Broken window at Sherlock House

Ann McNeil made this Freedom of Information request to Merseyside Police

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

The request was partially successful.

Dear Merseyside Police,

What date and time was a broken window at Sherlock House reported to Police, in recent days?
Was this window belonging to the constituency office of Angela Eagle or was it in the communal stair area of Sherlock House?
What was the crime number associated with this crime?
Has any culprit or motive been discovered?
Has any cctv been looked at?
Which organisation reported the broken window to the police?
What is the spread of time that the window could have been broken?

Yours faithfully,

Ann McNeil

Freedom Of Information, Merseyside Police

Your email to the Merseyside Police Freedom of Information (FOI) in box is
acknowledged.

 

If it contains an initial (new) request under FOI it will be dealt with in
accordance with section 10 of the Act which means that you are entitled to
receive a response no later than 20 working days after the first working
day* on which your request is received.

 

Other arrangements may apply if a fees notice is issued or if the time
period is extended in order that public interest considerations of our
response may take place. Section 10 also allows public authorities to
apply variations to the normal 20 working day timescale in some limited
circumstances.

 

Due to the volume of e-mail correspondence and FOI applications received,
the Force regrets that individual acknowledgement e-mails will not be sent
even if specifically requested.

 

If the correspondence cannot be dealt with as FOI, it will be forwarded
internally and you will be advised of the location. Any related
communication must be direct to the identified location and not the FOI
e-mail address.

 

*The ‘working day’ is defined as any day other than a Saturday, a Sunday,
Christmas Day, Good Friday or a day which is a bank holiday under the
Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in any part of the United Kingdom.
The first reckonable day is the working day after the working day of
receipt.

============================================================

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.

If you have received this email in error please notify the sender as soon
as possible.

This footnote confirms that all reasonable steps have been taken to
ensure that this email message has been swept for the presence of
computer viruses.

The views expressed in this communication may not necessarily be the
views of Merseyside Police.

All communications, including telephone calls and electronic messages to
and from Merseyside Police may be subject to monitoring and recording.

============================================================

Paul Cardin left an annotation ()

Hi Ann,

I checked in here with the intention of making my own FOI request of Merseyside Police but spotted that you had already anticipated my questions. Thank you.

I am a constituent of Angela Eagle MP, have visited the site of the incident and suggested answers to some of your questions appear here in the following related blog posts that I have published recently:

17th July 2016

https://wirralinittogether.wordpress.com...

24th July 2016

https://wirralinittogether.wordpress.com...

1st August 2016

https://wirralinittogether.wordpress.com...

thanks,

Paul

Freedom Of Information, Merseyside Police

1 Attachment

Dear Ms McNeil,

 

Response - FOIA Application – DJ 2016 - 743 MERPOL (please quote in all
correspondence)

 

I write in connection with your request for information dated, 16/07/2016,
which was received by Merseyside Police on 16/07/2016. I note that you
seek access to the following information:

 

(Paraphrased) : Information relating to a broken window at Sherlock House
and associated crime investigation information.

 

Following receipt for your request searches were conducted within the
Merseyside Police to locate information relevant to your request. I can
confirm that some of the information that you requested is held by
Merseyside Police.

 

Extent of searches to locate information.

 

To locate the information relevant to your request, searches were
conducted in Force Crime Registrar’s and Force Contact Centre records. 

 

Result of searches.

 

The searches located some records relevant to your request.

 

Decision.

 

I have today been authorised by the senior decision maker in this case,
Data Access Supervisor, to:

 

exempt information related to your requests numbered 1,2 & 7 pursuant to
the provisions of section 21 Freedom of Information Act 2000;

exempt information related to your requests numbered 3,4,5 & 6 pursuant to
the provisions of section 30 Freedom of Information Act 2000;as the
request does not meet the requirement of section 8(c).

 

Your request for information, in relation to the exempt information, has
been considered and Merseyside Police is not obliged to supply the
information that you have requested.

 

Section 17, Freedom of Information Act, 2000, requires Merseyside Police,
when refusing to provide such information (because the information is
exempt) to provide you the applicant with a notice which:

(a) States that fact,

(b) Specifies the exemption(s) in question and

(c) States (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.

 

Please find attached information relating to your request in the schedule
above.

  

Making a complaint or an appeal

 

Your attention is drawn to the sheet attached below which details your
rights of complaint.              

 

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please write
or e-mail me, on the below address, quoting the reference number above.

