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.
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
Lord Clarke
Lord Wilson
Lord Carnwath
From: “O’Neill, Liam”
Date: 30 December 2015 16:09:59 WET
To: Alan alanmdransfield
Subject: FOI/46/2015 – Freedom of Information request
Dear
Mr Dransfield,
FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION ACT 2000
I
refer to your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI) .
You
asked us for:-
1.
an
electronic copy of the HSENI report into the collapsed Wind Turbine in Co
Tyrone in January 2015; and
2.
the
total costs to HSENI spent on this individual incident.
In relation to your 1st request I can advise you Section 44 (1) of
the FOI Act prohibits the release of information where its disclosure is
prohibited by or under any enactment. Under the provisions of Article 30
of the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, certain
information cannot be released without the consent of the person/s who
furnished it.
As
such, HSENI is unable to disclose any information obtained by an Inspector as a
result of the exercise of his or her powers, except with the consent of the
person who furnished it or, for the purposes of any legal proceedings.
HSENI
has written to the relevant person/s (in this particular case 2 parties were
involved) to seek consent and I can now confirm that one of the parties
involved consented to their information being released whilst the other party
withheld consent. Accordingly, HSENI is able to disclose a limited amount of
information and this is contained in the attached PDF document ‘Screggagh_Report_Redacted.pdf’.
Where
appropriate, the personal information of third parties have been redacted as to
disclose such information would breach the requirement of fairness contained in
the first data protection principle. This has been done under Sections 40(2)
and 40(3)(a)(i) of the Freedom of Information Act.
Additionally,
certain information falls under the exemption provided at Section 30(1)(b) of
the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Section 30(1)(b) states ‘that any
Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it has at any
time been held by the authority for the purpose of any investigation which is
conducted by the authority and in the circumstances may lead to a decision by
the authority to institute criminal proceedings which the authority has power
to conduct’.
Section
30 is subject to the Public Interest Test and set out below is the test result
table.
PUBLIC
INTEREST TEST – RESULTS TABLE – FOI/46/2015 – FOI Exception 30 (1) (b)
|
Factors |
Factors |
|
There
|
· · · |
Conclusion
: That in all circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the
exception outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
In
relation to your 2nd request and I can advise you that HSENI do not
record costs against any particular incidents and therefore we do not hold the
information requested.
If you have any queries about this email, please contact me.
Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.
I hope
you find this information useful, but 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 – Sat 19/12/2015 07:45
Dear Mr Bradshaw MP
The UK Supreme Court have booted Dransfield into touch, which effectively rubber stamps the Court of Appeal vexatious BS. This SC decision effectively weakens the
FOIA 2000 and allows rogue public authorities a get-out-of-jail-free card.
At this juncture I have not seen a copy of the SC
decision and reasons. as their decision has not yet been published.
LThis means I have now exhausted the British Legal system
and I shall now seek legal redress in the European Court of Human Rights, which doesn’t install any
confidence as the ECHR registrar assistant Michelle Lafferty would appear to destroy most
applications on a whim.
No person applying a right and proper mind could have
reached the same decision as the Supreme Court, so we must assume they reached
the decision by a perverse mindset.
Two important anomalies are already identified with the
Dransfield Case UKSC/2015/0173 Dransfield v ICO. They are:
1. It was not listed
on the SC listing of Applications.
2. Their decision is not recorded at their website.
In short, I feel the SC would appear to be complicit with the CoA and
ICO to pervert the course of justice and in particular sect 77 of the said
Act. In essence the UK SC have assassinated the FOIA 2000, and vexatious exemptions will be handed out on a whim.
Hang your heads in shame Supreme Court.
I call upon my MP to call for Public Inquiry into the
latest SC decision.
With thanks
Alan M Dransfield
