Alan Dransfield's Blog

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

Email sent – 17 November 2014 15:25

Justice Dept Select Committee

Dear Sir

Please see the attached FOI decision which indicates the Vexatious decisions are spreading like cancer.

Please bring this matter to the attention of the Justice Select Committee.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

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 emphasis 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 request the Upper Tribunal to add my complaint against Judge SM Wright to my complaint against Judge Wikeley.

…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 Wrights GIA/1642/2014 decision to the Court of Appeal.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield.

Vexatious? I think not. Cover-up more like.

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Exeter-Freedom-Information-campaigner-pledges/story-23309774-detail/story.html