 

Yours faithfully

 

D Jackson

Disclosure Analyst

Merseyside Police

Data Access Unit

PO BOX 59

LIVERPOOL L69 1JD

Fax: 0151 777 1677

E-mail:  [Merseyside Police request email]

 

Schedule(s) of disclosed information:      Attached at top of e-mail

  

 

show quoted sections

Dear Merseyside Police,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Merseyside Police's handling of my FOI request 'Broken window at Sherlock House'.
My request originally was -
What date and time was a broken window at Sherlock House reported to Police, in recent days?
Was this window belonging to the constituency office of Angela Eagle or was it in the communal stair area of Sherlock House?
What was the crime number associated with this crime?
Has any culprit or motive been discovered?
Has any cctv been looked at?
Which organisation reported the broken window to the police?
What is the spread of time that the window could have been broken?

You refused some of my questions on Section 21. On these parts the newspaper you linked to is owned by 4th Viscount Rothermere , who is non domiciled. Newspapers as far as I am aware have no requirement to tell the truth, they are entertainment to make money.
In view of this and that the British police service is meant to be an accountable public service it would appear to be more desirable and possibly more acccurate if the information came from the Police, unless you confirm that the Daily Mail is correct in all its statements regarding the incident. Is this the case? It is difficult to see why an accountable British public service would quote an unaccountable, foreign owned, source of entertainment for profit.
An alternative scenario is available here
http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/09/26...

What I am asking for is the facts according to the publicly accountable police service subject to FOI, not an unreasonable request to clear up any misinformation by newspapers, yet you quote the very newspapers accused of inaccuracy and well known for its bias, and I ask you to reconsider this miserable use of Section 21 and to provide the information.

I am unsure what you mean by "does not meet the requiremnt of 8(c) of "exempt information related to your requests numbered 3,4,5 & 6 pursuant to the provisions of section 30 Freedom of Information Act 2000;as the request does not meet the requirement of section 8(c)." when the request does not seem to have to meet that requirement.
I belive it is in the public interest to clear up this matter and even if the matter is covered by a police investigation, which has now finished, it is open to the police to not use this section anyway

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,

Ann McNeil

Freedom Of Information, Merseyside Police

Your email to the Merseyside Police Freedom of Information (FOI) in box is
acknowledged.

 

If it contains an initial (new) request under FOI it will be dealt with in
accordance with section 10 of the Act which means that you are entitled to
receive a response no later than 20 working days after the first working
day* on which your request is received.

 

Other arrangements may apply if a fees notice is issued or if the time
period is extended in order that public interest considerations of our
response may take place. Section 10 also allows public authorities to
apply variations to the normal 20 working day timescale in some limited
circumstances.

 

Due to the volume of e-mail correspondence and FOI applications received,
the Force regrets that individual acknowledgement e-mails will not be sent
even if specifically requested.

 

If the correspondence cannot be dealt with as FOI, it will be forwarded
internally and you will be advised of the location. Any related
communication must be direct to the identified location and not the FOI
e-mail address.

 

*The ‘working day’ is defined as any day other than a Saturday, a Sunday,
Christmas Day, Good Friday or a day which is a bank holiday under the
Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in any part of the United Kingdom.
The first reckonable day is the working day after the working day of
receipt.

============================================================

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.

If you have received this email in error please notify the sender as soon
as possible.

This footnote confirms that all reasonable steps have been taken to
ensure that this email message has been swept for the presence of
computer viruses.

The views expressed in this communication may not necessarily be the
views of Merseyside Police.

All communications, including telephone calls and electronic messages to
and from Merseyside Police may be subject to monitoring and recording.

============================================================

Freedom Of Information, Merseyside Police

Dear Ms McNeil,

I acknowledge receipt of your email received Tuesday 29th September 2016, requesting that Merseyside Police review its response to your request for information concerning:

Broken Window at Sherlock House - FOI reference DJ2016-743

I understand that you have raised a query regarding Merseyside Police's handling of your FOI request 'Broken window at Sherlock House'.

An internal review will be undertaken surrounding our FOI response - this will be considered independently by the Information Governance Manager. The review will be conducted in accordance with the Merseyside Police review procedure and every effort will be made to have a response to you no later than the 25th October 2016 (20 working days from receipt of internal review request, as advocated by the ICO).

However, if it becomes clear that the review will not be completed by this date you will be contacted.

Yours sincerely,

Vivien Jaymes
Data Access Supervisor
Force Website www.merseyside.police.uk
Force Twitter @merseypolice

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?
============================================================

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.

If you have received this email in error please notify the sender as soon
as possible.

This footnote confirms that all reasonable steps have been taken to
ensure that this email message has been swept for the presence of
computer viruses.

The views expressed in this communication may not necessarily be the
views of Merseyside Police.

All communications, including telephone calls and electronic messages to
and from Merseyside Police may be subject to monitoring and recording.

============================================================

Thomas Graham Edmund, Merseyside Police

1 Attachment

Dear Ann McNeil

 

Further to the Force Disclosure Manager’s letter of (date) acknowledging
receipt of your request for Merseyside Police to conduct an internal
review of your Freedom of Information, I confirm that I have completed my
review.

 

You requested:

 

I am writing to request an internal review of Merseyside Police's handling
of my FOI request 'Broken window at Sherlock House'.

My request originally was -

What date and time was a broken window at Sherlock House reported to
Police, in recent days?

Was this window belonging to the constituency office of Angela Eagle or
was it in the communal stair area of Sherlock House?

What was the crime number associated with this crime?

Has any culprit or motive been discovered?

Has any cctv been looked at?

Which organisation reported the broken window to the police?

What is the spread of time that the window could have been broken?

 

You refused some of my questions on Section 21. On these parts the
newspaper you linked to is owned by 4th Viscount Rothermere , who is non
domiciled. Newspapers as far as I am aware have no requirement to tell the
truth, they are entertainment to make money.

In view of this and that the British police service is meant to be an
accountable public service it would appear to be more desirable and
possibly more acccurate if the information came from the Police, unless
you confirm that the Daily Mail is correct in all its statements regarding
the incident. Is this the case? It is difficult to see why an accountable
British public service would quote an unaccountable, foreign owned, source
of entertainment for profit.

An alternative scenario is available here
[1]http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/09/26...

 

What I am asking for is the facts according to the publicly accountable
police service subject to FOI, not an unreasonable request to clear up any
misinformation by newspapers, yet you quote the very newspapers accused of
inaccuracy and well known for its bias, and I ask you to reconsider this
miserable use of Section 21 and to provide the information.

 

I am unsure what you mean by  "does not meet the requiremnt of 8(c) of
"exempt information related to your requests numbered 3,4,5 & 6 pursuant
to the provisions of section 30 Freedom of Information Act 2000;as the
request does not meet the requirement of section 8(c)."  when the request
does not seem to have to meet that requirement.

I belive it is in the public interest to clear up this matter and even if
the matter is covered by a police investigation, which has now finished,
it is open to the police to not use this section anyway

 

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

 

 

Decision

I have decided to uphold some of the decisions in the initial response but
overrule the original decision in respect of the 1st request.

 

Section 17, Freedom of Information Act, 2000, requires Merseyside Police,
when refusing to provide such information (because the information is
exempt) to provide you the applicant with a notice which:

(a) states that fact,

(b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and

(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.

 

Reason for Decision: The response is provided on the basis of an
assumption that the request is about the breaking of a window in Sherlock
House, Wallasey that was reported on 12/07/2016. That is not specified in
the request and so, based upon the requests together Merseyside Police
made the assumption that this is the incident in question. The lack of
clarity in the requests about the actual incident referred to caused the
original responder to cite section 8 .c because the information requested
is not specifically described.

 

The answer to the first request is not available in the press article
provided but was released in a Press statement released on 12/07/2016
about an unspecified property in Manor Road, Wallasey. In the context of
your request I have made the same assumption that persons reading the
Press release will have made and provide the detail in the amended
response table. Please see the reasons for this in the attached response
table after Internal Review

 

Complainant Rights:

Should you disagree with this decision you have a further right of appeal
to the Information Commissioner the contact details for whom are below.

 

The Office of the Information Commissioner

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire SK9 5AF

More information is available from the Information Commissioner's website

[3]http://www.ico.gov.uk

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Graham Thomas
Information Assurance Coordinator
Direct Line Tel:+441517778412
Force Website   [4]www.merseyside.police.uk
Force Twitter @merseypolice

P Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this
email?

============================================================

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.

If you have received this email in error please notify the sender as soon
as possible.

This footnote confirms that all reasonable steps have been taken to
ensure that this email message has been swept for the presence of
computer viruses.

The views expressed in this communication may not necessarily be the
views of Merseyside Police.

All communications, including telephone calls and electronic messages to
and from Merseyside Police may be subject to monitoring and recording.

============================================================

References

Visible links
1. http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/09/26...
2. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/b...
3. http://www.ico.gov.uk/
4. file:///tmp/www.merseyside.police.uk