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.
Email sent -Mon 18/01/2016 04:42
Dear Mr Bradshaw
Corrupt Judges
Please see the following report ref the subject title. What concerns me is that when corrupt judges are found guilty of wrongdoing, they get a slap across the wrist. I would advocate they should be banned for life when not meeting the minimum standards.
Ditto for corrupt MP’s and Local Government Officials. That would send a clear message to them.
Yours etc
Dransfield
From: alan dransfield
Sent: 14 January 2016 06:45
To: GRC@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Cc: Civil Appeals – CMSC; Richard Bailey
Subject: COMPLAINT AGAINST THE FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL REF EA/2015/0274.
DRANSFIED V ICO
First Tier Tribunal President
Dear Sir
I wish to lodge a complaint against the FTT ref their letter
to me dated 11th Jan 2016 along with an application form for appeal to the
Upper Tribunal.
Why would I need such an application form when the FTT has
not even held a hearing on this case yet?
This particular case is ref 7 FOI requests which I
made to the ICO between March and April last year for various issues, i.e credit
and debit card use by ICO officers, metadata,legal costs,travel costs by ICO
officials and costs for vexatious guidelines, inter alia.
The ICO (respondent) made their decision on the 26th Oct
last year, which was vexatious,quelle surprise. I also received the ICO
Final Bundle for this case on the 18th Dec 2015.
It now appears this case is being elevated directly to the
Upper Tribunal without a FTT hearing, which must be a first.
I cannot believe this is a simple error by the FTT;it is
part of the bully-boy tactics used by the ICO/FTT/UT, who are complicit to
ensure all Dransfield requests are vexatious.
The 64k$ question now is: Why is the case being elevated directly to the Upper Tribunal?
………I
can’t believe I have missed a FTT hearing in the last 3 weeks!
For your information,action and files
With thanks
Yours sincerely
Alan M Dransfield
Email sent – 12 January 2016 20:27
To: Richard Bailey
cc: BRADSHAW Ben
Subject: Re: £2800 Legal Costs
Mr Bailey
I do not believe I can improve upon my offer of 50p
per week to pay
off the £2800 legal costs from the infamous vexatious BS decision.
Blood and stone come to mind
Dransfield
Could this be the main reason why the Devon County Council are spending thousands of pounds of
taxpayers’ money fighting Dransfield Vexatious FOIA case?
Could this be the reason why they imposed a lifetime email ban against me and
could it be the main reason why my MP Ben Bradshaw has placed lifetime ban on me on me
attending his surgery? Just a thought.
Alan Dransfield.
Email sent – 10/01/2016 20:1
Dear
Mr Bradshaw
As
you are aware, I have raised fire safety issues at the 6 Private Finance Initiative schools in Exeter.
Please see the following article about PFI school fire hazards in the
Wirral:
“Does fire safety construction flaw at PFI school affect
Wirral schools?
11/1/16 08:19 Edited to change University Academy Birkenhead to Birkenhead Park School as it changed its name last year.
A report to be considered by councillors on the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority‘s Performance and Scrutiny Committee on Tuesday afternoon warns, during a fire at a PFI school on Merseyside, that smoke spread from a ground floor kitchen to a protected staircase.
Further investigation found the same problem at eleven additional PFI sites.
Wirral has a number of schools constructed using PFI that are managed by Wirral Schools Services Limited. It is not known if any of the schools on the Wirral are affected by this. Here is the information from the report.
“Case Study 2: Fire Separation in Major Construction projects
24. A site visit to a local school on 9th January 2015 following a fire on 7th January 2015 (incident no 32304) identified serious fire separation concerns due to smoke spread from the ground floor kitchen to the 1st floor protected staircase.
25. The school was built as part of a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) initiative. The investigation led to 11 additional PFI sites where the same issues were detected. As the issues potentially had national implications Protection Officers utilised the CFOA [Chief Fire Officer Association] Community of Practice to share the risk information. It was subsequently established that the same issue had been found in other major new-build / refurbishment projects across England with estimated repair bills totalling in excess of £100m.
26. Officers escalated the issue to the CFOA Fire Engineering Technical Standards Group due to the national potential in order that the risk information can be effectively shared with other Fire and Rescue Services and that national guidance is produced to ensure that these issues are dealt with consistently and effectively.”
Will either of the two Wirral councillors (Cllr Lesley Rennie and Cllr Jean Stapleton) on MFRA’s Performance and Scrutiny Committee ask if any of the Wirral PFI Schools (Leasowe Primary, Bebington High, Birkenhead Park School (previously University Academy Birkenhead and before that Park High), South Wirral High, Weatherhead High, Hilbre High, Prenton High, Wallasey High and Wirral Grammar Girls) or the two Wirral PFI City Learning Centres (Wallasey City Learning Centre and Hilbre City Learning Centre) are affected by this?”
I would call upon MP to write to the Devon County Council to enquire if such dangers have been considered at the Exeter PFI schools.
With thanks
Alan Dransfield
Email sent – 10/01/2016 07:05
UK Supreme Court
Mr Greenberg,Case Manager
Dear Sir
Subject: UKSC/2015/0173 DRANSFIELD V ICO /IRREGULARITY WITH SC DOCUMENT SEALS
Further to my earlier email ref the UK Supreme Court document seals, I have re-examined the one page Judgement Seal dated 14th Dec 2015
signed by your Registrar (illegible name) and the light blue seal has NOT been
added onto the Judgement Paper i.e., it is an integral part of the original
paper.
I have also re-examined my application forms for my Notice
of Appeal and it can be clearly seen the Supreme Court seal has been added to the
document as per your rules of procedures.
Therefore it would seem that the one page Judgement Paper dated 14/12/15 is not in line with your own Rules of Procedure dated 2009
and, in particular, rule 16.5.
(5) An order of the Court
shall be prepared and sealed by the Registrar to record any decision made under this rule.
I also note the Judgement date is the same date which my application was considered i.e., 14th Dec 2015!??
I do not accept your registrar should be sending out spider squiggle without their full identity.
Please add this to my long list of complaints ref irregularities
and anomalies with the Dransfield case.
Please also consider this as a formal request to quash the
Expenses order in para 2 of your purported Court Order, owing to the anomalies
and irregularities.
In a nutshell, the one page piece of paper you sent to me
does not constitute a COURT ORDER or a COURT JUDGEMENT/DOCUMENT. It is part of
a wider conspiracy to gag Joe Public.
For you information, the registrar name appears to be Loiuse
di Maurinho.
For your information, action and files.
With thanks
Yours sincerely
Alan M Dransfield
Email sent –
UK Supreme Court
Mr Greenberg,Case Manager
Dear Sir
Further to my earlier email ref the UK Supreme Court document seals, I have re-examined the one page Judgement Seal dated 14th Dec 2015
signed by your Registrar (illegible name) and the light blue seal has NOT been
added onto the Judgement Paper i.e., it is an integral part of the original
paper.
I have also re-examined my application forms for my Notice
of Appeal and it can be clearly seen the Supreme Court seal has been added to the
document as per your rules of procedures.
Therefore it would seem that the one page Judgement Paper dated 14/12/15 is not in line with your own Rules of Procedure dated 2009
and, in particular, rule 16.5.
(5) An order of the Court
shall be prepared and sealed by the Registrar to record any decision made under this rule.
I also note the Judgement date is the same date which my application was considered i.e., 14th Dec 2015!??
I do not accept your registrar should be sending out spider squiggle without their full identity.
Please add this to my long list of complaints ref irregularities
and anomalies with the Dransfield case.
Please also consider this as a formal request to quash the
Expenses order in para 2 of your purported Court Order, owing to the anomalies
and irregularities.
In a nutshell, the one page piece of paper you sent to me
does not constitute a COURT ORDER or a COURT JUDGEMENT/DOCUMENT. It is part of
a wider conspiracy to gag Joe Public.
For you information, the registrar name appears to be Loiuse
di Maurinho.
For your information, action and files.
With thanks
Yours sincerely
Alan M Dransfield
Email sent – Sat 09/01/2016 15:53
Dear Mr Bradshaw
As you are aware, I have written to you several times
about the Haven Banks Outdoor Centre which is a £5 million leisure centre
designed and built by the Devon County Council and operated by the Exter
College.
This building was commissioned approx 12/15 months ago,
hence it most disconcerting to see the building is currently subject to major
repair works, see attached photograph, showing external scaffolding which has
been erected this week. Can you please write to the appropriate authority asking
for an explanation why a brand new building requires extensive repair
works so soon after commissioning?
I am on record that
this building is substandard, unsafe and not fit for purpose. I would,
under normal circumstancea, ask the Devon County Council myself, but as you are aware they placed a
lifetime email ban against me and they consider all my questions as vexatious.
For your information, action and files.
Yours sincerely
Alan M Dransfield
