Wirral In It Together

———- Forwarded message ———
From: alan dransfield <alanmdransfield@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 at 15:30
Subject: Re: World Bank Fraud
To: E Colville <elaine.colville@blueyonder.co.uk>

Elaine

Have had a wee bit more time to digest this and it would appear you are well on top of the DfID /ICO issues. All you can do on that is to await  the ICO but I think you have a fair grievance that the DFID did not give charter and verse as required  for their exemption on section 14(1)vexatious..

You might want to have a look thru’ Hansard Answer under John Bercow’s questions on the Chad/Cameroon Pipeline ditto for Caroline Spellman ad you will find nearly 100 question between these two people during their tenure of shadow secretary as to the cock up on the CCP and the pack of lies to HMGovernment via Clair Short and Hilary Benn.

The fact they asked these questions is a sign they held concerns for the CCP and the  LIES from  Short and Benn are well known.

Kind regards

Alan

On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 12:00 PM, E Colville <elaine.colville@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Hello Alan, 

Thanks for getting in touch.  

I recognised your name from WDTK and Tim Turner’s blog so am aware of your issues involving UT, FTT, ICO and PAs. I wasn’t aware however you also had long-standing issues with the WBG. 

Like you, for daring to speak truth to power I’ve also wrongly been labelled a ‘vexatious requester’ – by DFID, the IC and the FTT.  Some background is set out here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cabinet_decision#outgoing-345722 and in these two requests to DFID which this time round I’ve aired publicly through WDTK: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a_management_framework_for_world#comment-48965 and https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/investigation_of_audited_account#comment-49205.  

DFID aren’t responding to the first referenced request.  I presume they’re invoking the right to silence having been caught telling a pack of lies…..as I knew and argued all along.  Whilst I have every reason to have zero confidence in the [corrupt-by-design] ICO, the matter has duly been referred to them consistent with the “law”.  ICO’s on-going collusion with DFID is evident in the forwarded exchange below.   No doubt you’ll recognise a certain signature modus operandi !   

I worked as staff of the International Finance Corporation of the WBG as a technical (textile industry) specialist.   The technical specialist cadre to which I belonged was eliminated from IFC’s organisational structure in 2002 and technical specialists were declared “redundant”.   Of interest to you will be the fact the department involved was what had been the  Technical & Environment Department  – IFC’s main operational support department to the regional investment departments providing project due diligence services.  

When I joined IFC in 1995 there were only a dozen or so environment and social development specialists.  But then, starting in 2000 E&S and “sustaianbility” became the latest fad from which banks could make money. IFC was in the driving seat.  E&S specialists increased to over 50 within a 2 year period.  It was a complete scam.  Most of them cribbed from dule diligence reports prepared by technical specialists (mostly engineers).  E&S specialists’ work on the other hand was mostly pro-forma box-ticking !  But they were considered the blue-eyed wonders who in 2003 launched the Equator Principles !  

In March 2001, our department was split in two, creating a stand-alone Envrionment and Social Development Department and a Technical Services Department.  ESSD was put under an externally appointed new director – Gavin Murray.  TSD remained with Andreas Raczynski.  You may recognise both names.  

I recall that the Chad-Cameroon project frequently came up at departmental meetings in 2001/02. It was causing IFC lots of grief and bad publicity. Raczynski and Murray were in the thick of it.  Raczynski retired in March 2002.   The next thing to happen was technical specialists were told we were being fired – but only after IFC Management pretended they had re-amalgamated the two departments and put all specialists under Murray in a (fictitiouis) new department – Environment, Social Development and Technical Services Department.  Under WBG staff rules, redundancies are allowed where there is “abolition of organisational unit”.  They abolished the phony department and we got axed.  They then falsely made out in IFC’s 2002 audited financial statements and AR there were 84 E&S specialists working in IFC’s E&S department (not the phony ESDTS) and further falsified records to make out I and others had been “transferred” to the E&S Dept on 1 July 2002 (start of WBG FY03) when in actual fact we had been declared redundant effective on that date.  IFC then proceeded to mobilise millions of dollars in UK and other donor trust fund contributions to fund technical assistance projects where inputs would ordinarily have been provided by me and other technical specialists under the regular administrative budget.  The unlawful substitition was a breach of IFC’s trust fund operational policies which constitute the internal (international)  “law” of IFC.  When eventually I’d gathered enough evidence and knowledge to expose wrongdoing, the WBG’s internal justice system did a grand job covering it all up.  So I took the matter to the International Development Secretary (Douglas Alexander then his successor, Andrew Mitchell) who’s UK Governor of the WBG.  They informed me the UK Govt. could not “become involved in sepcific cases of this nature”.  Three weeks after issuing the Ministerial decision they appointed Minocuhe Shafik DFID’s new Permanent Secretary.  She was a WBG VP on a four year secondment to DFID (Oct 2004-08) as one of five Director-Generals and member of the DFID Executivce Board. She was paid by the WBG.  Shafik, as WBG VP Private Sector Development and Infrastructure was also a member of IFC’s Mangement Group…i.e. she shared responsibility for all the machincations relating to the phony IFC reorganisation in 2002 and declaring me and other specialists redundant.  She was also the principle VP responsible for mobilising UK and other donor trust funds.  These are some of the bare bones.  

