years.

5. List of all FTT (All facets) suspended in the last 5 years. In the event you think this is excessive, I will settle for 3 years.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield



5G – Judicial Review Refusal

5 G Posted on Sun, August 15, 2021 08:11:11

“Welcome to Legal Action Against 5G’s Case Update Number 9:We must report to you that our first application to judicially review the subject of ever-rising levels of radio frequency radiation and its potential harm to ourselves and the environment has been subject to a refusal by a judge. Without delay, the amazing Michael Mansfield QC, and barristers Philip Rule and Lorna Hackett, have swiftly lodged a Renewal Notice seeking permission for a hearing. The Defendants were presented with evidence which it is their duty to consider – and have failed to do so.

Whilst this initial decision is disappointing it is not altogether surprising in the current climate. This judicial review is a challenge to the Defendants’ acts and omissions concerning the failure to engage with necessary and sufficient investigation of the dangers and health risks and harms arising from the existing, and the increasing public exposure to new forms of radiation. The claim is very clear – there is a weight and volume of scientific material and evidence of harmful effects that must be properly considered by the Defendants. It is deeply concerning that there is no ownership by any of the Defendants of the risks to be considered by increasing exposure to RFR. There is, as yet, an absence of scientific reasoning and analysis undertaken by or provided by the Defendants.

This is not a case of which scientific material is to be preferred, but the obligation that all relevant scientific material must be considered and evaluated by the Defendants, and cannot be a duty abrogated or delegated to a third-party. The simple point is that the Defendants have yet to give due consideration to the evidence of risks, but rather they delegate the national government’s duty to a single external body (ICNIRP).

It remains an incontestable fact that ICNIRP has adopted an approach that (a) lacks long-term study; (b) allows tests for NO effects other than over an extremely short duration, and (c) focused on whether a thermal effect occurred in that short timespan of singular exposure. That does not reflect the actual environment of RFR being created around the public in this country; nor engage properly with the need for caution, the impact on the vulnerable, or the scientific evidence of harm already available and presented in this case. 

Our evidence plainly sets out the issues that need to be properly addressed, including that the government has not followed due process as noted above. There are disclosed certain deficiencies of reasoning, and serious questions and points raised that have not been answered.

Common to each of the Defendants’ decisions challenged in this case is that they are actions uninformed by an analysis by the United Kingdom of the presently available data and scientific knowledge concerning the risks to health from adopting these levels of radiation exposure.

As the infrastructure is continuing to be ‘rolled out’ across the country, near schools and hospitals, in residential and rural areas alike, life for many is increasingly challenging. The weight and content of our evidence, and the implications that we have set out, indeed have serious implications for government and for the telecommunication industry.

We stand together with all of you, all over the country, all committed to the many initiatives that bring this to the attention of others, and standing firm in our intention to see the matter safely resolved. The health of a nation should not be disregarded for the possible benefit of the few.

In the place of radiating electro-magnetic frequencies, we must radiate the light of wisdom and good intelligence, so that this planet and this nation will thrive. We are living through a time of mixed, confusing and often incorrect messages or are contending with the prospect of not being heard. At the heart of this is our call for the arena to be open in which the evidence is reviewed for the safety of all and where proper argument is heard. We are determined to break through obstacles and resistance, and bring clarity for wise action to be taken. The outcome depends on honesty, integrity and truth.

We very much need your support now as we go forward for the next stage in this legal process.

Team AA5G so very much appreciate all you have done to get us and our fantastic, committed legal team, this far. We will not waver in our determination to succeed.

With our gratitude to you all for your ongoing support, we fight on!

Legal Action Against 5G



Is there any quality control in public bodies in the UK?

Information Commissioner Posted on Sun, August 15, 2021 08:00:55

Email sent – Sat 31/07/2021 14:13

Matt Warman MP

Dear Matt

I have taken the liberty in sending you some information ref Quality System Management (QSM), as I fervently believe the Tory Party Government are failing their duty of care to ensure  all Public Authorities comply with the QSM.

Organizations like the ICO, HMCTS, County Courts and Local Councils ,Hospitals, Police etc should be compliant with QSM.

I would be grateful if you would raise this matter with the Cabinet Office.

With thanks

Yours sincerely 

Alan M Dransfield.



Does the Information Commissioner’s Office operate under even baseline quality management?

Information Commissioner, Vexatious Posted on Sun, August 15, 2021 07:55:58

Email sent – Fri 30/07/2021 21:55

Richard Bailey ICO Solicitor

Dear Sir

Please advise me the name and contact details for the ICO  Quality Management Systems Manager.

I will need this information for the  forthcoming FTT Tribunal hearing EA/2019/0227 Dr Kirkham/Dransfield v ICO.

As Legal Officer for the ICO, you will be aware the ICO have a duty of care to ensure they operate a Quality Management System. Hence, I wish to question the ICO QSM Manager on this and other cases. I will be seeking to question your QSM manager to demonstrate the procedures used to reach several decisions including the EA/2019/0227. There is a myriad of ICO Decisions which clearly reflects an arbitrary, unlawful decision as opposed to a Lawful Decision which has been reached by the application of a Quality System Management eg ISO9000/1.

I would also expect the ICO to demonstrate their bundle was compiled under a  QMS.eg ISO9000/1.

In the event the  ICO are unable to demonstrate this case has been the subject to QA/QC Process, I will be asking the First Tier Tribunal to strike out your legal argument as baseless and vexatious.

with thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield