Alan Dransfield's Blog

http://m.plymouthherald.co.uk/Plymouth-woman-admits-role-260-000-city-council/story-27756149-detail/story.html
“An energy consultant and the wife of a Plymouth building contractor have admitted taking part in a £260,000 corruption scandal at Exeter City Council.Gary Rawlings and Linda McMayon changed their pleas on the first day of what was scheduled to be their trial at Exeter Crown Court.

They will now be sentenced later this month alongside former Exeter City Council housing manager Anthony Bodgin, who has already admitted accepting huge bribes for handing out maintenance contracts.

McMayon is the wife of Plymouth builder Kevin Wingrave, who has admitted paying £262,000 to Bodgin to secure work for him or linked contractors.

Rawlings runs a consultancy in Bedfordshire and received £88,830 from Exeter City Council for work that did not exist and paid a £33,000 kickback in return.

The pleas mean that all five defendants have now admitted their part in the corruption racket which cost council tax payers hundreds of thousands of pounds before it was uncovered in 2013.

The key man at the council was Anthony Bodgin, now aged 65, but formerly in charge of special housing projects and tenant liaison at the council.

Bodgin, of Melbourne Street, Tiverton, admitted a total of eight counts including theft, fraud, conspiracy and misuse of his public office almost two years ago.

Wingrave, aged 52, of Periwinkle Drive, Plymouth, has admitted five counts of conspiring with others to cause Mr Bodgin to commit misconduct in public office.

These related to bribes of £262,000 for fitting roof vents, scaffolding, surveying and other building work.

His partner McMayon, aged 58, of the same address, has now admitted two counts of transferring criminal property. These involve payments of £99,300 made from Wingrave’s MAC Surveying company to an account set up by Bodgin called AB Surveying.

Builder Harold McGirl, aged 63, of Southbourne Road, St Austell, admitted one count relating to a payment of £5,000 to Bodgin to secure a £81,000 contract.

The last defendant to plead guilty was Gary Rawlings, aged 59, of Langford, Biggleswade, who admitted fraud.

He admitted making false representations in an invoice between September 28, 2010 and January 31, 2011, that he was entitled to £88,830 from Exeter City Council for carrying out energy surveys.

Recorder Mr John Wright adjourned sentence to September 25.

In the meantime he is due to carry out a fact finding hearing to determine the roles played by Bodgin and Wingrave in the scam.

All the defendants were bailed and McMayon and Rawlings were told they will not receive immediate jail sentences.”

From: alan dransfield [mailto:alanmdransfield@gmail.com]
Sent: 29 July 2015 08:06
To: Christopher.Knight@11kbw.com
Cc: BRADSHAW Ben; <public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk>;
Enquiries; general.queries@justice.gsi.gov.uk;
GeneralEnquiries; Richard Bailey; christopher.graham@ico.org.uk;
graham.smith@ico.org.uk; Hamish
Marshall; Phil Goodwin; rsims@expressandecho.co.uk;
aacpresidentpa@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk;
Donovan, Paula; Adminappeals; GRC@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk;
John Olsson; Maurice Frankel; Ibrahim Hasan; govem@parliament.uk; Elliott Denton; FOIA
Ombudsman
Subject: CHRISTOPHER KNIGHT KBW

Christopher Knight

11KBW Solicitors

London

Dear Mr Knight

I have been meaning to write to you for sometime on the
attached article which you published some time ago and take issue with you on
several matters.

My name is Alan M Dransfield, the source of your article
dated April 2013. Your are correct to state my FOIA Case is one of the
leading cases in the history of the FOIA, a test case for both the Upper
Tribunal (UT) and the Court of Appeal. I believe my case to be more important
than Prince Charles “SPIDER LETTERS” and the Rob Evans case because
the FOIA 2000 is dependable upon my case.

By the way, I am sure you are aware, the Court of Appeal
upheld the UT Vexatious decision in May this year via their C3/2013/1855
Dransfield v ICO case decision.

The Court of Appeal (CoA) are part of a wider conspiracy to
pervert the Course of Justice, i.e. section 77 of the FOIA 2000 aided by
cross bench political parties to gag Joe Public.

