Alan Dransfield's Blog

Upper Tribunal (Information Rights)

Urgent Attention Judge Wright

Dear Sir

At the recent Video Link Hearing, I made a request to you for
my my case to be upgraded to include the other 5 (FIVE) PFI schools.

I have made this request in writing to the Upper Tribunal before and
been instructed to make an oral request at the hearing. This letter confirms my
request to upgrade from one (1) PFI school to six (6) PFI schools.

My original request dated 28th Feb 2008 was for six PFI
schools but downgraded to the ISCA College only because the DCC informed the UT
and the Information Commissioner’s Office that they did not hold the sought after data in PDF Format.

We now know that was a deliberate lie to pervert the course of justice by the Devon County Council.

At last week’s video hearing Judge Wright denied me from
upgrading my original request because he said, “I don’t know anything
about six PFI schools.”

It is clearly held in written records that:-

1. The ICO ordered my downgrade FOIA request from 6 to 1 school.

2. The ICO and DCC are on record the sought after data is/was available in electronic format.

You also informed me you did not know which Vexatious
Guidelines the DCC and ICO were reliant upon in this case. I wish to confirm
that the DCC & ICO are reliant upon the September 2014 Vexatious guidelines which
contains 37 pages.

In essence, they are appling 2014 vexatious guidelines to my
Feb 2008 retrospectively, which you accepted.

I fervently object to Vexatious guidelines postdated my FOIA
request in Feb 2008 by SEVEN (7) years.

The only Vexatious Guidelines which can be used on the
subject title case are the original 5 (Five points) vexatious guidelines.

Please acknowledge this letter.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

From: alan dransfield
Sent: 05 December 2015 06:51
To: BRADSHAW Ben
Subject: WIND TURBINE SAFETY IN THE SOUTH WEST

Dear Mr Bradshaw MP

As you are aware ,I have raised this subject matter before
and I now wish my MP to write to the appropriate oversight authority because I
am of the opinion it is not a question of IF such incident will occur
again, BUT when.

Please see the attached photograph of the collapsed Wind
Turbine at Bradworthy Devon in 2013 and you can see the bolts (approx 40 in
total) snapped off at the base of the wind turbine tow

The Health and Safety Executive did not even visit the site and held no objection to
a new WT being erected on the same faulty bolts, which, quite frankly, beggars
belief.

As you can see, the Lightning Protection down conductor runs
directly under the WT tower which also beggars belief because these conductors
are bare copper tape, which means if a person or animal was standing on
this tape at the time of a lightning strike, they would surely be killed.

There is no justification whatsoever to install bare copper wire under the tower.

This particular collapse was blamed on poor design and poor
workmanship, which raises the question how did the HSE reach such a decision,
if they did not visit the site and why did they allow a new wind turbine to be erected
on faulty bolts?

I call upon my MP to write to the HSE and ask them:-

1.Why did you not visit the Bradworthy site?

2.Why did you allow the erection of a NEW WT on the same
faulty bolts?

3.Why is the HSE allowing bare copper Lightning Protection
to be used on WT Site?

4.What actions has the HSE taken to safeguard the general public
on such matters?

The only safe action on the Bradworthy WT collapse would
have been to totally demolish the concrete foundations and to start again.

I look forward to your response.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

From: alan dransfield
Sent: 26 November 2015 07:12
To: Richard Bailey
Cc: BRADSHAW Ben; christopher.graham@ico.org.uk;
graham.smith@ico.org.uk
Subject: FOIA Request ref your two Mr Smith the Deputy IC.

Dear Mr Bailey

Polite follow up please to my FOIA request for all the
available information on the termination of employment of Graham Frank Smith and David Smith,
the two deputy Information Commissioners

If they resigned, please provide me with a copy of their
resignation letter. If they were terminated, please provide me with copies of
their termination letters, reasons etc. Please provide me with copies of all
internal memos, emails etc related to the departure of the two Smith’s from the
ICO.

Could it be the Smiths are leaving a sinking ship?

This matter is in the public interest so please do not
refuse my request under the old Vexatious chestnut.

You have not yet offered me a reasonable explanation how I
am supposed to submit a review request before the ICO issues an official
Decision Notice.

With thanks

Your etc

Alan M Dransfield

Email sent – 21/11/2015 06:58

Dear Mr Bradshaw

As you are aware, I have raised this question several times
before and you have failed to acknowledge my concerns.

It is not a question of IF there are repeated collapses of wind turbines nationwide in a similar manner to the two collapsed WT’s in the
South West a couple of years ago, it is more a question of WHEN they will
collapse.

You will recall the collapsed WT in Bradworthy was
replaced using the same foundation anchor bolts and the Health and Safety Executive did not even
visit the site. Such actions are not only willfully negligent, they beggar
belief.

I fervently believe there is a wider conspiracy between local authorities nationwide and the HSE, who are both failing their fiduciary
duty of care to check Risk Assessment and Method Statements ref the design and
construction of wind turbines. I also believe there is tangible evidence
that a very similar dangerous situation is apparent with the large motorway luminary columns and directional signs and stadium floodlights.

I call upon my MP to write to the Secretary of State in
charge of the HSE and Minster of Transport seeking their assurance the highest
safety standards are in place on this matter.

Thus far, there have been no serious injury or deaths due to
collapsing WT but such miracles cannot continue and its only a matter of time
before we witness a catastrophe.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

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.