Alan Dransfield's Blog

Email sent – 18 May 2014 07:44

Dear Mr Bradshaw

Please sign my
petition for a public inquiry at the Information Commissioner’s Office

With thanks

Alan M. Dransfield

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/public-inquiry-into-the-conduct-of-the-information-commissioner

Campaign for FOIA

Attn Mr Maurice
Frankel and Tim Turner.

Gentlemen

Please see my 38
Degrees campaign for a public inquiry into the conduct of the ICO ref
vexatious decisions. I invite you both to sign this campaign and disseminate
amongst your friends.

Keep up the good
works

Best regards

Alan

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/public-inquiry-into-the-conduct-of-the-information-commissioner

Email sent 18 May 2014 06:30

Attn Rt Hon Mr
Christopher Grayling MP

Lord Chancellor
and Secretary of State for Justice

Dear Mr Grayling

Please see my
following letter dated 21st Mar 14 addressed to your colleague Mr Simon Hughes (please see posting below) .
Notwithstanding the merits of my allegations, the gravity of my assertions, it behoves Mr Hughes to acknowledge my letter. Ditto for common
courtesy!

It is demonstrably
evident that the ICO are in complete meltdown and Mr Christopher Graham, the Information
Commissioner, might well appear to be above the law in the manner the ICO are handing
down vexatious decisions (VD) on a whim.

Enough is enough,
and this VD nonsense must stop now and the buck stops at your desk.

For your
information and immediate action please.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

Dear Mr Bradshaw

I would be most
grateful if you would write to the Rt Hon Simon Hughes and ask him why he has
ignored my letter below ref the meltdown of the ICO.

Owing to the
gravity of my allegations, it behoves a response from Simon Hughes.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfeld

Date:
Wed,
Mar 26, 2014 at
2:03 PM
Subject: RE: COMPLETE MELTDOWN OF THE INFORMATIONS COMMISSIONERS OFFICE.
To: alan dransfield

Dear Mr Dransfield

Thank you very much for writing to Simon Hughes MP in
his capacity as Minister of Justice. To enable him to help, please provide your
home address, postcode and a telephone number. Once he has these details,
Simon’s Ministry of Justice team will be able to start investigating your
concerns and will get back to you as soon as possible.

I look forward to hearing from you.

With very best regards

Judy Abel

Office Manager/Senior Caseworker

Rt. Hon. Simon
Hughes MP

From: alan
dransfield
Sent: 21 March 2014 08:01
To: simon@simonhughes.org.uk;
general.queries@justice.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: Fwd: COMPLETE MELTDOWN OF THE INFORMATIONS COMMISSIONERS
OFFICE.

Dear Sir

I am re-sending
this email as the original one bounced back

with
thanks

Alan M Dransfield

Forwarded
message ———-
From: alan dransfield <alanmdransfield@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 4:56 AM
Subject: COMPLETE MELTDOWN OF THE
INFORMATIONS COMMISSIONERS OFFICE.

Ministry
of Justice,
102 Petty France,
London,

SW1H 9AJ

Attn The
Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP. Secretary of State for Justice

Dear Sir

I write
to you in your capacity of Secretary of State for Justice to inform you of a
complete meltdown of the Information Commissioners Office and call for a public
inquiry into the conduct of the Information Commissioner, Mr Christopher
Graham and the manner in which section 14(1) Vexatious Exemption decisions are
handed down as a “get-out-of jail” trump card by rogue public authorities
on a whim.

In
particular, I refer to the Upper Tribunal decision GIA/3037/2011 dated 28th Jan 2013, Dransfield v ICO
& Devon County Council. That case is still before the Court of Appeal under
C3/2013/1855.

By
virtue of the fact the GIA/3037/2011 is still navigating its way through the
Court of Appeal process, it cannot be deemed as a Statutory Court
Authority/Precedence, and any use of the GIA/3037/2011 is a breach of GOOD LAW
and Contempt of Court.

The
GIA/3037/2011 has now been use unlawfully nearly 200 times by various public authorities,
some of which should know better and certainly be aware of Sub-Judice,Stare
Decisis, Due Process and common sense.

Rogue
Public Authorities include but not limited to are :

1.Crown
Prosecution Service .CPS.

2.Home
Office

3.Ministry
of Justice.

4.Wilshire
Police Authority.

5.Devon County Council

6.Carmarthen County Council

7.Stockport Borough
Council

8.Cheshire County
Council.

8.Hartlepool County
Council.

9.Walberswick
Parish Council

10
Wirral County Council.

11.Dorset County Council

12.Information Commissioners Office

It is
particularly distressing that the ICO are one of the main culprits to use the
vexatious trump card on a whim and their 37 page Vexatious Guidelines (May2013 ,version1)is
also based on my case GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield Case.

The ICO
have shown flagrant disregard for their Mission Statement which is to “uphold
the FOIA 2000”.

On the
contrary, the ICO have knowingly and wilfully circumvented section 77 of the
FOIA 2000 for self-gain by their flagrant abuse of section 14(1) Vexatious
Exemptions.

It
beggars belief the ICO would attempt to use the Vexatious Exemption under section
14(1) as their first choice response exemption (weapon).

There is
prima facie evidence of a greater conspiracy between the ICO/FTT/UT and rogue
PAs nationwide to use my ROGUE GIA/3037/2011 as a Court Precedence.

I fully
appreciate the gravity of my allegations, which can be verified by a
simple ocular inspection of the ICO decisions records from Jan 2013 to 20th Mar 2014..

Recommendations/Suggestion.

Call for
the immediate suspension of the Information Commissioner Christopher Graham and
the Upper Tribunal Judge Nicholas Wikeley OBE.

Establish
exactly how many times GIA/3037/2011 has been used as a Court Authority since
Feb 2013 to 20th Mar 2014. This
would take a Legal Graduate about 1/2 day maximum, a simple search in the ICO
Website decision search engine would reveal the rogue decisions.

What is
particularly distressing is how many times the GIA/3037/2011 has been used by
other rogue PAs which have not reached the ICO appeal system. This could be
dozens or ? hundreds!

For your
information, there is a FTT Hearing in London next Mon 24th Mar in which the
ICO and the Devon County Council are solely reliant upon this rogue GIA/3037/2011
and I invite you to attend this hearing to see your Judiciary at work first
hand. The very least you can do is to send one of your legal observers to this
hearing. This FTT hearing next Mon, at best, is a kangaroo court and at worst,
a tool to assist fraud and perversion of Justice; I suggest the latter. The FTT
hearing case ref is EA/2010/0152, which is under its 6th retrial and has
been a live case since Feb 2008. God only knows the true cost to the Public
Purse for this case.

I would
be most grateful if you would forward this letter to the Lord Chief Justice and
the Parliamentary Justice Select Committee.

With
thanks

I look
forward to your response

Yours
sincerely

Alan M
Dransfield

Email sent 30th April 2014 17:54 to Ben Bradshaw MP

Dear Mr Bradshaw

I consider this BBC article to be libelous of my good family name.

With thanks

Alan M Dransfield

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/198892/response/502292/attach/2/IR2014009%20internal%20review.pdf

Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 11:14 PM

Subject: GIA/863/2014 Dransfield V ICO and the Olympic Delivery Authority

Attn The Upper Tribunal

Please be advised that I will not be present at the UT hearing on 2nd June. The reason being is because the ICO and the ODD do not intend to be present, hence, please consider this matter on the papers alone. It is pointless and a complete waste of time me being at the hearing in the absence of the ICO and the ODD.

I hold no confidence whatsoever the UT will allow me a fair and just hearing. Hence, I do not intend to spend money on travel expenses to get shafted again by the UT.

Please advise me the key issues, skeleton argument etc from the ICO and the 2nd respondents and a full explanation why the UT have not allowed a full oral hearing.

In the interest of the public purse would it be worthwhile me making my application for leave to appeal the UT Decision 8 weeks before it is made , because it will surely be a vexatious decision?

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 7:22 AM

Subject: Re: FOIA complaints about the ICO (Ref FS50532725)[Ref. FS50532725]

ICO Governance Officer

Dear Gemma

I find your response somewhat disingenuous because you specifically asked me if I wish you to consider any other complaints and as you are aware, I have highlighted a number of complaints against the ICO which I wish you to consider. Therefore, why are you rowing back from your own original requests for me to provide further complaints by now claiming you are conducting inquiries into the 15 vexatious decisions ONLY, which were made on the same day by your Steven Dickinson.

Furthermore, you have not responded to my specific questions of your line manager?

I repeat that question, who is your line manager please, is it Steven Dickinson?

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

From: <casework@ico.org.uk>
Date: 10 April 2014 14:35:33 BST
To: <alanmdransfield@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: FOIA complaints about the ICO (Ref FS50532725)[Ref. FS50532725]

10th April 2014

Case Reference Number FS50532725

Dear Mr Dransfield,

I write to confirm that I have received your recent emails. I am only able to investigate whether or not section 14 FOIA was applied correctly to the 15 FOIA requests you made to the ICO between 30 December 2013 and 21 January 2014. I am unable to investigate anything other than this. As soon as my investigation is complete in relation to this, a Decision Notice will be issued.

Yours sincerely

Gemma Garvey
Senior Case Officer
01625 545539

Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: FOI request 89837

First Tier Tribunal

I am not satisfied with your response to my FOIA request, hence please conduct a review. I also very concerned at your statement that the Judiciary is outside the remit of the FOIA 2000 in your following statement quote”The judiciary, though, is not a public authority and so the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to it.”

My response to that Sir, is absolute hogwash, the Judiciary does come under the FOIA but ais governed by Section 32 exemptions, and my FOIA request for Judge Warren’s hand-written notes is perfectly acceptable under protection of FOIA 2000.

Your quotation above implies the Judiciary is outside the FOIA remit period, which is factually incorrect. The Ministry of Justice holds vicarious liability for the FTT/UT Judges and the MoJ is a public authority. Hence, your statement above is either hogwash at worst and at best an attempt to obstruct justice.

Therefore my FOIA requests for Judge Warren’s hand-written note and ditto for his panel are legitimate FOIA requests.

Once again, I find myself receiving mis and disinformation from the FTT.

For your information, action and files.

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield