The implication here is that the judge is honest and Alan Dransfield is dishonest. But this is implausible.
Matilda is fictional and a liar.
Mr Dransfield is very real, resolute, determined and above all, honest.
Vexatious is NOT a synonym for dishonest. At least, not inside any thesaurus I can lay my hands on.
Lady Arden appears to be a rusting, creaking cog, turning in fits and starts, inside a mangled, moribund legal machine, and is in no position to pass judgment on a seasoned public campaigner.
The following excerpt is drawn from the judge’s statement
“In this context, Arden UJ (giving the only judgment) limits on the ability to look at past dealings in requester has made vexatious requests in possibility that, on this occasion, the requester, Hillaire Belloc’s poem, may be making a request that the request is for information that ought statutory objective. The requester is after right.” (§61). It is beyond the scope of this talk you will remember that Matilda, having been too many times, and then ultimately burned in burning having been ignored! 9. On the facts of Mr Dransfield’s request, the CA there was a link between the past dealings current request. But, more generally, Arden LJ constitutes “vexatiousness” cannot be drawn. allow the law develop rather than attempt a comprehensive but said: “I consider that the emphasis should be… etc. etc. etc.
Wirral In It Together 