'B' Site

Dave Whyte made this Freedom of Information request to Ministry of Defence

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

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Ministry of Defence should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear Ministry of Defence,

During the British nuclear testing programme there were approximately 200 Servicemen billeted in the forward area known as 'C' Camp situated at 'B' site.

1. Could you please supply copies of all documents defining the purpose of billeting these men within the forward area?

2. Could you please supply all documents showing the precautions taken to ensure the health and safety of these men were not jeopardised in any way?

3. If there was any monitoring carried out to ensure the safety of the men involved, could you please supply copies of the results of this monitoring?

I look forward to reading your reply.

Yours faithfully,

Dave Whyte

Dear Ministry of Defence,

I have just realised I forgot to mention I am refering to Christmas Island in the above request regarding 'B' site.

I feel it is better to clarify now rather than later.

Yours faithfully,

Dave Whyte

DES SEC-PolSecShips and Subs (MULTIUSER),

Dear Mr Whyte

 

I refer to your email of 11 August 2012 in which you asked the following:

 

‘During the British nuclear testing programme there were approximately 200
Servicemen billeted in the forward area known as

'C' Camp situated at 'B' site.

    

     1. Could you please supply copies of all documents defining the

     purpose of billeting these men within the forward area?

    

     2. Could you please supply all documents showing the precautions

     taken to ensure the health and safety of these men were not

     jeopardised in any way?

    

     3. If there was any monitoring carried out to ensure the safety of

     the men involved, could you please supply copies of the results of

     this monitoring?’

          

Your request is being dealt with under the terms of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 and we will provide a response within twenty working
days.

 

If you have any queries about this request please do not hesitate to
contact the team and remember to quote reference number
13-08-2012-155030-014 in any future communications.

 

If you are not satisfied with this response or you wish to complain about
any aspect of the handling of your request, then you should contact me in
the first instance. If informal resolution is not possible and you are
still dissatisfied then you may apply for an independent internal review
by contacting the Head of Corporate Information, 2nd Floor, MOD Main
Building, Whitehall, SW1A 2HB (e-mail [email address]). Please note that
any request for an internal review must be made within 40 working days of
the date on which the attempt to reach informal resolution has come to an
end.

 

If you remain dissatisfied following an internal review, you may take your
complaint to the Information Commissioner under the provisions of Section
50 of the Freedom of Information Act. Please note that the Information
Commissioner will not investigate your case until the MOD internal review
process has been completed. Further details of the role and powers of the
Information Commissioner can be found on the Commissioner's website,
[1]http://www.ico.gov.uk.

 

Regards,

 

DE&S Policy Secretariat

 

 

 

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ico.gov.uk/
http://www.ico.gov.uk/

DES SEC-PolSecShips and Subs (MULTIUSER),

Dear Mr Whyte

 

Further to my below email of 15 August 2012 acknowledging receipt of your
FOI request (reference number 13-08-20120155030-014); to assist in the
processing of this request could you please clarify which timeframe or
period you are interested in and your request relates to? Also, could you
please confirm if you are interested in ‘B’ Site situated at ‘B’ Camp or
‘C’ Site at ‘C’ Camp?         

 

If you have any queries about this email please do not hesitate to contact
the team and remember to quote reference number 13-08-2012-155030-014 in
your communication.

 

If you are not satisfied with this response or you wish to complain about
any aspect of the handling of your request, then you should contact me in
the first instance. If informal resolution is not possible and you are
still dissatisfied then you may apply for an independent internal review
by contacting the Head of Corporate Information, 2nd Floor, MOD Main
Building, Whitehall, SW1A 2HB (e-mail [email address]). Please note that
any request for an internal review must be made within 40 working days of
the date on which the attempt to reach informal resolution has come to an
end.

 

If you remain dissatisfied following an internal review, you may take your
complaint to the Information Commissioner under the provisions of Section
50 of the Freedom of Information Act. Please note that the Information
Commissioner will not investigate your case until the MOD internal review
process has been completed. Further details of the role and powers of the
Information Commissioner can be found on the Commissioner's website,
[1]http://www.ico.gov.uk.

 

Regards,

 

DE&S Policy Secretariat

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Mr Whyte

 

I refer to your email of 11 August 2012 in which you asked the following:

 

‘During the British nuclear testing programme there were approximately 200
Servicemen billeted in the forward area known as

'C' Camp situated at 'B' site.

    

     1. Could you please supply copies of all documents defining the

     purpose of billeting these men within the forward area?

    

     2. Could you please supply all documents showing the precautions

     taken to ensure the health and safety of these men were not

     jeopardised in any way?

    

     3. If there was any monitoring carried out to ensure the safety of

     the men involved, could you please supply copies of the results of

     this monitoring?’

          

Your request is being dealt with under the terms of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 and we will provide a response within twenty working
days.

 

If you have any queries about this request please do not hesitate to
contact the team and remember to quote reference number
13-08-2012-155030-014 in any future communications.

 

If you are not satisfied with this response or you wish to complain about
any aspect of the handling of your request, then you should contact me in
the first instance. If informal resolution is not possible and you are
still dissatisfied then you may apply for an independent internal review
by contacting the Head of Corporate Information, 2nd Floor, MOD Main
Building, Whitehall, SW1A 2HB (e-mail [email address]). Please note that
any request for an internal review must be made within 40 working days of
the date on which the attempt to reach informal resolution has come to an
end.

 

If you remain dissatisfied following an internal review, you may take your
complaint to the Information Commissioner under the provisions of Section
50 of the Freedom of Information Act. Please note that the Information
Commissioner will not investigate your case until the MOD internal review
process has been completed. Further details of the role and powers of the
Information Commissioner can be found on the Commissioner's website,
[2]http://www.ico.gov.uk.

 

Regards,

 

DE&S Policy Secretariat

 

 

 

Nigel Maggs

DE&S Policy Secretariat Strategic Weapons  

Maple 0a, ABW   

030 679 37375

[3][email address]

 

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ico.gov.uk/
http://www.ico.gov.uk/
2. http://www.ico.gov.uk/
http://www.ico.gov.uk/
3. mailto:[email address]

Dear DES SEC-PolSecShips and Subs (MULTIUSER),

Thank you for your reply. I am refering to the months of August, September and October 1958 when members of 2 Troop 61 Fd Sqn were moved into the forward area known as 'B' site. 'B' site is shown on the maps of Christmas Island approx 15 miles South/East of 'C' site.

I trust this will enable you to retrieve the information requested.

Yours sincerely,

Dave Whyte

DES SEC-PolSecShips and Subs (MULTIUSER),

1 Attachment

 

Dear Mr Whyte

 

Please find attached an update on your Freedom of Information request –
13-08-2012-155030-014.

 

Regards

 

DES Policy Secretariat

 

 

 

Dear DES SEC-PolSecShips and Subs (MULTIUSER),

Thank you for your reply. I have to admit, the prospect of labelling my enquiries as 'National Security' would leave me in no doubt that this action was being imposed in order to deny me access to the truth. I can see nothing in my questions that would be a risk to National Security.

Yours sincerely,

Dave Whyte

DES SEC-PolSecShips and Subs (MULTIUSER),

1 Attachment

Dear Whyte

 

Please find attached an update in respect of your FOI request
13-08-2012-155030-014.

 

Regards

 

DES Policy Secretariat

 

 

 

Kyle Byrnes left an annotation ()

Please request that they send you the parts that are not 's24' and disregard anything they were claiming is 's24' then at least you have something!

I'm interested

Dave Whyte left an annotation ()

Many thanks Kyle. I will be placing a further message to them.

Dear DES SEC-PolSecShips and Subs (MULTIUSER),
Thank you for your reply, Reference 13 08 2012 155030 014. Your comment is noted: "s24 is believed to apply to some of the information requested." considering these were questions regarding events of over 50 years ago you only 'Believe!'

Can you please advise which question, or questions, you believe comes under s24? Can you also supply the answers to the questions that are not thought to come under s24? Once a decision has been reached on which answers are going to remain secret and hidden from nuclear veterans a further FOI may be required to discover the reasons why!
Yours sincerely,

Dave Whyte

Dear DES SEC-PolSecShips and Subs (MULTIUSER),
Your decision on whether to permit the release of information under the terms of the Freedom of Information act is still awaited. Reference 13-08-2012-155030-014.

Yours sincerely,

Dave Whyte

Dear DES SEC-PolSecShips and Subs (MULTIUSER),

As the reply to this Freedom of information request is now long overdue, I request an internal review to be carried out into the handling of my request.

Yours sincerely,

Dave Whyte

Kyle Byrnes left an annotation ()

Unfortunately, the FOI Act doesn't allow you to ask for the reason behind there decisions. They will ignore your request

Dave Whyte left an annotation ()

Many thanks Kyle,

I think the saying 'Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves' would be appropriate in this instance.

All the best

Dave

DES SEC-PolSecShips and Subs (MULTIUSER),

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Whyte,

 

Please find attached an update in respect of your Freedom of Information
request: 13-08-2012-155030-014.

 

Regards,

 

DE&S Policy Secretariat

 

 

 

 

 

Dear DES SEC-PolSecShips and Subs (MULTIUSER),
Thank you for your reply. It is almost four months since this request was placed and it appears the Ministry of Defence are employing delaying tactics rather than answering straightforward questions. These events occurred over fifty years ago and there can be no reasons of National Security to withhold the information requested.

It is further noted, that no attempt has been made by the Ministry of Defence to answer the parts that do not fall under s24.

I look forward to receiving the answers to the questions not covered by s24.

Yours sincerely,

Dave Whyte

DES SEC-PolSecShips and Subs (MULTIUSER),

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Whyte,

 

Please find attached an update in respect of your Freedom of Information
request: 13-08-2012-155030-014.

 

Regards,

 

DE&S Policy Secretariat

 

 

 

 

 

Dear DES SEC-PolSecShips and Subs (MULTIUSER),

Once again you have used the phrase 'qualified exemption s24(national security' is considered to apply to some of the information requested.

You state 'Some of the Information' yet you have not provided any of the information which does not come under S24.

Could you please expedite the information not affected by S24 as this is required as evidence for court.

Yours sincerely,

Dave Whyte

DES SEC-PolSecShips and Subs (MULTIUSER),

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Whyte

 

Please find attached an update in respect of your Freedom of Information
request 13-08-2012-155030-014.

 

Regards

 

DE&S Policy Secretariat

 

Dear DES SEC-PolSecShips and Subs (MULTIUSER),

Thank you for the less than helpful reply to my legitimate questions which were raised on the 11 August 2012,over five months ago. You have mentioned some items come under s24 (national security) but you have failed to state which questions come under that category and have also failed to produce the documents that do not come under that category. The only reason national security could be considered, regarding any of the questions raised, is to cover up the atrocities wilfully and deliberately committed against British Servicemen.
Yours sincerely,

Dave Whyte

DES SEC-PolSecShips and Subs (MULTIUSER),

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Whyte,

 

Please find attached an update in respect of your Freedom of Information
request: 13-08-2012-155030-014.

 

Regards,

 

DE&S Policy Secretariat

 

 

 

 

 

Dear DES SEC-PolSecShips and Subs (MULTIUSER),

Thank you for your reply regarding some of the information may be regarded as s24 (national security) but you have failed to provide any of the information, requested on numerous occasions which you know does not come under s24.

By the time March 21 arrives this request will have been ongoing for over 7 months (well in excess of the 20 working days under the FOI Act).

Please expedite the information which does not come under s24.

Yours sincerely,

Dave Whyte

Kyle Byrnes left an annotation ()

There trying to hide/destroy/cover up something.

Dave Whyte left an annotation ()

Many thanks Kyle. They are attempting to cover up the atrocities they knowingly committed whilst using British servicemen and their Allies as 'Human Guinea Pigs.'

The French (nuclear Veterans who attended the French Nuclear tests) are calling it: "Involuntary manslaughter, Injury to physical integrity and administration of harmful substances."

I have to agree with that explanation.

Best wishes

Dave

Dear DES SEC-PolSecShips and Subs (MULTIUSER),

Reference 13-08-2012-155030-014: For several months I have requested information not considered to come under s24 be expedited, but my request has been completely ignored in defiance of the terms laid down under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
I therefore request an internal review be conducted into the handling of this case.

Yours sincerely,

Dave Whyte

CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER),

Dear Mr Whyte,

Your email of 27 February 2013 has been passed to this office.

We have asked the MOD subject matter experts to expedite the substantive response to your request, our reference 13-08-2012-155030-014 and we have been advised that this will be sent to you within the next two weeks.

If you are dissatisfied with the substantive response when you receive it, please contact us and we will conduct the internal review.

Regards,
Ms Usha Sondhi
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms Usha Sondhi | CIO-SPP-IR Comp2 | 01.N.16 MOD Main Building |
Whitehall | London SW1A 2HB

show quoted sections

Dear CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER),

Thank you for your response to my request13-08-2012-155030-014 for an internal review into the handling of this FOI.
I believe the Ministry of Defence are in deliberate violation of the terms of the Freedom of Information Act in their attempt to withhold requested information. This has been done in the same manner as they deliberately violated all civilised rules relating to Health and Safety of 'Human Beings' when testing the nuclear weapons.

I will assume your reply institutes an internal investigation has been undertaken into the handling of this request and will act accordingly as per the FOI Act if the information is not forthcoming in two weeks time

Yours sincerely,

Dave Whyte

DES SEC-PolSecShips and Subs (MULTIUSER),

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Whyte,

 

Please find attached a response which covers part of your request for
information under Freedom of Information request:

13-08-2012-155030-014.

 

Regards,

 

DE&S Policy Secretariat

 

 

 

 

Dear DES SEC-PolSecShips and Subs (MULTIUSER),
Thank you for your rather belated answers to my questions regarding FOI 13-08-2012-155030-014.
1. You have stated that a substansive reply, or an update will be provided by 27 march 2013. This question was placed Eight Months ago and you have still to give a satisfactory answer. There can be no reason, other than contempt of the Freedom of Information Act for a delay of this magnitude.

2. The defiance of the Ministry of Defence again manifests itself in the refusal, even after numerous reminders, to supply this information. It now transpires the information requested is exempt under Section 21(1) (accessible by other means). I can see no reason why this information was not supplied when the enquiry was first made in August 2012.

3. You are right, I have requested this information on several occassions but it has never been supplied. The AWRE regularly took radiation levels at 'B' site where 200 Service Personnel were living in the radioactive forward area. As this was a medical experiment and these 200 Service personnel were 'Human Guinea Pigs' to discover the levels of radiation that are dangerous for a 'Human Being'. This information will be in the archives, data on these experiments would not have been destroyed. For over five years I attempted to obtain the radiation levels at ground zero after both Pennant and Burgee. You eventually called my requests 'Vexatious' and stated you did not have the information and did not know anyone who did. This was proven to be incorrect after the First Tier Tribunal in February 2012, when the information suddenly appeared and an apology was given.

The cost to the Tax Payer for an answer to an FOI Question will be several pounds but due to the intransigence of the Ministry of Defence, the requirement to place numerous requests before satisfactory answers are given runs the bill up to Thousands of pounds and wastes everyones time.

I do not believe this Freedom of Information request was handled in the manner subscribed by the Act.

I trust you will new look into this matter

Yours sincerely,

Dave Whyte

DES Sec-FOI (MULTIUSER),

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Whyte,

 

Please find attached an update in respect of your Freedom of Information
request: 13-08-2012-155030-014.

 

Regards,

 

DE&S Policy Secretariat

 

DES SEC-PolSecShips and Subs (MULTIUSER),

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Whyte,

 

Please find attached the final response to your Freedom of Information
request: 13-08-2012-155030-014.

 

Regards,

 

DE&S Policy Secretariat

 

 

Dear DES SEC-PolSecShips and Subs (MULTIUSER),

Thank you for your reply to 13-08-2012-155030-014 which lists the information is available from the National Archives. The information given is totally misleading and does not answer the question as to why we were ordered to live in a radioactive zone.

The ROYAL ENGINEERS - 61 Fd Sqn is a diary of events (I have a copy for 1958), it tells the tasks that were performed and the troop movements, it does not give the reasons.

These men were used as 'Human Guinea Pigs,' and it is the reasons why they were used, and the true purpose for neglecting all health and safety rules by ordering them to live in this radioactive location that I am attempting to discover, and the Ministry of Defence is attempting to hide.

Yours sincerely,

Dave Whyte

John Cooper left an annotation ()

Dave

The MoD have declared they do not obfuscate FoI requests, see here https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/o...

Dave Whyte left an annotation ()

Thanks John,

Pity the MOD were not paid their bonuses for honest and truthful answers given, rather than their attempts to 'Fob' people off. If they were, we would get all the information needed.

Best wishes, Dave

John Cooper left an annotation ()

Dave
Can you prove otherwise, if so, then the MoD would have to be held responsible for their statement above

I have dozens of such 'fob offs' by the MoD from different people, one day the chickens will come home to roost