Alan Dransfield's Blog

Dear Mr Bradshaw

Please see my email from March this year which you did not
even acknowledge.

I now call upon my MP to address each and every item on this
list as well as the wind turbine collapsing debacle.
With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

1.H&S issues at the Quay Climbing Center.

2.H&S issues at the 6 PFI schools in Exeter.(currently
before the UT)

3.H&S issue at John Lewis Store in Exeter.

4.H&S at the RDE Hospital.

5.H&S issues at the Exeter Chief Pedestrian Bridge
(currently at the Court of Appeal)

6.H&S issues at the Exeter Chiefs Rugby Stadium.

7.The lifetime email ban from the Devon County Council

8.The lifetime email ban imposed from the HSE.

9.The Fraud and theft of Public Funds by various DCC
Officials.

10.Asbestos Safety Issues in Devon Schools.

11. Your lifetime ban attending your surgery.

12. Irregularities and anomalies with the ECHR Registrar.

13 Lifetime ban against me from WHATDOTHEYKNOW Charity
Organisation

Dear Mr Bailey

You have not informed me how I am supposed to request for a
decision review 6 months for the decision is released. I admit I am not the
sharpest knife in the draw but I fail to understand how I can appeal for a
review before the ICO decision is released. Please advise how this is possible.

Of course, you are involved in the case and you have a
handle on every Dransfield FOI case, ie – He Must be crushed??!!

Your etc

Dransfield

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Richard Bailey
wrote:

Dear Mr Dransfield,

Thank you for your
email.

You refer to
misconduct in the handling of the attached case. However, I have had no
involvement in the attached case. I repeat, if you wish to challenge the
Commissioner’s decision notice in the above matter, you will need to lodge an
appeal with the First-tier Tribunal.

I have nothing further
to add.

Yours Sincerely,

Mr Richard Bailey

From: alan dransfield
Sent: 14 November 2015 08:20
To: Richard Bailey
Cc: UKSC Registry; graham.smith@ico.org.uk; christopher.graham@ico.org.uk;
GeneralEnquiries; general.queries@justice.gsi.gov.uk; govem@parliament.uk;
Maurice Frankel; Donovan, Paula
Subject: Re: FS50582996 -26th Oct 2015. Review Request

Dear
Mr Bailey

You
assume correctly Mr Bailey and yes indeed, para 6 of your attached Final
Decision Notice dated 26th Oct 2015 does indeed make ref to a review request
but that still does not answer my question, How I am expected to
make a review request PRIOR to the Final Notice,i e 26th October 2015?

As
you can clearly see from your attached Final Decision Notice the date is 26th Oct
2015, so how the hell can I make a review request in April 2015?

I
consider this to be part of your wider conspiracy to breach the FOIA 2000 via obfuscations and willfully ambiguous tactics by your good self. On page
2 of your decision notice it clearly shows the 7 FOIA requests between 20th Mar
15 and 17th April 2015; hence you are clearly in breach of the FOIA 2000 time
constraints.

Six
of 7 requests are brand new requests and are no way connected to my
original GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield v ICO, which is currently before the Supreme
Court. I agree that the sixth request ref IRQ0577046 is remotely
connected to my original case.

It
is clearly obvious to any fair-minded person that Dransfield the person is
being treated as vexatious not his requests, and the attached final decision
notice is further tangible evidence that the ICO is attempting to gag Joe
Public and are clearly acting as a government gatekeeper.

I
now wish to elevate my complaint against your direct misconduct in the handling
of of my attached case…..

With
thanks

Yours
sincerely

Alan
M Dransfield

————————-

On
Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Richard Bailey wrote:

Dear Mr Dransfield,

I assume that you are
referring to an internal review of an initial refusal (though this is not
actually a requirement of the legislation). From reading the decision notice,
it would appear that, in response to the initial refusal you had requested an
internal review on 22 April 2015 – see para 6.

Yours Sincerely,

Mr Richard Bailey

From: Alan Dransfield
Sent: 12 November 2015 17:36
To: Richard Bailey
Subject: Re: FS50582996 -26th Oct 2015. Review Request

Dear
Mr Bailey

You
surprise me at your ignorance of the FOIA 2000. I must request a review before
I can appeal to the FTT or have you moved the goal posts once again.

I
do wish to challenge your decision in FS 59582996 dated 26th Oct and in
the first instance please review your decision in line with the FOIA 2000.

For
your information action and files

Yours
etc

Alan
M Dransfield
—————————————

On 12 Nov 2015, at 08:38, Richard Bailey wrote:

Dear Mr Dransfield,

Thank you for your
email.

If you wish to
challenge the decision notice issued, you will need to submit an appeal to the
First-tier Information Rights Tribunal.

Yours Sincerely,

Mr Richard Bailey

From: alan dransfield
Sent: 12 November 2015 04:37
To: Richard Bailey
Cc: Christopher Graham; Graham Smith; BRADSHAW Ben
Subject: FS50582996 -26th Oct 2015. Review Request

Information
Commissioner

Dear
Sirs

Under
protection of the FOIA 2000, please review your attached decision
notice. I make this review request in the interest of
transparency, security and accountability of the FOIA 2000 and the ICO
Commissioner’s bad faith.

In
your decision notice, you claim my request was NOT new and you also claim
I am guilty of intransigence and unreasonable persistence, which I refute
in the strongest manner and counter claim the same irregularity by the ICO.

For
your information,action and files

With
thanks

Yours
sincerely

Alan
M Dransfield

____________________________________________________________________

The ICO’s mission is to uphold information rights in the public interest,
promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals.

If you are not the intended recipient of this email (and any attachment),
please inform the sender by return email and destroy all copies. Unauthorised
access, use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted.
Communication by internet email is not secure as messages can be intercepted
and read by someone else. Therefore we strongly advise you not to email any
information, which if disclosed to unrelated third parties would be likely to
cause you distress. If you have an enquiry of this nature please provide a
postal address to allow us to communicate with you in a more secure way. If you
want us to respond by email you must realise that there can be no guarantee of
privacy.
Any email including its content may be monitored and used by the Information
Commissioner’s Office for reasons of security and for monitoring internal
compliance with the office policy on staff use. Email monitoring or blocking
software may also be used. Please be aware that you have a responsibility to
ensure that any email you write or forward is within the bounds of the law.
The Information Commissioner’s Office cannot guarantee that this message or any
attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended. You should
perform your own virus checks.
__________________________________________________________________

Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.org.uk

____________________________________________________________________

The ICO’s mission is to uphold information rights in the public interest,
promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals.

Email sent – 13/10/2015 07:49

Dear Mr Bradshaw

Breaking news that a Exeter City Councillor is jailed for
fraud and theft of public funds.

Such news provides
context for the administrative environment in which it was easier to falsely
accuse me of being vexatious and unlawfully withhold information
than to provide the information as required and face up to the embarrassment of
their own incompetence and criminal negligence.

Another clear example why the
FOIA 2000 must be saved at all costs.

I appreciate it is the Devon
County Council who are involved in my vexatious claptrap and not the Exeter
City Council, but the City Council are the Planning Authorities for the Rugby
Bridge and the 6 PFI schools; hence the ECC have failed their duty of care.

Yours in disgust

Dransfield

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-34362999

Email sent –

Dear Mr Bradshaw

Breaking news that a Exeter City Councillor is jailed for
fraud and theft of public funds.

Such news provides
context for the administrative environment in which it was easier to falsely
accuse me of being vexatious and unlawfully withhold information
than to provide the information as required and face up to the embarrassment of
their own incompetence and criminal negligence.

Another clear example why the
FOIA 2000 must be saved at all costs.

I appreciate it is the Devon
County Council who are involved in my vexatious claptrap and not the Exeter
City Council, but the City Council are the Planning Authorities for the Rugby
Bridge and the 6 PFI schools; hence the ECC have failed their duty of care.

Yours in disgust

Dransfield

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-34362999

Email sent – Sat 10/10/2015 22:58

Dear Mr Bradshaw

The next time you go out on your bike please check out
the new road for vehicle access to the subject title.

I don’t know where the Environment Agency got their Highway Specification from
but the new finished road is totally unacceptable and unfit for purpose.

They have substituted asphalt material with sand. The
makeup of this road is 100 mm of Type 1/803 sub base and 20 mm rolled sand
wearing course. The road is devoid of any asphalt.

This new road will last about 4/6 weeks max. The Romans built better road.

Please be sure to wear your helmet, as I expect quite a
few cyclists to come to grief on this road.

No doubt this road cost several hundred thousand pounds.
Where is the Devon CC when you need them? Is this new road called an AUSTERITY road.

Yours in disgust

Dransfield

Subject: COMPLAINT AGAINST KBW SOLICITOR RACHAEL KAMM REF
SUPREME COURT REF UKSC/2015/DRANSFIELD V ICO0173

Supreme
Court

Dear
Sir or Madam

I
wish to make a formal complaint against Miss Rachael Kamm from KBW who is
acting for the 2nd respondents Devon County Council ref subject title.

In
particular, I refer to her FORM 3 INFORMATION ABOUT THE SECOND RESPONDENT
CASE, dated 25th Sept 2015.

Miss
Kamm claims my application to the Supreme Court is out of date which is a
deliberate act of deception. The Court of Appeal decision was dated 14th
May 2015 and my Application to the Supreme Court was dated 23rd June 15. It is
not the date of the CoA decision, it is the date of the covering letter
from the Court of Appeal that starts the time limit clock ticking, which was
4 days later.

It
is consistently obvious that my Application to the Supreme Court was well within
the 42 days statutory requirement.

She
also claims, I did not serve a Certificate of Service Notice (SoSN) on the Devon
County Council which is factually incorrect. I
served a CoSN on BOTH the ICO and the Devon County Council. My CoSN to the ICO
was via email and they will surely verify this. I did not email the DCC owing
to my lifetime email ban.

My
CoSN was served on the DCC by a hand carried letter. The Respondents ICO have
not made any such application.

Even
if I did not serve a a CoSN to the DCC, it beggars belief that the ICO have
not contacted them with such an important matter.

Please
also note that Miss Kamm has purposely omitted page 6 to 12 of my SC
application. Why would she do that other than deceptive motives.

One
further crucial omittance by Miss Kamm is that she has failed to inform the
Supreme Court that the As Built Health and Safety Files (ABHSF) have been
published since the Court of Appeal decision, which confirms the Rugby Bridge
has been devoid of any Lightning Protection for the last decade.

For
your information, action and files.

With
thanks

Yours
sincerely

Alan
M Dransfield