Alan Dransfield's Blog

Email sent – 29/01/2017 05:37

Information Commissioner’s Office

Dear Mr Bailey and Mr Arnold

There is another major discrepancy with your total figures for the ICO Decision Notices. Today’s total is 7614 and
yesterday’s total was 9670. There can be only three explanations for these false figures

1. Gremlins in your IT System.

2. Incompetence of the person(s) inputting this data.

3. ICO massaging their Decision
Notice figures to assist fraud.

I would suggest the latter.

It is nearly two weeks since I alerted you two gentlemen to
this anomaly. What have you done about it?

It should be noted also that you have not published one single Decision Notice since 12th Jan 2017.

For your information, action and
files

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

https://search.ico.org.uk/ico/search/decisionnotice

Email sent – Fri 27/01/2017 05:30

Information Commissioner’s Office

Dear Mr Bailey and Mr Arnold

Your website total number being displayed today is 7868 and the figures column in the left hand side don’t add up either.

The is the seventh total discrepancy this week. Please give me the name and title of the person responsible for publishing the Decision Notice’s total figures.

For clarity it was 7598 yesterday at this time and today is 7868. That’s a discrepancy of 270 DN’s because not one single new DN has been added to the website.

For your information, action and files

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

https://search.ico.org.uk/ico/search/decisionnotice

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomtalkradioscotland/2017/01/20/allan-dransfield-len-lawrence

Email sent – Sun 22/01/2017 06:56

Information Commissioner’s Office

Dear Mr Bailey

Please see the ICO website page ref the ICO Decsion Notices
(DN) which claims the ICO total DN’s is only 4845.

As I am a regular visitor to this particular website; I
recall the total DN’s to be in the region of 10K plus.

Please confirm the total number
of DN’s is only 4845.

I find this figure hard to believe because there are approx
6000 DN’s on record that are either Vexatious or Manifestly Unreasonable.

According to these figures the ICO are handing down 403
Decision Notices per year which does not Justify either your staffing levels or
your fiscal budget.

If this is not a genuine
typo error with regard to the total number of DN’s, then is the ICO massaging their DN Notice totals for whatever reason?

For you information action and
files

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

PS I note the ICO is still non compliant with statutory
regulations for Register of Interest Details.

Email sent – Sat 21/01/2017 06:10

Ms Elizabeth Denham. Information
Commission.

Dear Madam

May I suggest you either arrange further night school
training for your ICO solicitors or have them replaced with experienced solicitors. I say this with the greatest of confidence because it would appear
your legal staff are not aware of common law or stare decisis.

The ICO are handing down Decision Notices(DN) without legal precedents, which is clearly against their own policies and procedures and
clearly against the doctrine of Common Law and Stare Decisis. I have taken the
liberty in sending you some assistance and advice on these matters and I would
be grateful if you could ensure the ICO Solicitors are duly briefed with
it’s use and legal requirements.

In particular, the ICO should decease and desist from
handing down further Vexatious Exemption Decisions which are devoid of any legal precedents as is the case with the recent 4 decisions to North East
Lincolnshire and one to Morecambe Bay Hospital on the 11th and 12th of
Jan 2017.

For the last 4 years you have
used the GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield Vexatious Court Precedence, whilst
knowingly and wilfully turning a blind eye to the fact the GIA/3037 case was in
fact a rogue vexatious decision from a rogue Judge, ie Judge Nicholas
Wikley from the Upper Tribunal.

However, it would appear the
ICO has recently suspended the use of the Dransfield Vexatious Court Authority
and are now handing down decision notices which are devoid of any court precedence period. THIS IS AN UNLAWFUL
PRACTICE.

Suggestions and
recommendations

1. Decease and desist from issuing any further Vexatious
Decision until an alternative Vexatious Decision is established .

2. Withdraw the 38 page vexatious guidelines which is now obsolete owing to the consistent reference to the GIA /3037/2011 Dransfield
Case.

3. Revoke all the Vexatious Decision Notices under the
Dransfield Vexatious Court Precedents and all the manifestly unreasonable Decision Notices. Approx 6000 decisions on these two exemptions need to be
revoked.

4. Your position of Information Commissioner is now untenable
and you should resign immediately owing to all these Vexatious shenanigans

5. I am copying this letter to my MP Ben Bradshaw with a
request for him to call for a Public Inquiry into this Vexatious hogwash
and to also call for a parallel criminal investigation into your conduct
and that of your predecessor Mr Christopher Graham/Richard Bailey/Paul
Arnold/Steven Dickinson and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all.

6. My previous offer to meet you and your staff personally
and sort out this mess is now withdrawn owing to the gravity of my allegations.

For your information action and files

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

FOIA Campaigner and Social Watchdog

Email sent – Fri 20/01/2017 11:41

Information Commissioner’s
Office

Dear Sir

Under the protection of
the FOIA 2000 please provide me with the following information related to
the current legal stance ref the Vexatious court precedence.

The reason I ask this question
is because between Jan 2013 to 12th Jan 2017 the
GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield V ICO has been used by the ICO as the UK’s Court
Precedence. However, since 12th Jan 2017, Five (5) Vexatious decisions
have been upheld by the ICO which does not rely on the Dransfield Court
Authority or indeed does not rely on any Court Authority .Please provide PDF
copies of:

1. Minutes to any ICO internal meetings to discuss the
removal of the Dransfield Vexatious Court Precedence.

2. Who at the ICO or Ministry of Justice took the decision
to cease and desist from using the Dransfield Court Precedence?

3. Copies of any internal memo, email etc which discuss the
discontinuation of the Dransfield Vexatious Court Authority.

4. Copies of all correspondence between the Information
Commissioner’s Office and any oversight authority on this topic.

5 .Please confirm that the ICO does not intend to use the
Dransfield Vexatious GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield v ICO ever again and the full
reasons why not.

I think it is safe to say this
is my first FOI request on this particular topic and it is politely written and
in the public interest and of serious purposes, therefore should not be
construed as vexatious but even if you did, I doubt you would use the
Dransfield GIA/3037 as a support tool. Oh what a web we weave when we set out
to deceive.

For your information action and files

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

For your information action and files

With thanks

Email sent –

Dear Miss Denham

The latest vexatious decsion upheld by the ICO is related to
numerous avoidable deaths of Mother and Babies at Morcombe Bay Hospital. Please
see the report into the incident(s).

It beggars belief the ICO
upheld the Public Authority Vexatious decision. In essence the ICO are covering
up serious crimes at the Morcombe Bay Hospital by upholding this vexatious
claptrap. In essence you are preventing the flow of information to the families
and relatives who lost loved-ones at Morcombe Bay,which denies final
closure.

Moreover and more importantly
you have now released a vexatious decision into the public domain which is
unlawful by virtue it does not carry the Dransfield Vexatious GIA/3037/2011
Precedence. The author of the ICO decision Mrs Pamela Clement is an
experienced ICO Officer, please note , I say experience, please do not
take that as I refer to her as Honest and with Integrity because I certainly do
not.

This is just another clear
example of BAD LAW being used by the ICO.

For your information action and files

Alan M Dransfield

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/408480/47487_MBI_Accessible_v0.1.pdf

Email sent – Thu 19/01/2017 18:26

Information Commissioner Ms
Elizabeth Denham

Dear Madam

Please see you very latest
vexatious decsion from your website. This particular decision notice is
unlawful because you have not relied upon the Dransfield Vexatious Court Precedence
as per GIA/3037/2011. Does this mean you have now realised the Dranfield
Vexatious Decision is also unlawful and thus, you cannot use it as a
Court Precedence? There must be a reason for not relying upon the Dransfield
Case Authority after three years continuous use and over 6000 vexatious
cases. Please provide me with a full explanation why you have not relied upon
it.

I also consider this
decision is yet further evidence the ICO is in Contempt of the ECoHR via the
Magyar Helsinki Bizottsag Case.

For your information action and
files

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2017/1625700/fs_50640819.pdf