Make and explore Freedom of Information requestsFollow this request
There are 2 people following this request
Act on what you've learnt
Similar requests
WW1 signature on IWM Masterpiece;Concealed for 40 years; Why ?
To Department for Culture, Media and Sport by Robert G.Wright. 18 February 2009
Response by DCMS to being delegated responsibilty for our case.
To Department for Culture, Media and Sport by Robert G.Wright. 6 August 2008
Imperial War Museum:Goetz iron Lusitania medallion 1st issue; fact,fiction or conspiracy.
To Department for Culture, Media and Sport by Robert G.Wright. 24 November 2008
Goetz Lusitania Medallion: Imperial War Museum :"REPLY" document evidence.
To Department for Culture, Media and Sport by Robert G.Wright. 13 May 2009
IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM:ARBITRATION:THE RIGHTS OF PUBLIC ACCESS TO TRUSTEES
To Department for Culture, Media and Sport by Robert G.Wright. 22 September 2009
IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM :2003-2009:A conspiracy;the facts.
To Department for Culture, Media and Sport by Robert G.Wright. 12 January 2009
IWM:Goetz Lusitania Medallion:Confirmation letter to the Prime Minister 11 Aug 2008
To Department for Culture, Media and Sport by Robert G.Wright. 2 November 2009
ACCOUNTABILITY: The transfer of documents from the Prime Minister's office to the DCMS.
To Department for Culture, Media and Sport by Robert G.Wright. 20 August 2008
The Prime Minister's Office; the DCMS: Safeguarding the integrity of the Museum Services.
To Department for Culture, Media and Sport by Robert G.Wright. 8 December 2009
IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM : F o I Act : Non compliance,the facts.
Robert G.Wright. made this Freedom of Information request to Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Department for Culture, Media and Sport should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.
From: Robert G.Wright.
6 April 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,
In January 2008,a document was compiled that contained a
comprehensive record of requests and disclosures between
individuals from my family and a Public Authority: The Imperial War
Museum ,London (IWM).This document supplied evidence as letters,
photographs, data bases and registry entries. Clear evidence that
between March 2005 and August 2007,the IWM contravened the Act by
supplying incorrect disclosures. The REPLY document of January 2008
by R. G. Wright and M. G. Wright (Sons of the late Milton Wright)
puts on the record the extent of IWM complicity. Copies of the
REPLY document (Jan 2008) were forwarded to the IWM and the DCMS.
The IWM and the DCMS have failed to respond to the conclusions
given in the REPLY document (Jan 2008). Requests for disclosure
from the DCMS go unanswered month by month. Previous posts on this
website have recorded the facts concerning a Lusitania medallion in
iron by Goetz. This medallion is in an IWM Collection. In the
spring of 2004 photographs ( HU 74866/7) on the IWM website
suggested to us that the medallion photographed was the property of
our late father, Milton Wright. It was taken from him by deception
in 1968 and never returned. For close on 40 years the IWM have not
disclosed the correct historical significance of this marked and
defaced medallion. During requests the IWM have issued 3 different
provenances for the medallion. Photographs depicting the medallion
numbered HU 74866/7 have now had 3 different sources. The IWM
conducted an internal Formal and Urgent Investigation into this
case in May 2004.The conclusions of this F&U Investigation were
reversed by IWM Director General (DG) Sir Robert Crawford in August
2004 due to contradictory evidence contained in IWM Collection
9810-03. Two IWM Trustees stated to be “independent” conducted a
review into this case in late 2007. Despite private submissions by
RGW and MGW being sent via a neutral post box there were still
irregularities. The two “independent” IWM Trustees selectively
edited the submissions. Evidence presented by us that indicated
wrong doing and complicity by the IWM was removed and omitted from
evidence catalogued in the REVIEW (Nov 2007). Our prima facie
evidence ,letters to and from Sir Robert Crawford IWM DG of June
2004 were excluded from the REVIEW (Nov 2007). Furthermore the two
“independent” Trustees expert on the subject of Lusitania
medallions and collaborating with the IWM, was Mr G. Burns. In the
REPLY document (Jan 2008) emails from Mr Burns to RGW are included
in the Appendix for examination. Mr Burn’s documented statements on
the iron first issue of Goetz are so contradictory that his
testimony cannot be considered reliable. It has been recorded in
earlier posts on this website how a family member (MGW) inspected a
collection of medallions at the IWM in late summer 2008. At the
invitation of Ms E. Foxell of the DCMS our father’s medallion was
located among the IWM collection. It had been restored. Despite
differences of opinion between MGW and Ms U. Smalley the specialist
curator, the Museum did not locate or utilise any of their
microscopic aids to resolve the issues. Why the IWM did not do this
and obtain closure is puzzling. The answer to this paradox is that
a high level conspiracy is in progress to conceal this iron first
issue. We believe that the law of this country may have been
compromised in this case. We therefore request that the authorities
delegated responsibility by the Prime Minister examine the evidence
in the REPLY document (Jan 2008 ). Could the DCMS please answer the
previous requests under the Act on this website.
Yours faithfully,
Robert G.Wright.
From: TARIQ SAIRA
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
13 May 2009
Dear Mr Wright
Thank you for your e mail of 6^th April 2009 relating to the case
concerning the first issue Goetz Lusitania medallion and the Imperial War
Museum.
Please note that we are not dealing with your request under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 because your recent correspondence is not asking for
recorded information and the points raised are a repetition of previous
correspondence that have been addressed by the Department for Culture
Media and Sport on a number of occasions since last year.
Background to your request
Case 100283
On 14^th August 2008 the Museums Team at DCMS wrote to you to confirm that
we had no record or evidence of your letter of November 2007, addressed to
the Office of the Prime Minister.
Case 100474
On 18^th August 2008, DCMS wrote to you enclosing a copy of a letter dated
8^th May 2008 from the Secretary and Director of Finance of the Imperial
War Museum in response to your Freedom of Information request for `All
correspondence between DCMS and the Imperial War Museum since 12/02/08'.
We confirmed that we held no further information on this matter.
Case 102989
On 22^nd September 2008 you made a Freedom of Information request for
`access to the transfer of documents from the Prime Ministers Office to
the DCMS'. We wrote to you on 16^th October confirming that the
Department holds no further correspondence from No. 10 on this subject.
To validate this, we contacted colleagues at No.10 who confirmed that they
received 8 letters from you between 31/07/06 and 06/06/08, and that your
letter dated 6^th February was acknowledged only and not transferred to
DCMS.
Case 112830
On 23^rd March 2009, DCMS Museums Team answered a final letter on this
matter and confirmed that the Department has provided you with all the
correspondence we hold in relation to this case and have nothing further
to add on this matter
Email of 13^th May 2009
We received a further e mail asserting the same points made in your most
recent correspondence. This correspondence has not been logged as a new
request and this response is being issued to answer your correspondence of
06/04/08 and 13/05/08.
Section 14 (2) of the Act
If a public authority has previously complied with a request for
information that was made by a person, it does not need to comply with a
repeated request from the same person (that is, an identical or
substantially similar request), unless a 'reasonable interval' has elapsed
between compliance with the first request and receipt of the second
(section 14(2)).
Your current request (115843) is a restatement of your original request
(100283) which we have already answered in our letter of 16^th October
2008. In the circumstances, the interval between your original request
and this current request is not one which would be considered as
reasonable, particularly as the information requested is not going to
change over time. Under the Act, you have the right to know whether we
hold the information you require and be provided with that information and
the Department has taken all reasonable steps to provide you with all of
the information we hold on this matter. It is therefore considered that
this is an identical request and falls to be refused under section 14 (2)
of the Act.
In the light of the above points, the Department has determined that we
will not be treating any further correspondence from you on the same
matter under the Freedom of Information Act unless we receive a new
request that is asking for information substantially different in nature
for your previous requests.
If you are dissatisfied with any aspect of our response to your request
for information and/or wish to appeal against information being withheld
from you please send full details within two calendar months of the date
of this letter to:
FOI Central Team,
Public Engagement and Recognition Unit
Department for Culture Media and Sport,
2-4 Cockspur Street, London,
SW1Y 5DH
You have the right to ask the Information Commissioner (ICO) to
investigate any aspect of your complaint. Please note that the ICO is
likely to expect internal complaints procedures to have been exhausted
before beginning his investigation.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance.
Kind regards
Saira Tariq
Freedom of Information Case Manager
Freedom of Information Team
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
2-4 Cockspur Street
London
SW1Y 5DH
Telephone: 020 7211 6192
show quoted sections
From: Robert G.Wright.
23 May 2009
Dear TARIQ SAIRA
Thank you for the email of 13 May 2009. Details of this case are
in earlier posts on the WDTK website, to which I am indebted. An
Imperial War Museum (IWM) collection contains an object we believe
to be the property of my late father, Milton Wright. This family
heirloom, an iron first issue Goetz Lusitania medallion was marked,
chipped and defaced. Numerous F o I requests regarding the case
involving this medallion have gone unanswered by the DCMS (24 Nov
2008; 12 Jan 2009 ; 23 Feb 2009). Since these requests are overdue
and unanswered by the DCMS the questions were repeated in the hope
that common sense would prevail. It was not unreasonable to repeat
a request particularly when correspondence posted on the WDTK
website by the DCMS referred to family members as vexatious. The
problem for the DCMS in the investigation is that the smoking gun
is the positive identification of the medallion at the IWM by a
member of my family (MGW). MGW is a re-spray specialist of 20 years
experience. The PM’s Office and the IWM were notified of the
positive identification shortly after the viewing in correspondence
dated 11 August 2008 (enc).The DCMS’ s own Elizabeth Foxell was
instrumental to this viewing, citing it as a pathway to closure in
her correspondence. Further evidence of substance contained in a
REPLY document by R G Wright and M G Wright (January 2008) was
supplied to the IWM and the DCMS. The REPLY (Jan 2008) clearly
illustrated using detailed images (Plates1-4) that the medallion
had been restored / re-sprayed and that the IWM had supplied
incorrect disclosure on this subject on 22 April 2005. A 1986
published paper by an IWM curator and MGW’ s observations of the
medallion confirmed restoration had indeed taken place. Diagnostic
markers present on the medallion and known to us are further
confirmation of this upgrading. A REVIEW document of the case
(November 2007) by two “independent” IWM Trustees, the logistics
arranged by a DCMS/IWM team, cannot be considered reliable
evidence. When prima facie evidence is omitted and important facts
obtained from DCMS draft correspondence, then such a document
serves no useful purpose. This is regrettable. It is also a fact
that the IWM failed to supply crucial details in disclosure in the
permitted period. The PM’s Office, the DCMS and the IWM are
requested to address the clear evidence presented in the REPLY
document (Jan 2008) which they have access to. This document
remains a testimonial to our request for moral restitution of a
cherished object. The medallion due to MGW’ s powerful evidence was
clearly not unprovenanced or from Schulman (1917) or from Gaselee
(1931) (enc). Since the DCMS have shadowed this case since August
2006,we trust they will fully examine the REPLY document (Jan 2008)
and give their conclusions regarding it’s content on this website.
Could the DCMS please address a number of overdue F o I disclosures
posted on the WDTK website. As the eldest son of Milton Wright I
request information confirming that this case is not covered by
absolute exemption under the 2000 F o I Act.
Yours sincerely,
Robert G.Wright.
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence