Alan Dransfield's Blog

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2017/2013939/fs50610253.pdf

“83. The term “vexatious” is not defined in the FOIA. The Upper Tribunal (UT) considered the issue of vexatious requests in the Information Commissioner v Devon CC & Dransfield (UKUT 440 (AAC), 28 January 2013).1 The UT commented that “vexatious” could be defined as the “manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of a formal procedure”. This definition clearly establishes that the concepts of proportionality and justification are relevant to any consideration of whether a request is vexatious.”

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomtalkradioonlinepodcast/2019/01/25/alan-m-dransfield-freedom-of-information-show-p2

This document can be more clearly read via this link:
http://www.sheilaoliver.org/alan-dransfield.html

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=alan+dransfield+pilgrim+father+you+tube&view=detail&mid=50688970FCAB3602029350688970FCAB36020293&FORM=VIRE

Email sent – Mon 03/09/2018 10:54

Information Commissioners Office

Dear Madam

Under protection of the FOIA 2000 please provide me with
copies of the following

1. All correspondence between the ICO and David Lidington ref the recent changes to sect 45 of FOIA

2. Records of all phone calls, meetings etc
and personal notes from Ms Denham to the Queen on same subject.

3. Copies of all correspondence from your office pertaining
to sect 45 changes and responses from the Cabinet Office. This request is
neither vexatious, wide or unfocused.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

https://m.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=678184955873290&id=100010453752400&src=email_notif

Email sent – 23/08/2018 18:53

Attn The President of the Upper Tribunal Mr Justice
Charles

Dear Sir

In light of last nights documentary on the Channel 4 Dispatches programme ref the Carillion Collapse (CC), I
ask the UT President to revisit his earlier decision that Judge Wikely had
acted within the law ref Case
GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield v ICO. I reiterate Judge Wikely was complicit with the
ICO to pervert the course of justice ref the Dransfield Vexatious Court Precedence.

In mid 2016 my appeal to the UT relating to 6 PFI schools
in Exeter was rejected based on the Court of Appeal C3/1855/2015. Moreover and
more importantly the Dispatches programme supports my claims the 6 PFI school in
Exeter were/are substandard and unsafe. It also supports my allegation that you
have acted unlawfully by not taking my allegation against Judge Wikely
seriously. In essence, you have been complicit with Judge Wikely and the ICO to
cover up serious crimes and to circumvent the ICO.

Suggestion

Revisit your decision
ref my complaints against Judge Wikely ref GIA/3037/2011.
Revist the UT
decision to dismiss my appeal to the UT.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield