Alan Dransfield's Blog

Email sent – Wed 01/06/2016 06:39

To – info@london-fire.gov.uk, Si Fire <sclews@dsfire.gov.uk>

Attn of the Fire Chiefs
Association

Dear Sirs

I am somewhat concerned that
the attached report ref the Lychett Minster school has not been taken seriously
by the Devon County Council. In particular, the DCC have failed to provision
over 500 schools with any Lightning Risk Assessment.

I am also concerned that
Lychett School appears not to have learned any lessons from this particular lightning fire.

I am also very critical of this report which fails to
identify serious flaws in the Lightning Protection of the ruined school at
Lychett Minster.

I would like the opportunity to meet with your District Fire
Chief to discuss this report in depth with the hope of improving
safety fire standards at schools and public premises

with thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

Email sent – Wed 01/06/2016 21:34

To – Richard.Bailey@ico.gsi.gov.uk

Dear Mr Bailey

Does this mean the ICO are beginning to realise the error
of their ways with the Dransfield Vexatious BS?

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2016/1560487/fs_50573503.pdf

Email sent – Thu 02/06/2016 06:55

To – Liam.O’Neill@hseni.gov.uk

Dear Sirs

I have now appealed your FOIA decision against me to the ICO
and I fully appreciate that I have exceeded the time limit for such appeals but
I am now of the opinion the HSENI are acting in consort with others to cover up
serious crimes on the Co Tyrone Screggagh Wind Turbine collapse.

Christopher Graham, the
Information Commissioner is on record stating that any heavily redacted
response from a Public Authority would reflect wrongdoing by that PA.

The original HSENI report has been redacted to an unacceptable
degree, say, 80% of the report has been redacted.

The ICO will contact you in due course.

For your information, action and files

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 4:03 PM, O’Neill, Liam <Liam.O’Neill@hseni.gov.uk>
wrote:

Dear Mr Dransfield,

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 (FOIA)

I refer to your request for information which is being
considered under the above Act.

You asked us for ‘copies of the CV’s for Mr Neeson and Mr Wright
the two investigating officers responsible for the Safety Report on the
collapsed Wind Turbine in Co Tyrone NI in Jan 2015’.

I can confirm
that HSENI does not hold curriculum vitae (CV) for members of its staff but it
does hold information which would normally be in a cv such as qualifications.

I can advise that
on joining HSENI to be a health and safety inspector, candidates must have a
primary degree, normally a Bachelor of Science. During the first stage of their
employment in HSENI inspectors must achieve the Postgraduate Diploma in
Occupational Safety and Health. In addition, inspectors undertake specialist
training in different aspects of the work. Whilst this does not directly answer
your request for the CVs of Mr Wright and Mr Neeson, I believe it explains the
minimum generic qualifications held by inspectors in HSENI.

You should also
be aware that HSENI has obligations to protect other information, in this case
the personal information of employees, under the Data Protection Act 1998
(DPA). The exemption provided for at section 40 (2) of the FOIA states :

Section 40 (2) FOIA

Any information
to which a request for information relates is also exempt information if –

(a) it
constitutes personal data which do not fall within subsection (1), and

(b) either the
first or the second condition below is satisfied.

HSENI
believes that other information held about inspectors to be personal data and,
in some instances sensitive personal data. We have also considered whether if
disclosure would breach any of the data protection principles in respect of
section 40(3)(a)(i) of the FOIA detailed below,

Section 40 (3)

The first
condition is –

(a)
in
a case where the information falls within any of the paragraphs (a) to (d) of
the definition of “data” in section 1(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998, that
the disclosure of the information to a member of the public otherwise than
under this Act would contravene –

(i) any of the data protection principles.

The first
principle in the Data Protection Act states:

“1. Personal data
shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be
processed unless – (a) at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met.”

HSENI do not feel
that employees would reasonably expect their personal information to be
disclosed and that any such disclosure contravenes the principle of ‘fairness’
contained in the first Data Protection Principle, therefore the exemption
provided by Section 40(2) and (3) of the Freedom of Information Act is engaged.

This is an
absolute exemption and not subject to the Public Interest Test.

If you have any queries about this email, please contact me
quoting the reference number above in any future communications. If you are
dissatisfied with the way in which HSENI has handled your request, please go to
http://www.hseni.gov.uk/about-hseni/content-foi.htm
which explains the actions that are available to you.

Yours sincerely

Liam O’Neill
Information Manager
Tel:
028 9054 7088 (ext: 47088)
Mob: 07979365934

Email sent – Fri 03/06/2016 05:53

To – Liam.O’Neill@hseni.gov.uk

HSENI

Dear Sir

Under protection of the FOIA
2000, please provide me with a pdf copy of the As Built Health and Safety File
for the Wind Turbine in County Tyrone which collapsed on Jan 2nd 2015.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

Email sent – Sat 04/06/2016 06:30

To – Liam.O’Neill@hseni.gov.uk

Dear Sir

Please provide me with

1. Copy of all photographs taken at the scene of the Wind Turbine collapse.

2. A copy of the HSENI map of the debris.

3. A Cost breakdown of the WT collapse,including site
visits, expenses, compiling report, overtime etc.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

Email sent – Sat 04/06/2016 07:22
To – Liam.O’Neill@hseni.gov.uk, Darren.nash@hse.gsi.gov.uk

Dear Sirs

I would like to point out a
contradiction by the HSENI ref their Screggagh Wind TurbineReport.

BETWEEN

The last sentence in paragraph 1 “The member of
the public also alleged that there was debris from the stricken turbine strewn
across the public road”. i.e. at least 300 m to the east of the
failed turbine.

AND

page 8, paragraph 3 “There was a section of blade
approximately 267 metres form WTG3 that had blown up towards the top of the
mountainside (away form the Ecclesville Road) approximately 10 to 12 ft long
and weighing approximately 10 kg.” i.e nearly 600 m away from the
road and 267 m WEST of the failed turbine.

Question

1. Did the HSENI obtain evidence from witnesses
to confirm that the allegations of debris spread across the public
(Ecclesville) road was incorrect and should not be considered in detail by the
wind turbine failure investigation? i.e. That the allegations of
debris across the public road were false and malicious. Maybe the
allegations were just honest mistakes by confused witnesses?

2. Would the HSENI’s conclusion remain unchanged
” …. HSENI still considers the risk to the public to remain low….”,
if the allegations that debris was “strewn across the public road”
were actually true? i.e. Debris strewn 300 to the EAST of the
failed turbine, rather than 267 m to the WEST of the failed turbine as stated
in the HSENI report. It is noted that wind turbines WTG1 and WTG2
are a similar distance to the Ecclesville Road as the failed WTG3 turbine and
thus present similar risks to the public. Moreover and
more importantly there are WT Nationwide which have been installed a few
metes from Motorways,Railways,in Schools and Hospitals , and close be to
residential homes etc.

3. The report also suggest/claims that the
“possible collapse ” of a wind turbine because of rotor over-speed
was not known at this time. Such comments are codswallop.

As you are aware, I have elevated my complaint to the
ICO. This is not the first time a WT has collapsed from over speed, nor the
last.

I am also of the view that the HSENI are in consort with 3rd parties to
cover up serious crimes ref WT safety and the HSENI have misled the Irish
Government.

This case has now been elevated to the ICO but I would envisage they
will consider my complaint as vexatious under section 14-1 of the FOIA 2000.

It is only a matter of time before body bags are needed with a WT
incident and then you might take this subject seriously.

This Screggagha WT Incident is of huge importance for public safety and should require the HSENI and the English counterparts to
review the clearance distance regulations and if they do not, we will surely
have a major catastrophe sooner rather than later.

For your information, action and files.

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

Devon FOIA Campaigner

Email sent – Sun 05/06/2016 04:38 to mckenzie.friends@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk

Dear Sirs

I would like to submit evidence
ref Mckenzie Friends Consultation.

My name is Alan M Dransfield and on the 24thMay 2016 I was
ejected from an Upper Tribunal Hearing (Information Rights) teleconference by a
First Tier Tribunal Judge Mr Callender -Smith whilst I was attempting to assist
Mr Norman Scarth as a Mackenzie Friend.

This can be verified by the FTT Appellant Mr Norman Scarth,
who I have cc this letter.

It is consistently obvious the FTT does not recognize the
Mckenzie Friend System

With thanks

Yours sincerely