Re:- External legal advice concerning my FOI, DPA requests to Northumbria Police - Names of all FOI,DPA, NP officers ...

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) made this Rhyddid Gwybodaeth request to Northumbria Police

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

Gwrthodwyd y cais gan Northumbria Police.

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

Given that NP have unlawfully “gagged” me from seeking information about my unsolved attempted murder case I would like to know if they requested legal advice to do so.

1. Have Northumbria Police requested external legal advice and/or external legal representation concerning any of the FOIA/DPA requests I have made.

2. If so, please supply full details of all amounts paid by Northumbria Police on external legal advice and/or external legal representation concerning any advice relating to question 1 above. Please specify which payments were counsels' fees.

3. Provide the names of all law firms and individuals,if any, who have supplied such services and/or advice to Northumbria Police concerning my FOIA, DPA requests

4. Please supply names of all FOI,DPA and Northumbria Police officers, including their positions within NP, who have been involved with and/or party to any of the FOIA/DPA requests which I have made to NP.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)

Thank you for your email received today in which you make a request for
information that Northumbria Police may hold.

We are in the process of dealing with your request and expect to revert to
you shortly. A response should be provided by 1 March 2011.

Yours sincerely

Helen Robbins

Disclosure Section

[NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

NORTHUMBRIA POLICE PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

The information contained in this message and any attachment(s) is
confidential and intended only for the attention of the named organisation
or individual to whom it is addressed. The message may contain
information that is covered by legal, professional or other privilege. No
mistake in transmission is intended to waive or compromise any such
privilege. This message has been sent over public networks and the sender
cannot be held responsible for its integrity.

If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure,
copying, distribution or action taken in reliance of the information
contained herein is strictly prohibited, and is contrary to the provisions
of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act, 1988 and of the Data Protection
Act, 1998.

Any views expressed are those of the sender and, unless specifically
stated, do not necessarily represent the view of Northumbria Police.

We cannot accept any liability for any loss or damage sustained as a
result of software viruses. It is your responsibility to carry out such
virus checking as is necessary.

If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by
e-mail at once and delete the message immediately.

For more information about Northumbria Police please visit our website -
[1]http://www.northumbria.police.uk

References

Visible links
1. http://www.northumbria.police.uk/

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

To: Northumbria Police
Subject: Re: Freedom of Information request - Costs to Northumbria Police, taxpayer relating to Martin McGartland 1999 attempted murder case

Dear Sir or Madam,

I would like to draw the following newspaper article to the
attention of Northumbria Police and would like them to be aware
that I will be relying on this with regard to all/any FOI requests
I have made to NP concerning costs relating to my 1999 attempted
murder case;

Police agree to reveal Raoul Moat costs

By The Journal
Feb 7 2011

POLICE chiefs have agreed to reveal the cost of the manhunt for
killer Raoul Moat.

The move comes seven months after Moat went on the rampage and hid
in the village of Rothbury, in Northumberland.

Lib Dem county councillor Steven Bridgett, who represents Rothbury,
used the Freedom of Information Act to make an application to find
out the cost of the investigation but was initially refused.

Now Coun Bridgett says he received a phone call from the Deputy
Chief Constable Jim Campbell telling him he will have the figures
in a few days.

Link;
http://www.journallive.co.uk/northumberl...

------------------------------------------------------
I will also be making a separate request concerning 'the figures'
which the article claims that Deputy Chief Constable Jim Campbell
stated would be released in a few days.

I will also use this as an example of NP's ongoing campaign against
me, whereby I am continually being discriminated against,
victimised and harrassed and I am even being told that similar
requests to that made by Steven Bridgett are being refused even as
the victim in my case and I am being described by NP as
'vexatious'.

There is absolutely no reason why NP should not now be releasing
all of the information I have been requesting concerning costs and
associated costs to NP and more importantly, the taxpayer,
regarding my 1999 attempted murder case.

For information purposes only, I will also add this correspondence
to other requests I have made on the whatdotheyknow.com website to
NP concerning associated FOI requests concerning costs of my ongoing 1999 case.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Sir or Madam,

The above link may be broken. I have attached it once again; http://www.journallive.co.uk/northumberl...

Kind regards,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

Can you please update me with regard to the internal review I requested on this matter.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

1 Atodiad

Provision of Information held by Northumbria Police under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the" Act")

With regard to your email in which you make a request for information that
Northumbria Police may hold.

I regret that Northumbria Police will not be able to complete its response
to you by the date originally stated. We are still researching the
information held and considering whether any exemptions under the Act may
apply.

Specifically in relation to your request Northumbria Police are considering
the exemptions as set out in the following parts of the Act:

14 Vexatious or repeated requests

(1) Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a
request for information if the request is vexatious.

(2) Where a public authority has previously complied with a request for
information which was made by any person, it is not obliged to comply with
a subsequent identical or substantially similar request from that person
unless a reasonable interval has elapsed between compliance with the
previous request and the making of the current request.

I can now advise you that the new date for the provision of the information
is 28th March 2011. I can assure that every effort will be made to ensure
that a response will be provided to you within this new timescale.

Your attention is drawn to the attachment which contains your complaint
rights.

(See attached file: FOI Complaint Rights.doc)

Yours sincerely

Michael Cleugh
Data Protection and Disclosure Advisor
Direct Dial: 01661 868347

NORTHUMBRIA POLICE PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

The information contained in this message and any attachment(s) is confidential and intended only for the attention of the named organisation or individual to whom it is addressed. The message may contain information that is covered by legal, professional or other privilege. No mistake in transmission is intended to waive or compromise any such privilege. This message has been sent over public networks and the sender cannot be held responsible for its integrity.

If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken in reliance of the information contained herein is strictly prohibited, and is contrary to the provisions of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act, 1988 and of the Data Protection Act, 1998.

Any views expressed are those of the sender and, unless specifically stated, do not necessarily represent the view of Northumbria Police.

We cannot accept any liability for any loss or damage sustained as a result of software viruses. It is your responsibility to carry out such virus checking as is necessary.

If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by e-mail at once and delete the message immediately.

For more information about Northumbria Police please visit our website - http://www.northumbria.police.uk

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

RE:- I do not agree to a time extension given
NP have given me no plausible explanation as to why this is needed. Indeed, Northumbria Police have given me no explanation at all.

Dear Sir or Madam,

My request was for following information;

1. Have Northumbria Police requested external legal advice and/or external legal representation concerning any of the FOIA/DPA requests I have made.

2. If so, please supply full details of all amounts paid by Northumbria Police on external legal advice and/or external legal representation concerning any advice relating to question 1 above. Please specify which payments were counsels' fees.

3. Provide the names of all law firms and individuals,if any, who have supplied such services and/or advice to Northumbria Police concerning my FOIA, DPA requests

4. Please supply names of all FOI,DPA and Northumbria Police officers, including their positions within NP, who have been involved with and/or party to any of the FOIA/DPA requests which I have made to NP.

Northumbria Police are in breach of the act and they also did not deal with this request within the 20 working days. I do not agree to a time extension and I am again asking NP to release the requested information to me immediately. If not, I can confirm that I will be making a complaint to the ICO concerning this matter.

You will be aware that Section 1(1) of the Act states that:

“Any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled –

(a) to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds information of the description specified in the request, and

(b) if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him.”

Northumbria Police have not informed me in writing if it holds the requested information. This is a breach of the act.

Northumbria Police have not communicated that information to me. This is another breach of the act.

Further, Northumbria Police did not deal with this request within the 20 working days. This too is a further breach of the FOIA.

Please will you now confirm if you hold the requested information as you are required to do by law.

I am once again requesting that NP immediately release
the requested information. I do not agree to a time extension given NP have given me no plausible explanation as to why this is needed. Indeed, Northumbria Police have given me no explanation at all.

If the information is not released to me immediately I can confirm I will be making a complaint to the ICO concerning this matter.

I look forward to your urgent reply concerning this matter.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

PLEASE REFER TO;

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/co...

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

I have just learned that Northumbria Police have also 'Gagged' the Sunday World Newspaper and accused it and one of its reporters of being “vexatious'.

I am adding the text of the story which is published in the Sunday World today to this and all other requests for your information and that of the ICO. This is shocking - What the hell have NP got to hide?

Cops refuse to reveal spy gun hit info
By JOHN CASSIDY
March 13, 2011

THE Sunday World has been ‘gagged’ by a British police force over a probe into the IRA murder bid on RUC agent Martin McGartland. Two months after Northumbria Police refused to answer his questions about its investigation into his 1999 shooting. The same force is now refusing to answer Sunday World questions about the sanctioned Provo hit. And the force – who have yet to charge a single IRA terrorist with the near fatal shooting – claims our request for answers under the Freedom of Information Act is “vexatious’. It is the same response it gave to Martin McGartland when he asked for answers to questions on his case. Last night, McGartland accused Northumbria Police of a “political cover up’’ to protect Sinn Fein and the peace process. “Northumbria Police can’t give a straight answer to a straight question,’’ he told the Sunday World this week from his secret hideaway address somewhere in the UK.

Disgrace

“I believe Northumbria Police have familial DNA from the crime scene linked to family members of the gunmen.
“I believe the police have told the Government,MI5 or its advisers of this familial DNA and the Northumbria Police have been told not to act on it as it could rock the political boat in Northern Ireland. “It is an absolute disgrace that Northumbria Police can think they can fob off newspapers who are making a genuine request for information about the attempt on my life.
“As the victim in this case, no one is keener than I for the perpetrators for the savage attack upon me that changed my life forever, be apprehended, put before the courts and sent to prison. “The Sunday World has supported me in my quest for this to happen.
Northumbria Police “Neither I nor the Sunday World I would do anything that would prevent this from happening. “Northumbria Police are so desperate to silence me and the Sunday World, to stop us for asking embarrassing questions, that they will do or say anything whether or not it is true and irrespective of what damage they do to me or anyone else in the process.’
Ends;
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50616601/Sunda...

I too have been 'gagged' (as have others) and been accused as having been 'vexatious' by NP;
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47984176/North...

The truth is that NP are involved in a cover up in this case. They continue to lie and act in a disgraceful manner while dealing with me and my case.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

1 Atodiad

Provision of information held by Northumbria Police made under the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 (the 'Act')

Thank you for your email dated 1 February 2011 in which you made a request
for access to certain information which may be held by Northumbria Police.

As you may be aware the purpose of the Act is to allow a general right of
access to information held by a Public Authority (including the Police),
subject to certain limitations and exemptions.

You asked:

Given that NP have unlawfully ***gagged*** me from seeking information
about my unsolved attempted murder case I would like to know if they
requested legal advice to do so.

1. Have Northumbria Police requested external legal advice and/or
external legal representation concerning any of the FOIA/DPA requests I
have made.

2. If so, please supply full details of all amounts paid by
Northumbria Police on external legal advice and/or external legal
representation concerning any advice relating to question 1 above. Please
specify which payments were counsels fees.

3. Provide the names of all law firms and individuals,if any, who
have supplied such services and/or advice to Northumbria Police concerning
my FOIA, DPA requests.

4. Please supply names of all FOI,DPA and Northumbria Police
officers, including their positions within NP, who have been involved with
and/or party to any of the FOIA/DPA requests which I have made to NP.

In response:

We have now had the opportunity to fully consider your request and I
provide a response for your attention.

Whilst not at first apparent, upon review this request is clearly linked
to other requests that have been declared vexatious. In response to an
internal review regarding other requests you have submitted you have
stated that you believe other employees and other external legal firms
have written correspondence in my name and that other employees are
engaging exemptions on behalf of this department. I must advise that
whilst a request itself may not be vexatious, when taken in context it can
be fairly deemed as vexatious if it adds to a continuation of a pattern of
behaviour.

As previously advised to you, using Freedom of Information requests to
perpetuate issues you have with the force regarding the specifics of your
case is clearly inappropriate.

Section 14 - Freedom of Information Act 2000

Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act does not oblige a public
authority to comply with a request for information if the request is
deemed as Vexatious.

You should note that following this correspondence and other
correspondence recently sent to you in response to related requests, we
are not obliged to, nor do we intend to take any further steps in relation
to this matter or in response to any further requests that you may submit
that are deemed to fall into the remit of vexatious.

The information we have supplied to you is likely to contain intellectual
property rights of Northumbria Police. Your use of the information must
be strictly in accordance with the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988
(as amended) or such other applicable legislation. In particular, you
must not re-use this information for any commercial purpose.

How to complain

If you are unhappy with our decision or do not consider that we have
handled your request properly and we are unable to resolve this issue
informally, you are entitled to make a formal complaint to us under our
complaints procedure which is attached.

If you are still unhappy after we have investigated your complaint and
reported to you the outcome, you may complain directly to the Information
Commissioner***s Office and request that they investigate to ascertain
whether we have dealt with your request in accordance with the Act.

Yours sincerely

Michael Cleugh
Data Protection and Disclosure Advisor
Direct Dial: 01661 868347
[NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

NORTHUMBRIA POLICE PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

The information contained in this message and any attachment(s) is
confidential and intended only for the attention of the named organisation
or individual to whom it is addressed. The message may contain
information that is covered by legal, professional or other privilege. No
mistake in transmission is intended to waive or compromise any such
privilege. This message has been sent over public networks and the sender
cannot be held responsible for its integrity.

If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure,
copying, distribution or action taken in reliance of the information
contained herein is strictly prohibited, and is contrary to the provisions
of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act, 1988 and of the Data Protection
Act, 1998.

Any views expressed are those of the sender and, unless specifically
stated, do not necessarily represent the view of Northumbria Police.

We cannot accept any liability for any loss or damage sustained as a
result of software viruses. It is your responsibility to carry out such
virus checking as is necessary.

If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by
e-mail at once and delete the message immediately.

For more information about Northumbria Police please visit our website -
[1]http://www.northumbria.police.uk

References

Visible links
1. http://www.northumbria.police.uk/

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

You have very deliberately subjected me to delay after delay when you were well aware that you would be refusing this request.

You are now stating that; 'Whilst not at first apparent, upon review this request is clearly linked
to other requests that have been declared vexatious. In response to an internal review regarding other requests you have submitted ...'. Make your mind up - is this request vexatious or not. NP are now back-paddling. I suspect that they have wasted further
taxpayers money paying for legal advice to tell them what they already knew, that non of these requests are
'vexatious'. NP are using the FOIA to hide and cover-up their failings and also corruption by chief officers who have been involved with me and my attempted murder case. The above newspaper links show that NP are 'gagging' anyone who makes any kind of a FOI request concerning my case. They are also deliberately lying by claiming the requests are 'vexatious' and/or that the questions
have been asked in the past. The fact is that NP have not answered the questions at any stage. I also note that NP have not produced a shred of evidence to by up such claims. The ICO will of course look at all of the background and see that this is indeed the case.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

I note that you claim; 'The review was carried out independently and was regarding the declaration of vexatious sent to you in November 2009. As per guidance, the review reconsidered the original decision to declare the subject as vexatious and the result of the review upheld the decision to declare requests on the subject of your shooting as vexatious. The full result of the review has been sent to you.'

NP cannot suggest that they had dealt with any of my requests, 'independently', moreover, it was the head of your department who initially made the flawed decision in 2009 after I made requests concerning my attempted murder case because NP had not carried out any sort of an effective investigation and there was and continues to be very serious questions concerning corrupt activity and serious professional misconduct by NP in my case.

I would once again remind you that as the victim in this case, which remains unsolved, I am entitled like any other person to ask for information from NP. The fact remains that NP have continually lied and continue to use the FOIA to hide and conceal and cover up in my case.

Can you please clarify what you mean by; 'The full result of the review has been sent to you.' as far as I am concerned, no one from NP has ever produced any evidence to justify it's rationale for it's application of section 14 in this and all other matters. There is absolutely no justification for NP doing so and they have supplied nor offered any plausible arguments, in short, this nor any other request I have made could be regarded as vexatious.

I also want to make important points concerning NP's continued comments concerning this case whereby the reason given by them now differs substantially from that given in November 2009. It is also important to remember that there was over a year of a gap between the 2009 requests, (which I did not request internal review nor go to ICO)and those in hand, however, the most important issue is the fact that NP at no time answered most if not all of the questions I asked and as a result, their argument is flawed.

I also note you state in your latest correspondence that; 'The result meant that any request received after the 13 November 2009 that was on the same subject as previous requests received from you could also fairly be deemed as vexatious. Accordingly there was no requirement to acknowledge, investigate or respond to further requests that were submitted on this vexatious subject.'

This of course is a contradiction given that NP have refused to deal with requests for information from Jo Asher, Jeff Hayward and also the Sunday World newspaper. They too have been told that their requests were vexatious and like myself, they too were subjected to very lengthy and unnecessary delays.

What is clear from all of the correspondence in these matters is that NP have not explained to me what exactly they mean when they say that my requests are 'vexatious', at the beginning I was being told it was because I was making similar requests and according to them, asking the same questions, however, as above, the ICO will see when they look at the case in it's entirety that NP never did answer the questions. Then NP began to claim it was as a result of my shooting case, however, I am bound to say that given I am the victim and am making requests for information, that all requests are of course going to be linked and or connected to same.

What NP appear to be saying to me is that they are in effect using a blanket ban to stop me, the victim in this case and indeed others, from asking questions about my unsolved attempted murder case at a time when there are serious questions of wrongdoing, questionable activity and failings on the part of NP.

The FOIA was designed to ensure public authorities are held accountable. NP are using FOIA to hide, conceal and suppress information and or to save themselves from embarrassment. This case has absolutely nothing to do with 'vexatious' and any independent observer will see that this is indeed the case. I will be asking that the ICO request all of the information in this case which of course they have the legal authority to do and at that stage it will become clear to them that NP have been using FOIA to conceal and cover up.

I will now add this reply to the other requests on the what do they know site and I will put same in the hands of the ICO. One last point I want to make concerning NP's remarks about me using links to other pages, it is essential that anyone dealing with these matters has the benefit of all the information and evidence in this case. NP use links regularly, if a link is broken or a site is not functioning, I can do very little about this, however, I make no apologies for using them. I can see why NP are trying to make an issue of same, given their short comings and given they have not shown any evidence to support their vexatious exemption and given their appalling breaches of the FOIA and treatment towards me and others who have made genuine requests to them

I also note from the what do they know website that the following person; http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/bob_w... had made no fewer than 8 separate requests to NP for information from them under FOIA and each and every request was successful and yet I made 3 requests to NP in 2009 concerning my 10 year old unsolved attempted murder investigation and I was told I am vexatious, I will of course be referring same to ICO for their information, it is very clear to me that NP continue to discriminate against me and harass and their long running vendetta, campaign against me continues to this day.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Gadawodd Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

The following letter was emailed to me on 4th October 2011 by the Information Commissioner's office. It relates to the above request. You will see that the above request was not 'vexatious', as NP claimed, at all. I have stated many times that Northumbria Police have lied and lied and they have used every dirty trick in the book to cover-up their own failings and wrongdoing.

This is the letter;

Mr M McGartland

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@

21 September 2011

Case Reference Number RFA037@@@@@

Dear Mr McGartland,

When I last wrote to you, I explained that when we receive data protection complaints, our obligation is to make an assessment. An assessment is the Information Commissioner's view about whether an organisation has followed the rules of good practice for handling information in the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA).

I also explained that our aim is to ensure that organisations deal with personal information properly in the future. Our assessment decisions can help us to decide whether we should take action against a particular organisation.

Our decision

I wrote to Northumbria Police (the police) about this matter and have now received its response. On the basis of all of the information provided by you and the police, we have decided that it is unlikely that the police complied with the requirements of the DPA in this case.

This is because it appears the police failed to recognise that the request you made was a request for personal data relating to you. As a result the police did not consider your request under the DPA and instead exempted the information under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOIA) - vexatious requests. As I explained during our recent telephone conversation the DPA does not contain an exemption covering vexatious requests.

Further Action

When deciding whether regulatory action is appropriate, we take into account the organisation's general record of compliance with the DPA (including any previous assessments we have made) and any other information that is in our possession (including information given during the course of those assessments).

The police explained that, having now considered the information under right of subject access under the DPA, there is no information you are entitled to in response to the request.

In points 1-3 of your request you requested information relating to external legal advice the police sought concerning the FOIA/DPA requests you have made. The police say they did not seek external legal advice and they therefore do not hold personal data relating to you which falls within the scope of this aspect of your request.

In the fourth aspect of your request you asked for the following:

“Please supply names of all FOI, DPA and Northumbria Police [NP] officers, including their positions within NP, who have been involved with and/or party to any of the FOIA/DPA requests which I have made to NP.”

The police have explained that, having now considered this request under the DPA, you would not be entitled to receive this information as it is not personal data relating to you. In my view this is not correct. It is likely that the in dealing with your request the police will have created notes, correspondence or other documents which refer to the members of its staff who carried out the operation. In my view it is likely this information could be considered your personal data. It will however also be the personal data of the individuals involved.

Where an individual makes a subject access request and the information also relates to other (third party) individuals the data controller - in this case the police - are obliged to consider whether it would be reasonable in the circumstances to disclose the information to the requester. In making this decision the data controller is required to balance the third parties' rights to privacy against the requester's right to receive the information.

In my view it is unlikely the police would be obliged to provide the names of administrative staff who dealt with information requests you made. The identities of these individuals do not affect the outcome of your request. The police - as a legal entity - have the overall responsibility of dealing with your subject access requests or freedom of information requests. The police have a responsibility to ensure that its employees operate within procedures which themselves are designed to comply with the relevant law (the FOIA or the DPA).

In my view therefore, while it is clear the police failed to consider your request under the DPA (as recommended by the Information Commissioner's published guidance) it is unlikely you would be entitled to any personal data in response to this request.

Having carefully considered all the information that we hold about the police, the Information Commissioner has asked the organisation to take steps to ensure that they are complying with their obligations under the Data Protection Act. In particular it is important that the police consider appropriately whether the requests it receives should be handled under the DPA or the FOIA in accordance with the ICO's guidance. This guidance says that if a public authority receives a requests which is for personal data relating to the applicant it should automatically consider it under the DPA. It appears the police do not routinely do this.

We will keep a record of your complaint and take this assessment into account if we receive further complaints about the police. The information we gather from complaints may form the basis for action in the future.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Yours sincerely

Dan Snowden     

Lead Case Officer

Complaints Resolution

Direct dial number 01@@@ 5@@71@@     
ENDS

'Vexatious'? Far from it. Northumbria Police lies, dirty tricks and cover-up when dealing with Martin McGartland and his attempted murder case. This is what it is all about, see here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNFhRJ1zs...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11yk7p3Kp...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQhyxr0zd...

https://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Northu...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/63833916/North...

https://www.facebook.com/#!/MartinMcGart...

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

Northumbria Police

Dear Mr McGartland

Following further review of this request and following liaison with the
office of the Information Commissioner I offer you further information and
advice regarding this request.

The information that you have requested would potentially be classed as
your personal data and therefore should be considered under the Data
Protection Act 1998. As such and to consider such a disclosure, a subject
access request should be submitted to this office.

Further information and a suitable subject accesss request form can be
found on the Northumbria Police web-site. I have attached a link to the
relevant page below -

http://www.northumbria.police.uk/foi/dat...

I hope that this offers further clarification on this matter.

Yours sincerely

Michael Cleugh
Data Protection & Disclosure Advisor

NORTHUMBRIA POLICE PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

The information contained in this message and any attachment(s) is
confidential and intended only for the attention of the named organisation
or individual to whom it is addressed.  The message may contain
information that is covered by legal, professional or other privilege.  No
mistake in transmission is intended to waive or compromise any such
privilege.  This message has been sent over public networks and the sender
cannot be held responsible for its integrity.

If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure,
copying, distribution or action taken in reliance of the information
contained herein is strictly prohibited, and is contrary to the provisions
of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act, 1988 and of the Data Protection
Act, 1998.

Any views expressed are those of the sender and, unless specifically
stated, do not necessarily represent the view of Northumbria Police.

We cannot accept any liability for any loss or damage sustained as a
result of software viruses.  It is your responsibility to carry out such
virus checking as is necessary.

If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by
e-mail at once and delete the message immediately.

For more information about Northumbria Police please visit our website -
[1]http://www.northumbria.police.uk

References

Visible links
1. http://www.northumbria.police.uk/

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Cleugh,

Given that it was you who dealt with this request, that it was you who also sent me the above reply of today (13/10/2011). I am now seeking your, NP'S help, advice and also further information concerning this request, matter as follows;

On the 14th of March, as above, you wrote to me and within your reply you stated that my request was ‘vexatious', that was what you, NP were claiming. Furthermore, NP were still confirming that my request, this request, was ‘vexatious' even after they carried out one of their internal reviews.

I would now like you, NP to explain the following to me and also supply me with proper answers to the following questions and to supply me with a full explanation.

A. Is this request ‘vexatious’, yes or no please?

After I made a complaint to the ICO about this request, NP have written to me only today stating; “Following further review of this request and following liaison with the office of the Information Commissioner I offer you further information and advice regarding this request.”

B. Please explain what you mean by, “Following further review of this request..” When was there a further review and for what reason. Why was I not informed of this ‘review’?

C. You are now claiming, after I made complaint to ICO, that; “ The information that you have requested would potentially be classed as your personal data and therefore should be considered under the Data Protection Act 1998. As such and to consider such a disclosure, a subject access request should be submitted to this office.” Please explain what you mean by , “... would potentially be classed as your personal data ...”?

D. Regards C above, Why did you not deal with this matter under the Data
Protection Act 1998 when I first made the request?

E. Could this request not also be potentially classed as Freedom of Information, if not, please explain why not?

You go on to say; “Further information and a suitable subject accesss request form can be found on the Northumbria Police web-site. I have attached a link to the relevant page below ... “ I have already supplied you with ID to confirm that I am indeed Martin McGartland. You are also aware that there are issues regarding my being unable to send cheque/payments to NP.

I am aware that NP are able to waive a fee concerning DPA. NP should deal with the above and they should also release the requested information without further delay. The information should be released under the DPA or the FOIA. NP can huff, bluff, lie, cover-up and conceal all they like. However, anyone reading these requests can see what they are up to. It is a clear case of NI, negligence and or incompetence, cooked up by those bent cops who I have named many times, those within NP HQ, the pen pushers, who are behind this.

F. Are you, NP now telling me that you made a mistake with this request. If so, will you, NP now be apologising to me, if not why not?

G. Given that you, NP have made such a cock-up with this request, can you, NP confirm if you will now be reviewing all of the other requests made by me, others relating to my case. If not, please explain why not?

I hope that NP will now supply me with full and detailed answers to above questions and also make an apology for causing me a great deal of unnecessary stress, inconvenience and delay.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Gadawodd Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

Northumbria Police are getting all shy again. I asked them a number of times to send their replies to the what do they know page, which is where I made this request. However, they have once again emailed me direct even when I requested that they do not do so.

Here is their email of today:

freedom.info@north************** to Martin McGartland (Via personal email)

Show details 3:39 PM (Mon 17, Oct 2011)

Dear Mr McGartland

In answer to your queries below, I have responded to your personal mail-box as I have referred to the subject access request previously submitted by you. As this information is not in the public domain,I have decided not to respond into a public forum such as the What do they know web-site.

A. When considered through the Freedom of Information Act your request is classed as vexatious.

B. I looked at your initial request again as suggested by the Information Commissioner's Office. There is no requirement for me to inform you of my doing this. I have informed you of the result of this in my previous correspondence to you.

C. This department would consider your request fully under the Data Protection Act upon receipt of a subject access request from you.

D. As your request was made and received as a Freedom of Information request, it was treated as such.

E. Your request was clased as and treated as a Freedom of Information request.

F. Your request was made under the Freedom of Information Act 200 and was treated as such. We have advised that a subject access request can be considered if an appropriate request is made by you. The fee can be paid by cheque, postal order or by cash. Whilst you have made a previous subject access request and submitted proof of identity with that request, you also asked that the proof of identity be destroyed at that time. We therefore require new proof of identity from you in order to consider a request as valid.

G. There is no requirement to review all of your FOI requests. This department will not be carrying out such a review.

For completeness, I have advised on how to make a subject access request as advised by the information Commissioner's Office. It is a matter for yourself whether you decide to submit such a request. Please note that should you submit a subject access request, you may wish to also request the personal data that may be held in relation to FOI request 706/11 (copies of correspondence) which was responded to today.

Yours sincerely

Michael Cleugh
Data Protection & Disclosure Advisor
Ends

I note the above reply did not address or answer the questions I asked, as above. I have emailed NP back this afternoon and asked them to send their reply (as above) to the what do they know site. I also informed them that I have made an appeal to the ICO. I made them aware that all of the correspondence should be included within the correct page. Will NP sent their reply to this page? I have added it above, for above reason/s, just in case they don't.

Northumbria Police

Dear Mr McGartland

As your latest queries include references to subjects covered by the Data
Protection Act 1998, I have supplied you a full response via another
method of contact.

You have acknowledged receipt of my response.

You may publish that response on this web-site should you wish to do so.

Yours sincerely

Michael Cleugh
Data Protection & Disclosure Advisor

From:        Martin McGartland <[FOI #60730 email]>
on 13/10/2011 21:48 CET

To:        [Northumbria Police request email]
cc:        
Subject:        Re: 081/11 External legal advice concerning my FOI, DPA
requests to Northumbria Police - Names of all FOI,DPA, NP officers [NOT
PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

     Dear Cleugh,
   
    Given that it was you who dealt with this request, that it was you
    who also sent me the above reply of today (13/10/2011). I am now
    seeking your, NP'S help, advice and also further information
    concerning this request, matter as follows;
   
    On the 14th of March, as above, you wrote to me and within your
    reply you stated that my request was ‘vexatious', that was what
    you, NP were claiming. Furthermore, NP were still confirming that
    my request, this request, was ‘vexatious' even after they carried
    out one of their internal reviews.
   
    I would now like you, NP to explain the following to me and also
    supply me with proper answers to the following questions and to
    supply me with a full explanation.
   
    A. Is this request ‘vexatious’, yes or no please?
   
    After I made a complaint to the ICO about this request, NP have
    written to me only today stating; “Following further review of this
    request and following liaison with the office of the Information
    Commissioner I offer you further information and advice regarding
    this request.”
   
    B. Please explain what you mean by, “Following further review of
    this request..” When was there a further review and for what
    reason. Why was I not informed of this ‘review’?
   
    C. You are now claiming, after I made complaint to ICO, that; “ The
    information that you have requested would potentially be classed as
    your personal data and therefore should be considered under the
    Data Protection Act 1998. As such and to consider such a
    disclosure, a subject access request should be submitted to this
    office.” Please explain what you mean by , “... would potentially
    be classed as your personal data ...”?
   
    D. Regards C above, Why did you not deal with this matter under the
    Data
    Protection Act 1998 when I first made the request?
   
    E. Could this request not also be potentially classed as Freedom of
    Information, if not, please explain why not?
   
    You go on to say; “Further information and a suitable subject
    accesss request form can be found on the Northumbria Police
    web-site. I have attached a link to the relevant page below ... “ I
    have already supplied you with ID to confirm that I am indeed
    Martin McGartland. You are also aware that there are issues
    regarding my being unable to send cheque/payments to NP.
   
    I am aware that NP are able to waive a fee concerning DPA. NP
    should deal with the above and they should also release the
    requested information without further delay. The information should
    be released under the DPA or the FOIA. NP can huff, bluff, lie,
    cover-up and conceal all they like. However, anyone reading these
    requests can see what they are up to. It is a clear case of NI,
    negligence and or incompetence, cooked up by those bent cops who I
    have named many times, those within NP HQ, the pen pushers, who are
    behind this.
   
    F. Are you, NP now telling me that you made a mistake with this
    request. If so, will you, NP now be apologising to me, if not why
    not?
   
    G. Given that you, NP have made such a cock-up with this request,
    can you, NP confirm if you will now be reviewing all of the other
    requests made by me, others relating to my case. If not, please
    explain why not?
   
    I hope that NP will now supply me with full and detailed answers to
    above questions and also make an apology for causing me a great
    deal of unnecessary stress, inconvenience and delay.
   
    Yours faithfully,
   
    Martin McGartland
   
   

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Mr Cleugh,

I first made this request on the 1st of Feb 2011, over 8 months ago. You, NP have been claiming ever since that my request was ‘vexatious’. You have since been told by the ICO that my request was (is) not ‘vexatious’. You, NP are now claiming that the request is a DPA request i.e it never was a FOI request.

How come you, NP did not know this was a DPA request. Do you, NP not know the difference between a DPA and a FOI request? I understand NP were told off by the ICO for the way you, NP dealt with me, this request. It seems to me that you, NP need a great deal more training on DPA and FOI.

I understand the ICO stated that some of my request, this request was indeed FOI i.e. so far as notes written by you (others), NP and also other records/recorded information concerning this request.
Question - Request: Can you please release that information to me under the FOIA. I am happy for you to deal with this as a new FOI request if you need to.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

Dear Mr McGartland

As previously advised to you, I must again advise that your initial
request was treated as an FOI request. No further action is therefore
necessary in this regard.

You have subsequently been advised on how to make a subject access
request.

Unfortunately your understanding of the ICO involvement with Northumbria
Police on this matter is incorrect. You requested at q4 of your
submission, the names of the staff and officers involved with any of your
FOIA/DPA requests made. It was this data that the ICO advised could be
considered under DPA (not FOIA as you suggest).

Yours sincerely

Michael Cleugh
Data Protection & Disclosure Advisor

From:        Martin McGartland <[FOI #60730 email]>
on 23/10/2011 14:08 CET

To:        [Northumbria Police request email]
cc:        
Subject:        Re: 081/11 External legal advice concerning my FOI, DPA
requests to Northumbria Police - Names of all FOI,DPA, NP officers [NOT
PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

     Dear Mr Cleugh,
   
    I first made this request on the 1st of Feb 2011, over 8 months
    ago. You, NP have been claiming ever since that my request was
    ‘vexatious’. You have since been told by the ICO that my request
    was (is) not ‘vexatious’. You, NP are now claiming that the request
    is a DPA request i.e it never was a FOI request.
   
    How come you, NP did not know this was a DPA request. Do you, NP
    not know the difference between a DPA and a FOI request? I
    understand NP were told off by the ICO for the way you, NP dealt
    with me, this request. It seems to me that you, NP need a great
    deal more training on DPA and FOI.
   
    I understand the ICO stated that some of my request, this request
    was indeed FOI i.e. so far as notes written by you (others), NP and
    also other records/recorded information concerning this request.
    Question - Request: Can you please release that information to me
    under the FOIA. I am happy for you to deal with this as a new FOI
    request if you need to.
   
    Yours faithfully,
   
    Martin McGartland
   
   

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

I am well aware of what was said regards this matter, I have copies of the correspondence in this matter. I am also aware that the ICO made it very clear that you did not deal with this request correctly. The ICO said a great deal more in their correspondence to NP concerning the way in which they had dealt with this request.

You will be aware that I have already asked the ICO to review this matter.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Gadawodd Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

Sue Sim and Northumbria Police said FOI request relating to Martin McGartland attempted murder case was 'Vexatious'. The Information Commissioner has issued a Decision Notice against Sue Sim and Northumbria Police which states, 'The Commissioner
finds that the force incorrectly applied section 14(1) to the request. He requires the public authority to respond to the request in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of the Act within 35
calendar days.' That complain was upheld by the Information-Commissioner, Decision Notice: http://www.scribd.com/doc/72333438/Sue-S...

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

The Information Commissioner has issued a Decision Notice against Sue Sim and Northumbria Police which states, 'The Commissioner finds that the force incorrectly applied section 14(1) to the request. He requires the public authority to respond to the request in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of the Act within 35 calendar days.' That complain was upheld by the Information-Commissioner, Decision Notice: http://www.scribd.com/doc/72333438/Sue-S...

35 calendar days was on or before the 23rd December 2011. NP have not replied to me and they are still breaking the law. If I have not had NP’s reply by close of business on Friday 6th Jan 2012 I can confirm that I will be making a further complaint to the ICO. I will also be requesting that the ICO take proper action against NP.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

Dear Mr McGartland

You were supplied a response to your request, 17 October 2011. In that
response, you were advised on how to make a subject access request.

Yours sincerely

Michael Cleugh
Data Protection & Disclosure Advisor

From:        Martin McGartland <[FOI #60730 email]>
on 30/12/2011 20:34

To:        FOI requests at Northumbria Police
<[Northumbria Police request email]>
cc:        
Subject:        Re: Freedom of Information request - Re:- External legal
advice concerning my FOI, DPA requests to Northumbria Police - Names of
all FOI,DPA, NP officers ...

     Dear Northumbria Police,
   
    The Information Commissioner has issued a Decision Notice against
    Sue Sim and Northumbria Police which states, 'The Commissioner
    finds that the force incorrectly applied section 14(1) to the
    request. He requires the public authority to respond to the request
    in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of the Act within 35
    calendar days.' That complain was upheld by the
    Information-Commissioner, Decision Notice:
   
http://www.scribd.com/doc/72333438/Sue-S...
   
    35 calendar days was on or before the 23rd December 2011. NP have
    not replied to me and they are still breaking the law. If I have
    not had NP’s reply by close of business on Friday 6th Jan 2012 I
    can confirm that I will be making a further complaint to the ICO. I
    will also be requesting that the ICO take proper action against NP.
   
    Yours faithfully,
   
    Martin McGartland
   
   
   
   

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

This request was made under freedom of information act a long time ago, moreover, you, NP dealt with it as such.

You are now claiming that it is a 'subject access request', it very clearly is not. Please deal with this request by return. You have also informed me that you, NP contacted ICO about this matter and you claim that they too were of the view that it could be a 'subject access request', this is news to me. No-one at the ICO has contacted me about this.

Please also supply me with full details of what the ICO told NP, the name of the person/s at the ICO that you, NP spoke to concerning this matter. I will then contact them about this matter.

I am also requesting all recorded information you hold concerning your, NP's contact with ICO relating to above. I'm sure you will agree that it is relevant to this matter.

If NP are going to continue refusing to deal with this request I can confirm that I will be making further complaint to the ICO. You will be aware that the ICO have already issued a DN in this case. The ICO also ordered NP to deal with the request within 35 days, you are well outside that time limit.

Please deal with this request and also supply me with the above recorded information relating to this matter.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

Dear Mr McGartland

The ICO contacted this office following receipt of a complaint they
received from you.

Their case reference is RFA0379532

You may wish to consult with the office of the Information Commissioner in
order to gather further information.

Information created as a result of your complaint would be classed as your
personal data. In order to apply  for such information you should submit a
subject access request to this office.

Further information on how to do this can be found on the Northumbria
Poolice web-site -
http://www.northumbria.police.uk/foi/sub...

Yours sincerely

Michael Cleugh
Data Protection & Disclosure Advisor

From:        Martin McGartland <[FOI #60730 email]>
on 05/01/2012 19:42

To:        [Northumbria Police request email]
cc:        
Subject:        Re: Freedom of Information request - 81/11 - External
legal advice concerning my FOI, DPA requests to Northumbria Police - Names
of all FOI,DPA, NP officers ... [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

     Dear Northumbria Police,
   
    This request was made under freedom of information act a long time
    ago, moreover, you, NP dealt with it as such.
   
    You are now claiming that it is a 'subject access request', it very
    clearly is not. Please deal with this request by return. You have
    also informed me that you, NP contacted ICO about this matter and
    you claim that they too were of the view that it could be a
    'subject access request', this is news to me. No-one at the ICO has
    contacted me about this.
   
    Please also supply me with full details of what the ICO told NP,
    the name of the person/s at the ICO that you, NP spoke to
    concerning this matter. I will then contact them about this matter.
   
    I am also requesting all recorded information you hold concerning
    your, NP's contact with ICO relating to above. I'm sure you will
    agree that it is relevant to this matter.
   
    If NP are going to continue refusing to deal with this request I
    can confirm that I will be making further complaint to the ICO. You
    will be aware that the ICO have already issued a DN in this case.
    The ICO also ordered NP to deal with the request within 35 days,
    you are well outside that time limit.
   
    Please deal with this request and also supply me with the above
    recorded information relating to this matter.
   
    Yours faithfully,
   
    Martin McGartland
   
   

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

You claim; "The ICO contacted this office following receipt of a complaint they received from you.
Their case reference is RFA0379532 You may wish to consult with the office of the Information Commissioner in order to gather further information."

First of all, the DN that was issued by the ICO has nothing at all to do with any other complaint/s, that matter was fully investigated and the ICO found that NO were wrong, they were ordered to deal with this request within 35 days.

I am asking you, NP once again to please supply me with all information you have concerning who you spoke to from the ICO, when you spoke to them, and more importantly what was agreed between the ICO and NP.

The above information is very important to this matter. You, NP are in breach of the ICO's DN that order NP to deal with this request within 35 days. NP have not dealt with the request within the 35 days.

Please supply me with the above information so that I can take this matter further. You, NP continue to lie, mislead, delay and cover-up while dealing with me, my cases. I am bound to say that I do not trust anything you, NP say. concerning my case. You, your dept and NP have been caught out lying so many times.

I await the request information.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

This request was made on the 1st Feb 2011, almost 1 year ago, Let us deal with the wording of my request as follows (as above);

“Given that NP have unlawfully “gagged” me from seeking information about my unsolved attempted murder case I would like to know if they requested legal advice to do so.

1. Have Northumbria Police requested external legal advice and/or external legal representation concerning any of the FOIA/DPA requests I have made.

2. If so, please supply full details of all amounts paid by Northumbria Police on external legal advice and/or external legal representation concerning any advice relating to question 1 above. Please specify which payments were counsels' fees.

3. Provide the names of all law firms and individuals,if any, who have supplied such services and/or advice to Northumbria Police
concerning my FOIA, DPA requests

4. Please supply names of all FOI,DPA and Northumbria Police officers, including their positions within NP, who have been involved with and/or party to any of the FOIA/DPA requests which I have made to NP.”

Northumbria Police had been incorrectly stating that the above request was ‘Vexatious’, however, the ICO issued a DN stating that my complaint was Upheld, that the request was not ‘Vexatious’.

NP were ordered to deal with the request within 35 days, however, to date they have still not done so. NP are now claiming that; “Following further review of this request and following liaison with the
office of the Information Commissioner I offer you further information and advice regarding this request. The information that you have requested would potentially be classed as your personal data and therefore should be considered under the Data Protection Act 1998. As such and to consider such a disclosure, a subject access request should be submitted to this office.”

NP at no time during the past 11 months had informed me that this was a DPA, subject access request. The fact is it is not.

I have requested details from NP concerning above, including what NP and ICO have agreed and I have asked for the name/s of the person/s who NP spoke with within the ICO concerning this matter, however, despite further requests, as above, NP are refusing to supply me with the information. Please would you now do so.

In the meantime, and under the FOIA, I am requesting Northumbria Police’s advice, assistance and/or help concerning this request as follows;

I note that NP state; “The information that you have requested would potentially be classed as
your personal data.” I am requesting that NP supply me with a detailed explanation and also full details of why they believe each of my 4 requests are ‘potentially’ for my ‘personal data’ i.e. please explain why NP believe my asking for following can be regarded as my ‘personal data’;

Please explain why NP believe that my no 1 request, my request for;. "1. Have Northumbria Police requested external legal advice and/or external legal representation concerning any of the FOIA/DPA requests I have made.” could be regarded as my ‘personal data'?

As above, please explain why NP believe my no 2 request, my asking for; “2. If so, please supply full details of all amounts paid by Northumbria Police on external legal advice and/or external legal representation concerning any advice relating to question 1 above. Please specify which payments were counsels' fees.” could be regarded as my ‘personal data’?

As above, please explain why NP believe my no 3 request, my asking for; “3. Provide the names of all law firms and individuals,if any, who have supplied such services and/or advice to Northumbria Police concerning my FOIA, DPA requests.” could be regarded as my ‘personal data’?

As above, please explain why NP believes my no 4 request, my asking for “4. Please supply names of all FOI,DPA and Northumbria Police officers, including their positions within NP, who have been involved with and/or party to any of the FOIA/DPA requests which I have made to NP.” could be regarded as my ‘personal data’?

As well as the above I am also requesting NP’s advice, assistance and/or help under the FOIA i.e. please supply me with an explanation on what NP’s definition of ‘potentially’ is when referring to this request.

This is not a case of Incompetence or Corruption, it is both, NP are Incompetent and up to their necks in Corruption while dealing with my cases from Sue Sim’s Office to the Legal Department, all around the Command Block to their Professional Standards Department down to the FOI Department, The Corruption within Northumbria Police is endemic so far as their dealings with me, my cases are concerned.

I will await NP’s next move. There is no reason, save for the above, why NP would not be able to supply me with an explanation and straightforward reply to straightforward request/s , questions’.

I am aware that my requests are being dealt with by others i.e. NP's legal team rather than you, the FOI department.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

Dear Mr McGartland

This department is unaware at this stage of any decision notice that
upheld a complaint regarding a request submitted by you.

You have advised that you have never been informed about subject access in
relation to this request. I must inform you of the following:
13th October you were advised on how to make a subject access request
under the Data Protection Act
17th October you were advised that a subject access request could be
submitted to this office, that correspondence also answered the queries
you have regarding this request made under the Freedom of Information Act
2000
 24th October you were advised that you had previously been advised on how
to make a subject access request through the Data Protection Act,
3 January 2012 you were advised that you had previously been advised on
how to make a subject access request.  

I have previously advised you of the case reference number from the
Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).

Should you wish to request copies of correspondence held (if any held)
between Northumbria Police and the ICO, this would be classed as your
personal data. Therefore a subjet access request should be submitted to
the Data Protection Team to request such data. More information and the
appropraiate form is available via the link below -

http://www.northumbria.police.uk/foi/sub...

Yours sincerely

Michael Cleugh
Data Protection & Disclosure Advisor

From:        Martin McGartland <[FOI #60730 email]>
on 09/01/2012 21:27

To:        [Northumbria Police request email]
cc:        
Subject:        Re: Freedom of Information request - 81/11 - External
legal advice concerning my FOI, DPA requests to Northumbria Police - Names
of all FOI,DPA, NP officers ... [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

     Dear Northumbria Police,
   
    This request was made on the 1st Feb 2011, almost 1 year ago, Let
    us deal with the wording of my request as follows (as above);
   
    “Given that NP have unlawfully “gagged” me from seeking information
    about my unsolved attempted murder case I would like to know if
    they requested legal advice to do so.
   
    1. Have Northumbria Police requested external legal advice and/or
    external legal representation concerning any of the FOIA/DPA
    requests I have made.
   
    2. If so, please supply full details of all amounts paid by
    Northumbria Police on external legal advice and/or external legal
    representation concerning any advice relating to question 1 above.
    Please specify which payments were counsels' fees.
   
    3. Provide the names of all law firms and individuals,if any, who
    have supplied such services and/or advice to Northumbria Police
    concerning my FOIA, DPA requests
   
    4. Please supply names of all FOI,DPA and Northumbria Police
    officers, including their positions within NP, who have been
    involved with and/or party to any of the FOIA/DPA requests which I
    have made to NP.”
   
    Northumbria Police had been incorrectly stating that the above
    request was ‘Vexatious’, however, the ICO issued a DN stating that
    my complaint was Upheld, that the request was not ‘Vexatious’.
   
    NP were ordered to deal with the request within 35 days, however,
    to date they have still not done so. NP are now claiming that;
    “Following further review of this request and following liaison
    with the
    office of the Information Commissioner I offer you further
    information and advice regarding this request. The information that
    you have requested would potentially be classed as your personal
    data and therefore should be considered under the Data Protection
    Act 1998. As such and to consider such a disclosure, a subject
    access request should be submitted to this office.”
   
    NP at no time during the past 11 months had informed me that this
    was a DPA, subject access request. The fact is it is not.
   
    I have requested details from NP concerning above, including what
    NP and ICO have agreed and I have asked for the name/s of the
    person/s who NP spoke with within the ICO concerning this matter,
    however, despite further requests, as above, NP are refusing to
    supply me with the information. Please would you now do so.
   
    In the meantime, and under the FOIA, I am requesting Northumbria
    Police’s advice, assistance and/or help concerning this request as
    follows;
   
    I note that NP state; “The information that you have requested
    would potentially be classed as
    your personal data.” I am requesting that NP supply me with a
    detailed explanation and also full details of why they believe each
    of my 4 requests are ‘potentially’ for my ‘personal data’ i.e.
    please explain why NP believe my asking for following can be
    regarded as my ‘personal data’;
   
    Please explain why NP believe that my no 1 request, my request
    for;. "1. Have Northumbria Police requested external legal advice
    and/or external legal representation concerning any of the FOIA/DPA
    requests I have made.” could be regarded as my ‘personal data'?
   
    As above, please explain why NP believe my no 2 request, my asking
    for; “2. If so, please supply full details of all amounts paid by
    Northumbria Police on external legal advice and/or external legal
    representation concerning any advice relating to question 1 above.
    Please specify which payments were counsels' fees.” could be
    regarded as my ‘personal data’?
   
    As above, please explain why NP believe my no 3 request, my asking
    for; “3. Provide the names of all law firms and individuals,if any,
    who have supplied such services and/or advice to Northumbria Police
    concerning my FOIA, DPA requests.” could be regarded as my
    ‘personal data’?
   
    As above, please explain why NP believes my no 4 request, my asking
    for “4. Please supply names of all FOI,DPA and Northumbria Police
    officers, including their positions within NP, who have been
    involved with and/or party to any of the FOIA/DPA requests which I
    have made to NP.” could be regarded as my ‘personal data’?
   
    As well as the above I am also requesting NP’s advice, assistance
    and/or help under the FOIA i.e. please supply me with an
    explanation on what NP’s definition of ‘potentially’ is when
    referring to this request.
   
    This is not a case of Incompetence or Corruption, it is both, NP
    are Incompetent and up to their necks in Corruption while dealing
    with my cases from Sue Sim’s Office to the Legal Department, all
    around the Command Block to their Professional Standards Department
    down to the FOI Department, The Corruption within Northumbria
    Police is endemic so far as their dealings with me, my cases are
    concerned.
   
    I will await NP’s next move. There is no reason, save for the
    above, why NP would not be able to supply me with an explanation
    and straightforward reply to straightforward request/s ,
    questions’.
   
    I am aware that my requests are being dealt with by others i.e.
    NP's legal team rather than you, the FOI department.
   
    Yours faithfully,
   
    Martin McGartland
   
   

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Gadawodd Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

RUC / PSNI / MI5, Special Branch and State abandoning former undercover agents:

These are just three (of the many cases) in which former State (Mi5, RUC / PSNI / Special Branch and Army) agents who gave their all in the fight against terror only to have been abandoned by those they so loyally served, MI5, RUC, PSNI, Special Branch, Army and State:

Case 1: Former agent Raymond Gilmour:
The RUC (special branch) and Mi5 - State - Do indeed forget about their former agents as soon as that agent has out lived his / her usefulness.

Case 1: Former agent Raymond Gilmour [who gave his all in the fight against terror] was abandoned by RUC /PSNI / Special Branch / Mi5 and State. Sadly Raymond has since died. See further informers here, below link; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F89TyMAj...

Case 2: Former agent Martin McGartland:
Former undercover agent Martin McGartland abandoned by Mi5 / RUC / PSNI / Special Branch and State.....

The RUC (special branch) and Mi5 - State - Do indeed forget about their former agents as soon as that agent has out lived his / her usefulness.

Martin McGartland has faced [Failed] attempts by MI5, Police and Special Branch to to stich him up as well as false arrests, malicious prosecutions and much more. Martin has been left permanently disabled as a result of his 1999 shooting by IRA (as a direct result of MI5, Police and state Vendetta and negligence and withdrawal of medical treatment ) .... See further informers here, below link; https://youtu.be/i3O0CQPSKf0

Case 3 - former undercover Kevin Fulton abandoned by Mi5 / RUC / PSNI / Special Branch and State. The RUC (special branch) and Mi5 - State - Do indeed forget about their former agents as soon as that agent has out lived his / her usefulness. More information here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep2x7mDQ...