FOI Disclosure followup to T25719/8 Sammy Jegede

Dear Sir or Madam,
THIS IS A DUPLICATE OF A FOI REQUEST SENT 6 JAN 2009 VIA YOUR
PUBLIC ENQUIRIES WEBSITE, TO WHICH I HAVE HAD NO
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.THE REQUEST HAS NOT CHANGED, BUT I WOULD LIKE THE
RESPONSE,WITHIN THE USUAL FOI GUIDELINES, TO BE PROVIDED VIA THIS
WEBSITE, WITH SUPPORTING INFORMATION PROVIDED AS PDF ATTACHMENTS."I
have just received a letter from Sammy Jegede,on behalf of Lord
Bassam of Brighton,which reiterates information which I believe to
be false and which was originally supplied to me in November 2007.I
am concerned that the Home Office may be issuing false
statements,even if given in good faith,especially if the same false
information is being passed on to ministers.Under FOI I request
further background detail to the response T25719/8,dated 22
December 2008,which states "A Gatso camera used for enforcement is
never triggered by vehicles travelling in the wrong direction a
situation which has been explained to you in earlier correspondence
between you and the Home Office in November 2007 and in which case
it was highlighted that it is possible that any device triggered in
such circumstance could be a dummy camera device.In such cases
these do not generate evidence and are not subject to Home Office
Type
Approval.We understand it only occurs with an early version of
these and is unlikely to be a frequent occurence".
I have been recently researching a fatal road accident(a pile up
killing 2 people) which occured ADJACENT to a speed camera on the
Bristol Road,Edgbaston and which may well have been caused by panic
braking.The West Midlands police refuse to provide ANY information
about the accident and the prosecution and inquest were held in
private for some reason.THIS IS TOTALLY AGAINST THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.I subsequently reviewed the camera location myself and was
alarmed to see FALSE ACTIVATIONS,as mentioned previously, occuring
both day and night.These false activations, caused by cars coming
in the OPPOSITE direction,were causing panic braking and sometimes
occured 10 times in 10 minutes.This is DANGEROUS and UNACCEPTABLE
and I recorded examples and posted them on YouTube(search
Birmingham speed).On the basis of YOUR Home Office information
which explained that "Gatso cameras used for enforcement are never
triggered by vehicles travelling in the wrong direction"
I returned at midnight,when the road was safely free of any traffic
and just passed through the site at the minimum speed which would
activate the camera.I was very surprised then to get a Notice of
Intended prosecution,as you had advised me that faulty cameras were
non-functional.I went to court,explained the faulty
activations,showed the judge photographic evidence and explained
the road was completely free of traffic,and he gave me a fine of
over £500 plus 5 points, despite there being no risk to public
safety whatsoever.I cannot see that this represents Justice at all,
because there would have been no need for it if the police were
really interested in road safety and not obsessed with hiding the
truth.They are obviously desperate to conceal accidents being
caused by cameras and the magistrates keen to maximise
convictions,but the Home Office should not be aiding and abetting
corruption.Anyway,under FOI please provide a hard copy of ALL
information
PROVIDED TO the Home Office, regarding dummy cameras and cameras
never being triggered by vehicles travelling in the opposite
direction(especially identifying the source of this
information),and please supply any correspondence where the the
fact that camera radar can be tripped from over 100 metres in the
`wrong`direction has been discussed.If it has not been discussed it
means the type approval process has been negligent.The police have
now deactivated the camera to eliminate further research.Please
provide a complete hard copy FOI reply to my home address on your
file.Yours sincerely,Dennis Fallon."

Dear Sir or Madam,
Reference: T547/9
Thank you for you reply dated 22 January 2009.
QUOTE"A response to your query will be forwarded to you in due
course when the scientific Officer concerned with advising on the
issues returns from sick leave within the next 2- 3 weeks. However
I should advise that the correspondence will not be handled under
the terms of the FoI legislation for the reason that it has already
been handled as such and you should have exercised your right to
appeal my previous response if you were dissatisfied with the
information. I can advise that the response you will receive will
be of the same requirements of a FoI response as is Home Office
policy on all correspondence".I wish to confirm that I have
extensive Scientific qualifications myself, having studied both
Pharmacy and Physics at University.I wish to point out that it is
NOT a fair comment to say that I should have exercised my right to
appeal your previous response because I was NOT dissatisfied with
it then, because AT THAT TIME I assumed the reply was true.It was
only when your reply was put to the test that the falsehood was
discovered.The first clip exposing on YouTube the faulty Bristol
Road camera(blinding flash at NIGHT)was posted as`Birmingham speed
4`on October 28 2008 and the police deactivated the camera within
`14 days subsequent.The SAME camera filmed flashing in DAYLIGHT, as
`Camera Trap 3`was posted in Dec 08 but obviously recorded PRIOR to
the deactivation.I have further clips on file recording faulty
camera activations which DO NOT occur randomly but only when fast
approaching vehicles enter the radar beam from EITHER direction,and
I am obviously annoyed that the Home Office is issuing false
information with serious consequences.If you wish to dispute my
research that the cameras can be subject to false activations I
shall gladly post further clips, but I really would like to see the
written EVIDENCE, under FOI,that has been passed to the Home Office
as the basis for their previous statement on this matter.This
evidence exists EVEN IN THE ABSENCE of the person who generated it,
and it is no longer their property since they have passed it on,so
I would appreciate it being provided within the timescale of the
initial FOI request,or an immediate reply regarding the grounds
under which it is being with held(because I have made serious
accusations in my previous posting).It is not reasonable to delay
release simply because a person is absent.I do NOT think your
caveat is an acceptable provision to avoid your responsibilities.

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

Dear Sir or Madam,
Thank you for your reply dated 22nd January but,as you have already
been advised,I have REJECTED your unilateral opinion that any
further reply should be outside of the FoI Act, and therefore I
consider that you are now breaking the law by failing to provide a
reply as requested.If you are unilaterally convinced that FoI
should not apply I require clear statements that I can forward to
the Information Commissioner for independant review.
POINT ONE.The Home Office have provided information to ministers
AND myself which I believe to be unreliable.I have requested to see
hard copy of the information originally provided TO the Home Office
as the basis of their reply, plus associated discussions regarding
potential faults with Gatso cameras.PLEASE IDENTIFY ALL the
information that you have collated so far in response to my query
and which you seek to with hold.PLEASE CONFIRM the grounds on which
you seek to with hold the information.
POINT TWO.You will note that this PARTICULAR information has NEVER
been requested on a previous occasion because it is almost
incomprehensible to believe that the Home Office would be deceived
into supplying false information,and therefore it never crossed my
mind to investigate.It is a NEW request for information that has
NOT previously been requested, so PLEASE ADVISE of the grounds on
which you wish to remove it from the scope of FoI.
POINT THREE.The original information has been GIVEN to you by the
Scientific Officer, and therefore you hold it despite the Officer
in question now being absent.In the light of this opinion,PLEASE
CONFIRM the grounds on which you seek to delay the release of
information which you hold.
I do require a clear reply to each of these points WITHIN SEVEN
DAYS so that I may take your obstinacy forward to the appeal
mechanism with full knowledge of your grounds for refusal to
comply.

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

Dear Sir or Madam,I have previously advised you that the expected
reply to my FOI is OVERDUE and that I DO NOT accept your attempts
to manoeuvre it to outside of the regulations.It seems to be abuse
of process when you delay the release of information held on the
excuse that the originator of the information will be absent for
`two or three weeks`,but none the less I will hold you to your word
and expect the appropriate complete information within TWO weeks(as
several weeks have already elapsed),and if the `sickness`is
prolonged I would appreciate a weekly update of anticipated
completion date.I retain the right to persue further investigations
in the meanwhile.I would appreciate further clarification on the
nature of the `scientific officer`who rigorously tests the cameras
for the purpose of Type Approval.The person is obviously not
freelance,but are they in the employ of the Home Office or the
ACPO,and what are their qualifications for their function?I would
appreciate a reply to this general query by return, and a reply to
the original FOI in due course.

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

Thank you for confirming the scientific officer is in Home Office
employ, as ACPO have been discredited in recent newspaper reports.I
am FURIOUS with being framed by West Midlands Police using their
corrupt partnership association with the CPS and Magistrates to
guarantee outcomes and ignore evidence.As a pharmacist I work VERY
hard dealing with the lower echelons of society and as I WEARILY
struggle home after a long day I object to the police making me a
victim of their target culture.I went to court to expect justice
NOT for the system to treat me with contempt,often providing false
or zero response to my queries.It is very important to ensure
justice is seen to be done and I look forward to seeing a credible
reply in the near future.I hope this explains why I seem to be
impatient.
Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

Dear CTS Public enquiry account 1,I am NOT surprised that you are
having great difficulty obtaining any information from the third
parties you have contacted.I suspect that the fault with these
cameras has been concealed by the maunufacturers for commercial
reasons,and that your Scientific Officer has been either
negligent,or dishonest for some reason,in issuing inappropriate
Type Approval.There may be serious corruption occuring and the
people you are dealing with have their livlihoods at stake.ACPO
have been exposed as an organisation heavily involved in commercial
activities, profiting from speed awareness courses and camera
equipment supply, but they really should be operating in an open
and honest way and in the public interest.I am quite prepared to
wait for a least a further two months because I appreciate the
difficulties you may be having and expect a quality
investigation.HOWEVER, I would appreciate a notification of who are
the `third parties`you have contacted,the DATES they were first
contacted on this issue,the DATES of any intermediate replies and a
summary of their responses so far.

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

Dear Sir or Madam,this FOI request is posted through a public
website to ensure honesty and transparency,but so far I have had NO
substantive information despite waiting nearly FOUR months ago.I
appreciate that the Home Office may have been duped into issuing
Type Approval for systems with inherent faults and there may have
been corruption between various personnel involved, but at this
point I am simply requesting(see update 8 April 2009)notification
as to WHO has been contacted and update on any PROGRESS or
ACTIONS.You must agree I have been very patient,but it is not
acceptable that there has been NO progress displayed.I really do
require an update to prove that my request is being taken
seriously.If you wish to dispute any of my observations that the
cameras are not directional sensitive please ask me for more proof
which I have available.UPDATE MAY 3rd 2009.The camera on the
Bristol Road,the scene of the fatal accident,is still flashing at
oncoming traffic, so it has not been disabled, but the police are
no longer collecting revenue from it so they are aware of a
problem.It is a very serious issue that such hazards are allowed to
exist.Please reply with an update to avoid any allegation of
obstruction.

Yours sincerely,
Dennis Fallon

Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to request an INTERNAL REVIEW of my FOI request, dated
10 January 2009, which has been subject to unacceptable
delay,despite the legal requirement for complete response within 20
days.No useful material has been provided,other than confirming the
defective Type Approval process was supervised by a scientific
officer employed by the Home Office.I have assertained that the
Home Office has been deluded into issuing false information,and I
appreciate that this serious observation will require
investigation.However,although I have been generous in allowing
additional time I find it is now being abused,and I have had NO
RESPONSE to my two requests,dated 8 April and 8 May,regarding a
progess report.This is total and unacceptable obstruction of my FOI
request,and therefore I now provide the opportunity for the Home
Office to complete an internal review,which will result in either
complete hard copy disclosure of appropriately redacted
communications to comply with my request,or a statement advising of
reasons for failure to disclose,which can then be referrred,as a
closing statement,to the Information Commissioner for independant
review.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/fo...

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I would appreciate,by return,a reply acknowledging my request for
an internal review and advice on the normal `should take time` for
such reviews to be completed.As a hard working,tax paying,non
second-home claiming Citizen of this once noble Country I consider
a wall of silence to be TOTALLY unacceptable,and by default to be
grounds for going directly to the Information Commissioner.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/fo...

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

Dear Sir or Madam,I would appreciate a progress report on my
queries,as I expect you operate to predesignated service standards
which include the necessity to reply.

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

Dear Mr Jegede,
Thank you for your long awaited reply.I DO NOTE that you have
"nothing further to add on this subject",even though I believe the
reply reiterates comments which are false and it concerns me that
both the Home Office and Lord Bassam of Brighton seem to be
involved in a process of willful ignorance or deception.You suggest
that I "may also have the right to request an explanation from the
chief officer of police of the force area",but Sir Paul Scott-Lee
has taken early retirement last month(and escapes prosecution for
his various sins) and his replacement,Chris Sims,will be oblivious
to the antics of his predecessor.TO QUOTE YOUR LATEST REPLY
"However, I can explain that if you were flashed by a live and / or
type approved Gatso Speedmeter device relating to a camera being
tripped from over 100m in the "wrong" direction and, designated to
monitor receding traffic, then, as I have stated in previous
correspondence to you, the particular device was either
malfunctioning at the time (activated outside of its type approval)
or it would have been a dummy device and in which case you should
not have been prosecuted".THE HOME OFFICE SHOULD NOT REMAIN
IGNORANT OF REALITIES OR BE INVOLVED IN DECEPTIONS.POINT 1.The
camera is definitely NOT malfunctioning, simply tripped from the
`wrong`direction when vehicles approach and the PROOF is posted on
You Tube.If you have the slightest doubt or interest I have many
more clips,INCLUDING other sites. POINT 2.The `faulty or
dummy`camera WAS being used to generate prosecutions as I have
PROOF in the form of a four point CONVICTION,heavy fine and receipt
of payment.It seems that ACPO have either falsified the reliability
standards for type approval,or acknowledged the false flashing of
SUPPOSEDLY`dummy cameras`,in the face of oncoming motorists, is
acceptable.NEITHER OPTION SEEMS ACCEPTABLE TO ME.YOU COMMENT "I
have the option to appeal your case to a higher court with the
relevant evidence that can support your claim".I COMMENT,from
experience, that the court system is corrupt and biased(the CPS
failed to call my witness at BOTH hearings,without my consent,yet
the `District Judge`still concluded the `case`adversely),and the
time and costs of an appeal are prohibitive.I can bear the
pain,points and heavy fines for TWO unjust speeding convictions but
I cannot accept Police and Magistrates(and ACPO in
particular)CONTINUING to arrogantly operate outside of the rules of
common justice in order to punish and destroy ordinary people using
unreliable and potentially dangerous systems.Even the accident
figures are distorted to provide justification.I DO NOTE THAT "you
have covered all the points of my letters and have nothing further
to add on this subject" but because you have provided no reference
to any outside sources I conclude that the Home Office accepts sole
accountability, and I shall pursue the internal appeal within the
appropriate timescale.I am disappointed that,given the opportunity
to be honourable, you fail to respond to provable observations.

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon