Alan Dransfield's Blog

Email sent –

Dear Mr Bradshaw

Please see the ICO article and I draw your attention to Christopher Graham’s recent ref “SAVING TO THE PUBLIC PURSE”.

My response to that is hogwash. If the ICO is so concerned about the public purse costs, why the hell is he spending thousands of pounds fighting the Dransfield FOI cases?

He also goes on to state: “the need to shine the light of transparency in the deepest corners” or some other twaddle.

As far as I am concerned there is no transparency, accountability or security (TAS) at the ICO as they were switched off by the Wikely Vexatious Decision ref GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield v ICO.

As reported earlier to your office, the ICO is in meltdown and are in the Last Chance Saloon. Ditto for the DCC and the FOIA 2000.

In a nutshell, Mr Bradshaw, if I lose my Court of Appeal case public authorities nationwide will hand down vexatious decisions on a whim, which in essence are GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARDS and Joe Public will be gagged forever. On the other hand if I win my Court of Appeal Case, I will become the saviour of the FOIA 2000. Obviously I prefer the latter to happen. Maybe you can recommend me for a Knighthood.

Where have you been whilst all these shannagins have been going on? Surely not sleeping on the job again.

New bulbs for transparency for your office.

For your information, action and files

Alan M Dranfield.

http://www.pdpjournals.com/images/stories/back_issues/freedom_of_information_11_3.pdf

Email sent – 03 March 2015 04:24
Dear Mr Bradshaw

You will recall that I wrote to you on this subject 6 months ago and you chose to ignore my allegations.

Please see the following article from a devout Information Commissioner’s Office fan, Mr Timothy Turner, who now accuses the ICO of wrongdoing.

Of course, the ICO are perverting the course of justice via section 77 of the FOIA 2000 and a simple ocular inspection of the ICO vexatious decisions passed down on a whim since Jan 13 is proof of the pudding.

Are those cracks appearing in the dam? You might have to stick your finger in there Mr Bradshaw.

What’s that noise I hear, chickens coming home to roost.

Yours setc

Dransfield

http://2040infolawblog.com/2015/03/02/who-watches-the-watchdog

Email sent – Thursday, January 29, 2015 4:25 AM

Dear Mr Bradshaw MP

I would hazard a guess the Court of Appeal hearing over 2 days in
London has cost the public purse £50k. This cost could have been avoided
if Devon County Council had given me the sought after information which I asked for under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000.

I would also hazard a guess it would have cost the DCC £5 or less
to provide me with public data.

We must learn lessons from these court cases and the DCC appear to be oblivious to the public purse costs in pursuing
Vexatious Exemptions.

For your information action and files.

Alan M Dransfield

To: “BRADSHAW Ben”
Cc: “John BERCOW” ; Richard Bailey@ico.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2014 9:12 AM
Subject: National Security Issues

Dear Mr Bradshaw

Please see the following ICO decision which is now before the Upper Tribunal (tbc).
I call upon my MP to write to the appropriate authorities for the safety and security of the UK Government because I have identified a very serious defect with the lightning protection at the House of Lords, and in all probability at the House of Commons also. The House of Lords confirmed to me in writing that their Westminster Buildings have not been provisioned with any Lightning Risk Assessment (LRA) as defined in BS/EN 62035/2006.

In the absence if any LRA the end user and the general public’s safety has been compromised.

This becomes a national security issues because half of the British Government could be wiped out during a thunderstorm.

In essence, the Westminster Houses of Parliament are operating in a legal void.
It would automatically follow that the Parliament Building offers a serious threat of harm or death to HM The Queen and other members of the Royal Family, and I call upon my MP to bring this matter to the attention of the Royal
Household Security. I also suggest/ recommend this matter is directed to the Home Office Sec of State.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield
http://ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2013/fer_0507004.pdf

From: Mark Thorogood @ico.org.uk
Date: 20 August 2014 11:48:38 BST
To: Alan M dransfield
Subject: Message deleted

Your message has been deleted without being read by me.

Mark Thorogood

To: “BRADSHAW Ben” Cc: “Richard Bailey”
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 8:46 AM

Subject: fs_50539606.ashx.pdf

Dear Mr Bradshaw MP

One of the latest vexatious arbitrary decisions by the ICO and PA. If this request was indeed ” burdensome” it should have been exempted under section 12 costs, not section 14/1 vexatious. They should have informed the requester to downsize his request.

Sad reflection on how vexatious decisions are being used as a first option rather than a last resort. I call upon my MP to request a public inquiry into the vexatious decision abuse by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Interesting to note the public authority in this case is the Police Chiefs Association, who should know better. In short, this FOI decision is a flagrant abuse of section 77 of the FOIA 2000.

Hang your head in shame police chiefs.

Cheeky devils have used my case GIA/3037/2012 as a Court Authority.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

From: Alan Dransfield

To: general.inquiries@justice.gsi.gov.uk

Cc: ITRC@nao.gsi.gov.uk, Beale, Edward ; Ben Bradshaw MP

Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 4:03
AM

Subject: Fwd:

Lord Faulkes QC

Minister of State for
Justice

102 Petty France

London

SW1H 9AJ

Dear Siru

Please see the email
correspondence from an unknown public servant to the NAO. In this letter from
the National Audit Office, it would appear the NAO official is giving the ICO a
warning or a tip off ref my allegations of fraud and theft of public funds by
the ICO.

I do not accept it is right and
proper that NAO should give pre-warning to the ICO ref allegations of fraud by
a member of the public.

This is in relation to a live
Court of Appeal case ref C3/2013/1855 Dransfield v ICO due to be heard at the
Court of Appeal on 27th or 28th Jan 2015.

It should not be difficult to
locate the the identity of the NAO official responsible for this email 21st Jan
2014.

By virtue of this email, I shall
request my MP Mr Ben Bradshaw to write to the Chief Constable of the Met Police
with a view to a criminal inquiry.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan m Dransfield

From: Alan Dransfield

To: Ben Bradshaw MP

Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 7:16
AM

Subject: ICO INVOICES

Dear Mr Bradshaw

Please see the following link for KBW Law Firm Invoices for Legal
services.

I do not accept the need for any redactment in such cases.

There are dozens of such examples available online.

Why would the ICO need to hide the Legal Works description undertaken by a
3rd party on their behalf.

For your information, action and files.

With thanks

Alan M Dransfield

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/14675/response/37558/attach/3/R%20KBW%20invoice.pdf