Alan Dransfield's Blog

Email sent – Sat 27/02/2016 19:11

Dear Mr Bailey

Please see the attached First Tier Tribunal decision. Could you please advise me
if the Information Commissioner’s Office has appealed this decision.

With thanks

Alan M Dransfield

http://www.farrer.co.uk/News/Briefings/Information-Matters-New-ICO-Guidance-on-Section-14-FOIA–dealing-with-vexatious-requests/

Email sent – Sat 20/02/2016 06:52

Dear Mr Bradshaw MP

Please see the attached non-vexatious decision by the ICO
and in particular para 13 which cites my name.

Could it be the ICO have seen the error in their ways with
the inappropriate use of the vexatious BS Exemption as per section 14/1 of the
FOIA2000.

What can be clearly seen in this attached ICO decision is
the ability of any rogue PA to SWITCH their plea, eg from cost exemption under
section 12.4 to vexatious under section 14/1.

For your information action and files.

Alan M Dransfield

FOI Expert Devon

Email sent – Sat 20/02/2016 07:13

Attn of Lady Justice Goddard

Chair of the Child Sex Inquiry

Dear Madam

As you are aware, we have exchanged correspondence several
times before in which I have made serious allegations ref HM Judges and the
Information Commisisoner’s Office, whom, I claim are unlawfully using section 14/1 of the FOIA 2000 to obstruct justice and to pervert the course of justice.

Please see the Supreme Court decision ref UKSC/2015/0173
Dransfield v ICO, which I claim is part of a wider conspiracy to circumvent the
FOIA 2000 and in particular to breach section 77 of the said act to cover up child sex crimes.

This Supreme Courtdecision will surely compromise your current
inquiry. Please be aware, I have now made a formal appeal application against
the Supreme Court order to the European Court of Human Rights.

For your information, action and files.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

Email sent – 13/02/2016 07:30

Attn the Information Commissioner

Dear Mr Graham

It would appear to me that the Information Commissioners Office and you in particular are
protecting Paedophiles.

I refer to the attached ICO decision dated Aug 2014. I bring
particular attention to para 12 & 13 to your attention where the ICO have
used my name to protect Jimmy Saville.

You recently informed Lord Burns that if FOIA requests
were “heavily redacted”you would envisage the PA to be hiding
something.”

Please see para 12 of the attached ICO decision; in which
the the Deputy IC Graham Smith claims there is “NO PUBLIC INTEREST TEST IN
THE SAVILLE REQUEST”.

No person applying a right and proper mind could make such a
statement, so we must assume the ICO were applying a perverse mindset in the
attached decision.

The attached decision notice by the Deputy IC Graham Smith
FS50526275 dated 11-802014 is a clear indication the ICO are protecting paedophiles.

I strongly object to my name being used in the same
paragraph as that scumbag Jimmy Savill,e and I sugest you are using Vexatious
Exemptions under the guise of Dransfield to protect pedophile nationwide.

For your information action and files.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan Dransfield

Evidence to the Parliamentary Inquiry From the Information Commissioner:

CHRISTOPHER GRAHAM: “Well, fees would impose their own
burden,

because there’s a cost in levying a fee, for a start. I
think any fee that you

contemplated would be unlikely to meet the costs of actually
dealing with

Freedom of Information requests and there would be a certain
amount of

cost in actually issuing the invoice. I wish public
authorities would actually

use the provisions of the Act to turn away some of the most
burdensome

stuff. We’ve got clear exemption in section 14 of the Act
for the manifestly

vexatious request, but public authorities who are
complaining about how

terrible life is and how burdensome it is because of all of
these sad, mad

and bad people who
are bombarding them with questions are most

reluctant to use the section 14 power, despite the fact that
our guidance is very clear,

guidance supported in a decision of First-tier
Tribunal only this

week, who are very firm in their dismissal of a completely
unreasonable

obsessive requester, and public authorities just ought to be
a bit braver

about saying no.”

If
these vexatious requesters are indeed Sad,Bad Madmen, why is the Information Commissioner’s Office spending millions of pounds fighting such cases?

Email sent – 01/02/2016 05:47

Attn of the Rt Hon Lord Dyson

Master of the Rolls at the UK Supreme Court

Dear Sir

I wish to make a formal complaint against 3 Supreme Court
Judges and my Case Manager.

They are:

1.Lord Clarke

2.Lord Wilson

3.Lord Carnwath

4. Mr Greenberg, Case Manager.

My complaint of malfeasance and abuse of power is related to
case ref UKSC/2015/0173 and the decision dated 14th Dec 2015.

Since the decision was sent to me (11/1/16), I have lodged 3
official complaints to my case manager, Mr Greenberg, and to date my
correspondence has been ignored.

I have also made two requests for an Exhaustion Certificate.

There is demonstrable evidence that these three Supreme
Court Judges are complicit with the Court of Appeal and the ICO to circumvent
the FOIA 2000 via unlawful use of section 14/1 Vexatious Exemptions. Moreover
and more importantly section 77 of the said act is knowingly and willfully
abused by these three Law Lords and Lower Courts,

No persons applying a right and proper mind could have
reached the same decision as the 3 Supreme Court judges reached on the 14th Dec
2015. Therefore, their decision was reached via a perverse mindset.

The ramifications of the three Lord Decisions are serious
and include:

A. HM The Queen and other Royal Family Members are placed in
mortal danger whenever they visit the Olympic Village or the Houses of
Parliament, owing to serious Lightning Protection irregularities and defects.

B. Lady Goddard’s Child Sex Scandal inquiryhas been compromised.

C. The general public are being denied their legal rights and protection under the FOIA 2000 and EIR-2004.

D. Public Authorities nationwide are knowingly and willfully
abusing HM Statutory Act as a tool to assist fraud and cover up serious and
heinous crimes. In layman’s terms the Vexatious trump card is being used
as a Get Out Of Jail Free Card.

E. The general public’s safety has been compromised nationwide.

Nothwithstanding the veracity of my allegations, the gravity
of my claims above behoves your office to intervene.

For your information, action and files

With thanks

Alan M Dransfield

From: alan dransfield
Sent: 15 January 2016 06:03
To: Civil Appeals – CMSC
Cc: Richard Bailey; GRC@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk;
govem@parliament.uk
Subject: Dransfield v ICO Isca College. URGENT

Upper Tribunal

Attn Judge S Wright

As you are aware, you adjourned the video conference hearing
from the Exeter Crown Court on Dec 5th to await the outcome of the Supreme
Court decision on SCUK/2015/0173 Dransfield v ICO.

This decision has now been released; please find your copy.

I now look forward to a rescheduled hearing to establish if
I have grounds for a full oral hearing. I would argue there is no need for a
rescheduled hearing and we should go directly for a full hearing in the view of
public costs.

Four (4) other important issues,I would ask you to
consider:-

1. Please see the press release ref Balfour Beatty schools up north which supports my allegations of life threatening dangers at Exeter PFI
schools.

2. I wish to make a formal application for the UT to request
a copy of the As Built Health and Safety Manual for the ISCA College in a closed session.

3. The ICO is reliant upon their vexatious guidelines dated
Sept 2014. This is unlawful because my FOIA request is dated April 2009; hence
the ICO Vexatious guidelines dated 2009 are the correct guidelines.

4. The ICO is reliant upon Judge Wikeley’s decision under
GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield V ICO which again is an unlawful precedence as it is
post dated.

I look forward to receiving a full oral hearing date from you.

May I take this opportunity in advising you the First Tier Tribunal have
leap-frogged another FOIA case of my EA/2015/0274 directly to the Upper Tribunal, which
I maintain is unlawful. There has been no hearing or decision on this case by
the ICO

With thanks

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

“Knowsley Council is investigating alleged problems with fire
protection at eight PFI schools built by Balfour Beatty under the Building
Schools for the Future programme.

According to a report in the Independent on Sunday, a kitchen
fire at one school, Knowsley Park, led to a review of fire-proofing at all
eight schools, which found problems at all of them.

In the fire, smoke spread into an adjoining stairwell. If the
blaze had been more serious, the IoS says, the smoke could have affected
children evacuating the building.

Knowsley Council has said that urgent work is now being carried
out to rectify the fireproofing issues around the eight schools, including
problems with mechanical dampers.

In a statement it said: “As a result of the issues at Knowsley
Park, surveys were commissioned to cover all of the PFI school estate, which
has found similar issues. A detailed programme of work has been agreed with
Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service to resolve the issues and this is being
expediently implemented.”

In August last year, as part of its divestment programme,
Balfour Beatty sold Transform Schools, the PFI vehicle it set up to build the
Knowsley schools, to investment firm Dalmore for £42m.

Knowsley council found problems at all eight of its PFI schools,
including Halewood Academy (above)
A spokesman for Dalmore said: “Transform Schools (Knowsley) is aware of issues
with the integrity of the passive fire safety provisions across the PFI estate
having carried out surveys of all facilities. The company is now working with
our supply chain to rectify all issues. All costs associated with the works
will be borne by the private sector contractors. The Fire Authority and the
council’s corporate health and safety team have confirmed that the schools are
safe to occupy and remain open.”

In a statement, Balfour Beatty said: “Balfour Beatty is working
with Transform Schools (Knowsley) to an agreed programme of works to rectify
known issues with the fire safety provisions.”

Construction Manager has sought comment from both Knowsley
Council and Balfour Beatty.

According to the IoS report, Knowsley Council had also been
alerted to the possibility of problems at its schools after a Channel 4 news
programme last year examined a variety of problems at the Queen Elizabeth
Hospital in Birmingham, also built by Balfour Beatty.

Faulty fire doors in every building type and every sector

The programme apparently uncovered a series of problems with
fire dampers, alleging there were problems with maintenance, testing and
access. It cited a report which contained “images of a damper sealed with tape,
one propped open with a piece of metal, preventing it working in a fire, and
others built into the wall so they couldn’t be accessed for testing.” Under
health and safety law, fire dampers have to be tested every 12 months.

Channel 4 quotes a statement from Birmingham and Solihull Mental
Health NHS trust acknowledging that when the Queen Elizabeth opened in 2010, it
was made aware that Balfour Beatty “needed to improve access arrangements for
BBW [Balfour Beatty Workplace] staff to maintain fire dampers”.

It added: “A programme of works was provided, which commenced in
2010 and were completed in 2011. No payment for these works has been made by
the Trust.”

The programme went on to allege that technical defects were a
particular issue in PFI projects, due to the nature of the contractual
relationship with clients.

Meanwhile, the BBC reported last week that Carlisle’s Cumberland
Infirmary, built by Amec under the PFI and opened in 2000, is also experiencing
problems major problems with fire-proofing and other issues with substandard
workmanship at the project.

North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust said it had
uncovered “major flaws” in elements of the hospital’s construction and had
“deep concerns” over materials used in the £67m hospital.

Chief operating officer Helen Ray said that problems related
specifically to fire proofing materials used, which she said did not meet
required standards to allow for safe evacuation or prevent fire from spreading
in the building. Further work would mean some patients being moved to temporary
wards to be built in the hospital grounds.

PFI firm Health Management
Carlisle Limited had declined to comment to the BBC on the trust’s claims.”