Act/s of terrorism ... cost/s ... third funding ...

Dear West Yorkshire Police,

I am seeking all information that is available under the freedom of
information act regards following;

1. Please detail all/any act/s of terrorism that has been carried
out in your force area by a terrorist organisation and or person/s
acting on behalf of such an organisation/s over the period of the
last 15 years.

2. Please supply total cost/s to taxpayer of each/every case
relating to 1 above.

3. Are all costs relating to 1 and 2 above met by West Yorkshire
Police in full. if not, please give full details and also supply
all information concerning type of funding which maybe available
from other third parties, including Home Office, other Government
departments ...

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Dear West Yorkshire Police,

Can you please explain why there is a delay in dealing with this
request?

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Dear West Yorkshire Police,

I would be grateful for a reply regards this matter.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Dear West Yorkshire Police,

In your 6th October 2011 reply, REASONS FOR DECISION, you wrote
"The reason that we are unable to provide you with this information
is covered by the following exemption: Section 14(1) - Vexatious or
Repeated requests In making my decision I have noted that you, and
others, have made numerous requests to a number of public
authorities for information as part of a sustained campaign for
information."

The above may well explain why you have taken such a decision. I am
very concerned at the delay, if this request was as you claim
'Vexatious' why then has it taken you so long to tell me this? It
is also very concerning that you have, while reading other
requests, simply copied and pasted another third parties reply,
almost word for word. Moreover, I would not be the first person to
ask different forces for the same information. You must accept that
different forces will have different information. I do not see how
you can can claim that this request is or could be 'Vexatious'.
This is the first and only request I have made to you. You will
also be aware that you have already breached the FOIA in a number
of whys when dealing with this request.

This is a request for an Internal Review.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Dear West Yorkshire Police,

It is very clear that your FOI unit did indeed copy and paste other
third party replies. Moreover, your latest reply confirms that this
is indeed the case i.e. you refer to: “However, the point behind
the use of the Section 14 (1) – Vexatious / Repeated Request is
that your request has been one of many that you and your colleagues
have sent to various Forces over a long period of time around the
same subject matter.”

I would also refer you to the following :
http://www.scribd.com/doc/71155997/Decis...

Also, no-one is trying to “re-open long running disputes ...” with
anyone. The fact is there is no ‘long running disputes.’

You say in your reply that: “Also, due to the nature of your
request it was important for them to take advice from the ACPO FOI
Central Referral Unit, and as such they were awaiting their
response before preparing their comments. In further discussions
with the Team,”

Under the FOIA and also all other rights of access I am requesting
all information between your force and ACPO concerning this
request. Please ensure you include all telephone notes/records,
emails, letters etc.

If you are going to claim that the above request is also
‘Vexatious’ I can confirm that I would like you to deal with same
as a new request. However, there is no reason why it cannot be
dealt with within this request.

I not your comments regarding your delay, however, the FOIA is very
clear on same. You have breached the act in a number of ways when
dealing with this request.

I look forward to your reply

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

CPLEASE DEAL WITH FOLLOWING AS BOTH A OMPLAIN AND ALSO A REQUEST
FOR A DETAILED EXPLANATION.

Dear West Yorkshire Police,

RE: COMPLAINT

On the 2nd of August 2011, some 3 months ago, I made the following
request:

I am seeking all information that is available under the freedom of
information act regards following;

1. Please detail all/any act/s of terrorism that has been carried
out in your force area by a terrorist
acting on behalf of such an organisation/s over the period of the
last 15 years.

2. Please supply total cost/s to taxpayer of each/every case
relating to 1 above.

3. Are all costs relating to 1 and 2 above met by West Yorkshire
Police in full. if not, please give full details and also supply
all information concerning type of funding which maybe available
from other third parties, including Home Office, other Government
departments ...

You informed me 3 months later that;

“I note that you seek information pertaining to your Freedom of
Information request, and I am writing to inform you that the
appropriate route through which to request this information would
be to make a subject access request under Section 7 of the Data
Protection Act 1998.”

Only yesterday (03/11/2011) you sent me the result/finding of your
‘Internal Review’ as follows;
“You requested an Internal Review under the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 (FOI) on the 7th October 2011 as you had concerns about
the delay in responding to your request along with a number of
other issues that you outlined within your request for review.
From our records I note that your initial request was sent by
e-mail on 2nd August 2011, with the response not being provided to
you until 6th October 2011, making the request late by 26 working
days. I do note that various e-mails were sent to you on the 25th
and 30th August apologising for the delay in responding to your
request, the e-mails stating that this had been due to the large
number of requests the FOI Team were dealing with during that
period. Also, due to the nature of your request it was important
for them to take advice from the ACPO FOI Central Referral Unit,
and as such they were awaiting their response before preparing
their comments. In further discussions with the Team, I’ve also
learnt that there were at times only two members of staff available
to deal with this volume of work due to annual leave and staff
vacancies which further accounted for the delay in responding.
However, this situation has now been resolved and requests are
being dealt with in the prescribed timescales. However, even with
the low staffing levels during that period and the need to await
information from other sources, the Team should have responded to
you more quickly and for that please accept our apologies. With
regard to the issue of the response you were provided with being
copied and pasted from responses which you’ve received from other
Forces, having spoken to the member of the FOI Team who completed
your response, she categorically denies that this was the case and
that your response was dealt with on its individual merits. What
may have led you to think that the work had been copied and pasted
from another response may be due to the fact that all Forces take
cognisance of the advice they are given in the ACPO FOI Manual of
Guidance which offers help on the form of words staff should
consider using when preparing a response. The use of Section 14 of
the legislation has been rarely used by the Force and as such
there’s clear merit in using the available advice in such
instances. With regard to your claim that you were not the first
person to ask different Forces for the same information, I can only
say that you’re correct in this assumption. You’re also right in
assuming that each Force may well have different information to
release in relation to this type of request. However, the point
behind the use of the Section 14 (1) – Vexatious / Repeated Request
is that your request has been one of many that you and your
colleagues have sent to various Forces over a long period of time
around the same subject matter. As mentioned in the response letter
you were sent, the Information Commissioner has stated that, ‘using
FOI to re-open long running disputes is clearly inappropriate and
that the examination of the previous history of the applicant and
their requests to public authorities is relevant in making an
individual vexatious.’ As a Force we try to satisfy all the
requests we receive, but not in every case are we successful due to
the nature of some that we receive. In this instance, the FOI Team
clearly felt that you had used the Act incorrectly and I feel that
they made the correct decision not to disclose the information your
were requesting in this instance.
If you are not satisfied with this response and wish to take this
appeal further you will need to contact the Information
Commissioner’s Office, quoting this Appeal Reference, the reason
for your appeal and the fact that you’ve already been through the
first stage of the Appeals process. The address of the Information
Commissioner’s Office is as follows:”

Link here:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/81...
ENDS

Please supply me with a detailed explanation as to what is going on
as I am both confused and also concerned. Please also deal with
this as a complaint.

I suspect this is down to the FOI Notice I included within my reply
to you of yesterday;
http://www.scribd.com/doc/71155997/Decis...

In my reply to you I stated that you had simply copied and pasted a
‘vexatious’ notice from a another third party reply. In your reply
yesterday you stated that you had not done so, however, how do you
explain above .i.e. it is ‘vexatious’ .... it is not ‘vexatious’?

What has my above 2nd August 2011 request got to do with my
personal information?

Under the FOIA, help and assistance, I am requesting a detailed
explanation as to what is going on with this request. I am also
seeking full details and also a full explanation as to why you
stated this request was ‘vexatious’ and why you carried out an
internal review which upheld the ‘vexatious’ decision. Moreover,
Please supply an explantation as to why you are today claiming that
this request is DPA and or personal information request?

I await your detailed explanation to above.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland