Blog Image

Alan Dransfield's Blog

Freedom of Information and Health and Safety

This blog is aimed at shaming those who ignore health and safety and those who abuse the Freedom of Information Act out of laziness, corruption or to cover up incompetence.

ICO doesn’t keep a disclosure log (sigh)

Information Commissioner Posted on Thu, December 05, 2019 11:04:24

From: alan dransfield <alanmdransfield@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 8:49 AM
Subject: London Mayor FOIA Disclosure Log
To: elizabeth.denham <elizabeth.denham@ico.org.uk>
Cc: <mayt@parliament.uk>, John BERCOW <john.bercow.mp@parliament.uk>, <news@dailymail.co.uk>, CHANNEL 4 <news@channel4.com>, The Local Denmark <news.denmark@thelocal.com>,

Eleizabeth Denham

Information Commissioner

Dear Madam.

I have taken the liberty in sending you this FOI Disclosure Log from the London Mayor’s Office. This is an excellent site and in full compliance with section 19 of the FOIA 2000. 

The reason I have sent it to you is because the ICO are in breach of the FOIA section 19 because you do not have any disclosure log at your website. This is compounded by the fact the ICO/FOIA are in constitutional crisis because the Cabinet Office have hijacked the FOIA 2000 whilst being in contempt of court ref the Lockerbie Bombing and Libya Papers inter alia.

For clarity and avoidance of doubt the ICO disclosure log should not be mistaken for the ICO Decision Notices website. The ICO have a legal obligation in accordance with section 19 to  publish their FOIA requests and response in a similar fashion to the attached URL Link. Are you not supposed to lead by example?

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/governance-and-spending/sharing-our-information/freedom-information/foi-disclosure-log?order=DESC



A new low for the ICO?

Information Commissioner Posted on Thu, December 05, 2019 10:59:26

Information Commissioners Office

To Elizabeth Denham, Information Commissioner

19/11/201

Dear Madam

There is compelling evidence that you and your office have acted in concert to pervert the course of justice and to hide infant deaths at Shrewsbury Hospital. Please see the attached ICO decision which relies on section 40 (personal data). It was not personal data that this FOIA requester was seeking, it was a total number of deaths not the ID of the infants. This ICO decision clearly supports my claims of egregious conduct by the ICO and Shrewsbury Health Trust

Yours etc

Alan M Dransfield

FOIA Campaigner and Social Watchdog

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2019/2615555/fs50841738.pdf



Imminent changes to vexatious exemptions?

Information Commissioner, Vexatious Posted on Sun, October 27, 2019 11:16:06

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d9f2411e5274a596f829bdc/GIA_0171_2019-00.pdf



Human rights abuses by the UK Information Commissioner

Information Commissioner, Vexatious Posted on Sun, October 27, 2019 08:07:53

Joint Committee on Human Rights
Houses of Parliament
London
SW1A 0AA

Dear Sirs

I wish to report serious and consistent breaches of article 10 of  Human Rights Act by the Information Commissioner (IC) in the manner they are using section 14/1 of the FOIA 2000. 

I contend the ICO and the Justice Department are failing their fiduciary duty of care to ensure VEXATIOUS has been given full legal definition of the word. At this juncture,  the ICO and tribunals are relying upon the Dransfield Vexatious Court Precedent (DVCP)(2015)EWCA Civ 454 14th May 2015 which infringes article 10 of  the Human Rights Act. Moreover, the ICO have used the DVCP over 10,000 times since  the Upper Tribunal decision UKUT 440 (AAC) in Jan 2013. Most, if not all Government departments are also breaching article 10 of the HRA when they rely upon the DVCP.

I respectfully call upon the UK Joint Committee on Human Rights to investigate my allegations please.

with thanks

Yours sincerely 

Alan M Dransfield 

FOIA Campaigner and Social Watchdog



Is Elizabeth Denham, Information Commissioner, guilty of egregious conduct?

Information Commissioner, Uncategorised Posted on Sun, October 27, 2019 07:57:00

https://legaldictionary.net/egregious/



Not only do we have ambiguity on VEXATIOUS, we now have similar rubbish on DECISION definition

Information Commissioner Posted on Sun, October 06, 2019 15:13:52


FOIA request of Elizabeth Denham. Will she bother to respond?

Information Commissioner Posted on Sun, September 15, 2019 15:50:59

Sun 15/09/2019 10:16

Information Commissioner 

elizabeth.denham elizabeth.denham@ico.org.uk; casework@ico.org.uk; Richard Bailey Richard.Bailey@ico.gsi.gov.uk; Richard Bailey Richard.Bailey@ico.org.uk

Dear Madam

Under protection of the FOIA 2018 please provide me with the following information  ref the subject title:

1. Total  government funding for DATA Protection. 

2. Funds spent on GDPR  specific case  between May18 and May  2019.

3. At this juncture the ICO have not taken a single complaint and used their enforcement powers to assist any DATA Complainant. Why is this?

4. How many ICO officials are working directly on GDRP cases?

I fully understand that I do not need to provide you with my motive  for this or any FOI request. However, in the interest of clarity and probity the ICO are not assisting the general public whose data rights are being infringed other than advise the complaint to seek a Judicial Review.  Why should Joe Public be cost impacted of a Judicial Review when the ICO are the oversight Authority of the GDPR 2018?

The ICO are not backward coming forward to issue fine on the Huge PLC like Facebook and Virgin etc,  but the ICO do not appear to be remotely interested in the average Joe Blogs who data rights have been infringed by a public authority.

with thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield 

FOI Campaigner and Social Watchdog



Section 50

Information Commissioner Posted on Mon, September 02, 2019 20:19:12

This letter confirms the ICO are applying a vexatious blanket against Dransfield, irrespective of who the public authority is.

They are now applying section 50(2)(c) against him.



Next »