-
Recent Posts
Categories
- #Brickgate
- 5G
- 5G alleged fraud
- Alleged Planning Crimes
- Angela Eagle
- BIG Fund Scandal
- Big Pharma Control / Deception
- censorship
- Cheshire West FoI ban
- COVID-19
- Discretionary Housing Payments
- Election 2023
- Fake 'vaccines'
- FoI Requests
- Frank Field
- General
- Human Rights
- Labour Party Upheaval
- Press Freedom / Assange
- SARS-COV-2
- Solar Farms
- The Duran eBooks
- Uncategorized
- Vote Rigging
- Whistleblowing
- Wirral Council Scandal
- Workplace trouble
Archives
- January 2026
- December 2025
- November 2025
- October 2025
- September 2025
- August 2025
- July 2025
- June 2025
- May 2025
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- May 2012
- February 2012
- November 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
Meta
My Global Hits
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.
£12.99
Experts warn that the WHO reviews on the health effects of wireless radiation are not fit for purpose
Posted in Uncategorized
Leave a comment
Re: The Dransfield “Vexatious” Precedent — A National Scandal Eroding the Rule of Law
Dear Deputy Prime Minister,
I am writing to you in your capacity as Lord Chancellor to raise what I believe to be one of the most serious constitutional failures of the last two decades — the misuse and abuse of Section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
My own case, Dransfield v ICO (GIA/3037/2011), was labelled a “test case” and used to redefine the meaning of vexatious. What should have been a narrow exemption to prevent truly abusive requests has been weaponised to suppress legitimate public scrutiny.
Since that ruling, public authorities — often with the ICO’s blessing — have:Used Section 14(1) as a catch-all to block uncomfortable questions, imposed blanket bans under Section 50(2)(c) without meaningful oversight,i gnored Parliament’s original intent for FOIA to empower citizens, not insulate the state, extended the precedent far beyond its factual basis, creating a de facto censorship regime. This isn’t theory — it’s fact. The Dransfield precedent is now relied upon by government departments, local authorities, police forces, royal estates, and regulators. It has become a legal shield for secrecy.
For over 15 years, my FOI requests have been treated as “test cases” in every court: First-tier Tribunal, Upper Tribunal, Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court. At each level, the judiciary has permitted the expansion of this precedent without democratic mandate, creating a constitutional imbalance where citizens’ rights are subordinated to bureaucratic convenience.
The implications are profound:
Parliament’s legislative intent has been overturned by judicial interpretation.Article 6 (fair trial) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) rights are being trampled.
Oversight is weak, and accountability has collapsed. As Deputy Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor, you are in a unique position to act where others have looked away. I urge you to:Launch or support an independent review into the use and misuse of Section 14(1) FOIA and the Dransfield precedent.Require the ICO and all government departments to publish data on vexatious refusals since 2012.
Place the issue before PACAC and the Justice Committee for formal scrutiny. Recognise this matter as a constitutional test of transparency, democracy, and trust in government.
This is not simply my fight — it affects every citizen who dares to ask questions of power. FOI is being strangled by a single flawed test case, and history will judge those who looked away.
I look forward to your response and to seeing genuine action taken to restore the rights Parliament intended.
Yours sincerely,
Alan M. Dransfield
FOI Campaigner & Appellant in GIA/3037/2011
http://paulcardin.substack.com
Section 14(1) FOIA — Vexatious Refusals: A Breach of Fundamental Legal Principles
1. Background
Section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 allows a public authority to refuse a request it deems “vexatious.”
Originally intended as a narrow procedural safeguard to prevent abusive or frivolous requests, it has been expanded — in practice — into a systemic tool of exclusion against campaigners, journalists, whistleblowers, and public-interest requesters.
2. Legal Foundations Undermined
A. Fraud Unravels All — Lord Denning (Lazarus Estates v Beasley [1956] 1 QB 702)“No judgment of a court, no order of a minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything.”
When Section 14(1) is applied:knowingly to suppress information,to disguise wrongdoing, or to impose blanket bans without legal basis,the exemption becomes an instrument of deception. Any decision built upon it is liable to be void ab initio under Denning’s principle.
B. Wednesbury Unreasonableness — Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223A decision is unlawful if it:
is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it,relies on irrelevant considerations or ignores relevant ones,is made in bad faith or for improper purposes.
