https://off-guardian.org/2024/08/14/who-declares-monkeypox-a-global-emergency-again/

---

Wirral Residents Association

---

JOIN US at: wirralinittogether@proton.me

———- Forwarded message ———From: <postmaster@indigoffice.onmicrosoft.com>Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 at 08:55Subject: Undeliverable: Fwd: IR F24-344 Internal Review responseTo: <alanmdransfield Your message to casework@ico.org.uk couldn’t be delivered.

A custom mail flow rule created by an admin at indigoffice.onmicrosoft.com has blocked your message.Please check Plîs gwiriwch https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/alanmdransfield Office 365 ico.org.ukSender Action RequiredBlocked by mail flow ruleHow to Fix It

An email admin at indigoffice.onmicrosoft.com has created a custom mail flow rule that blocks messages that meet certain conditions, and it appears that your message has met one or more of those conditions.

Check the text above for a custom message from the email admin that may help explain why your message was blocked and how you might be able to fix it. For example, removing prohibited words from the message or sending the message from a different email account may be sufficient to deliver your message.If you’ve tried and you’re still not able to fix the problem, consider contacting the email admin at indigoffice.onmicrosoft.com to discuss what to do. While they’re unlikely to remove or relax the rule, if you have a legitimate need to deliver your message they may offer guidance for how to do so.

This error occurs because an email admin at indigoffice.onmicrosoft.com has created a custom mail flow rule that has blocked the sender’s message.

In some cases, the sender can change the message so it no longer violates the rule. However, depending on the rule’s conditions, it’s possible that the only way to deliver the message is to change the rule itself, and only an email admin at indigoffice.onmicrosoft.com can do that. Although it’s possible the rule is unintentionally flawed or it’s stricter than the admin intended, it may be working exactly as they want it to.

Original Message DetailsCreated Date: 8/15/2024 7:55:12 AMSender Address: alanmdransfield Recipient Address: casework@ico.org.ukSubject: Fwd: IR F24-344 Internal Review responseError DetailsError: 550 5.7.1 TRANSPORT.RULES.RejectMessage; the message was rejected by organization policyMessage rejected by: LO6P265MB6396.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COMNotification DetailsSent by: LO6P265MB6396.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COMMessage HopsHOP TIME (UTC) FROM TO WITH RELAY TIME1 8/15/20247:55:25 AM mail-lf1-f49.google.com SMTP 13 sec2 8/15/20247:55:25 AM mail-lf1-f49.google.com AM3PEPF0000A79B.mail.protection.outlook.com Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) *3 8/15/20247:55:25 AM AM3PEPF0000A79B.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com AM4PR0302CA0033.outlook.office365.com Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) *4 8/15/20247:55:25 AM AM4PR0302CA0033.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com LO6P265MB6396.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) *Original Message HeadersReceived: from AM4PR0302CA0033.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:205:2::46) by LO6P265MB6396.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:10a6:600:2df::11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.7875.16; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 07:55:25 +0000Received: from AM3PEPF0000A79B.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:205:2:cafe::a) by AM4PR0302CA0033.outlook.office365.com (2603:10a6:205:2::46) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.7849.23 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 07:55:25 +0000Authentication-Results: spf=pass (sender IP is 209.85.167.49) smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (signature was verified) header.d=gmail.com;dmarc=pass action=none header.from=gmail.com;Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.167.49 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com; client-ip=209.85.167.49; helo=mail-lf1-f49.google.com; pr=CReceived: from mail-lf1-f49.google.com (209.85.167.49) by AM3PEPF0000A79B.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.167.16.106) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.7849.8 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 07:55:25 +0000Received: by mail-lf1-f49.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-52f04b4abdcso802064e87.2; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 00:55:25 -0700 (PDT)DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1723708524; x=1724313324; darn=ico.org.uk; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=XVqRZD7Mjmn5RAIWk0MBz8NfFM3N5APGEFapf6jeXVY=; b=cKYuhBylsl6uSZP5bzr9QgJtWFPLKUkdnMTKvPF8QcR6Cfo4YZ3/UcJT9jhByrAR++ ncmV3zeVT+XLiy2Z/2Z0IfrzvuC8d5R0wazzE5pPSL+0AtBQCRZCCMuOPATdfkK8vm7K DUfsir75bsyW3ePPdQN2GkRq/xCW+vRD6aeW+lbxXK+0JlAaOwxgYSMZg6PI/LP7zjk2 y5kI3v21rehZ7DakwLyrcX8vYnDGEaXUulyXLvS5mFcPz+TW80h7mY0T27oMHa0XEPuw lGM2FVpuHH3hBLjO9A+9f1bbWqndkrM/6YyhecOKC2Unzco+0tarxGoJQiUuAbJKyoNj PCCg==X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1723708524; x=1724313324; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=XVqRZD7Mjmn5RAIWk0MBz8NfFM3N5APGEFapf6jeXVY=; b=BUQG1pkKXYqdA5kHN3dTchKxwQJfkmW9o1X8X859+iUpdQJ17XTNh5/ft+R81AC6Sf Btuk7+v6lePocTB7ZI+WwHb1ML8YVq85WyKHrhryU1bieTBPObB7qnCDTpy0kEwaRVyO b465OqxS7VMPNSJKrgWpxF0+8qqhxNnM/re63gycS2D9Hn/433UlHo/ygAVxeKgKZagW mgE9a2LtMho1Y9xqdWi/Ny1aR5cc78dN1GKietWdmHdcKQb/jiB8h/cmLE7QLl4ndV8j DG10X0TEAJmvavFEurcjz6HfHUYMYZheeajwBXy7Z5khGkQF6HSHnBdchYcgWXSemWfO o+DA==X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXo8s5NIgQxgvGx2GNWr/NsOZGFc4E9BjUZirOfFNnG35oP6lugUZwoosmbVW2mZLZAsdOaAWwZfJe3/IaCEnRrwz6CWsNImqD8i7xoMVWsdlQelPGF403Xy6cQS7bLXkWGX-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzB6ljn2FmQokVj0Jii8TZFHmCH3C0bjDr6IJodgz4b6O5ebMGb 7LcraDY3zGnFsa/PQ5fPvVGzZazx9G4MhY0iJDnxC+I5vcLJvlU8/Z2FlvbD9ZPZNErpcSIMf23 gds0rsiMHSGDQh9YYE/RnPRSb0Nc8jg==X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHAa2HVgwKWPPKnbMQRmgjNWUkw3RJvz4a7dRb2OA4GuPTKLmJL3iMvneOSPcviSpn2Kmvu2yWLh4A5r3SmfzU=X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:230a:b0:52c:e09c:b747 with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-532eda82f75mr2723936e87.27.1723708523815; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 00:55:23 -0700 (PDT)MIME-Version: 1.0References: <CAEEzusU1GOEE2-X-w=9X8Ntc9He5=ZgQDmTZmBqRtj63p6VzFQ@mail.gmail.com> <LO4P123MB67289E5DF5DAAF9EABBD24F8BDDC2@LO4P123MB6728.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CWXP123MB483750D78FD46F846D692C62D7A52@CWXP123MB4837.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <LO3P123MB3067044120BE491A46037740A6A62@LO3P123MB3067.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CWXP123MB4837CC8F22891472A91C578BD7A22@CWXP123MB4837.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <LO0P123MB6553DEC359EB303D82B4DDEDBAA22@LO0P123MB6553.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CWXP123MB4837034C35AC3F418741296FD7A32@CWXP123MB4837.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CAEEzusUWOcSit0zDY9tF+Hx_OuHZRL1pE-oBf+5PruHdxhHZBQ@mail.gmail.com> <LO3P123MB3067B3E1159A5B3AB857A50EA6AD2@LO3P123MB3067.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <LO3P123MB30673E12CCC62F5028A429C5A6872@LO3P123MB3067.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CAEEzusXLr2T3PsyxyARGvF5cZuKDPFr=fNJSwneZ9wqPk4OPTw@mail.gmail.com> <CACPo8EtdxngJWqMb+0F29_YOpkuifUPwPmE70kbiEfubrxW44Q@mail.gmail.com>In-Reply-To: <CACPo8EtdxngJWqMb+0F29_YOpkuifUPwPmE70kbiEfubrxW44Q@mail.gmail.com>From: alan dransfield <alanmdransfield>Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 08:55:12 +0100Message-ID: <CAEEzusUodBvS9o8yDg0PCHJuj0nvv+oJmbA4-6xiHdMN=dvwvQ@mail.gmail.com>Subject: Fwd: IR F24-344 Internal Review responseTo: “<casework@ico.org.uk>” <casework@ico.org.uk>, ICO Casework <icocasework@ico.org.uk>CC: richard.tice@reformparty.uk, Richard Bailey <Richard.Bailey@ico.org.uk>Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary=”000000000000424a11061fb42a26″Return-Path: alanmdransfield@gmail.comX-EOPAttributedMessage: 0X-EOPTenantAttributedMessage: 50129323-8fab-4000-adc1-c4cfebfa21e6:0X-MS-PublicTrafficType: EmailX-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: AM3PEPF0000A79B:EE_|LO6P265MB6396:EE_X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: f94dab84-7e77-4485-374b-08dcbcff9f4bX-MS-Exchange-AtpMessageProperties: SA|SL———- Forwarded message ———-From: alan dransfield <alanmdransfield>To: “<casework@ico.org.uk>” <casework@ico.org.uk>, ICO Casework <icocasework@ico.org.uk>Cc: richard.tice@reformparty.uk, Richard Bailey <Richard.Bailey@ico.org.uk>Bcc: Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 08:55:12 +0100Subject: Fwd: IR F24-344 Internal Review responseExternal: This email originated outside the ICO.Dear SirsPlease find the response from the House of Commons who claim they have no 5 G facility. I now wish to elevate this to the ICO.With thanks Alan M Dransfield———- Forwarded message ———On Wed, 14 Aug 2024, 15:08 alan dransfield, <alanmdransfield> ———- Forwarded message ———From: FOI Commons <FOICOMMONS@parliament.uk>Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 at 13:21Subject: IR F24-344 Internal Review responseTo: alan dransfield <alanmdransfield>Dear Alan Dransfield, Internal Review Request for IR F24-344 Further to your request for an Internal Review, please find our response attached. If you are still dissatisfied, you can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office whose details can be found here: https://ico.org.uk/. Yours sincerely, Abigail RichmondInformation Rights ManagerHouse of Commons Information Compliance ServiceHouse of Commons, Palace of Westminster, London SW1A 0AA For information about how the House of Commons uses your personal data please see our privacy notices: http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/data-protection From: FOI CommonsSent: 19 July 2024 15:09To: alan dransfield <alanmdransfield>Subject: IR F24-344 Internal Review request acknowledgement Dear Alan Dransfield, Freedom of Information Request F24-344 I am writing to acknowledge your two further emails, copied below, in which you ask for an Internal Review of our response to your request. We will endeavour to provide a response within 20 working days. However, it may be necessary to extend this deadline by another 20 working days, for example if the review is complicated and requires the assistance of multiple resources. If you have any questions in the meanwhile, please let me know. Yours sincerely, Abigail RichmondInformation Rights ManagerHouse of Commons Information Compliance ServiceHouse of Commons, Palace of Westminster, London SW1A 0AA For information about how the House of Commons uses your personal data please see our privacy notices: http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/data-protection From: alan dransfield alanmdransfield Sent: 19 July 2024 11:13To: FOI Commons FOICOMMONS@parliament.ukCc: Richard Bailey Richard.Bailey@ico.org.uk; richard.tice@reformparty.ukSubject: Re: F24-344 Response Dear SirYour response, at best,is codswallop and at worst, unlawful.You hold vicarious responsibility for the Danger of 5G at both the House of Commons and House of Lords. Alan M Dransfield From: alan dransfield <alanmdransfield>Sent: 17 July 2024 19:20To: FOI Commons <FOICOMMONS@parliament.uk>Subject: Fwd: F24-344 Response Please see the attached House if Commons Decision Notice.I now wish the HofCto review this decisionWith thanksAlan M Dransfield ———- Forwarded message ———From: FOI Commons <FOICOMMONS@parliament.uk>Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 at 18:10Subject: F24-344 ResponseTo: alanmdransfield <alanmdransfield> Dear Alan Dransfield, Freedom of Information Request F24-344 Thank you for your request for information as copied below. You asked to be provided with 5G system Safety Certificates for “all Westminster Premises”. We have interpreted “Westminster premises” in this instance to mean any safety certificates we hold relating to 5G systems on the parliamentary estate. This information is not held by the House of Commons. We do not hold any certificates of the nature specified, and this is because the parliamentary estate does not currently have any 5G coverage. You may, if dissatisfied with the handling of your request, complain to the House of Commons. Alternatively, if you are dissatisfied with the outcome of your request you may ask the House of Commons to conduct an internal review of any decision regarding your request. Complaints or requests for internal review should be addressed to: Information Compliance Team, Governance Office, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA or foicommons@parliament.uk. Please ensure that you specify the full reasons for your complaint or internal review along with any arguments or points that you wish to make. If you remain dissatisfied, you may appeal to the Information Commissioner at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF, https://ico.org.uk/. Yours sincerely, Thomas SpencerInformation Rights OfficerHouse of Commons Information Compliance ServiceHouse of Commons, Palace of Westminster, London SW1A 0AA parliament.ukThe House of Commons welcomes feedback. If you have any compliments, complaints or comments about the service that you have received please complete the online feedback form For information about how the House of Commons uses your personal data please see our privacy notices: http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/data-protection From: alan dransfield <alanmdransfield>Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2024 12:18 PMTo: Speaker’s Office <speakersoffice@parliament.uk>; Speaker’s Committee <SPEAKERSCOMMITTEE@parliament.uk>Cc: WARMAN, Matt <matt.warman.mp@parliament.uk>; Richard Bailey <Richard.Bailey@ico.org.uk>; Richard Bailey <Richard.Bailey@ico.gsi.gov.uk>; GRC <grc@justice.gov.uk>Subject: Fraudulent 5G Safety Certificates DEar SirsThere is breaking news that 5G system have received Fraudulent Test Certificates.I would envisage he Westminster premises period will also have fraudulent 5G Certificate.To this end please provide me with FOIA copies of the Safety Certificates for all Westminster Premises.5g Systems.These Test Certificates will come under ICNIRP with thanks Alan M DransfieldUK Parliament Disclaimer: this e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. This e-mail address is not secure, is not encrypted and should not be used for sensitive data.UK Parliament Disclaimer: this e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. This e-mail address is not secure, is not encrypted and should not be used for sensitive data.

More Info for Email AdminsStatus code: 550 5.7.1_ETR

---

Wirral Residents Association

---

JOIN US at: wirralinittogether@proton.me

Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception, by Paul Cardin

Amazon link

I’ve been very busy … I’ve needed to be. Below are 101 examples of Wirral Labour / Tory / LibDem scandals, abuse of disabled people, corruption, lies, cover-ups, distortions, conflicts of interest, whitewash investigations, kickbacks, cronyism, control of the local media, gags, bumper pay-offs and clean bills of health to the guilty … and much more … all gathered over the last 10 years.

http://paulcardin.substack.com

The Hillbilly [Bioweapons] Elegy.

Sasha Latypova

Aug 14

https://open.substack.com/pub/sashalatypova/p/jd-vances-monkey?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=b9xiw

---

Wirral Residents Association

---

JOIN US at: wirralinittogether@proton.me

Click to access ic-268493-z5c8.pdf

---

———- Forwarded message ———
From: alan dransfield 
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 at 06:45
Subject: FALSE AND MISLEADING INFORMATION BEING DISSEMINATED FROM THE DCC/ GIA/3037/2011 Alan M Dransfield VICO &DCC
To: Richard Bailey <Richard.Bailey@ico.gsi.gov.uk>
Cc: BRADSHAW Ben <BradshawBP@parliament.uk>

Attn Richard Bailey ICO Solicitor

Dear Sir

Please find the attached document from the Devon County Council. This is relevant to my forthcoming Test Case because the DCC  are on reord to me recently that they DO NOT UNDERTAKE and Risk Assessments for Waterborne Diseases (RAWD).

This document from the DCC CLEARLY and CONSISTENTLY contradicts previous information provided by the DCC FOI Officials.In particular,see para 2.4 ref RISK ASSESSMENTS

Please retain this email and attached document for the Test case

with thanks

Alan M Dransfield

NB Ben Bradshaw

This document proves the DCC FOI team are lying thru their teeth when they said “THE DCC DO NOT PROVIDE ANY RISK ASSESSMENT FOR WATERBORNE DISEASES”

I call upon my MP to contact the Depart of Health and Education ref the DCC Haven Banks Centre which is currently OPERATING IN A LEGAL VOID.

---

---

Whistleblower Will Appeal After Federal Court Dismisses Lawsuit Alleging Fraud in Pfizer COVID Vaccine Trials

---

---

Wirral Residents Association

---

JOIN US at: wirralinittogether@proton.me

———- Forwarded message ———
From: FOI Commons <FOICOMMONS@parliament.uk>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 at 13:21
Subject: IR F24-344 Internal Review response
To: alan dransfield

Dear Alan Dransfield,

Internal Review Request for IR F24-344

Further to your request for an Internal Review, please find our response attached. 

If you are still dissatisfied, you can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office whose details can be found here:  https://ico.org.uk/.

Yours sincerely,

Abigail Richmond

Information Rights Manager

House of Commons Information Compliance Service

House of Commons, Palace of Westminster, London SW1A 0AA

For information about how the House of Commons uses your personal data please see our privacy notices: 
www.parliament.uk/site-information/data-protection 

From: FOI Commons
Sent: 19 July 2024 15:09
To: alan dransfield <alanmdransfield@gmail.com>
Subject: IR F24-344 Internal Review request acknowledgement

Dear Alan Dransfield,

Freedom of Information Request F24-344

I am writing to acknowledge your two further emails, copied below, in which you ask for an Internal Review of our response to your request.

We will endeavour to provide a response within 20 working days. However, it may be necessary to extend this deadline by another 20 working days, for example if the review is complicated and requires the assistance of multiple resources.

If you have any questions in the meanwhile, please let me know.

Yours sincerely,

Abigail Richmond

Information Rights Manager

House of Commons Information Compliance Service

House of Commons, Palace of Westminster, London SW1A 0AA

For information about how the House of Commons uses your personal data please see our privacy notices: 
www.parliament.uk/site-information/data-protection 

From: alan dransfield 
Sent: 19 July 2024 11:13
To: FOI Commons FOICOMMONS@parliament.uk
Cc: Richard Bailey Richard.Bailey@ico.org.uk; richard.tice@reformparty.uk
Subject: Re: F24-344 Response

Dear Sir

Your response, at best,is codswallop and at worst, unlawful.

You hold vicarious responsibility for the Danger of 5G at both the House of Commons and House of Lords. 

Alan M Dransfield

From: alan dransfield
Sent: 17 July 2024 19:20
To: FOI Commons <FOICOMMONS@parliament.uk>
Subject: Fwd: F24-344 Response

Please see the attached House of Commons Decision Notice.

I now wish the HofC to review this decision

With thanks

Alan M Dransfield

———- Forwarded message ———
From: FOI Commons <FOICOMMONS@parliament.uk>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 at 18:10
Subject: F24-344

To: Alan Dransfield

Dear Alan Dransfield,

Freedom of Information Request F24-344

Thank you for your request for information as copied below. You asked to be provided with 5G system Safety Certificates for “all Westminster Premises”.

We have interpreted “Westminster premises” in this instance to mean any safety certificates we hold relating to 5G systems on the parliamentary estate.

This information is not held by the House of Commons. We do not hold any certificates of the nature specified, and this is because the parliamentary estate does not currently have any 5G coverage.

You may, if dissatisfied with the handling of your request, complain to the House of Commons. Alternatively, if you are dissatisfied with the outcome of your request you may ask the House of Commons to conduct an internal review of any decision regarding your request.  Complaints or requests for internal review should be addressed to: Information Compliance Team, Governance Office, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA or foicommons@parliament.uk.  Please ensure that you specify the full reasons for your complaint or internal review along with any arguments or points that you wish to make.

If you remain dissatisfied, you may appeal to the Information Commissioner at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF, https://ico.org.uk/.

Yours sincerely,

Thomas Spencer Information Rights Officer House of Commons Information Compliance Service

House of Commons, Palace of Westminster, London SW1A 0AA  parliament.uk

The House of Commons welcomes feedback. If you have any compliments, complaints or comments  
about the service that you have received please complete the online feedback form 
 
For information about how the House of Commons uses your personal data please see our privacy notices: 
www.parliament.uk/site-information/data-protection

From: alan dransfield
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2024 12:18 PM
To: Speaker’s Office <speakersoffice@parliament.uk>; Speaker’s Committee <SPEAKERSCOMMITTEE@parliament.uk>
Cc: WARMAN, Matt <matt.warman.mp@parliament.uk>; Richard Bailey <Richard.Bailey@ico.org.uk>; Richard Bailey <Richard.Bailey@ico.gsi.gov.uk>; GRC <grc@justice.gov.uk>
Subject: Fraudulent 5G Safety Certificates

4Dear Sirs

There is breaking news that 5G system have received Fraudulent  Test Certificates.

I would envisage he Westminster premises period will also have fraudulent 5G Certificate.

To this end please provide me with FOIA copies  of the Safety Certificates for all Westminster Premises.5g Systems.

These Test Certificates will come under ICNIRP

with thanks

Alan M Dransfield

UK Parliament Disclaimer: this e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. This e-mail address is not secure, is not encrypted and should not be used for sensitive data.

---

In a number of recent UK Column News programmes, excerpts have been taken from Christopher Story’s 2002 book, The European Union Collective. Here is a particularly interesting excerpt on the sovereignty of the UK’s head of state. Quite a bit of text, but the last sentence makes it worth reading.

👇

“In November 2000 – after a correspondent who had taken care to prepare his case thoroughly, had written to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair; to the then Leader of the Opposition, William Hague; to the Leader of the House of Lords, who was then Baroness Jay; and to the Lord Chief Justice and other official office-holders and dignitaries – asking: ‘Is Her Majesty the Queen Sovereign?’, he received either no answer at all, or else a non-committal, weak, diversionary reply. Mr Blair, being unable to answer the question himself, redirected the enquiry to the Home Office, which likewise prevaricated. Indeed, a hallmark of the Blair Government has been its Ministers’ arrogant reluctance to answer letters and parliamentary questions. Likewise, Mr Blair has reportedly made a point, on occasion, of ‘standing the Queen up’ by failing to turn up on time, or at all, for his weekly scheduled audiences.

The position under English law, of course, is that Her Majesty remains Sovereign until the moment of her death, when sovereignty will pass automat- ically to the next rightful heir to the British Throne. However, the Prime Minister’s problem appears to be that since, under Article 17 of the Maastricht Treaty, the Queen is a ‘citizen’ of the European Union, her Sovereignty has been usurped. Those UK Ministers and officials who permitted this scan- dalous state of affairs to develop are accordingly prima facie traitors and ought to be indicted for treason. But so far as President Herzog of Germany has been concerned, his status as a ‘citizen’ of the EU Collective appears to be entirely acceptable, because the EU is just a ‘mask’ for emerging ‘Greater Germany’.

When, following the correspondent’s letters to selected leaders, an attempt was made by Christopher Gill MP in January 2001 to put down a question asking the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty is Sovereign, the Table Office at the House of Commons replied in the following astonishing language: ‘Last night you sought to table a question to the Prime Minister concerning the effect of the UK’s membership of the European Union on the constitutional position of Her Majesty the Queen. You will recall that I explained I would need to check the admissibility of the question with other colleagues before it could be tabled. It has been pointed out to me that the question as drafted in effect seeks the Prime Minister’s view on the interpretation of the law, in this case the Treaties of the European Communities and associated European treaties and UK legislation. It is not possible to table questions to Ministers seeking interpretation of the law, as this is a matter for the appropriate courts, not Ministers’.

It would accordingly appear to be unclear whether Her Majesty the Queen is Sovereign – and, by extension, whether any legislation passed by the Westminster Parliament since Britain made the mistake of joining the European Communities in 1972, is valid. For evidently until the matter is decided by ‘the appropriate courts’, the question of whether Her Majesty is Sovereign and thus able to act as Head of State and hence give the Royal Assent to legislation passed by the Westminster Parliament, remains up in the air. This Kafkaesque situation reflects the fact that, as noted, under the Collective Treaty, all residents of the European Union are its citizens; and the Queen is a resident of the European Union. Therefore, if EU law has precedence over British law, the Queen, being an EU citizen, is not Sovereign. Welcome to a classic example of the fundamentally demented chaos that is bound to result from all revolutionary experiments in political collectivisation.”

---

Wirral Residents Association

---

JOIN US at: wirralinittogether@proton.me

https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/uk-column-news-14th-august-2024

https://youtube.com/watch?v=yWxAOIIpjxI&si=Of_n_yx0VbgU3-Vx

---

Wirral Residents Association

---

JOIN US at: wirralinittogether@proton.me