Cover-up of Child Sex Exploitation by Sheffield City Council
Dear Sheffield City Council,
The Star published the following article with this headline on 15 March 2015:
"Sheffield officers investigating child grooming 'told to wind necks in' by bosses"
Below the headline is written:
"After trying to notify the authorities of one of the worst crimes to have ever
been committed on British soil, they shouldn't have dared to 'notice' something about the majority of the perpetrators."
Please provide the documents to which this article refers.
Yours faithfully,
p cialfi
Dear P Cialfi,
Thank you for your request for information relating to Sheffield Star
article relating to CSE which we received on 06/02/2020.
This has been logged as a Freedom of Information Request, and will be
dealt with under the Freedom of Information Act. The reference number for
your request can be found above.
Before we can begin to process your Freedom of Information Request, we
would like to clarify what information you require.
It is not clear what documents you are requesting and we are unable to
find the article you refer to on The Star website. Please can you clarify
what documents you are looking for.
This is an initial clarification and we may need to come back to you at a
later date if we need to re-clarify any elements of the information you’ve
requested when we are locating the relevant data. We do ask individuals to
be specific in regard to the information they wish to obtain to allow
appropriate assessment and processing of their request which is completed
at public expense.
The Freedom of Information Act states that we must respond to a Freedom of
Information request within 20 working days, however, the 20 working days
do not include any time spent clarifying a request. Therefore, once we
have received your clarification, we can continue processing your request
within this time frame.
You can provide your clarification by writing to the address above,
emailing [1][Sheffield City Council request email] or by telephoning 0114 2734567 and asking
for the Information and Knowledge Management Team.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Sheffield City Council
PO Box 1283
Sheffield, S1 1UJ
Email: [2][Sheffield City Council request email]
P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to
_____________________________________________
From: p cialfi [[3]mailto:[FOI #643861 email]]
Sent: 06 February 2020 20:51
To: FOI
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Cover-up of Child Sex
Exploitation by Sheffield City Council
Dear Sheffield City Council,
The Star published the following article with this headline on 15 March
2015:
"Sheffield officers investigating child grooming 'told to wind necks in'
by bosses"
Below the headline is written:
"After trying to notify the authorities of one of the worst crimes to have
ever been committed on British soil, they shouldn't have dared to 'notice'
something about the majority of the perpetrators."
Please provide the documents to which this article refers.
Yours faithfully,
p cialfi
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[4][FOI #643861 email]
Is [5][Sheffield City Council request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information
requests to Sheffield City Council? If so, please contact us using this
form:
[6]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[7]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...
For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[8]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...
Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
Dear FOI,
Thank you for your request for clarification.
The article first says;
"Sheffield officers investigating child grooming 'told to wind necks in'
by bosses"
Therefore, information sought would include the memo from the " bosses " to the Sheffield officer who were 'told to wind necks in'.
The second quote suggests that the reason for ordering council officers to 'wind necks in' was because of fear of creating racist or religious tension.
Therefore, the 'bosses' would have had directions from senior politicians.
There would be internal memos relating to the political decision to cover up child sex exploitation in Sheffield.
Having provided the date and context, it should not now be difficult to fully respond to the request for information.
Yours sincerely,
p cialfi
Dear P Cialfi,
Thank you for your recent clarification for information relating to
Sheffield Star article relating to CSE which we received on 12/02/2020.
This has been logged as a Freedom of Information Request, and will be
dealt with under the Freedom of Information Act. The reference number for
your request can be found above.
The Freedom of Information Act states that we must respond to you within
20 working days, therefore, you should expect to hear a response from us
by 09/03/2020.
In the meantime, if you have any queries please, contact us at the email
address below.
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Sheffield City Council
PO Box 1283
Sheffield, S1 1UJ
Email: [1][Sheffield City Council request email]
P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to
_____________________________________________
From: p cialfi [[2]mailto:[FOI #643861 email]]
Sent: 12 February 2020 01:27
To: FOI
Subject: Re: Clarification Request – Freedom of Information Request –
Reference – FOI / 1673
Dear FOI,
Thank you for your request for clarification.
The article first says;
"Sheffield officers investigating child grooming 'told to wind necks in'
by bosses"
Therefore, information sought would include the memo from the " bosses "
to the Sheffield officer who were 'told to wind necks in'.
The second quote suggests that the reason for ordering council officers to
'wind necks in' was because of fear of creating racist or religious
tension.
Therefore, the 'bosses' would have had directions from senior politicians.
There would be internal memos relating to the political decision to cover
up child sex exploitation in Sheffield.
Having provided the date and context, it should not now be difficult to
fully respond to the request for information.
Yours sincerely,
p cialfi
Dear P Cialfi,
Thank you for your recent clarification for information relating to
Sheffield Star article relating to CSE which we received on 12/02/2020.
This has been logged as a Freedom of Information Request, and will be
dealt with under the Freedom of Information Act. The reference number for
your request can be found above.
Before we can continue to process your Freedom of Information Request, we
would like to further clarify what information you require.
Please can you provide a copy of the article referenced in the request.
The Freedom of Information Act states that we must respond to a Freedom of
Information request within 20 working days, however, the 20 working days
do not include any time spent clarifying a request. Therefore, once we
have received your clarification, we can continue processing your request
within this time frame.
You can provide your clarification by writing to the address above,
emailing [1][Sheffield City Council request email] or by telephoning 0114 2734567 and asking
for the Information and Knowledge Management Team.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Sheffield City Council
PO Box 1283
Sheffield, S1 1UJ
Email: [2][Sheffield City Council request email]
P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to
_____________________________________________
From: p cialfi [[3]mailto:[FOI #643861 email]]
Sent: 12 February 2020 01:27
To: FOI
Subject: Re: Clarification Request – Freedom of Information Request –
Reference – FOI / 1673
Dear FOI,
Thank you for your request for clarification.
The article first says;
"Sheffield officers investigating child grooming 'told to wind necks in'
by bosses"
Therefore, information sought would include the memo from the " bosses "
to the Sheffield officer who were 'told to wind necks in'.
The second quote suggests that the reason for ordering council officers to
'wind necks in' was because of fear of creating racist or religious
tension.
Therefore, the 'bosses' would have had directions from senior politicians.
There would be internal memos relating to the political decision to cover
up child sex exploitation in Sheffield.
Having provided the date and context, it should not now be difficult to
fully respond to the request for information.
Yours sincerely,
p cialfi
Dear FOI,
Thank you for your request for further clarification.
Unfortunately, these pages do not facilitate attaching screenshots.
I will therefore provide the information as it appears:
- - - - - - -
The Star
15/03/15
[ usual Star letterhead ]
Sheffield officers
investigating child grooming
'told to wind necks in' by
bosses
After trying to notify the authorities of one of the worst crimes to have even been
committed on British soil , they shouldn't have dared to 'notice something about the
majority of the perpetrators.
- - - - - - - -
The word 'even' must be a typo, and should have been 'ever'.
I now look forward to the imminent receipt of the information requested.
Yours sincerely,
p cialfi
Dear P Cialfi,
Thank you for your recent clarification for information relating to
Sheffield Star article relating to CSE which we received on 28/02/2020.
This has been logged as a Freedom of Information Request, and will be
dealt with under the Freedom of Information Act. The reference number for
your request can be found above.
The Freedom of Information Act states that we must respond to you within
20 working days, therefore, you should expect to hear a response from us
by 10/03/2020.
In the meantime, if you have any queries please, contact us at the email
address below.
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Sheffield City Council
PO Box 1283
Sheffield, S1 1UJ
Email: [1][Sheffield City Council request email]
P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to
_____________________________________________
From: p cialfi [[2]mailto:[FOI #643861 email]]
Sent: 28 February 2020 00:33
To: FOI
Subject: Re: Clarification Request – Freedom of Information Request –
Reference – FOI / 1673
Dear FOI,
Thank you for your request for further clarification.
Unfortunately, these pages do not facilitate attaching screenshots.
I will therefore provide the information as it appears:
- - - - - - -
The Star
15/03/15
[ usual Star letterhead ]
Sheffield officers
investigating child grooming
'told to wind necks in' by
bosses
After trying to notify the authorities of one of the worst crimes to have
even been committed on British soil , they shouldn't have dared to 'notice
something about the majority of the perpetrators.
- - - - - - - -
The word 'even' must be a typo, and should have been 'ever'.
I now look forward to the imminent receipt of the information requested.
Yours sincerely,
p cialfi
Dear P Cialfi,
Thank you for your recent request for information relating to Sheffield
Star article relating to CSE which we received on 12/02/2020.