Firstly, let me set the record straight 11,KBW, your
paymasters get 95% of all ICO Court Cases, which is rather suspicious don’t you
think? What happened to a fair tendering process?

The ICO and11KBW failed to recognise the major item
of jurisdictional error. The fundamental art of all court cases is
for the Counsel to identify the correct jurisdiction in which the case falls.

How is there jurisdictional error, I hear you cry? Devon
County Council were not the legal custodians of the Exeter Chiefs Rugby Bridge
(FOIA REQUEST SUBJECT) until Jan 2013; hence the DCC/ICO/FTT/UT were all
legally bound to ensure the correct jurisdictional path was followed back in
May 2009 at the time of my original FOIA request.

Only one action could have been taken by the DCC upon
receipt of my request i.e. REFUSAL ON THE GROUNDS OF WE DO NOT OWN THE SUBJECT
TITLE AND WE DO NOT HOLD THE SUBJECT INFORMATION.

Why was such a fundamental error made, if error at all? The
DCC/ICO/UT and CoA were hell bent on gagging Joe Public and they failed to
recognise they were commencing an unlawful legal journey.

11KBW, one of the biggest law firms in the UK, were
called in to assist the ICO as they always are on all ICO Cases; hence a cosy
relationship between KBW and the ICO is obvious.

It is inconceivable that KBW would not identify the correct
jurisdiction for a legal case before the UT and later before the Court of
Appeal.

Judge Wikeley vexatious decision was based on Context and
History, but he failed his own court order for the ICO/DCC to produce 13 Ghost
documents. Without such ghost documents, his context and history theory plane
crashed on take-off. Judge Wikeley also failed the Jurisdictional error of law.

In the CoA hearing 11KBW/ICO legal argument was based on the
ICO Guidelines dated Sept 2014 which was cock-up # 2 by KBW because the ICO Key
Evidence (Guidelines) were 5 years post dated my original request May
2009.

Recently, the DCC have released the sought after data of my
FOIA request to two separate individuals i.e. the As Built Health and Safety
Files (ABHSF) for the Exeter Rugby Bridge which proves the DCC/ICO/UT/CoA and
11KBW considered Dransfield the person as Vexatious NOT as required
required by law.

The final proof that KBW are, at best, legal buffoons … is the publication of the ABHSF because this 300 page Safety
Manual for the subject title Bridge does not contain one single reference
to lightning protection……

…..my
original FOIA request was related to H&S matters of the Rugby Bridge
and Lightning Protection in p, articular; hence if my allegations were
proven to be well founded as in the ABHSF Judge Wikeley or the Court of
appeal could NOT (repeat NOT) find my request vexatious.

As a direct consequences of shannagins by 11KBW and in
particular actions/inactions by your Tom Cross and Rachael Khamm have
placed HM The Queen in mortal danger and has compromised Justice Goddard’s
Child Sex Scandal Investigations.

I don’t recall you being involved directly in this
particular case, but I would envisage you must have done some research to write
such a lengthy article on this subject matter and you didn’t identify the
jurisdictional error either. How convenient is that Mr Knight? ….

Please bring this matter to the attention of the CEO
at 11KBW because I believe it could bring the good name of 11 KBW into
disrepute.

I would also like to give you an opportunity to withdraw
your article from the internet and other legal publications because it is libelous
and factually incorrect. I shall reserve the right in seeking further legal
damages for libel by 11KBW related to this case.

I would also like you to issue a full public apology to me
and the general public for such a misleading false article.

Notwithstanding the veracity of my allegations above, it
behoves the 11KBW Board of Directors to call for a full inquiry into the
conduct of several of their Solicitors/Barristers.

This letter is not intended to be scurrilous, it is factual
and a simple ocular inspection of the ABHSF for the Exeter Chiefs Rugby Bridge
will confirm my allegation are indeed well founded.

I look forward to your response

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

To:

Email sent – 30/07/15 06.36

To clerksroom@11kbw.com, Lucy.Barbet@11kbw.com

Dear Sir/Madam

I wish to lodge a formal complaint against 3 of your
Solicitors :

1. Mr Tom Cross

2. Miss Rachael Khamm

3. Mr Christopher Wright.

There is compelling evidence on file that your Tom Cross and
Rachael Khamm have knowingly and purposely perverted the course of Justice for
several years relating to a FOIA case which has gone through the Courts
right up the Court of Appeal. I refer to the CoA ref case C3/2013/1855
Dransfield v ICO and 11KBW have provided leading Counsel on ALL occasions at
great cost to the public purse.

Both Cross and Kamm failed to identify that this case
was pursued by them even though the incorrect jurisdiction was apparent.
The jurisdiction error was because the second respondent in this Case, i.e the
Devon County Council (DCC) were not the legal owners of the FOIA subject i.e the
Exeter Chiefs Rugby Bridge.

The DCC did not become the legal custodians of the
FOIA subject until Jan 2013 some 5 years post my FOI request, hence not
subject to the FOIA 2000.

11KBW knew or should have known about the jurisdictional error…..
.

They also failed to recognise that my FOIA subject requests
which included serious Health & Safety issues were indeed well founded; hence, vexatious exemptions could and should not be applied.

…..

To my knowledge your Christopher Wright has had no direct
involvement in this case but he has written on the Dransfield Vexatious
Decision at some length; hence, he must have known about the jurisdictional error.

I fervently believe that 11 KBW are conniving and colluding
with the ICO to gag Joe Public via the Dransfield Case.

Actions and inactions by your Cross and Khamm hold
serious ramifications:

1. It places HM The Queen and other royal members in mortal danger
when they visit the Olympic Stadium or the House of Parliament, as both premises
have not been provisioned with adequate Lightning Protection.

2. It has compromised Lady Justice Goddard’s Child Sex
Scandal inquiry

Not withstanding the veracity of my complaints, it behoves
the 11KBW CEO to call for an immediate inquiry into Cross, Khamm and Wright.

I reserve the right to seek costs against 11KBW for the
libellous comments and damages to my good family name.

In the event my allegation are correct about the jurisdictional error, it would automatically follow that 11 KBW are responsible for the 450 plus vexatious exemptions handed down by the ICO on the Court of
Authority UKUT/2012 440/AAC a.k.a GIA/3037/2011.

For your information, action and files

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

Richard Bailey is the Senior Solicitor at the Information
Commissioners Office (ICO). Unfortunately his actions and inactions have
allowed the ICO to freefall into meltdown and has allowed the gagging of Joe
Public.

In particular, please see the Upper Tribunal decision
2012,UTUK-440/ACC aka GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield v ICO &Devon County Council.

This case has been allowed to navigate its way through the waters of justice from the ICO /FTT/UT and the Court of Appeal costing
many thousands of pounds from the public purse.

The CoA upheld the UT vexatious decision in May this year
under C3/2013/1855 Dransfield v ICO.

Interestingly, it was Richard Bailey who appealed the FTT non-vexatious decision and not the public authority i.e the Devon County Council (DCC).

In actual fact, this case crashed on take off because the
PA (DCC) were not the rightful or legal owners of the sought after
data ie the Exeter Chiefs Rugby Bridge in Devon. Hence, this was not under the
protection of the FOIA 2000. In other words this case was conducted by
HM Judges under the wrong jurisdiction.

Alan M Dransfield, the infamous Devon FOIA Campaigner, claims
the FOIA is under attack from the ICO in order to gag Joe Public.

Email sent – 27/07/15 19.56

Attn of the Select Committee overseeing an inquiry into the
FOIA 2000

Ladies and Gentlemen

I understand you have been given the remit to make formal
inquiries into the FOIA 2000 and to this end I wish to offer tangible evidence
that will assist your task and reduce the cost to the public purse with
your investigations..

In actual fact there is not a lot wrong with the FOIA 2000
other than a few irregularities and anomalies with the legal
interpretation of section 14 (1) vexatious exemptions.

The primary reason why the FOIA is NOT seen to be working
and in my view is currently in meltdown is because the oversight authorities i.e., the ICO have been conniving and colluding with rogue judges and rogue public authorities nationwide in a wider conspiracy to circumvent
section 77 of the FOIA 2000.

In particular, I draw your attention to the Upper Tribunal
decision 2012-(UTUK) 440-AAC a.k.a. GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield v ICO and the
Devon County Council. This case has been used in approximately 400 other vexatious
decisions handed down on a whim by the ICO.

That’s 400 vexatious decisions handed down by the ICO since
Jan 2013.

It would be prudent of you to examine GIA/3037/2011 in close
detail because that decision is the main reason for the meltdown of the ICO.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Vexatious decision and
by doing so rubber stamped the gagging of Joe Public. Please see CoA decision
C3/2013/1855 Dransfield v ICO & Devon County Council.

Arbitrary vexatious decisions are being handed down by the
ICO with the sole intent to cover up serious sex crimes and serious economical
fraud.

Please feel free to call me as a witness for your ongoing
inquiry.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

Devon Campaigner.

http://search.ico.org.uk/ico/search/decisionnotice

Please copy and paste this link into your browser.

Email sent: 20 June 2015 18:56

Dear
Mr Bailey, ICO Solicitor

As
you are aware, I am scheduled to attend an UT hearing ref the Stockport Borough
Council now the Court of Appeal have made their final decision.

To
this end, please be informed there is breaking news from Stockport which
supports my claims that my FOIA request was NOT vexatious and is in the Public
Interest; hence cannot be termed as vexatious.

I
refer to the Jackson Brickyards pond adjacent to the Vale View school which is owned by
a private fishing club who are contemplating suing the Stockport BC for legal breaches
ref the drainage of the pond.

You
are also aware that Sheila Oliver, a leading FOIA Campaigner in Manchester, has
been labeled as a Vexatious Requester ref this same school.

In
theory, the school drainage debacle at the Vale View School confirms my
allegations that the …….and the SBC and the ICO have acted in
concert to pervert the Course of Justice by willful breach of section 77 of the
said Act.

At
this Juncture,i t would appear that £250K allocated for the School Drainage has
gone AWOL.

The
ICO are based in this neck of the woods,hence, they may be familiar with
Jacksons Pond. It is Jackson Pond not On Golden Pond?

Please
acknowledge if you are familiar with the breaking news ref this pond. Could
this be the fishes coming home to Roost?

I
also remind you there is an outstanding UT Case v the DCC ref
EA/2010/0152 Dransfield v ICO which was also stayed by the UT pending the
CoA decisison and I remind you that you have not yet addressed the issue ref the original 6 Schools.

Too
busy counting your legal cost claims against a Devon pensioner, no
doubt.

For
your information, action and files

Yours sincerely

Alan
M Dransfield

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/angling-club-threatens-take-stockport-9424885
(Please copy and paste this link into your browser)
“An angling club says it will take legal action unless a council honours an old agreement to install proper drainage at its pond.

Reddish Angling Club agreed to let Stockport Council use Jackson’s Pond as an overflow for excess water from playing fields at the nearby Vale View Primary School, on condition that proper drainage was installed.

But the club claims the council has not held up its side of the bargain, which it agreed to in writing, because the drain that has been installed is only half the agreed size and doesn’t work.

As a result, the pond has flooded on numerous occasions since the school opened in 2011.

he authority says it is aware of the problems and has promised to involve the club in discussions about how to solve it.

The club’s committee has had to spend more than £8,000 of club funds to raise the pond’s banking by 18 inches and has even had to call the fire service out to pump away excess water.

Despite carrying out extensive work themselves, they say there are still long periods of time when the pond is so badly flooded that members can’t use it.

Flooding caused by poor drainage at Jackson’s Pond, home of Reddish Angling Club

Club banking manager Stephen Feast said: “The drain they put in is far too small and is always blocked.

“If you look in the manholes on the road next to it, they are always bone dry.

“It’s just a disgrace. Members have to pay a subscription every year, and most of the time they can’t even use half the pond. I’ve never seen it so bad.

“All we want is a meeting with their solicitor and our solicitor. We just want to talk to them sensibly.

“We just want them to uphold their end of the bargain, but if they don’t come up with an offer we will be left with no option but to take them to court.

“We’ve done everything the council wanted us to do, we’ve upheld our end of the bargain, and this is how they treat us.”

A Stockport Council spokesman said: “Over recent years we have been discussing the problem of drainage at Jackson’s Pool in Reddish with Reddish Angling Club and have met with their representatives.

“Clearance of roots has taken place from the pipe but this hasn’t solved the problem.

“The council is currently working to find a longer-term solution to the problem and will involve the angling club in these discussions.”