I think this may be an appropriate point in time to "clear the air".  I have raised various issues regarding the legality of requests for information received by us from your website.  I have attempted to explain my reasoning, but it would appear that all I have achieved is to upset you so that I have received some fairly blunt e-mails recently; that was not my intention.  I am a present putting together a letter to the Information Commissioner seeking guidance on these issues. I think it would have been better for all concerned if clear unequivocal guidance about issues such as "address for correspondence" had been issued; perhaps now it will be.
 
This morning I see there is a further request from Richard Jackson. Having regard to the advice that appears on your website regarding "pseudonyms", I suspect Richard Jackson is a pseudonym.  I have to say that I suspect that his latest request, and other recent requests received from you, are actually being produced by you and that you are using various pseudonyms. I have formed that view because, with the exception of the enquiries about Fishing and "Common Purpose", they all have a common theme, and they have all been submitted within a very short time-frame as our disagreement developed. Most significantly, I have looked at your website to compare total numbers of enquiries received with those received by other Councils.  Including the latest, and the one we answered in April, Rother has received 11 enquiries via your website.  This is more than the total enquiries received by all the neighbouring/nearby authorities including two County Councils and a Unitary, who normally receive far more direct inquiries than a District like Rother would expect.  Looking further afield I see that Manchester City Council has received 4 enquiries and Westminster City Council, just 3.  I have prepared a little table to demonstrate the point:in relation to our local area:
 

Council

Number of requests

Brighton & Hove Unitary

3

East Sussex County Council

1

Eastbourne Borough

1

Hastings Borough

0

Kent County Council

2

Lewes District

0

Rother  District

11

Shepway  District

0

Tunbridge Wells Borough

2

Wealden  District

0

 
There is no likelihood of this pattern occurring in the ordinary course of events and I am forced to the conclusion that this Council is the subject of a campaign of harassment that you are conducting through your website.  Will you please stop it and remove the relevant enquiries, from your website.  In a spirit of compromise, if the remainder are removed,  I will answer the questions about Fishing and Common Purpose without prejudice, pending clarification by the Information Commissioner, to my position regarding their validity.
 
You will be familiar with the advice issued by the  Information Commissioner in Awareness Guidance 22, and I think that on the basis of the information available these requests can be refused on the ground of their being vexatious, but I suggest that it would be best for all concerned if they were just withdrawn.
 
I also have to say that I am unhappy about the references to me personally and my position appearing on the Internet.  I am not, even in my interim capacity, part of the Senior Management Team.  I regard this as an invasion of my right to privacy.  It may be the campaign about which I am complaining is directed at me personally, and it does cause me distress, but it also causes unnecessary expense to the Council, and thereby Council Tax payers; please accept my apologies if any of you actually live here.
 
I know you won't believe this, but I will say anyway because it is the truth, that I have actually always supported Freedom of Information and have preferred to release information in the absence of clear reasons not to do so. If you will look at the Information Commissioner's web site you will see that there has never been a complaint against this Council, and that is a record of which I and my colleagues are proud.  I imagine that there may well be complaints on their way initiated by yourselves, but I would ask you to reconsider whether you have the right target.  In a recent e-mail we were accused of being "highly evasive in relation to freedom of information requests"; if that were really true, surely there would have been complaints to the Information Commissioner by at least some of the 400 people who have made direct requests to us.
 
I await your response.
 

Regards,
David.
David Edwards
Interim Solicitor, Rother D.C.
Town Hall, Bexhill TN39 3JX Tel: 01424-787840
www.rother.gov.uk

P please consider the environment, and do not print this email unless it is really necessary