INTERNAL REVIEW OF FOI REFERENCE 11156

Dear Sir or Madam,
Please redirect this request to the
Information Policy Team
Information and Record Management Service
Home Office
4th Floor, Seacole Building
2 Marsham Street
London
TO PROVIDE A TRANSPARENT AUDIT TRAIL PLEASE PROVIDE ALL REPLIES VIA
THIS WHATDOTHEYKNOW.COM WEBSITE

I have completed a FOI request 11156 which may be viewed at
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/fo...
entitled "FOI Disclosure followup to T25719/8 Sammy Jegede".The
`final reply` was only achieved after intervention by the
Information Commissioners`Office after an exceptional wait of 6
months .The final response is unacceptable as it provides NO
information as requested.The Home Office have issued information
that is false.I am concerned that ACPO,for their own commercial
reasons,have persuaded the Home Office Scientific Officer into
issuing Type Approval for cameras that have the inherent
unreliability of being activated by vehicles speeding from the
opposite direction.This fault can be proven, and I have displayed
examples on You Tube.Obviously the risk of faulty activations is
not acceptable and should have been identified at the Type Approval
stage.I accept from the `final reply`that the Home Office hold no
information regarding `false activations`and therefore have been
throughly deceived.INTERNAL REVIEW POINT ONE.The Home Office
original reply indicated `false activations`may be related to
`dummy cameras`.The FOI `final reply` states "In response to your
question, I can say that the Home Office is not in possession of
any documents pertaining to Dummy devices". The original comment
did not appear from thin air and my FOI was to see `hard copy`of
the source material.It is in the public interest to see that
answers are not being fabricated.INTERNAL REVIEW POINT TWO.The FOI
reply was apparently delayed due to correspondence with`third
parties`,BUT these `third parties`have NOT been identified as
requested.ALSO I would like to see copies of these communications
to confirm this is not another fabrication.INTERNAL REVIEW POINT
THREE.The `final reply` shows that the Home Office amazingly
disputes the evidence of proven false activations,has no
inclination to enquire further,and issues unjustified comments
about `dummy cameras`.Sammy Jegede is presumably simply the
mouthpiece but there must be someone ACCOUNTABLE who is promoting
this response and I would appreciate knowing who they are.

The CPS completed their prosecutions `in the public interest` and
likewise I would like to see this review `in the public interest`.

Yours faithfully,

Dennis Fallon

Dear Sir or Madam,Please provide an update on this request, since
the reply is now overdue. I do need to progress my enquiries
regarding the false Home Office information because it relates to
an appeal against a speeding conviction which the false information
provoked.

Yours faithfully,

dennis fallon

Dear John Bragaglia,there has been extreme delay which causes me
concern, but I appreciate finally reaching a person of integrity
who will provide an explanation,with disclosures,as to what has
been going on.It is in the public interest to know if the Home
Office have been deceived.

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

Dear John Bragaglia,Thank you for the internal review which
unfortunately shows systemic failings within Home Office
procedures.I note that the false information provided by the Home
Office originated from Trevor Hall of ACPO.It is NO surprise that
he is producing misleading information because ACPO is a PRIVATE
organisation which benefits from the supply and testing of cameras,
and has many lucrative PRIVATE connections.They do not operate in
the public interest and they avoid accountability by switching
staff around.It appears that ACPO and the camera manufacturers have
CONCEALED the unreliability aspects
(and the dangers)and are therefore unethical.I know that the fatal
accident at the Bristol Road camera site has been successfully
covered up by West Midlands Police, BUT UNDER FOI I would like to
see the correspondence SUBSEQUENT to the disclosure dated 08 May
2007 where an emergency services driver reported the potentially
dangerous blinding flashes.The Home Office would surely have taken
this concern seriously, and I have displayed examples on You
Tube(see Birmingham Speed).Does the Home Office now accept that the
Type Approval process has been compromised, or can you explain why
these false and dangerous activations have been occurring on a
widespread basis?Something is seriously wrong.On your last page you
say "Having completed the review I am satisfied that the Department
does not hold
any information relating to ‘cameras never being triggered by
vehicles travelling in the opposite direction."This seems to be
untrue, as I have a Home Office disclosure,reference T26866/7 and
8132, dated 7 November 2007 from Rob Coleman OBE BEng,Deputy
Director Scientific Development Branch,which advises that "we are
aware of early dummy cameras used in some locations can be
triggered by traffic travelling in either direction".I am sorry
that your review did not discover this, but under FOI,and with
regards to the reply dated 7 November 2007, I would like see the
SOURCE of the supplied information in Q1 "We are aware.." and
Q2"..we have been told...".I am really interested in knowing where
this potentially misleading information is originating.I am not
happy with the quality of response and 8 month delay on this
request so far, and I would appreciate a prompt conclusion to this
appeal process.

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

Dear Mr Bragaglia,
Thank you for your reply.Now that some progress is being achieved I
am content to wait up to a further 20 days, but I hope you can
expedite things.I have posted clips of false activations on
YouTube, and these have not been fabricated.I am therefore keen to
understand how this fault was overlooked by the Type Approval
process,and what actions were taken subsequent to the independant
notification by the emergency services driver.Although it is being
treated as a new FOI I would appreciate the reply to be on this
same thread to retain continuity.Please advise me if you require me
to make a new seperate posting.

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

Dear Mr Jegede,my new FOI is directly consequentional to the
failure to provide any substantive information to my original
request(followup to T25719/8)which fortunately has been rectified
by the attention of Mr Bragaglia after my appeal.As you know,I am
concerned that ACPO have been providing false information to the
Home Office to explain the issue of vehicles from the opposite
direction causing false activations.The descriptions of `dummy
cameras`and `directional settings`may be fabricated
explanations.The possible production of false information needs to
be investigated to avoid the Home Office and ACPO being brought
into disrepute.

FOI T15687 9 POINT ONE.

The FOI disclosure,dated May 17th 2007,from ACPO Trevor
Hall,identified the source of the dubious information.His reply
responded to a serious query,from an emergency services driver,
about perceived dangers of false flashes, yet contains unsupported
comments regarding`dummy cameras`and `directional settings`.I
believe his comments are completely fabricated and that a
responsible Home Office would not simply accept the existence of
alleged`dummy cameras`being allowed to flash into the faces of
drivers.Also the Home Office would not have neglected to issue
guidance about the alleged`directional settings`factor.
Under FOI please provide a copy of subsequent communications to
partnerships or interested parties which alerts them to these
potentially dangerous features.

FOI T15687 9 POINT TWO.

The Home Office advise that`dummy cameras`exist and are allowed to
flash into the faces of oncoming motorists.In my opinion this is
unacceptably dangerous.Please provide disclosure of a document that
authorises such `dummy cameras`to be used,or advise me who has
provided permission.

FOI T15687 9 POINT THREE.

The Type Approval(TA)process has to be reliable and thorough.Under
FOI please provide a copy of the TA pages that mention the
`directional switches` and describes the sensitivity of the cameras
from both directions.

FOI T15687 9 POINT FOUR.

Please provide a copy of payments made to ACPO or individual police
forces for assessing the Type Approval of Gatso speed cameras.

Erratum.Apologies for an error in my original FOI dated January
2009.The `penalty`I received for activating the Bristol Road Camera
was not `over £500`but was actually £335 plus 5 points(exclusive of
costs of attending court).

Yours faithfully,

dennis fallon

Dear Mr Jegede,the reply to my FOI is now overdue but I do
appreciate that you may be having difficulties with unreliable
sources.I am prepared to wait a little longer for a complete and
final reply because these issues have caused me concern for the
past four years and will not be terminated until there is a clear
resolution.I would appreciate an update,however,as my patience is
not infinite and I do need to progress.

Yours faithfully,

dennis fallon

Dear Sir or Madam,This initial FOI query started in January 2009
and I do require a response to progress my concerns.If ACPO cannot
provide the appropriate information to contradict my allegations of
fabrication then please simply say so, or explain the
delay.Secondly,please advise how much has been paid out for
allegedly completing the Type Approval validation processes.For
your Information,
Freedom of Information Act
Awareness guidance 11
Time for compliance
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has produced this
guidance as
part of a series of good practice guidance designed to aid
understanding and
application of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The aim is to
introduce
some of the key concepts in the Act and to suggest the approaches
that may be
taken in response to information requests.
1. What is the time limit for responding to a request for
information?
A public authority must inform the applicant in writing whether it
holds the
information requested and if so, communicate that information to
the applicant,
promptly, but not later than 20 working days after receipt of the
request;
section 10(1).
7. What if the public authority needs more time to consider
exemptions?
Any information which the public authority is required to release
must be
disclosed to the applicant within the 20 working day time limit.
Where the
authority is relying on one or more of the exemptions and is
withholding
information, it must issue a Refusal Notice (under section 17 of
the Act) within
the same timeframe, specifying the exemption and why it applies.
There is a provision in the Act, at section 10(3), which allows the
20 working
day time limit to be extended to a ‘reasonable’ time, where the
authority is
required to apply the public interest test, because one of the
‘qualified’
exemptions applies. However, the authority must inform the
applicant in its
Refusal Notice if it needs more time to consider the public
interest in
disclosure and must give an esttimate of the date by which it
expects to make
its decision. [FOI Act, s10(3)]
A public authority must be prepared to justify to the Information
Commissioner
any time it takes, beyond the 20 working days, to consider
disclosure in the
public interest.

Yours faithfully,

dennis fallon

PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO THE INFORMATION ACCESS TEAM AS AN APPEAL FOI
Ref 12948.
Information Access Team
Information Management Service
Home Office
I have posted my original FOI via this website and to continue the
thread I would like my appeal dealt with in the same manner.My
original FOI has been subject to massive delay and I would like an
opinion on this failure to comply with the legal time-frame.THE
FINAL REPLY from Sammy Jegede is unacceptable in many ways.
POINT ONE.A Home Office FOI revealed that an emergency services
driver reported concern about the DANGEROUS activation of Gatso
Camera flashes ON APPROACH.I asked to see communications SUBSEQUENT
to this concern and Mr Jegede reported NO ALERTS OR
COMMUNICATIONS.I cannot believe the Home Office ignored this report
of a potential danger, as this surely would be neglect of duty.
POINT TWO.The Home Office apparently have no information or
interest in `dummy cameras`.This again appears to be neglect of
duty.I believe the concept of `dummy cameras` flashing is a
fabrication by ACPO designed to mislead, and even if there was any
truth how could there be no standards to control the level of
blinding flash?There must be some standards for a potential
dangerous hazard.
POINT THREE.There is no information held on `directional
switches`.There must be some information, because the non-existence
of information points towards another fabrication by Gatso or ACPO.
POINT FOUR.The Home Office say that the Police or ACPO are not paid
for their Type Approval work.This is incomprehensible.If these
people purport to do the Approval who actually funds the process,
WHO has signed off the Approval of Gatsos, and WHO is accountable
for the Approval process being defective and false activations
being possible, as demonstrated on You Tube account denny174 ("Real
evidence"). There must be an explanation to all of these issues and
the Home Office, as the supervising Authority, cannot be claiming
total ignorance and ignoring concerns.
Please confirm receipt of this appeal, and the estimated time for
completion of the appeal process.
Yours faithfully,

dennis fallon

Dear Riddle Martin (IMS),Thank you for requesting further
detail.Firstly, just to clarify this issue, I am neither a
troublemaker or a speedster, just a very concerned citizen trying
to obtain the truth when there seems to be the deliberate issuing
of falsehoods, both inside and outside of the legal system.If true
this would be a form of corruption.I was originally convicted of
speeding at 35mph on an empty main road and fined heavily for
having the temerity to go to court.The magistrates were misguided
by the clerk into not accepting my extensive evidence and the
police evidence was distorted, hence my humiliation, considerable
grievance, and efforts to determine what is going wrong.How can
innocent people be found guilty?In OCTOBER 2006 there was an
`unexplained`four car pile-up ADJACENT to a speed camera on the
Bristol Road, and two people were killed.I went to the scene
subsequently and noticed that the camera was flashing distractingly
when cars coming the OPPOSITE way approached at about 40mph.I
considered this to be a dangerous situation and wrote to the camera
partnership who refused to answer my questions stating various FOI
exemptions.The inquest and the trial of the people involved in the
accident were completed in secret, and again the police refused to
reveal any information.On 7 NOVEMBER 2007 I received a HOME OFFICE
reply, ref T26866/7 and 8132,to reassure my concerns.It advised
"EARLY dummy cameras used in some locations can be triggered by
traffic from either direction.These are not subject to our
approval", and "We have been told later models operate only in the
SELECTED direction".My subsequent investigations show,
unfortunately, that the alleged expert who provided this
information to the Home Office was either misinformed or
deliberately deceptive, and therefore untrustworthy.My YouTube clip
`REAL EVIDENCE:SPEED CAMERA DANGER AND DECEPTION`displays many key
points, especially the camera being triggered from 40 metres in the
wrong direction.Other clips show the Soho Way speed camera being
triggered from 60 metres in the wrong direction from the other side
of a dual carriageway.ANYWAY, on the basis of the false Home Office
reply I assessed the activation speed for the alleged dummy camera,
at a safe time at night with no other traffic about, and lo and
behold a Notice of Prosecution arrived.Of course I went to court
with lots of evidence, but the alleged Judge was not interested
and, WITHOUT even allowing me to question my requested Central
Ticket Office witness, found me guilty and gave me lots of points
and a heavy fine.This summarises the situation to date, and
explains why I am so dissapointed that Sammy Jegede has been so
obstructive for so long and sought to advise me that the Home
Office held no information.GETTING BACK TO YOUR QUESTION,the copy
of information I requested regarding the Type Approval of
directional switches relates to Gatso cameras not `dummy
cameras`.The reply dated 7 November 2007 stated `later models
operated only in the selected direction`, therefore this implies
there is a setting switch for direction, and this surely would be
mentioned in the Type Approval document.Sadly I am of the opinion
that no such directional advice will actually be found and that the
whole radar system in reality is indiscriminate and hence
unreliable.I am also surprised that, in the interests of safety,
there appears to be NO REGULATION on the power of the FLASH system
allowed, and would be pleased to know any information to the
contrary.Blinding or distracting flashes should not be allowed on
the public highway.The Type Approval process seems to be very
seriously defective, and I would like to know who is actually being
paid for allegedly doing the process.Sorry about the long letter
but I do consider it appropriate to restate my concerns about
untrustworthy sources of information and potential traffic dangers.

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

Dear Mr Riddle ,thank you for the update.I hope you appreciate that
I am very annoyed at the apparent misuse of authority that I have
had the misfortune to encounter and which has resulted in my
character being undermined.I have gone to considerable expense in
researching my facts and obtaining Data Protection Disclosures to
ensure my observations are reliable. Your attention in this matter
is appreciated and I look forward to the final response from the
Home Office which I hope will be comprehensive.

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

Dear Mr Riddle,Thank you for keeping me informed.I am a very
patient person but only allow ONE attempt at a final reply so I am
glad that it is receiving due attention.The C.P.S have prosecuted
me TWICE and with held evidence in order to achieve convictions,and
this has made me really annoyed AND denied my rights for a fair
trial.I am raising serious questions of honesty and integrity and
it is worth more than a superficial response, so any reasonable
delay is acceptable.

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

Dear Mr Riddle, QUOTE " Unfortunately I am still
awaiting its clearance through our internal approvals process. I
hope to issue the outcome of the internal review to you
soon".Whilst I await the release of your report, please advise me
about the Home Office internal approvals process.Is this a separate
department, who is involved in the approvals process,who is in
charge of signing off completion, and after the initial review of
your response what is their approximate estimated time for approval
completion?

Yours faithfully,

dennis fallon

Dear Mr Brook,

Your reply was very prompt and very helpful.In terms of good P.R I
would expect completion within 20 days, and would appreciate
progress reports if any delays are anticipated.

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

Dear Mr Martin (IMS),
I believe that you are a man of your word and I look forward to
seeing the detailed result of your investigation being released on
26th February as promised.

I would also appreciate knowing the reasons why your report has
taken so long to be released so that it may be judged if the delay
has acceptable grounds.

Thanking you in anticipation.

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

Dear Mr Riddle (IMS),

The Home Office response time to both my original enquiry and
appeal is really unacceptable.

Admittably I have made the serious allegation that ACPO have
falsified information and duped the Home Office into issuing Type
Approval, but none the less I deserve to be kept informed about the
expected date of release of your report.

Someone must be accountable.Please advise of the name of the senior
person who is dealing with this matter, and please advise what is
going on to cause this delay.

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

Dear Mr Riddle,

I have been the victim of a corrupt `Justice` system where the
police and `judges` act in partnership to overlook evidence, and
the higher echelons of the police, in the form of ACPO, are in a
commercial arrangement with speed camera manufacturers which
requires them to falsify Type Approval standards.

I do need to know if the Home Office have been deceived or are part
of this conspiracy of injustice, and I am quite prepared to provide
further detail if there is anything believed to be unsubstantiated.

The Home Office cannot simply hide their heads in the sand as this
is not an option provided in the code of practice, but if
additional time is required, due to a serious line of enquiry being
pursued, I really need to know otherwise, by default, I will assume
that there is an illegal process of obstruction.

I am not an unreasonable person, but I do need to progress.

Yours faithfully,

dennis fallon

Dear Home Office,

This long email is to summarise the situation for the potential
attention of the Information Commissioner`s Office.

Thank you for the final reply which I can now progress. Sorry about
some confusion as I have extensive ongoing correspondence with
camera partnerships, councils, Department for Transport, Department
for Justice, CPS and local Magistrates. Most of them will not give
a straight answer and it`s very tedious seeking justice.

I did not appreciate that Mr Bragaglia had finally completed my
first appeal, requested 24 May 2009, on 21 August 2009 because of a
Home Office systems oversight. He concluded that the 115 day delay
was a breach of the legal 20 day limit, that acknowledgements had
not been provided, and that there was a failure to disclose
information held. Unfortunately he also provided false information
that the Home Office held no information about cameras being
triggered by vehicles travelling in the opposite direction. I have
been trying to get justice since at least November 2007 when I had
a first, potentially fabricated, reply mentioning `dummy cameras`
as an excuse.

Mr Bragaglia then cleverly converted the ongoing queries into a new
FOI on 1st Sept 2009, for the re-attention of Mr Sammy Jegede on
9th September 2009.

Mr Jegede did not provide any acknowledgement or progress report
until prompted on October 6th. The reply advised that the Home
Office had no recorded information about any action taken
subsequent to a concern about dangerous blinding camera flashes, no
information regarding dummy cameras, no information about
directional switches, and explained ACPO were not paid for doing
type approval.

On 30th November 2009 I appealed against this further misleading or
false information, and the appeal was acknowledged on 1st Dec 2009
by Mr Martin Riddle. The result of the appeal was released on March
15th 2010.

In summary, this FOI request regarding speed cameras was initiated
on 10th January 2009 and only reached conclusion until March 2010.

The final appeal result confirmed that the Home Office took no
action even when potentially dangerous false flashes blinded an
emergency driver.
The Home Office are prepared to allow the unregulated use of
alleged `dummy cameras` which can flash irregularly and may be
distracting.
The Home Office say they held no information regarding directional
switches, then they actually disclose the Type Approval pages which
mention them.

It has been a very tedious and unsatisfactory process which has
taken over twelve months of my life, but has revealed that the Home
Office does not follow FOI best practice, does not follow up road
safety concerns, has no interest in investigating the accuracy of
the type approval process or the commercial integrity of ACPO, and
refuses to explain who is the accountable person in overall charge
of the situation.

The eventual release of the Type Approval pages has given me a clue
as to where the police and magistrates are going wrong, but the 12
month overall delay with associated false trails is unacceptable.

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon