We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Jamie bridgeman please sign in and let everyone know.

Bristol Army Cadet Force, Drink driving

We're waiting for Jamie bridgeman to read a recent response and update the status.

Dear Ministry of Defence,

Dear Sir

I am writing to you under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to request the following information which I believe is held by County of Bristol Army Cadet Force:

At 08.20 on 8 August 2017 an email was sent between Bristol ACF and either a member of staff at Regional Command, or a member of staff at Nottinghamshire ACF (a copy of that redacted email is attached to this request). In that email was a reference to an incident report on a ‘minibus incident’ – that reference I believe relates to an incident which I understand took place earlier this year when a County of Bristol CFAV allegedly drove a minibus with army cadets on board without the correct driving licence or insurance, and while under the influence of alcohol.

Please provide me with a copy of the investigation report referred to and all correspondence held within the records of County of Bristol ACF relating to the ‘minibus incident’ referred to and any disciplinary action which occurred as a result of the ‘minibus incident’.

Please provide the information in paper or electronic format to this website.

If it is not possible to provide the information requested due to the information exceeding the cost of compliance limits identified in Section 12, please provide advice and assistance, under the Section 16 obligations of the Act, as to how I can refine my request.
If you can identify any ways that my request could be refined please provide further advice and assistance to indicate this.

If you have any queries please don’t hesitate to contact me via this website and I will be happy to clarify what I am asking for.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response.

Jamie bridgeman

Army Sec-&Group (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Bridgeman,

 

Please find attached official MOD response to your recent FOI request.

 

Kind Regards,

Army Secretariat

Dear Army Sec-&Group (MULTIUSER),

note that the MoD is seeking to rely on exemptions under the following catagories:

Section 30 (Investigations and Proceedings)
Section 31 (Law Enforcement)
Section 38 (Health and Safety)
Section 40 (Personal Information)

As an internal investigation has been carried out; it must be inferred that the investigation has concluded. These circumstances cannot therefore fall under the scope of the ss30 and 31 exemptions provided that the report is suitably redacted.

Section 30(1) can only be claimed by public authorities that have a duty to investigate whether someone should be charged with an offence, or the power to conduct such
investigations and/or institute criminal proceedings. The MoD does not have such a statutory duty or power.

The MoD has not confirmed whether the individual subject to the report was subject to Military Law at the relevant time. If the individual was not subject to Military Law the Royal Military Police or Service Prosecuting Authority could not claim jurisdiction. For these reasons the MoD cannot rely on this exception.

It goes without saying that a redacted report will remain compliant with the Data Protection Act 1998 and therefore the exception under s40 of The 2000 Act.

To successfully rely on an exception under s38 there must be a risk to the health of or injury to an individual or pose a risk to the safety of the general population. I do not accept that disclosing the report, or the contents if the same, if redacted would pose a risk to any person.

I consider that the reliance upon all sections is a deliberate attempt to delay or avoid publication.

Please respond immediately and disclose the information requested otherwise I must consider whether to exercise my right to an internal review.

Yours sincerely,

Jamie bridgeman

Yours sincerely,

Jamie bridgeman

Dear Army Sec-&Group (MULTIUSER),

I note I have not received an acknowledgement of my mail as per your normal practice.

Please could you kindly confirm receipt of mail

thanks

Jamie bridgeman

Army Sec-Group (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

Dear Mr Bridgeman,

As advised in our letter of 30 January, additional time is required for
conducting the public interest test in relation to the qualified
exemptions at Section 30 (Investigations and Proceedings) Section 31 (Law
Enforcement) Section 38 (Health and Safety). We will aim to provide the
substantive response within a further 20 working days i.e. by 28 February.
 
If you remain dissatisfied on receipt of the substantive response, you may
then ask for an internal review to be conducted by the Information Rights
Compliance Team.

Regards,
Army Secretariat

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jamie bridgeman <[FOI #454405 email]>
Sent: 02 February 2018 17:58
To: Army Sec-&Group (MULTIUSER)
Subject: Re: 20180130-FOI00013 Response
 

Dear Army Sec-&amp;Group (MULTIUSER),

 

I note I have not received an acknowledgement of my mail as per your
normal practice.

 

Please could you kindly confirm receipt of mail

 

thanks

 

Jamie bridgeman

 

show quoted sections

Dear Army Sec-Group (MULTIUSER),

today the day , dont leave me hanging.

Yours sincerely,

Jamie bridgeman

Dear Army Sec-Group (MULTIUSER),

as i have received no response to your own timescale, ill allow you 5 additional working days to response before requesting an internal review.

Yours sincerely,

Jamie bridgeman

Army Sec-Group (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

Dear Mr Bridgeman,

I am sorry that you have not received a timely response to this FOI request and I am grateful for your patience. I aim to have a response to you soon.

Regards,
Army Secretariat

show quoted sections

Jamie bridgeman

Dear Army Sec-Group (MULTIUSER),

Thank you for your email of 1 March relating to my outstanding response to my FOI request: 'Bristol Army Cadet Force, Drink driving'

"Dear Mr Bridgeman,

I am sorry that you have not received a timely response to this FOI request and I am grateful for your patience. I aim to have a response to you soon.

Regards,
Army Secretariat"

This is a completely unacceptable response.

I am aware that requests sometimes take longer than the legal limit of 30 working days, for reasons which are unavoidable. and i have have been prepared to allow your department some latitude .

Your reply offers no explanation for your failure to respond within the statutory limit, and no hint of apology about this. The period allowed for consideration of the request is now long past. From experience, I know that if a public authority is still considering a response after this long, it is because it does not want to respond.

I am not willing to be brushed off with such an offhand reply. The tone clearly implies that your department does not take its responsibilities seriously, and lacks a real commitment to transparency in government.

If I do not receive an adequate reply to my enquiry by next Friday, 9 March, I will appeal to the Information Commissioner's Office, asking them to treat this as a refusal to respond to a Freedom of Information request.

Yours sincerely,

Jamie bridgeman

Dear Ministry of Defence,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Ministry of Defence's handling of my FOI request 'Bristol Army Cadet Force, Drink driving'.

your department is not responsibilities seriously, and lacks a real commitment to transparency in government.

If I do not receive an adequate reply to my enquiry by next Friday, 16th March, I will appeal to the Information Commissioner's Office, asking them to treat this as a refusal to respond to a Freedom of Information request.

you have the information , its in the public interest and you are simply delaying and dragging it out hoping ill get bored

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

Yours faithfully,

Jamie bridgeman

Army Sec-Group (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

Dear Mr Bridgeman,

Thank you for your email CIO, which they have passed to Army Secretariat.

Please be assured that this response is still being considered by the Department and is being taken very seriously. This is not a refusal to answer or a delay tactic but careful consideration at determining where the public interest lies. I do apologise and understand your frustration but please may I ask for your continued patience. I hope to have a response to you by the end of March at the very latest.

Regards,
Army Secretariat

show quoted sections

Dear Ministry of Defence,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Ministry of Defence's handling of my FOI request 'Bristol Army Cadet Force, Drink driving'.

i do not accept your response.

you have had sufficient time now, please confirm you are now conducting a internal review by 20/02/18 and supply the requested information by 25/03/18 or i will make a complaint to the ICO

play by the rules , you get really upset when the Russians dont, so practice what you preach.

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

Yours faithfully,

Jamie bridgeman

Army Sec-Group (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Bridgeman,

 

Please see attached a reply to your request for information.

 

Kind Regards.

 

Army Sec Discl&Lit Ldr | Army HQ | IDL 24 | Blenheim Bldg | Marlborough
Lines | Monxton Road | Andover | SP11 8HJ | Group
Email: [email address] I

 

This e-mail (and any attachments to it) is in confidence and is intended
solely for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. Any personal
information contained in it is subject to the Data Protection Act 1998
(DPA98) and must be treated in accordance with DPA principles. If you are
not the intended recipient you are asked to notify the sender and delete
the mail (and any attached files) from your system immediately. You are
not to take copies or disclose the information to anyone else. You should
also note that email traffic on MOD systems is subject to monitoring,
recording and auditing to secure the effective operation of the system and
for other purposes.  

 

show quoted sections

Dear Ministry of Defence,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Ministry of Defence's handling of my FOI request 'Bristol Army Cadet Force, Drink driving'.

It goes without saying that a redacted report will remain compliant with the Data Protection Act 1998 and therefore the exception under s40 of The 2000 Act.

I consider that the reliance upon all sections is a deliberate attempt to delay or avoid publication.

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

Yours faithfully,

Jamie bridgeman

CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

1 Attachment

  • Attachment

    20180417 Rev Bridgeman Bristol ACF Drink Driving MOD final review resp to FOI2018 00013.pdf

    90K Download View as HTML

Dear Mr Bridgeman

Please see attached.

Regards
MOD Information Rights Compliance Team

show quoted sections

Dear CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER),

what reason do you have to suggest this is not my real name ?

also you have provided no means to me to supply proof that is in fact my real name ,

i must let you know that i believe that a person of the same name as myself is guilty of an offence and i am requiring the information to prove to other persons that its infact not me but another person with the same name

how do you suggest we do this ? you have just cast this off with the most minor of assumptions

Yours sincerely,

Jamie bridgeman

CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

Dear Mr Bridgeman,

Thank you for your email and I apologise for the delay in replying.

As stated in the internal review of 17 April 2018, MOD has sufficient legitimate grounds for refusing your requests under section 8(1)(b), for reasons that cannot be explained further under section 17(4) of the Act.

If you would like to provide proof of your real name, please attach your photocard driving licence or your current passport and provide it to the email address as stated in my letter of 17 April. In order to protect your own personal data, please use your own private email address to contact us.

If you are dissatisfied with the way in which your complaint has been processed, you have an absolute right to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner, as stated in the final paragraph of the review.

Regards
Mrs Sandra Gardiner
Head of MOD Information Rights Team

show quoted sections

We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Jamie bridgeman please sign in and let everyone know.

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org