Section 14(1) refusals often:
lack proper evidence or reasoning, rely on post-request behaviour or unfounded assumptions, ignore the serious purpose and public interest of the request. Such decisions are Wednesbury unreasonable and therefore ultra vires — beyond the legal power of the decision-maker.
3. Systemic Abuse by ICO and FOI Tribunals
Blanket vexatious bans imposed on individuals. ICO acting simultaneously as investigator and defender of its own decisions.Tribunal rubber-stamping without rigorous Wednesbury analysis. Failure to recognise Article 6 (fair trial) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) ECHR safeguards. Suppression of public-interest information on infrastructure, safety, environment, and governance.
4. Legal Consequences
Decisions obtained by fraud, bad faith, or irrationality are void, not merely voidable. This pierces the usual finality of judgments (res judicata). Parliament, the courts, and oversight bodies must revisit test cases (e.g. Dransfield v ICO) where these defects are present. Systemic misuse of Section 14(1) may amount to misfeasance in public office and obstruction of justice.
5. Call to Action
Parliament must hold a public inquiry into misuse of Section 14(1) FOIA. Courts must revisit key precedents tainted by Denning/Wednesbury breaches.
ICO must be held accountable for acting beyond its statutory powers. Campaigners and whistleblowers must have their rights restored and their cases re-examined.
📌 “Fraud unravels all. Where bad faith infects a legal process, no exemption, no decision, and no precedent can stand.”
http://paulcardin.substack.com
See how I sweet talked the Brave Browser AI chatbot into revealing the number of 5G masts installed in the UK since 2020
“How many 5G masts were installed in the UK in the year 2020?”
web_search;5G mast installations UK 2020
There is no specific figure available for the exact number of 5G masts installed in the UK in 2020. However, major network operators like EE, Vodafone, and O2 began rolling out 5G in 2019 and expanded coverage significantly in 2020, focusing on urban centers and key infrastructure. By the end of 2020, hundreds of 5G-enabled sites had been activated across the country, though precise annual installation numbers are not publicly disclosed.
5G mast installations UK 2020
“Members of the public are paying for these installations via their subscriptions to mobile phone companies. As continuous users of the telecoms networks, it is therefore in our interest to know how many masts are being installed per year. Try harder.”
web_search;number of 5G masts installed UK per year 2020
While telecom operators do not publish exact annual figures for 5G mast installations, regulatory and industry reports indicate that approximately 2,000 to 3,000 new 5G-enabled sites were deployed across the UK in 2020. This includes both upgraded existing sites and new installations. The rollout was led by the four major operators—EE, O2, Three, and Vodafone—as part of their 5G expansion plans supported by spectrum awarded by Ofcom.
UK 5G infrastructure deployment statistics 2020
“Thank you kindly. Please can you use the same methods to find the figures for 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025?”
web_search;UK 5G mast installations by year 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Based on industry reports and Ofcom data:
2021: Around 4,000 new 5G-enabled sites were added across the UK.
2022: Deployment accelerated, with approximately 6,000 new sites.
2023: Operators added roughly 7,000 5G sites, continuing rapid expansion.
2024: An estimated 7,500 sites were installed, focusing on rural coverage and urban densification.
2025: As of October 2025, around 5,000 new sites are estimated to have been installed year-to-date.
These figures include both new masts and upgrades to existing 4G sites with 5G capability. Total 5G coverage now reaches over 75% of the UK population.
“How many 5G masts were installed in 2019?”
web_search;UK 5G mast installations 2019
In 2019, approximately 1,500 5G-enabled sites were installed across the UK. This marked the beginning of commercial 5G rollout, led by EE, which launched its 5G network in May 2019, followed by Vodafone and O2 later in the year.
WIIT Comment
2019 – 1,500
2020 – 3,000
2021 – 4,000
2022 – 6,000
2023 – 7,000
2024 – 7,500
2025 – 5,000
So you can see the figure is clearly rising exponentially. We’re heading for 7,500+ this year.
In summary, if my maths are correct, that’s a total of :
34,000 5G masts installed in the UK since 2019
Dividing this figure by the number of local authorities in the United Kingdom (382) gives us a figure of 89 5G masts per area.
I’d call that ample coverage, yet……….. ON THEY GO.
Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception, by Paul Cardin
Amazon link
Wirral In It Together 