Alan Dransfield's Blog

From: alan
dransfield

To: aacpresident

Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 7:08
AM

Subject: Complaint against Upper Tribunal
Judge SM Wright

Mr Justice Charles

Upper Tribunal President

Dear Sir

I wish to make a complaint of misconduct against Judge SM Wright in the
manner he has handled a recent UT Case and his subsequent final decision
notice.

In particular,I refer to the UT hearing in London on the 16th Oct 2014 ref
GIA/1642/2014 Dransfield v the ICO and House of Lords.

Judge SM Wright upheld the ICO decision, “DO NOT HOLD THE SOUGHT AFTER
DATA”.

No person applying a right and proper mind could have reached such a
decision because the House of Lords(HoL) have a legal obligation to hold the
sought after data, i.e. Lightning Risk Assessment (LRA) for the Westminster
Parliament Premises.

As you are aware, I have a long running complaint against another UT
Judge, i.e Judge Wikeley ref GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield v ICO &Devon County
County Council, which you have refused to investigate pending the Court of
Appeal Hearing in London on the 27/28th Jan 2015.

I accept that the GIA/1642/2014 is not VEXATIOUS related but it would
appear the Upper Tribunal are determined to obstruct Justice in cases involving
Dransfield.

Judge Wright claims in his decision notice that it is NOT the duty of the
FTT/ICO or the UT to investigate if the HoL “SHOULD”
hold the sought after data.

It is inconceivable that a Upper Tribunal Judge would not investigate the
Legal Obligation of the Public Authority to HOLD the sought after data.

Therefore, the emphasise of my complaint is Judge SM Wright MINDSET ref
“SHOULD HOLD” definition.

In all probability, the House of Lords have a legal obligation under UK and
EU Laws to hold the sought after data and the ICO/FTT and the UT were very wrong to not investigate this matter. Indeed, it is not a question of fact if they should hold the Lightning Risk Assessment as it is well documented in Statutory
Law.

Any right minded person would investigate if the House of Lords held a
legal remit to hold the Lightning Risk Assessment.

Judge SM Wright was very wrong to dismiss my appeal based on the fact the
HoL claimed they did not hold the LRA documents.

My allegations of wrongdoing falls under the UT Rules and Procedures
related to “Judicial

Misconduct ie Rule 34(b).

There is evidence to support my claims the FTT and the UT are part of a
wider conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and to circumvent the FOIA
2000.

At this juncture, there are two UT decisions which debar the general public
access to the FOIA 2000.

A1. The GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield v ICO &DCC. (Vexatious).

A2. The GIA/1642/2014 Dransfield v ICO& House of Lords.( Do not
hold)

I claim the UT Judges are conspiring to pervert the Course of Justice and I
request the Upper Tribunal to add my complaint against Judge SM Wright to my
complaint against Judge Wikeley.

It is fact that the ICO/FTT/UT appear to be bending over backwards to obstruct the general public’s access to the FOIA 2000 and the two above cases
are prima facie evidence of that fact.

It should be noted that Judge Wright has subsequently refused permission
for me my leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Please be informed that I now intend to appeal Judge Wright’s GIA/1642/2014
decision to the Court of Appeal.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield.

Email sent – 01 December 2014 07:28

Dear Mr Bradshaw

I must assume you have now read the 2 Health and Safety Executive reports ref the subject title and I would like to know what you intend to do now.

As you can see from the 2 HSE reports, the situation ref public safety is far from satisfactory and I would hope that my MP has written to the relevant oversight authorities on this matter.
Wiith thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

Email sent – 01 December 2014 13:49

Dear Mr Bradshaw

I have just seen 3 tower cranes in Hammersmith which have not been provisioned with any aviationlLights.

In light of the helicopter crash last year in London, I would have envisaged the HSE and local authorities would have tightened up on such matters.

I appreciate this is outside your remit but would appreciate it if you would contact the HSE on this matter.

With thanks

Yours sincerely
Alan M Dransfield

Email sent – 26 October 2014 05:17

Dear Mr Bradshaw

Further to my letter last night about the Queen Elizabeth Hospital records in Birmingham, which are not retained by the Hospital or Local Government, such records are solely retained by the Balfour Beatty Consortium.

It beggars belief the Hospital does not retain such records as required under the Construction Design Management (CDM) Law.

How many other PFI or indeed PPP Project are missing information nationwide?.

The National Debt does NOT include PFI or PPP contracts, hence the true extent of the National Debt is not known.

I call upon my MP to write to the Chancellor, George Osbourne, to ask him to explain why the PFI/PPP assets and debt are NOT included in his annual accounts or indeed the national debt.

In the event the Queen Elizabeth do not retain any records on the premises, it would automatically follow that the hospital is operating in a legal Vvoid.

I would envisage the PFI/PPP deb to be running at several billion pounds.

I have no idea how many PFI/PPP Projects have been completed in the last decade, but there is a serious oversight problem with all of them.

I fully appreciate this national debt problem is outside your remit but, as you are aware, there has been a number of PFI Projects in Exeter. Hence, such matters are your remit.

It would automatically follow that the UK Treasury is unable to guarantee Transparency, Accountability or Security (TAS) of its funding. The TAS lights at the Treasury are not seen to be working.

For your information action and files.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield.

Email sent – October 23, 2014 9:50 PM

Dear Madam

As you are aware, I am on record that the Olympic stadium is/was not fit for purpose but my concerns were ignored.

I have recently learned that the New Olympic Stadium (now owned by West Ham FC) will be used for 1/2 dozen matches for the World Cup. However, the Stadium, which is currently being renovated by Balfour Beatty, will be without any roof during next summer’s Rugby World Cup.

In the absence of any roof the stadium will be non-compliant to the Lightning Protection Standards BS/EN62305/2008 because the roof material was/is acting as a Lightning Finial.

Please consider this as a FOIA request to provide me with a copy of the Approved Lightning Risk Assessment report for the roofless stadium.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield.

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Lou Elliston wrote:

Dear Mr Dransfield

The function of the Sports Ground Safety Authority is to oversee the local authority, who issue the safety certificate for the venue. In this case the London Borough of Newham. We do not keep copies of documents relating to venues, as this is the responsibility of the local authority, but we do ensure they have been inspected.

With regard to the Olympic stadium I was a member of the Safety Advisory Group that gave advice to the local authority during its construction and completion. A Lightning Risk Assessment was accepted as appropriate by the technical officers of the local authority and suitable measures were put in place. I have recently spoke to the authority and confirmed that it is under consideration for the next stage of the stadiums development.

It would be helpful If you could indicate why you feel there are inadequacies.

Regards

Lou Elliston

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Exeter-Freedom-Information-campaigner-pledges/story-23309774-detail/story.html

Email sent – 10 October 2014 19:16

Dear Mr Speaker

Please see the attached response from the ICO which confirms the House of Lords holds no Lightning Risk Assessment and it also purports the HoL is compliant to all Lightning Standards. This is a contradiction in terms.

Unfortunately, the Houses of Parliament are being misled or hoodwinked into thinking these premises are lightning compliant.

In the event the HoL does noy hold any lightning risk assessment, it would automatically follow that BS/EN 62305/2008 has been violated.

I am scheduled to attend an UT Hearing in London on this matter next Thur 16th Oct and I would ask HoL legal advisors to be present at this hearing. I suggest you bring along a couple of Beefeaters and you can haul the ICO officers directly to the Tower!

For your information action and files

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield
http://ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2013/fer_0507004.pdf

Email sent – 10 October 2014 11:24

Would you, Mr Bradshaw MP, by virtue of your non-responses, be prepared to accept full liability should there be any unfortunate incident consequent upon your inactions despite having been informed, and would you be prepared to attend with myself in a filmed interview for the local TV/media?

For your information action and files

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield