On December 20, 2023, I received a message and report from Mark Niblock, the Chief Internal Auditor, concerning the comprehensive eighteen-month Birkenhead Market International Audit Investigation that I had assisted with. Along with his correspondence, he kindly wrote.
“On behalf of the Council, I would like to thank you for bringing these matters to our attention and for your patience and discretion during this investigation and apologise for any distress or inconvenience that this may have caused you”.
Part of the report that Mark sent me states the following regarding FoI requests.
4.2.3 Allegation 2 – Conclusions
(i) (ii) (iii) There are instances where the allegation raised by T1 (Alan Featherstone) in respect of responses to requests (FoI, SAR, ICO requests, and responses to other public questions) has been upheld.
There are internal weaknesses in the processes to ensure the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of responses, including FoI, SAR, answers to public questions
The report has been covered by local media and even been picked up by the BBC.
So imagine my confusion when just three days earlier, Deputy Data Protection Officer, Jonathan Morley, issued Section 14 Refusal Notices, citing vexatious grounds for the refusal of six Freedom of Information requests.
The contradictory approaches exhibited in the correspondence raised significant concerns regarding the consistency of the Council’s position on information requests. Consequently, I contacted Jill Travers and Mark Niblock on December 18 and December 22, 2024, respectively, to seek clarification on these matters prior to determining the necessity of involving the Information Commissioner’s Office….
Unfortunately, neither Jill nor Mark have responded to my inquiries, and as I’ve found myself with limited options, I’ve submit a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office. Below is a copy of the complaint, that I would appreciate your thoughts on.
Kind regards
Alan Featherstone
Complaint to Information Commissioner’s Office.
I’m Alan Featherstone (AF) and I’m submitting this complaint concerning the handling of six Freedom of Information (FOI) requests and challenging Wirral Council’s (WC) rationale for the FOI rejections.
I respectfully request that the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) consider all correspondence as part of this complaint, including;
° All documents on the WhatDoTheyKnow website related to the six FOIs issued with Section 14 Rejection Notices including annotations, regardless of the fact that WC has modified its justification for the rejection of the FOI requests from Section 12(1) to Section 14(1).
° Additional relevant communications between WC and AF. Including emails and all correspondence within the remaining FOI requests submitted by AF on the WhatDoTheyKnow platform.
° The WC Internal Audit Investigation Report, published 20 December 2024.
Note: Wherever possible I’ve included hyperlinks to relevant official sites to illustrate the credibility of all the information disclosed within this complaint. If the ICO require any further information, please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Background & Rational.
I’ve been a full-time market trader in the flower industry at Birkenhead Market since 1996. In recent years, there has been considerable discussion regarding the redevelopment of the town centre and the establishment of a new market. This has prompted significant concern among the Market Trader Community, particularly regarding the perception that their views are not being recognised or considered.
As a prominent trader and campaigner, I have actively engaged in efforts to ensure that the perspectives of traders are heard and that WC fulfils its legal obligations. The Local Authority’s legal obligations includes adhering to all statutory requirements, such as conducting impact studies and executing legitimate stakeholder consultations, alongside maintaining accurate records and disseminating truthful information.
There have been instances when the local authority has resisted the disclosure of information through their business as usual practices. Consequently, I have had to familiarise myself with the FOI system, and how to make inquiries during WC Committee meetings. Certain requests and questions have yielded valuable information through the disclosure of pertinent information, while others requests, that have resulting in the response of “no information held,” have confirmed WC’s failure to meet statutory obligations. Unfortunately, some responses have highlighted falsehoods.
Additionally, some responses have been perplexing and confusing particularly in relation to Statutory Consultation with stakeholders, where the Local Authority have claimed identical meetings are;
A: “Consultations was undertaken with the Birkenhead Market Traders Association (BMTA) in advance of ERH Committee on 6^th December 2023.
B: “The Council engaged with the BMTA on a number of occasions prior to the committee meeting on the 6^th of ^ December”
C: “please note that these sessions are carried out informally with the BMTA.”
Consultation = Come with statutory guidelines and requirements. Engagement = No statutory requirements. Casual Session = No records kept.
A final decision has not yet been made, or predetermined, by the decision makers
2. There is sufficient information to give ‘intelligent consideration’
The information provided must relate to the consultation and must be available, accessible, and easily
interpretable for consultees to provide an informed response
3. There is adequate time for consideration and response.
There must be sufficient opportunity for consultees to participate in the consultation. There is no set timeframe
for consultation,1 despite the widely accepted twelve-week consultation period, as the length of time given for
consultee to respond can vary depending on the subject and extent of impact of the consultation
4. ‘Conscientious consideration’ must be given to the consultation responses before a decision is made
Decision-makers should be able to provide evidence that they took consultation responses into account.
The principles were reinforced in 2001 in the ‘Coughlan Case (R v North and East Devon Health Authority ex parteCoughlan2), which involved a health authority closure and confirmed that they applied to all consultations, and thenin a Supreme Court case in 2014 (R ex parte Moseley v LB Haringey3), which endorsed the legal standing of the four
principles. Since then, the Gunning Principles have formed a strong legal foundation from which the legitimacy ofpublic consultations is assessed, and are frequently referred to as a legal basis for judicial review decisions.
Having received confusing and contradictory information, I have learned that attaining the detailed information I seek is often challenging even when providing background information; and while I recognise that offering such background information is not a formal requirement for FOI requests, I have made an effort to communicate the rationale behind each request to WC. By adding context my approach has aimed to convey the intrinsic value and purpose of each inquiry, both during the original submission process and in subsequent communications. I have included detailed reasoning for requests to facilitate understanding and allow WC the opportunity to weigh the burden of disclosure and balance this against the genuine purpose and value of requests.
I trust that an ICO review of each FOI request, including all AF requests on the WhatDoTheyKnow site, and the related correspondence within them, including annotations, will demonstrate to the ICO that each inquiry is supported by valid and justifiable reasoning. It will become apparent that in several instances, the responses received from one request have served as foundational elements for subsequent inquiries and, or complaints to WC. Regrettably, the Local Authority have made misleading efforts to combine individual requests by issuing incorrect information.
2. Link to the six FOI requests subjected to the Section 14 Refusal Notice.
*Note*: WC Section 14 Rejection Notice states that the combination of eight FOI requests are vexatious; however, WC have issued just six Rejection Notices. It remains unclear where the two additional FOIs are located.
**Note**: All correspondence related to the six rejected FOIs can be accessed through the WhatDoTheyKnow links provided below.
However, additional correspondence was conducted beyond the WhatDoTheyKnow platform in regards to FOI “Expressions of Interest Working Notes”, they are contained within the attached file.
4. Section 14 Refusal Notice including AF responses.
**Note**: To provide a comprehensive response to WC’s Rejection Notice 14(1), the complete and original Refusal Notice is presented here in black, AF responses are denoted in blue..
I would like to express my apologies in advance for the presence of some repetition in addressing the points repeatedly made by the Local Authority.
Dear Mr Featherstone,
1: I am writing in response to your request for an internal review dated 27^th October 2024, regarding the Council’s decision to aggregate 8 of your information requests and issue a refusal notice under Section 12(1)of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
1:1. AF received SevenInformation Request refusal notices under Section 12.
1:2. Six Information Request Refusal Notices have been received under Section 14.
2: I have been asked to carry out your internal review requests. Following my review I have determined that the original decision to use a section 12 exemption, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) was not appropriate when considering all the relevant factors. Therefore, I have reconsidered all your requests individually, starting with your most recent one from 18^th October in which you again asked for market trader consultation information. This has been the subject of many previous requests made by yourself to the Council. Having considered the matter, I believe that section 14 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) should be applied as I consider your request to be vexatious. This decision has been made having carefully considered your representations and the Information Commissioners Office’s (ICO) published guidance on the application of Section 14 FOIA:[1]https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/foi….
2:1. Below is the entire Information Request submitted by AF to WC on 18 October 2024.
Dear Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,
Cllr Lewis recently made an information request entitled Principles of Consultation. In his request he mentions that the Assistant Director of Regeneration had advised (via email) that the Authority are following revised principles of consultation as published by the government in 2018.
Principal I is entitled “Consultation should facilitate scrutiny”, and it states….. “Publish any response on the same page on gov.uk as the original consultation, and ensure it is clear when the government has responded to the consultation. Explain the responses that have been received from consultees and how these have informed the policy. State how many responses have been received.”
Wirral Borough Council has claimed on multiple occasions that they “consulted” with market traders regarding the Argos Market proposal before the ERH Committee decided to proceed with the proposal at their meeting on 27th March. Please let me know where I can find the published consultation and results on any gov.uk, or wirral.gov webpage.
For the avoidance of doubt. I am not requesting the list of dates that Officers claim they “consulted “ traders. I am requesting a link to published “consultation” information that will illustrate that the Assistant Director is following the revised consultation principles claimed.
2:2. On 16 January 2024 the Director of Regeneration and Place wrote to AF, stating “Wirral Council at ER&H committee in Nov 23 instructed its officers to undertake a review of options for the future of the market including a relocation to the former Argos unit. This work has commenced and all traders will be part of a consultation exercise to be undertaken by specialists market consultants to provide their views.”
On 27 March 2024, the Economy Regeneration and Housing Committee approved the advancement of the circa £14 million refurbishment project for the vacant Argos shop. To comply with the statutory obligations, the Director of Regeneration & Place should have conducted proper consultation with stakeholders, and he should be able to produce relevant documents and information created before 27 March. When requests have been made for consultation information, the Local Authority have consistently provided dates without disclosing the accompanying information. Requests have aimed to clarify the situation, and within the Section 12 Refusal Notice.
2:3 When conducting an internal review ICO Guidelines advises “make a fresh decision based on all the available evidence that is relevant to the date of the request, not just a review of the first decision” It is unclear if Jonathan Morley the Local Authority Officer who conducted the internal review and issued the Section 14 Refusal Notice followed this guidance when considering the information disclosed within the information request responses 26 September 2024 “Argos Market Consultation Documents” and 26 September 2024.“Argos Market Consultation Document Part Two”.
2:4. With regard to the information request AF submitted 18 October.
AF reviewed the Local Authority’s response to Councillor Lewis’s FOI request.
Link to WC’s response to Cllr Lewis’s FOI request 18 October
“The Council maintains an Engagement Toolkit, which offers guidance regarding consultations with officers engaged in public engagement initiatives. This toolkit, published in June 2021, has been disseminated through various channels, including Senior Leadership Team (SLT) meetings, to officers who seek to conduct consultations. It is also accessible on the intranet. The Council acknowledged the revised principles of consultation published by the Government in 2018 and considered these principles in developing the Engagement Toolkit.”WC affirmed in their communication to Councillor Lewis that they adhere to the Council’s Consultation Toolkit.
2:5. Having read the information disclosed in the response to Cllr Lewis’s FOI, AF read the “Revised Principles of Consultation 2018” document on the Government website. Paragraph 9 states; “Publish any response on the same page on gov.uk as the original consultation.”
Not unreasonably, AF submitted a request (October 18) seeking a link to the website where it was reasonably believed consultation information should have been published, in accordance with the “Revised Principles of Consultation 2018.”
– WC stated, The Toolkit was developed with consideration of the Revised Principles of Consultation 2018.
– Revised Principles of Consultation 2018 Paragraph 9 states.. “Publish any response on the same page on gov.uk as the original consultation.”
2:6. Any impact on the WC of disclosing this information would be justified and propionate in relation to the request itself and its inherent purpose and value. WC have previously disclosed confusing and contradictory information and it was hoped the link would provide clarity.
2:7. WC claim “I have reconsidered all your requests individually, starting with your most recent one from 18^th October in which you again asked for market trader consultation information”.
Requests = Plural
WC then proceeds with… I believe that section 14 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) should be applied as I consider your request to be vexatious.(18 October)
Request = Singular.
WC’s later state “I consider your request to be vexatious”. – by reason that the remaining seven requests relate to the same or similar subject matter then they too would be vexatious.
Instead of evaluating each of the six requests separately, WC has conducted a review of a singular information request and then classified the remaining requests as vexatious due to an unjustified correlation between them. JM does not appear to have reviewed each request separately or in detail.
3: ICO Decision Notice FS50493150, the ICO clarified that the term vexatious is not defined in the FOIA. The Upper Tribunal also considered the issue of vexatious requests in the case of the Information Commissioner v Devon County Council & Dransfield (Upper Tribunal Case The Tribunal commented that vexatious could be defined as the ‘manifestly unjustified, in appropriate or improper use of a formal procedure’. The Tribunal’s definition clearly establishes that the concepts of proportionality and justification are relevant to any consideration of whether a request is vexatious.
3:. IOC guidance states; “we consider there is a high threshold for refusing a request on such grounds (vexatious). This means that you are most likely to have a viable case where:
the requester has asked for a substantial volume of information; and
you have real concerns about potentially exempt information, which you are able to substantiate, if asked to do so by the ICO; and
you cannot easily isolate any potentially exempt information because it is scattered throughout the requested material.
If a refusal leads the requester to complaining to the ICO, we expect you to provide us with clear evidence to substantiate your claim that the request is grossly oppressive. We will consider any requests which are referred to us on the individual circumstances of each case.”
The requester has not asked for a substantial volume of information.
WC do not have real concerns about potentially exempt information, nor will they be able to substantiate this claim, when asked to do so by the ICO;
WC have not claimed they cannot easily isolate any potentially exempt information.
3:1. It is notable that WC have failed to take into account the Upper Tribunal suggestion in Dransfield that where the request is broad and captures a large volume of information, it is more appropriate for a public authority to provide advice and assistance with a view to encouraging the requester to refine their request, rather than relying on section 14(1).
4: The Council believe that the current request is vexatious because it will be burdensome to the Council to have to respond to this request and by reason that the remaining seven requests relate to the same or similar subject matter then they too would be vexatious by virtue of section 14(1) of the FOIA. There is no public interest test, so we have not gone on to consider the same.
WC state they have reviewed the current (singular/one) request (of 18 October) and found it burdensome.
The 18 October information request asks for nothing more than a hyperlink to a publishing website.
WC confirm the link to publishing website exists.
WC’s Section 12 Rejection Notice, issued 22 October and rescinded on17 December (37 working days later) as inappropriate stated. “Whilst the Council does hold information on this matter”
On the balance of probabilities it is impossible to see how the Local Authority would find this singular request burdensome. Would a reasonable person be justified in asking why the delays to all requests ?
WC claim that 18 October request is vexatious and claim the other requests are vexatious purely by association. This appears to confirm the other requests have not been reviewed.
4:1. The Local Authority claim that “the remaining seven five requests relate to the same or similar subject matter.”
Each of the remaining requests are stand alone requests that have either resulted from claims made by Senior Local Authority Officers, resulted from concerns raised by Community Members, or as a direct result of information coming to light following information disclosed by the Local Authority during FOI responses or answers to Public Questions at Committee meetings.
4:2. The Local Authority’s statement continues “and by reason that the remaining seven requests relate to the same or similar subject matter then they too would be vexatious
This statement inextricably links five additional information requests to a simple singular request that has been deemed vexatious for very reasonably requesting a link to a publishing website.
4:3. Upon thorough evaluation of the balance of probabilities, it becomes evident that there is no justification for the Local Authority to classify the simplest Freedom of Information request, submitted on 18 October as vexatious. This minor request places a minuscule burden on the Council in fulfilling its obligations to provide a timely response and accurate information. The impact on the LA of disclosing this information is justified and propionate in relation to the request itself and its inherent purpose and value.
Consequently, it is inappropriate to classify the remaining requests as vexatious solely on the grounds that they pertain to a similar subject matter.
Moreover, the connection between the remaining requests and the subject matter of the inquiry made on 18 October is tenuous at best; thus, they cannot be deemed vexatious merely due to a speculative resemblance in topic.
4:4. In conducting an internal review WC appears to have failed to review all information, ICO state “make a fresh decision based on all the available evidence that is relevant to the date of the request, not just a review of the first decision”
5: The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has provided guidance on dealing with vexatious requests and states ‘The Freedom of Information Act was designed to give individuals a greater right of access to official information with the intention of making public bodies more transparent and accountable. Whilst most people exercise this right responsibly, a few may misuse or abuse the Act by submitting requests which are intended to be annoying or disruptive or which have a disproportionate impact on a public authority.’
The ICO further recognises that ‘dealing with unreasonable requests can place a strain on resources and get in the way of delivering mainstream services or answering legitimate requests’. Furthermore, these requests can also damage the reputation of the legislation itself.
ICO guidance reminds public authorities that section 14(1) is designed to protect public authorities by allowing them to refuse any requests which have the potential to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation, or distress. The ICO also states the emphasis on protecting public authorities’ resources from unreasonable requests was acknowledged by the Upper Tribunal when it defined the purpose of section 14 as ‘section 14…..is concerned with the nature of the request and has the effect of disapplying the citizen’s right under section 1(1)…..the purpose of section 14……must be to protect the resources (in the broadest sense of that word) of the public authority from being squandered on disproportionate use of FOIA…..’
To assist public authorities the ICO guidance provides several indicators as typical key features of a vexatious request. These are:
• Burden on the authority • Disproportionate effort • Abusive or aggressive language • Personal grudges • Unreasonable persistence • Unfounded accusations • Intransigence • Frequent or overlapping requests • Deliberate intention to cause annoyance • Scattergun approach • No obvious intent to obtain information • Futile requests • Frivolous requests
Having reviewed your request, I have determined that the following factors are relevant in deeming your request vexatious:
• Burden on the authority • Disproportionate effort
5:1. It is evident that the FOI request (singular) submitted on 18 October is the sole subject of the sentence highlighted in bold above and it is imperative to emphasise that WC’s considerations regarding Section 12 and Section 14 Refusal Notices were exclusively focused on the information request submitted on 18 October. This particular request is the sole information request referenced by date in the Section 12 and 14 Refusal Notices. Furthermore, no other Freedom of Information requests are mentioned aside from in the most vague and ambiguous terms.
5:3. Burden on the Authority & Disproportionate effort.
The request for information dated 18 October imposes minimal burden on the Local Authority in terms of burden or effort. When assessing this matter and utilising the balance of probability, it is essential to consider that the information request specifically sought a hyperlink to a website referenced by the Local Authority in its earlier response to Ian Lewis. Furthermore, the existence of the link was confirmed within the original Section 12(4) Refusal Notice, which stated, “while the Council does hold information on this matter.”
5:4. Unreasonable Persistence.
The request made on 18 October was clearly not unreasonably persistent, the request was made in order to offer the Local Authority the opportunity to clear matters up.
The only instance of “unreasonable persistence” arises from the Authority’s unwarranted reluctance to disclose information that they have consistently acknowledged exists and the Local Authority’s propensity to delay virtually everything requested to the absolute maximum.
5;5. Frequent or Overlapping Requests.
It impossible to ascertain how the terminology “frequent or overlapping requests” can pertain to the singular (18 October) FOI request referenced.
5:6 Scattergun approach.
It is also unclear how this “Scattergun approach” has been applied to the singular request
5:7 “Overlapping Requests” V “Scattergun approach”.
The term “Overlapping” suggests a close grouping, whilst “Scattergun” implies a dispersed and loosely arranged configuration. These significant inconsistencies undermine the validity of the Section 14 Refusal Notice considerably.
5:8. I firmly uphold the validity of the arguments articulated in points 5:1 to 5:7. Nevertheless, I believe the Local Authority are quite likely to attempt to claim that the Deputy Data Protection Officer merely used imprecise language (on multiple occasions).
Therefor I shall address the five baseless and vexatious accusations, presuming that the author of the Section 14 Refusal Notice inadvertently employed the term “request”(singular) on several occasions erroneously. This stance does not, in any manner, invalidate the positions detailed in points 5:1 to 5:7.
5:9. Burden on the Authority & Disproportionate effort.
Request name = Revised Principles Of Consultation 2018.
Redaction required = Zero, it’s a request for a hyperlink, that WC effective confirmed exists in their Section 12 Refusal Notice.
Request name = Expression Of Interest Engagement Exercise
Redaction required = Zero, redaction Vicki Shaw disclosed redacted notes to AF 29 November 2024. However, a little unredacting is required. (See individual Request information later)
Request Name = Minutes of meetings conducted between BMTA & Council Officers since 1 April.
