Alan Dransfield's Blog

Email sent – 11 March 2015 06:16

Justice Select Committee

Dear Sirs

Over the past 12 months I have sent tangible evidence to Ed Beale ref the
subject title. Please see the latest ICO vexatious decision, which I consider to
be further tangible evidence of a wider pattern of systemic failures by the ICO
to pervert the course of justice by the wrongful application of section
14(1).

In particular, please see para 12-13 which makes direct ref to my case
GIA/3037/2011 which is still before the Court of Appeal.

Please also see the ICO/CPS latest vexatious decision, which also uses my
case above as a court precedence in para 15.

In my view there is sufficient tangible evidence that the ICO is conspiring with other 3rd parties to pervert the course of Justice via section
77 of the FOIA 2000 and in particular the willful and flagrant use of section
14(1) vexatious. In other words the ICO is gaffing Joe Public and obstructing
the FOIA 2000.

No person applying a right and proper mind could have reached a vexatious
exemption decision on the two attached cases.

Enough is enough of this vexatious exemption nonsense and I call upon the
Justice Select Committee to call for a Public Inquiry into the wrongful and
illegal use of Vexatious exemptions under section 14(1).

For your information, action and files.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield.

Email sent – 10 March 2015 06:43

Dear Mr Bradshaw

I am deeply concerned at the recent headline news on the BBC that 9 out 10
Devon Schools have asbestos and the £1/4 million damages payout to a former
pupil.

Please see my FOIA request from Sep 2012 which was refused under section
14(1) vexatious.

It beggars belief the Devon County Council has paid out 1/4 million pounds in compensation
for asbestos-related illness, which in essence could open the floodgates to
former students in Devon schools. No doubt the DCC has been hugely cost-impacted on these asbestos court cases, as well as the Dransfield FOIA cases.

Enough is enough Mr Bradshaw; you are failing your fiduciary duty of care
as MP for Exeter by your inactions and failures.

The recent BBC publication of asbestos dangers in Devon schools does, in
my view, prove my FOIA back in Sept 2012 was far from vexatious.

For your information, action and files

With thanks

Yours etc

Alan M Dransfield.

http://informationrightsandwrongs.com/2015/02/04/is-an-foi-request-from-an-investigative-journalist-ever-vexatious/#comments

Pilgrim Fathers would turn in their graves if they knew that vexatious exemptions were being applied by public authorities and HM Courts as a first option tool to gag Joe Public.

I attend a Court of Appeal test case hearing in London next week in an
attempt to save the FOIA 2000. Should I lose my Court of Appeal case, Freedom of
Information is gone for ever.

What next from this Coalition Government? Freedom of speech?

Alan Dransfield
20/1/15

Email sent – Friday, January 16, 2015 8:25 AM

Dear Mr Bradshaw MP

Please see the following vexatious decision from the Information Commissioner’s Office and in particular, para 13 in which the ICO rely on the Dransfield Case GIA/3037/2011 to support their vexatious exemption.

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2014/1020038/fs_50526275.pdf

Quite frankly, it sickens me to the stomach to have my name mentioned in the same sentence as the vile pervert Jimmy Saville.

As you are aware, I am attending the Court of Appeal at the end of this month to argue the legal definition of Vexatious in a test case, Dransfield v ICO ref C3/2013/1855.

Nothwithstanding the result or the outcome of the Court of Appeal Case, I call upon my MP to write to the Ministry of Justice to investigate the conduct of the ICO, who in my opinion are part of a wider conspiracy to cover up the government sex scandal(s) by the introduction of vexatious exemptions, which is a get out of jail free card for perverts and sex offenders……

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield.

Alan Dransfield is due before the Court of Appeal on the 27th or 28th of this month (to be confirmed) soley to argue the definition and interpretation of section 14(1) vexatious, which is related to Dransfield’s FOIA request for technical data on Exeter Chiefs pedestrian bridge, which has been previously denied under section 14(1) Vexatious.

The case ref is C3/2013/1855 Dransfield v ICO and Devon County Council.

The FOIA celebrates its 10th Birthday next month and has operated for the last decade without any clear legal definition of section 14(1) vexatious.

For the first time Dransfield will represented in court by pro bono legal advisers.

Dransfield is very excited at the prospect of appearing in a test case before the Court of Appeal and could actually be the saviour of the FOIA, because if he loses his case, he fears Joe Public will be gagged for ever and prevented from asking questions of public authorities. He also claims his FOIA request is not vexatious owing to the health and safety ramifications of the health and safety defects on the bridge and stadium.

Email sent – 28 October 2014 16:00

Mr Ed Bealle

Parliamentary Justice Select Committee.

IS THE ICO REALLY WORKING

Dear Sir

One question which must be asked of the ICO by your Justice Select committee is the subject title.

The answer must surely be a resounding No.

Please see the following passage from the ICO website.

“About the ICO

The ICO’s mission is to uphold information rights in the public

interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for

individuals.

The ICO is the UK’s independent public authority set up to uphold information

rights. We do this by promoting good practice, ruling on complaints providing

information to individuals and organisations and taking appropriate action

where the law is broken.

The ICO enforces and oversees the Freedom of Information Act, the

Environmental Information Regulations, the Data Protection Act and the

Privacy and Electronic Communication Regulations.”

This statement by the ICO is at best hogwash and at worst a tool to designed to assist the passage of fraud – I suggest the latter.

The mission statement by the ICO crashes on take off because perusal of the ICO decsion notices website would confirm that 90% of the ICO decision notices have gone in favour of the public authority and not the complainant.

It is also consistently obvious the ICO have no independence whatsoever, because they investigate cases against themselves.

Yours in disgust

Dransfield

Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 3:45 PM

Subject: Fwd: Judge’s Reconsideration

Attn the Justice Dept Select Committee

Dear Sir

Please see the following decision from The FTT Judge NJ Warren which in my view is yet further tangible evidence from the ” establishment’s” unfair bias against me.

With thanks

Alan M Dransfield

From: “GRC@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Date: 17 November 2014 04:49:07 GMT-5
To: ‘alan dransfield’
Subject: Judge’s Reconsideration

Dear Mr. Dransfield,

I attach a copy of the judge’s reconsideration of the tribunal registrar’s decision not to accept the three matters mentioned in your email of 28th October 2014 as appeals.

Yours sincerely,

Roger Towers

Clerk to the First-tier Tribunal

General Regulatory Chamber

0116 249 4342