Alan Dransfield's Blog

From: alan
dransfield

To: aacpresident

Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 7:08
AM

Subject: Complaint against Upper Tribunal
Judge SM Wright

Mr Justice Charles

Upper Tribunal President

Dear Sir

I wish to make a complaint of misconduct against Judge SM Wright in the
manner he has handled a recent UT Case and his subsequent final decision
notice.

In particular,I refer to the UT hearing in London on the 16th Oct 2014 ref
GIA/1642/2014 Dransfield v the ICO and House of Lords.

Judge SM Wright upheld the ICO decision, “DO NOT HOLD THE SOUGHT AFTER
DATA”.

No person applying a right and proper mind could have reached such a
decision because the House of Lords(HoL) have a legal obligation to hold the
sought after data, i.e. Lightning Risk Assessment (LRA) for the Westminster
Parliament Premises.

As you are aware, I have a long running complaint against another UT
Judge, i.e Judge Wikeley ref GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield v ICO &Devon County
County Council, which you have refused to investigate pending the Court of
Appeal Hearing in London on the 27/28th Jan 2015.

I accept that the GIA/1642/2014 is not VEXATIOUS related but it would
appear the Upper Tribunal are determined to obstruct Justice in cases involving
Dransfield.

Judge Wright claims in his decision notice that it is NOT the duty of the
FTT/ICO or the UT to investigate if the HoL “SHOULD”
hold the sought after data.

It is inconceivable that a Upper Tribunal Judge would not investigate the
Legal Obligation of the Public Authority to HOLD the sought after data.

Therefore, the emphasise of my complaint is Judge SM Wright MINDSET ref
“SHOULD HOLD” definition.

In all probability, the House of Lords have a legal obligation under UK and
EU Laws to hold the sought after data and the ICO/FTT and the UT were very wrong to not investigate this matter. Indeed, it is not a question of fact if they should hold the Lightning Risk Assessment as it is well documented in Statutory
Law.

Any right minded person would investigate if the House of Lords held a
legal remit to hold the Lightning Risk Assessment.

Judge SM Wright was very wrong to dismiss my appeal based on the fact the
HoL claimed they did not hold the LRA documents.

My allegations of wrongdoing falls under the UT Rules and Procedures
related to “Judicial

Misconduct ie Rule 34(b).

There is evidence to support my claims the FTT and the UT are part of a
wider conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and to circumvent the FOIA
2000.

At this juncture, there are two UT decisions which debar the general public
access to the FOIA 2000.

A1. The GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield v ICO &DCC. (Vexatious).

A2. The GIA/1642/2014 Dransfield v ICO& House of Lords.( Do not
hold)

I claim the UT Judges are conspiring to pervert the Course of Justice and I
request the Upper Tribunal to add my complaint against Judge SM Wright to my
complaint against Judge Wikeley.

It is fact that the ICO/FTT/UT appear to be bending over backwards to obstruct the general public’s access to the FOIA 2000 and the two above cases
are prima facie evidence of that fact.

It should be noted that Judge Wright has subsequently refused permission
for me my leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Please be informed that I now intend to appeal Judge Wright’s GIA/1642/2014
decision to the Court of Appeal.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield.

Dear FoI Officer

Thank you for your response, which I will pass on
to the people fighting blacklisting. But I have to ask, why did LibDem Council
Leader, Councillor Derbyshire, make a promise in the full council meeting not to
use blacklisting firms and then promptly gives one a £350m contract? LibDems
eh! If their lips are moving they are lying.

Kind regards

Sheila

From: FOI Officer

To: Sheila Oliver ; FOI Officer

Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 11:14 AM

Subject: RE: Early contractor involvment – “Cheadle Constituency Link Road” – ref 9178 – Response

Dear Mrs Oliver,

I am writing in response to your request for information (ref FOI 9178) regarding the above.

The information has been prepared by the relevant Council service and is as follows:

Under the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 there is only one relevant discretionary ground for excluding a contractor where blacklisting is alleged to have taken place and that is if the bidding organisation has committed an act of grave misconduct in the course of its business or profession. However, in such cases the Local Authority is obliged to consider mitigating circumstances and to permit economic operators to demonstrate “self-cleaning”.

Of the major companies implicated in blacklisting, Balfour Beatty, Carillion, Costain, Kier, Laing O’Rourke, Sir Robert McAlpine, Skanska UK and Vinci Construction have all apologised for their involvement with The Consulting Association (the company operating the database) and any impact that its database may have had on any individual construction worker. These companies have joined together to make amends by establishing a Construction Workers’ Compensation Scheme. The scheme is intended to make it as simple as possible for any worker with a legitimate claim to access compensation. Carillion maintain their involvement came about through its subsidiary Crown House, which was sold to Laing O’Rourke in 2004. They argue that the practice of using the database was to identify workers involved in criminal offences and unlawful strike activity.

Yours sincerely,

Marianne Lavin
CSS Senior Officer
Information Governance Team
Stockport Council
Stockport SK1 3XE
Tel : 0161 474 4048

http://ico.org.uk/news/blog/2013/ICO-to-write-to-1200-potential-blacklisted-workers

Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2014 5:54
AM

Subject: FOIA REQUEST REF UK BLACKLISTING
.

Information Commissioners Officer

Dear Sirs

Under protection of the FOIA 2000, please provide me copies of all
correspondence held by the ICO regarding their involvement/inquiry with the
Consulting Association (CA) ref the Blacklisting Scandal in the UK
Industry.

I refer to the following.

1. All correspondence between the ICO and CA including email and
faxes.

2. Copies of Telephone conversations between the ICO & CA.

3. Total cost to the ICO ref the Blacklisting inquiry.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2014 5:07
AM

Subject: British Business Ambassador

Dear Mr Bradshaw

I wish to record my dissatisfaction and displeasure at the recent
Government Appointment of the Balfour Beatty CEO Andrew McNaughton as British
Business Ambassador.

Quite frankly, this appointment is disgraceful because B&B have been
the ringleadersin the heinous crimes of blacklisting over the last decade and
I urge my MP to write to the Prime Minister and complain about this appointment
and request the PM to terminate this position a.s.a.p.

Balfour Beatty’s criminal record over the past decade is hardly conducive
for such an appointment,i e Multi million pound fraud and bribery conviction, bid
riggings, blacklisting etc.

I believe Andrew McNaughton is unsuitable for such a prestigious position and his
name will bring shame on the British Government and the UK construction industry.

Yours in disgust at this appointment

Alan M Dransfield
Ex Balfour Beatty Employee.

————————————————————
Andrew
McNaughton appointed by HM Government as British Business Ambassador

24
January, 2014

Andrew
McNaughton, Chief Executive of Balfour Beatty plc, the
international infrastructure group, will be appointed today by HM Government to
be a Business Ambassador promoting the British infrastructure capabilities to an
international audience. This role will be for the period to July 2015.

Each
Business Ambassador will undertake a programme of activity including at least
two overseas activities and four UK-based activities supported by the
UKTI Ministerial & Strategic Engagement Unit.

Commenting
today, Andrew McNaughton, Balfour Beatty CEO said, “I am delighted
to be asked to assist the Government in promoting Britain as a great place to do
business and to promote British skills into international markets.

“Balfour
Beatty has a strong track record in this area. The Group undertook
its first international work in 1924; some 90 years ago. Today we have
operations in over 80 countries where we provide the infrastructure.

http://m.building.co.uk/5042203.article?mobilesite=enabled

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/blacklisting-victims-given-recourse-compensation-2359250