Redaction required = Redact six names. (See individual Request information later)
Request Name = Raymond Lynch, his companies and consultation responsibilities.
Redaction required = Unknown.
Request Name = Trader Consultation Birkenhead Market Report 2024 Redacted.pdf
Redaction required = Zero, or very close to zero as most potential players are named in the information request.
Request Name = Argos Market Consultation Documents Part Two. Redaction required = Unknown.
No legitimate Argos consultation information has been disclosed by the Local Authority that was created before the request submission cutoff date of 15 March 2024. It is time for the Local Authority to kindly disclose the information or state no information is held. In the interests of History and context the original Argos Market Consultation information request is worth reading at this point.
AF expressed uncertainty regarding the number of Internal Review requests that had been submitted, prompting reflection on whether AF’s persistence was unreasonable. The possibility of autism influencing behaviour was also considered. A review of the situation was necessary, resulting in the compilation of an extensive list of internal review requests. This list was indeed lengthy and highlighted a degree of persistence that had not been previously recognised. Below is the long list.. Internal Reviewrequests are highlighted.
1: Equality Impact Assessment Toolkit
No response, Internal Reviewafter 20 working days.
2: St Werburghs Square redevelopment consultation results and reports.
No response, Internal Review after 20 working days
3: Impact study on Birkenhead market community
No response, Internal Review after 20 working days.
8: Chief Executive, Financial Director & Regeneration Director Aware of Officer’s Excluding Trader Representative from Consultations, Engagements and Meetings.
# Internal Review requested as WC denies existence of the information requested.
9: Making a Public Statement At Committee Meetings.
WITHDRAWN
10: Recent Birkenhead Market Refurbishment feasibility Study
11: Why Did the Chief Executive not send emails of concern to Carolyn Downs?
No response, Internal Review requested after 20 working days.
WC disclose some information after 54 working days.
12: Procurement WIRLC001-DN729545-63606796
No response, Internal Review after 20 working days.
WC disclosed some of the requested information.
13: Unlawful Decision Taken With The Chief Executives Knowledge.
No response, Internal Review requested after WC rely on LPP.
14: Argos Market Consultation Documents
No response, Internal Review requested after 20 working days.
Complaint sent to ICO
ICO write to WC.
WC disclose some information 195 working days later.
The original Information Request was submitted 20 December 2023. The document entitled “Trader Consultation Birkenhead Market Report” was produced at some point after June 2024. It is believed this document was fraudulently produced in order to satisfy the ICO. A separate information request made in an attempt to check the provenance of this document. It is entitled Trader Consultation Birkenhead Market Report 2024 Redacted.pdf https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/trader_consultation_birkenhead_m#outgoing-1730327
15: Market Consultant And The Councils Procurement Safeguards
No response, Internal Review requested after 20 working days.
= Information disclosed after 65 working days.
16: 60% of businesses could be evicted in £6 MILLION market proposal.
No response, Internal Review after 20 working days.
WC wrote to AF stating they considered the request to broad and vague.
# Internal Review requested. WC did not respond.
# Second Internal Review requested. WC did not respond.
Complaint sent to ICO.
WC disclose requested documents.
17: WBC Enforce Decline Of Market By Raising Vacant Rents 50%
WC applying exemption Section 12(4)
AF offers robust challenge to the Section 12(4) decision.
WC Issue Section 14 Rejection Notices.
Complaint sent to ICO.
18: Public Questions @ Council Committee Meetings Breach of Constitutional Rights.
No response, Internal Review requested after 20 working days.
WC confirm that no other member of the public has been excluded from asking two Public Questions at Wirral Borough Council Committee meetings. Breaching WC’s Constitution.
WC invokes LLP in order to avoid disclosure of requested information.
# Internal Review request sent with detailed reasoning as to why information should be disclosed.
Complaint sent to ICO.
19: Selection criteria for Market Traders relocating to the Argos Market Birkenhead.
No response, Internal Review requested after 20 working days.
Complaint sent to WC’s Complaints Department regarding the Regeneration Directorate’s consistent late responses to FOI requests.
WC denies the requested information exists.
Complaint sent to ICO.
ICO reject the complaint a balance of probabilities.
Appeal to be lodged with the First-tier Tribunal.
20: Revised Principles Of Consultation 2018
WC responded in one (1) working days.
WC reject request by applying exemption 12(4) of the FOI Act.
AF offers details and robust reasoning as to why exemption 12(4) is inappropriate.
WC agree the application of exemption 12(4) is inappropriate.
WC reject request by applying exemption 14(1) of the FOI Act.
WC disclose three documents, one of the documents “Trader Consultation Birkenhead Market Report” was produced at least six months after the original information was requested and it is thought the information document was produced and disclosed in order to mislead the ICO and requester. I have raised an information request in order to check the
WC reject request by applying exemption 12(4) of the FOI Act.
AF offers details and robust reasoning as to why exemption 12(4) is inappropriate.
WC agree the application of exemption 12(4) is inappropriate.
WC reject request by applying exemption 14(1) of the FOI Act.
AF complains to ICO.
23: Raymond Lynch, his companies and consultation responsibilities.
No response, Internal Review requested after 20 working days
WC disclose some documents and deny the disclosure of some information relying on S43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act.
# AF submits Internal Review request pointing out the S43(2) does not demonstrate a causal relationship between the disclosure of the information in question and the prejudice envisaged.
WC reject request by applying exemption 12(4) of the FOI Act.
AF offers details and robust reasoning as to why exemption 12(4) is inappropriate.
WC agree the application of exemption 12(4) is inappropriate.
WC reject request by applying exemption 14(1) of the FOI Act.
AF complains to ICO.
24: Minutes of meetings conducted between BMTA & Council Officers since 1 April.
No response, Internal Review requested after 20 working days.
Complaint sent to WC’s Complaints Department.
WC reject request by applying exemption 12(4) of the FOI Act.
AF offers details and robust reasoning as to why exemption 12(4) is inappropriate.
WC agree the application of exemption 12(4) is inappropriate.
WC reject request by applying exemption 14(1) of the FOI Act.
AF complains to ICO.
25: Expression Of Interest Engagement Exercise.
WC reject request by applying exemption 12(4) of the FOI Act.
AF offers details and robust reasoning as to why exemption 12(4) is inappropriate.
WC agree the application of exemption 12(4) is inappropriate.
WC reject request by applying exemption 14(1) of the FOI Act.AF complains to ICO.
END OF LIST
5:10:1. AF has submitted an extensive total of seventeen (17) Internal Review requests due to WC’s failure to respond within the maximum permissible timeframe of 20 working days, as stipulated by the Freedom of Information Act. Additionally, an extra eight Internal Review requests were submitted for various other justifiable reasons.
5:10:2. The Local Authority are predominantly responsible for the requesters persistence, had WC divulged timely and accurate information rather than delayed, conflicting or incorrect information AF wouldn’t be forced to request multiple internal reviews and ask additional questions.
5:10:3 WC have breached the Freedom of information Act on numerous occasions because they chose not to reply within the requisite 20 working days.
5:11. Frequent or Overlapping Requests.
5:11:1. It is apparent AF’s requests are structured to gather evidence that substantiates WC’s assertions regarding “Consultation”, the Local Authority have had multiple opportunities to disclose genuine information or state that “no information is held”. AF acknowledges that an observer with preconceived notions, who does not engage in a comprehensive, impartial and conscientious review, may perceive these requests as being frequent or overlapping. However, a thorough analysis of the request pattern by an impartial person clearly reveals fundamental factors that warrant a specific level of frequency and overlap.
5:11:2. The Local Authority and the Freedom of Information Act potentially combine to force AF into making Frequent & Overlapping Requests, for example… The Director of Regeneration has unfairly excluded AF from monthly trader representative meetings. The Local Authority neither publish the minutes nor will they disclose them via business as usual protocols. To enable AF to be kept abreast of the monthly meeting discussions he is left with little choice but to submit frequent (monthly) information requests. Additionally, when AF has made an information request for the minutes of monthly meetings WC have failed to respond within two months. These factors combined force AF to make overlapping as well as frequent requests.
This book in your hands is the result of an extraordinary set of confluences.
It also presents, in a format available in bookstores for the first time,
material that has already changed history.
You are about to embark as a reader on a journey through an
extraordinary story—one whose elements almost defy belief.
The Pfizer Papers is the result of a group of strangers—ordinary people
with extraordinary skills, located in different places around the world, with
different backgrounds and interests—who all came together, for no money
or professional recompense at all; out of the goodness of their hearts, and
motivated by love for true medicine and true science—to undertake a
rigorous, painfully detailed, and complex research project, which spanned
the years 2022 to the present, and which continues to this day.
The material they read through and analyzed involved 450,000 pages of
documents, all written in extremely dense, technical language.
This far-flung, relentlessly pursued research project—under the
leadership of DailyClout’s COO, the remarkably gifted project director
Amy Kelly—brought one of the largest and most corrupt institutions in the
world, Pfizer, to its knees. This project, pursued by 3,250 strangers who
worked virtually and became friends and colleagues, drove a global
pharmaceutical behemoth to lose billions of dollars in revenue. It balked the
plans of the most powerful politicians on earth. It bypassed the censorship
of the most powerful tech companies on earth.
This is the ultimate David and Goliath story.
The story began when lawyer Aaron Siri successfully sued the Food and
Drug Administration, to compel them to release “The Pfizer Documents.”
These are Pfizer’s internal documents—as noted above, 450,000 pages in
number—that detail the clinical trials Pfizer conducted in relation to its
COVID mRNA injection. These trials were undertaken to secure the
ultimate prize for a pharmaceutical company, the “EUA,” or Emergency
Use Authorization from the FDA. The FDA awarded EUA for ages 16+ to
Pfizer in December 2020 The “pandemic,” of course (a crisis in public
health that a book of mine, The Bodies of Others, confirmed, involved
hyped and manipulated “infections” documentation) became the pretext for the “urgency” that led the FDA to bestow EUA on Pfizer’s (and Moderna’s) novel drug. The EUA is the hall pass, essentially, allowing Pfizer to race right to market with a not-fully-tested product.
The Pfizer Papers also contains documentation of what happened in
“post-marketing,” meaning in the three months, December 2020 to
February 2021, as the vaccine was rolled out upon the public. All leading
spokespeople, and bought-off media, called the injection “safe and
effective,” reading from what was a centralized script.
Many people who took this injection, as it was launched in 2020–2021–
2022 and to the present, did not realize that normal testing for safety of a
new vaccine—testing that typically takes ten to twelve years— had simply
been bypassed via the mechanisms of a “state of emergency” and the FDA’s
“Emergency Use Authorization.” They did not understand that the real
“testing” was in fact Pfizer and the FDA observing whatever was happening
to them and their loved ones, after these citizens rolled up their sleeves and
submitted to the shot. As we can never forget, many millions of these
people who submitted to the injection were “mandated” to take it, facing the
threat of job loss, suspension of their education, or loss of their military
positions if they refused; in some US states and overseas countries, people
also faced the suspension of their rights to take transportation, cross
borders, go to school or college, receive certain medical procedures, or
enter buildings such as churches and synagogues, restaurants and gyms—if
they refused.
The FDA asked the judge in the Aaron Siri lawsuit to withhold the
release of the Pfizer documents for seventy-five years. Why would a
government agency wish to conceal certain material until the present
generation, those affected by what is in these documents, is dead and gone?
There can be no good answer to that question.
Fortunately for history, and fortunately for millions of people whose
lives were saved by this decision, the judge refused the FDA’s request, and
compelled the release of the documents; a tranche of 55,000 pages per
month.
When I heard about this, though, I was concerned as a journalist. I knew
that no reporter had the bandwidth to go through material of this volume. I
also understood that virtually no reporter had the training or skill sets
required to understand the multidimensional, technically highly specialized
language of the reports. In order to understand the reports, one would need
a background in immunology; statistics; biostatistics; pathology; oncology;
Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception
From Paul Cardin, a Falklands Conflict veteran. This is a biting commentary, told from the heart. Also included is a 1982 diary, written on location. This book forms a forensic inquiry into several conflict-related mysteries that have never been addressed or resolved - even after 40 years.
Wirral In It Together 