Shafik was PS of DFID when I made the first of my FOI requests in December 2009.  By February 2010 they lumped together a further three entirely separate requests after unilaterally converting one DPA request to a FOI request and refused all information by invoking a s.14 (vexatious) exemption.  The ICO naturally found for DFID in each and every case I presented.  Their appointed solicitor was Richard Bailey  – whom I see you’ve dealt with also !  I didn’t have a leg to stand on.  

And at the FTT Annabel Pilling was appointed judge in all four appeals I raised (3 x DFID; 1 x FCO).  She denied all directions I requested for discovery and calling of witnesses –  including Shafik.   Again, I didn’t have a leg to stand on.  Meanwhile, the Govt. suddently announced in February 2011 that Shafik was leaving DFID in March 2011 to take up a Deputy Managing Director position at the IMF (where once again she was protected by legal immunities enjoyed by int. organisations).  The week after my last FTT appeal was disposed of (October 2011), the Justice Mininstry announced Judge Pilling’s promotion.  That was in large part in the gift of Sir Suma Chakrabarti, PS of the MoJ, who had been PS of DFID when I first raised my allegations with the SoS in October 2007. He was reassigned with immediate effect to MoJ in November 2007, thus paving the way for Shafik to take over in February 2008 – three weeks after the Government declared they could not become involved in specific cases such as mine. And guess what, the Government announced last month that Minouche Shafik has been appointed a new Deputy Managing Director of the Bank of England, effective as of 1 August 2014.   What more can I say about the cabal of interlocking vested interests !   

I know for a fact the ICO is corrupted.  As is the Parlaimentary Ombudsman – another story.  It’s just knowing what to do about it?   

The MET/CPS doesn’t seem to give a damn about misconduct in public office when the victims are “plebs” like you and I.  One has to be an Andrew Mitchell to get charges to stick.  Believe me, I have lots of evidence about his propensity for lying.  He was SoS when I went through the ICO/FTT processes.  He ultimately, along with Shafik, is responsible for the catalogue of lies and false evidence which was used to prevail before the Tribunal….but denies any wrong-doing on his part. 

Glad to make your acquaintance and share information.  

Elaine    

Begin forwarded message:From: E Colville <elaine.colville@blueyonder.co.uk>Date: 28 April 2014 12:08:20 BDTTo: thetreasurysolicitor@tsol.gsi.gov.ukSubject: Fwd: Undeliverable: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a_management_framework_for_world#comment-48965.Reply-To: E Colville <elaine.colville@blueyonder.co.uk>

For the Attention of relevant persons in TSol. 

____________________

From: E Colville <elaine.colville@blueyonder.co.uk>Date: 28 April 2014 11:58:05 BDTTo: <eilidh-simpson@dfid.gov.uk>Cc: <foi@dfid.gov.uk>, <dfidcorrespondence@dfid.gov.uk>, <casework@ico.org.uk>, <Richard.Bailey@ico.gsi.gov.uk>, Townsend Newling’ <Townsend.Newling@TSOL.GSI.GOV.UK>Subject: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a_management_framework_for_world#comment-48965.Reply-To: E Colville <elaine.colville@blueyonder.co.uk>

Dear Ms Simpson, 

After consideration of the information set out in the attached correspondence exchange with the ICO yesterday you are asked to explain why DFID has (I) breached the FOI Act in respect of the request  in question which was made on 26th February 2014 under the heading,” A Management Framework for World Bank Administered Trust Funds, Sept 2007″; and,  (ii) played along with the ICO to pretend that the complaint to ICO was in relation to another request when very clearly it was not. 

Further explain why you signed a statement of truth in Appeal EA/2010/0189 when the facts and the evidence now show glaring discrepancies sufficient to disprove your witness statement adopted in evidence. 

Yours sincerely,  

Elaine Colville

__________________

Begin forwarded message:From: E Colville <elaine.colville@blueyonder.co.uk>Date: 27 April 2014 18:56:52 BDTTo: casework@ico.org.ukSubject: Fwd: ICO response re: Department for International Development [Ref. FS50536357]Reply-To: E Colville <elaine.colville@blueyonder.co.uk>

Dear Mr Mullarkey,

I refer to your e-mailed message of 9 April 2014 (forwarded below).

There has been avoidable misunderstanding.  The complaint I referred to ICO by email dated 28 March 2014 (forwarded for ready reference) was not in relation to DFID’s responses to the FOI request quoted in your e-mail. I have submitted no complaint to ICO  in respect of that case entitled “Investigation of audited accounts of IFC”.

The complaint which I did submit to ICO was clearly referenced with a link to my request made via the Whatdotheyknow website on the 26th February 2014 under the heading ” A Management Framework for World Bank Administered Trust Funds, Sept 2007″.  The link I provided then and again now provides a full history of the case request including follow-up correspondence to DFID. See:  https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a_management_framework_for_world#comment-48965.  For the avoidance of any doubt I am also attaching the full history of the request (to date) as a pdf. document.

It will be noted from the case history that in the first of two annotations I added  on 10th March 2014, I quoted from the Witness Statement dated 18 April 2011 of Eilidh Simpson, Head of Openness Unit in DFID’s Business Solutions Division for the purpose of the Information Tribunal in Appeal EA/2010/0189.  Pertinent statements she made which I did not quote are the following:

” 4. I have been aware of the progress of the Appellant’s request since it was first received.  I have access to the list of live FOI cases which is up-dated on a daily basis.  I monitor the list to ensure that FOI requests are handled appropriately and receive responses within the relevant timescales.  In this case, I also carried out the internal review and corresponded with the Information Commissioner’s Office about the Appellant’s subsequent complaint”.

“5. I make this statement to explain (i) the flling system DFID has in place for storing documents and the way in which FOI requests are processed and (ii) the searches which have been carried out by DFID in this particular case to locate the information requested by the Appellant. “

“6.  The Electronic Document Records Management System (EDRMS) is DFID’s current system of storing case documents and records with a corporate value.  The EDRMS was introduced during 2005 and now contains around 2 million documents.  Documents are stored within electronic folders in the EDRMS. Documents may be viewed by opening the relevant departmental folder or by searching the system using a suitable word or phrase.”

“16 Having carried out the inquiries and searches outlined above, I found no information that was relevant to any the Appellant’s requests…..I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true”

Presumably Ms Simpson is currently aware of the delayed reponse to this case complaint which creates difficulties for DFID, in particular Ms Simpson.

The discovery by me in October 2012 of new information: “A Management Framework for World Bank Administered Trust Funds Sept 2007” drives a cart and horse through Ms Simpson’s Witness Statement which was relied upon by the First Tier Tribunal in 2011.

As the Informastion Commissioner and his legal advisers will know, CPR 32.14 http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part32 provides:

“False statements

32.14

(1) Proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against a person if he makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

(Part 22 makes provision for a statement of truth)

(Section 6 of Part 81 contains provisions in relation to committal for making a false statement of truth.)”

Notwithstanding the difficult position DFID finds itself in, it is no excuse for delaying their response to my FOI request.

Please confirm receipt of this message and advise what course of action the ICO intends to take.

Yours sincerely,

Elaine Colville

__________________

From: E Colville <elaine.colville@blueyonder.co.uk>

Date: 28 March 2014 16:09:35 GMT

To: casework@ico.org.uk

Subject: S.10 and S. 17 complaint against DFID

Reply-To: E Colville <elaine.colville@blueyonder.co.uk>

Dear Information Commissioner,

1. In breach of Section 10 (1) FOIA DFID have failed to provide a response to my FOI request which was made on 26 February 2014 within the 20 day limit.

2. Full details of my request are available here:  https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a_management_framework_for_world#comment-48292

3. Under Section 17 (1) DFID have failed to issue a refusal notice within the time for compliance with Section 1 (1) of the Act.

4. Under Section 10 (3) (qualified exemption) DFID have not indicated any intention to extend the 20 working day limit for any specificed reason(s) subject to a public interest test.

5. I have not been notified that DFID have, within 20 days following the date of receipt of my request, applied to the Information Commissioner for an extension of time in which to comply; nor that the Information Commissioner has agreed to any such extension.

6. Accordingly, the Information Commissioner is asked to deal with this complaint about DFID’s non-compliance.

Yours sincerely,

Elaine Colville

___________________

Begin forwarded message:

From: <casework@ico.org.uk>

Date: 9 April 2014 13:07:38 BDT

To: <elaine.colville@blueyonder.co.uk>

Subject: ICO response re: Department for International Development [Ref. FS50536357]

9 April 2014

Case Reference Number FS50536357

Dear Ms Colville

Your information request to Department for International Development

Thank you for your correspondence of 28 March 2014 in which you complain about the above public authority’s failure to respond to your information request.

I note from your complaint that you advise that the public authority have not responded to your request. However, after liaising with the Department for International Development they have confirmed that a response was issued on 4 March 2014, and that they also provided an internal review outcome on 7 April 2014. Please find copies attached for your reference.

As such, can you confirm if you are satisfied with the response you have been provided or whether you are unhappy and wish to raise a further complaint with the Information Commissioner about the Department for International Development’s internal review.

Once we receive clarification of this your case can be progressed for further consideration.

Thank you for bringing these concerns to the attention of the Information Commissioner. If you require any further assistance then please contact me on the number below.

Yours sincerely,

Noel Mullarkey

Case Officer

Information Commissioner’s Office

Tel – 01625545595

____________________________________________________________________

The ICO’s mission is to uphold information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals.

If you are not the intended recipient of this email (and any attachment), please inform the sender by return email and destroy all copies. Unauthorised access, use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted.

Communication by internet email is not secure as messages can be intercepted and read by someone else. Therefore we strongly advise you not to email any information, which if disclosed to unrelated third parties would be likely to cause you distress. If you have an enquiry of this nature please provide a postal address to allow us to communicate with you in a more secure way. If you want us to respond by email you must realise that there can be no guarantee of privacy.

Any email including its content may be monitored and used by the Information Commissioner’s Office for reasons of security and for monitoring internal compliance with the office policy on staff use. Email monitoring or blocking software may also be used. Please be aware that you have a responsibility to ensure that any email you write or forward is within the bounds of the law.

The Information Commissioner’s Office cannot guarantee that this message or any attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended. You should perform your own virus checks.

__________________________________________________________________

Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF

Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.org.uk

Begin forwarded message:From: alan dransfield <alanmdransfield@gmail.com>Date: 6 May 2014 07:11:25 BDTTo: elaine.colville@blueyonder.co.ukCc: Karen Hudes <h.k3511@gmail.com>Subject: Fwd: World Bank Fraud

Hi Elaine

I am a recent convert to Karen A Hudes campaign ref the  fraud at the World Bank. I too am a WB whistleblower for the past 11/12 years since I worked on the Chad/Cameroon Pipeline.I also raised serious fraud issues at the WB ref the Philippines PLDT Projects where I also had first hand knowledge of wrongdoing.

It would appear that the WB are in meltdown owing to such fraud and as such, it is a direct threat to National and World Security.

Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you think I can assist your anti fraud campaign in any way shape of form.

With thanks

Alan M Dransfield

Exeter 

Devon

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Alan Dransfield <alanmdransfield@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, May 6, 2014 at 6:56 AM
Subject: World Bank Fraud
To: Ben BRADSHAW <ben.bradshaw.mp@parliament.uk>
Cc: Karen Hudes <h.k3511@gmail.com>

Dear Mr Bradshaw

As you can see from this exchange of correspondence the fraud at the World Bank threatens  National Security. I call upon my MP to take this matter up with the Treasury and the SFO.

The UK are the biggest contributor to the WB funding scheme and  it would appear the WB are in meltdown.

You will recall I am on record with you and the  SFO about such fraud since 2002.

I urge you to offer support to Karen A Hudes ,whom is at the forefront of this anti fraud campaign.

With thanks

Alan M Dransfield
http://kahudes.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/empress1.pdf

Alan M Dransfield

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

Amazon link

http://paulcardin.substack.com

Cameroon Pipeline safety and cost clearly recorded Hansard answer

House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 3 Jun 2003 (pt 68)

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030603/text/30603w68.htm

This is the response from Tim Turner to my allegation of FOI wrongdoing. TT is a first class AH, but I feel a bit guilty for not publishing his letter 7 years ago…

———- Forwarded message ———From: Matt Warman MP <matt.warman.mp@parliament.uk>Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 at 14:59Subject: Re: Could you convince the PO inquiry to allow me to give evidence please (Case Ref: MW21775)To: <alanmdransfield>

Dear Alan,

Thank you for your email.

I have no direct involvement in the handling of the Post Office inquiry so cannot overrule the Chair’s decision not to grant you core participant status,

Kind regards,

Matt Warman MP

Member of Parliament for Boston and Skegness: http://www.mattwarman.co.uk: http://www.facebook.com/WarmanforBostonSkegness: http://www.twitter.com/mattwarman

THE FOX

APR 13

https://open.substack.com/pub/foxyfox/p/stargate-project-stargates-and-portals?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=b9xiw

Derrick talks with the creators of Tree.Market, an Unstoppable Free-Market Ecosystem. The post Can Tree.Market Save Us From Debanking And Censorship? #SolutionsWatch appeared first on The Conscious Resistance Network.

Can Tree.Market Save Us From Debanking And Censorship? #SolutionsWatch