Please find below, Sheffield City Council’s response to your request:
Thank you for your response to our clarification request. Whilst we have
been unable to locate the specific article on The Sheffield Star’s
archives, we have found an article in The Times which links to this. From
the information in the article it appears the officers being referred to
are South Yorkshire Police rather than Council officers. The Council
therefore do not hold any information related to this request. We suggest
that you submit your question directly to South Yorkshire Police.
If you have any queries about this response, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
If you are unhappy with the response you have received in relation to your
request, you are entitled to have this reviewed. You can ask for an
internal review by either writing to the above address or by emailing
[1][Sheffield City Council request email]. Internal review requests should be submitted
within 40 working days from the date of this response.
If you remain dissatisfied with the outcome of your internal review, you
can contact the Information Commissioners Office. The Information
Commissioner can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner's Office,
Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF, telephone 0303
123 1113, or for further details see their website [2]www.ico.org.uk
Kind Regards,
Sheffield City Council
PO Box 1283
Sheffield, S1 1UJ
Email: [3][Sheffield City Council request email]
P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to
_____________________________________________
From: p cialfi [[4]mailto:[FOI #643861 email]]
Sent: 12 February 2020 01:27
To: FOI
Subject: Re: Clarification Request – Freedom of Information Request –
Reference – FOI / 1673
Dear FOI,
Thank you for your request for clarification.
The article first says;
"Sheffield officers investigating child grooming 'told to wind necks in'
by bosses"
Therefore, information sought would include the memo from the " bosses "
to the Sheffield officer who were 'told to wind necks in'.
The second quote suggests that the reason for ordering council officers to
'wind necks in' was because of fear of creating racist or religious
tension.
Therefore, the 'bosses' would have had directions from senior politicians.
There would be internal memos relating to the political decision to cover
up child sex exploitation in Sheffield.
Having provided the date and context, it should not now be difficult to
fully respond to the request for information.
Yours sincerely,
p cialfi
Dear FOI,
Thank you for your reply.
Could you please provide the link to where you have referenced the article?
For your reference:
https://web.archive.org/web/201503150213...
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/shef...
https://web.archive.org/web/201503150206...
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/new-...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31859931
I look forward to receiving the link to The Times article.
Having found these references, it is inconceivable that local politicians and Council child welfare personnel would claim that they were not aware of what was going on.
For example, there would have been many joint meetings between South Yorkshire Police, the Police Authority, and senior council officers.
The minutes of these meetings, and the associated briefings and memos, will be found in the Council's records.
To revert therefore to my original request, could you please review your response of 'no information held' and provide the requisite council records on this issue.
Yours sincerely,
p cialfi
Dear P Cialfi,
Thank you for your recent request for an internal review relating to
Sheffield Star article relating to CSE which we received on 04/03/2020.
We are sorry to hear that you are not happy with your response.
This has now been logged and will be carried out by a member of the team
You should expect to hear a response from us by 01/04/2020.
In the meantime, if you have any queries please, contact us at the email
address below.
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Sheffield City Council
PO Box 1283
Sheffield, S1 1UJ
Email: [1][Sheffield City Council request email]
P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to
_____________________________________________
From: p cialfi [[2]mailto:[FOI #643861 email]]
Sent: 04 March 2020 12:31
To: FOI
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Cover-up of
Child Sex Exploitation by Sheffield City Council
Dear FOI,
Thank you for your reply.
Could you please provide the link to where you have referenced the
article?
For your reference:
[3]https://web.archive.org/web/201503150213...
[4]http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/shef...
[5]https://web.archive.org/web/201503150206...
[6]http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/new-...
[7]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31859931
I look forward to receiving the link to The Times article.
Having found these references, it is inconceivable that local politicians
and Council child welfare personnel would claim that they were not aware
of what was going on.
For example, there would have been many joint meetings between South
Yorkshire Police, the Police Authority, and senior council officers.
The minutes of these meetings, and the associated briefings and memos,
will be found in the Council's records.
To revert therefore to my original request, could you please review your
response of 'no information held' and provide the requisite council
records on this issue.
Yours sincerely,
p cialfi
Dear FOI,
In your last note you said that I could expect to receive a reply by 1st April.
Unfortunately, this deadline has passed and the information has not been provided.
By now it is reasonable to assume that you have collected and collated the information that is outstanding.
Could you please forward this material by return.
Yours sincerely,
p cialfi
Thank you for your email.
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the handling of information rights
requests including; data protection, freedom of information and
environmental information regulations, is temporarily suspended.
Requests will continue to be logged, but they will not be progressed
whilst Local Authority resources focus on the delivery of key services in
the city.
You will receive an acknowledgement email in the next few days which will
include the reference number for your request.
Existing requests will be answered where possible. However, it may not be
possible to complete all requests at this time.
For further information about compliance in handling Information Requests
during the COVID-19 pandemic, you can visit the Information Commissioner’s
Office website: [1]http://www.ico.org.uk/
Kind regards
Information Management Team
Sheffield City Council
PO Box 1283,
Sheffield
S1 1UJ
This Email, and any attachments, may contain non-public information and is
intended solely for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It may
contain sensitive or protectively marked material and should be handled
accordingly. If this Email has been misdirected, please notify the author
immediately. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose,
distribute, copy, print or rely on any of the information contained in it
or attached, and all copies must be deleted immediately. Whilst we take
reasonable steps to try to identify any software viruses, any attachments
to this Email may nevertheless contain viruses which our anti-virus
software has failed to identify. You should therefore carry out your own
anti-virus checks before opening any documents. Sheffield City Council
will not accept any liability for damage caused by computer viruses
emanating from any attachment or other document supplied with this e-mail
References
Visible links
1. http://www.ico.org.uk/
Dear Sheffield City Council,
Thank you for your reply, saying that because of the coronavirus situation the processing of FoI requests has been suspended.
This is acceptable, given that personnel may not be available temporarily.
Yours faithfully,
p cialfi
Dear Sheffield City Council,
Dear FoI Sheffield, Reference – FOI / 1673
On 06.02.20 the first request on this issue was sent to you.
On 10.02.20 you asked for a clarification.
On 12.02.20 the clarification was sent.
On 27.02.20 you made a further request for clarification.
On 28.02.20 the clarification was sent.
On 03.03.20 you responded ‘information not held’ and alleged that The Times had an article referring to South Yorkshire Police, but you did not provide the source / reference / url.
On 04.03.20 I asked for the reference to the article in The Times. I also provided url’s for the article in question. I explained that the subject of the FoI request necessitated documented information within Sheffield City Council. Accordingly, I asked for a review of the council’s response.
On 05.03.20 you replied saying that I could expect a response by 01.04.20
On 03.04.20 I sent you a reminder that the review was overdue.
On 03.04.20 you replied saying that all FoI requests are suspended because of corvid-19.
On 04.04.20 I wrote accepting the suspension.
On 01.05.20 This reminder is sent to you.
Yours faithfully,
p cialfi
Dear P Cialfi,
I am writing regarding the internal review you requested of FOI/1673. We
received your request for review on 04/03/2020 and we endeavour to provide
a response to internal reviews within 20 working days. However a review
can sometimes be delayed and I apologise that it has taken over the 20
working days to respond to you. As you are aware, this is due to a
suspension of the processing of Freedom of Information Requests due to the
ongoing Coronavirus pandemic. Thank you for your patience in receiving
this internal review.
In your request, you specifically asked for the following information:
The Star published the following article with this headline on 15 March
2015:
"Sheffield officers investigating child grooming 'told to wind necks in'
by bosses"
Below the headline is written:
"After trying to notify the authorities of one of the worst crimes to
have ever been committed on British soil, they shouldn't have dared to
'notice'
something about the majority of the perpetrators."
Please provide the documents to which this article refers.
It was not clear which article you referred to after searching the
Sheffield Star website. We requested a clarification, this was the reply:
The article first says;
"Sheffield officers investigating child grooming 'told to wind necks in'
by bosses"
Therefore, information sought would include the memo from the " bosses "
to the Sheffield officer who were 'told to wind necks in'.
The second quote suggests that the reason for ordering council officers to
'wind necks in' was because of fear of creating racist or religious
tension.
Therefore, the 'bosses' would have had directions from senior politicians.
There would be internal memos relating to the political decision to cover
up child sex exploitation in Sheffield.
Having provided the date and context, it should not now be difficult to
fully respond to the request for information.
Unfortunately, without reading the full article and its context, we were
unable to supply a response your request for information. Our response was
as follows:
Thank you for your response to our clarification request. Whilst we have
been unable to locate the specific article on The Sheffield Star’s
archives, we have found an article in The Times which links to this. From
the information in the article it appears the officers being referred to
are South Yorkshire Police rather than Council officers. The Council
therefore do not hold any information related to this request. We suggest
that you submit your question directly to South Yorkshire Police.
I have carried out an Internal Review of the handling of your request.
The intention of an internal review is to consider if we handled your
response in accordance with the law and to consider if any decisions made,
for example to refuse information, were correct and still apply.
Firstly Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act states that Sheffield
City Council must respond to requests made under the Freedom of
Information Act within 20 working days of receipt. In this case, your
request was received by Sheffield City Council on 12/02/2020 and was
responded to on 03/03/2020. This response was provided within 20 working
days, therefore, I am satisfied that Section 10 of the Freedom of
Information Act was correctly complied with in this case.
You were concerned that:
Could you please provide the link to where you have referenced the
article?
For your reference:
[truncated – list of links, unfortunately many of these were ‘broken’]
I look forward to receiving the link to The Times article.
Having found these references, it is inconceivable that local politicians
and Council child welfare personnel would claim that they were not aware
of what was going on.
For example, there would have been many joint meetings between South
Yorkshire Police, the Police Authority, and senior council officers.
The minutes of these meetings, and the associated briefings and memos,
will be found in the Council's records.
To revert therefore to my original request, could you please review your
response of 'no information held' and provide the requisite council
records on this issue.
You requested a link to where the Times article was published. I have
attached a copy of The Times front cover page. This was located after a
thorough web search for the Star article in which you referred to.
However, you helpfully provided an archived link to The Star within this
reply:
([1]https://web.archive.org/web/201503150213...).
As part of the internal review process, after reading the article of which
the original Freedom of Information request refers to, I agree that these
would be records held by South Yorkshire Police as all statements in The
Star’s news article applies to police officers and their ‘bosses’.
As such, I uphold the original response that no information is held in
relation to The Star article. I recommend contacting South Yorkshire
Police to request to any documents held on this issue.
I understand you have made the point that ‘there would have been many
joint meetings between South Yorkshire Police, the Police Authority, and
senior council officers. The minutes of these meetings, and the associated
briefings and memos, will be found in the Council's records.’
However, this is outside the scope to FOI 1673 which requests documents in
reference to the Sheffield Star article (regarding South Yorkshire
Police).
In our Section 16 duty to [2]‘provide advice and assistance’, it may
provide useful to read the report on Child Sexual Exploitation published
by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. This report
makes recommendations relating to local government scrutiny and the role
of Ofsted (the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and
Skills). This report can be found here:
[3]https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm...
A link to Ofsted findings relating to Sheffield City Council can be found
here: [4]https://reports.ofsted.gov.uk/provider/4....
If you are dissatisfied with the outcome of your internal review, you are
entitled to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office and they will
consider whether your complaint is eligible for further review. The
Information Commissioner’s details and guidance is available on the
website at [5]www.ico.org.uk.
Kind regards,
Holly
Holly McCready
Access to Information Officer
Information Management Team
Business Change and Information Solutions (BCIS)
Resources Portfolio, Sheffield City Council
Email: [6][email address]
Postal Address: Sheffield City Council, PO Box 1283, Sheffield S1 1UJ
_____________________________________________
Dear FOI,
Thank you for your reply.
I would like to close this request under the heading 'Information not held', if this is acceptable to you.
However, before I do this, I will need to see the minutes and associated material related to the meetings between South Yorkshire Police, the Police Authority, and senior council officers.
You have said that this material is outside the scope of my original request.
Accordingly, could you please provide a link to these records?
Yours sincerely,
p cialfi
Dear P Cialfi,
Thank you for your request for information relating to Sheffield Star
article relating to CSE which we received on 18/08/2020.
This has been logged as a Freedom of Information Request, and will be
dealt with under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The reference number
for your request can be found above.
Please be aware that Sheffield City Council’s response to the global
COVID-19 pandemic has led to a reduction in resources across the Council,
meaning that we are currently dealing with a backlog of requests.
We will aim to respond to your request within 20 working days, by
16/09/2020, but we kindly ask for your patience as we anticipate that
there may be a delay in some cases. Please do not hesitate to contact us
at the email address below if you have any queries.
Yours sincerely,
Sheffield City Council
PO Box 1283
Sheffield, S1 1UJ
Email: [1][Sheffield City Council request email]
P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to
Dear P Cialfi,
Thank you for your request for information relating to Sheffield Star
article relating to CSE which we received on 18/08/2020.
This has been logged as a Freedom of Information Request, and will be
dealt with under the Freedom of Information Act. The reference number for
your request can be found above.
Before we can begin to process your Freedom of Information Request, we
would like to clarify what information you require.
Please could you specify which meetings you are referring to and also what
these meetings were about?
The Freedom of Information Act states that we must respond to a Freedom of
Information request within 20 working days, however, the 20 working days
do not include any time spent clarifying a request. Therefore, once we
have received your clarification, we can continue processing your request
within this time frame.
You can provide your clarification by writing to the address above,
emailing [1][Sheffield City Council request email] or by telephoning 0114 2734567 and asking
for the Information and Knowledge Management Team.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Sheffield City Council
PO Box 1283
Sheffield, S1 1UJ
Email: [2][Sheffield City Council request email]
P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to
Dear FOI,
Thank you for your request for clarification to a follow-on question from FOI/1673
In your responses to the original request, which referred to an article in which officers were told to 'wind their necks in' with respect to investigations into child sex exploitation, there were associated references to to council held records.
These council records would have included minutes of meetings among members of the police and crime panel, The Police Authority, elected members, council officers, police officers, and the PCC's offce.
Also in existence would be the correspondence between these parties and local MP's with respect to the order given to 'wind their necks in'.
There would also be internal memos related to this issue.
Here is the incident, reported to yourselves in the original request of 6 February 2020:
The Star published the following article with this headline on 15 March 2015:
"Sheffield officers investigating child grooming 'told to wind necks in' by bosses"
Below the headline is written:
"After trying to notify the authorities of one of the worst crimes to have ever
been committed on British soil, they shouldn't have dared to 'notice' something about the majority of the perpetrators."
Also, on 3 March 2020 you wrote:
"Whilst we have been unable to locate the specific article on The Sheffield Star’s archives, we have found an article in The Times which links to this."
On 4 March 2020, ( under S16 duty to assist) I asked for the url to the Times article.
I am still awaiting that url and would be grateful if you could send it on.
I also look forward to the material requested above.
Yours sincerely,
p cialfi
Dear P Cialfi,
Thank you for your clarification for information relating to Sheffield
Star article relating to CSE which we received on 20/08/2020.
This has been logged as a Freedom of Information Request, and will be
dealt with under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The reference number
for your request can be found above.
Please be aware that Sheffield City Council’s response to the global
COVID-19 pandemic has led to a reduction in resources across the Council,
meaning that we are currently dealing with a backlog of requests.
We will aim to respond to your request within 20 working days, by
16/09/2020, but we kindly ask for your patience as we anticipate that
there may be a delay in some cases. Please do not hesitate to contact us
at the email address below if you have any queries.
Yours sincerely,
Sheffield City Council
PO Box 1283
Sheffield, S1 1UJ
Email: [1][Sheffield City Council request email]
P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to
Dear P Cialfi,
Thank you for your request for information relating to Sheffield Star
article relating to CSE which we received on 18/08/2020.
Please find Sheffield City Council’s response to your request set out
below:
We have searched our records and we can confirm that we do not hold the
information you have requested.
If you have any queries about this response, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
The information provided in this response is available for re-use under
the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0. The terms of the OGL can be
found [1]here. When re-using the information, Sheffield City Council
requires you to include the following attribution statement: “Contains
public sector information obtained from Sheffield City Council and
licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
If you are unhappy with the response you have received in relation to your
request, you are entitled to have this reviewed. You can ask for an
internal review by either writing to the above address or by emailing
[2][Sheffield City Council request email]. Internal review requests should be submitted
within 40 working days from the date of this response.
If you remain dissatisfied with the outcome of your internal review, you
can contact the Information Commissioner’s Office. Please see
[3]www.ico.org.uk for further details.
Kind Regards,
Sheffield City Council
PO Box 1283
Sheffield, S1 1UJ
Email: [4][Sheffield City Council request email]
P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to
Dear FOI,
Thank you for your recent reply.
I had asked for any recorded information held by the council that related to the order given to police to 'wind their necks in' with respect to investigation(s) into child sex exploitation.
It was reasonably expected that there would be council records such as minutes of meetings, memos or other material.
Your reply is that that you do not hold any record related to this issue.
On 4 March 2020 I wrote:
"Having found these references, it is inconceivable that local politicians and Council child welfare personnel would claim that they were not aware of what was going on.
For example, there would have been many joint meetings between South Yorkshire Police, the Police Authority, and senior council officers.
The minutes of these meetings, and the associated briefings and memos, will be found in the Council's records.
To revert therefore to my original request, could you please review your response of 'no information held' and provide the requisite council records on this issue."
You have reiterated that the council does not hold the information, which is astounding.
Yet to be identified is the council officer who instructed The Star to 'pull' their article from their web site.
What has been observed is the consistent presence of a third party organisation within each of the 'actor' institutions, the extent of influence, interest and control of which has yet to be determined.
Yours sincerely,
p cialfi
Dear Sheffield City Council,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Sheffield City Council's handling of my FOI request 'Cover-up of Child Sex Exploitation by Sheffield City Council'.
Via an independent source, it is recorded that the council DOES have records relating to the subject matter.
Should you again go through your records you will find that the incident that was reported, to which this FoIA request refers, has been discussed and recorded by the council and with third parties.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...
Yours faithfully,
p cialfi
Dear P Cialfi,
Thank you for your recent request for an internal review relating to
Sheffield Star article relating to CSE which we received on 27/08/2020. We
are sorry to hear that you are not happy with your response.
This has now been logged and will be carried out by a member of the team
You should expect to hear a response from us by 25/09/2020.
While we endeavour to fulfil statutory deadlines, due to the current
pandemic situation there may be delays due to resourcing shortages. We
will try to provide updates where possible.
In the meantime, if you have any queries please, contact us at the email
address below.
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Sheffield City Council
PO Box 1283
Sheffield, S1 1UJ
Email: [1][Sheffield City Council request email]
P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to
Dear FOI,
It is disappointing that you have allowed the delaying of a response beyond the due date of 25 September.
As a polite and respectful reminder and prompt, could you please give some attention to a timely and appropriate reply.
Yours sincerely,
p cialfi
Dear FOI,
The reply to my request is now long overdue.
Notwithstanding the pandemic, a response should have been received by now.
Yours sincerely,
p cialfi
Dear Ms Cialfi
Thank you for your email. Unfortunately, we are still dealing with a large backlog of cases, which is why it is taking longer than normal to provide you with a response. Please accept our apologies for the continued delay.
Kind regards
Robert Jackson
Access to Information Officer
Information Management Team
Business Change and Information Solutions
Resources Portfolio
Sheffield City Council
Email: [email address]; [Sheffield City Council request email];
[email address]; [email address]
Postal Address: Sheffield City Council, PO Box 1283 Sheffield S1 1UJ
Dear FOI,
Yesterday, 26 October 202, you asked for more time to answer my FoI request, claiming that covid-19 is the cause for delays.
It is now time to ask the Information Commissioner to intervene.
The request was first put on 6 February 2020.
Although there has been limited correspondence since then, and despite considerable forbearance, the FoI request remains outstanding.
Your department has had many months to adapt working practices to comply with the law, so these continued excuses have now exhausted reason.
Please provide the information by return.
Yours sincerely,
p cialfi
Dear Sheffield City Council,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Sheffield City Council's handling of my FOI request 'Cover-up of Child Sex Exploitation by Sheffield City Council.
Despite all reasonable and statutory requirements, the information initially requested on 6 February 2020 remains outstanding.
SCC has run out of excuses for its repeated and continuing failures to comply with the law.
This case is so blatant that the Information Commissioner must now be asked to intervene, and also to consider prosecuting SCC under section 77.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...
Yours faithfully,
p cialfi
Dear P Cialfi
Thank you for your email. I can confirm that we completed an internal review of your request on 3 July 2020. Our response is available via WhatDoTheyKnow at the link you provided in your email.
Kind regards
Robert Jackson
Access to Information Officer
Information Management Team
Business Change and Information Solutions
Resources Portfolio
Sheffield City Council
Email: [email address]; [Sheffield City Council request email];
[email address]; [email address]
Postal Address: Sheffield City Council, PO Box 1283 Sheffield S1 1UJ
Dear FOI,
You have been selective in your response.
The ICO has already been informed.
18 August:
I would like to close this request under the heading 'Information not held', if this is acceptable to you.
However, before I do this, I will need to see the minutes and associated material related to the meetings between South Yorkshire Police, the Police Authority, and senior council officers.
You have said that this material is outside the scope of my original request.
Accordingly, could you please provide a link to these records?
- - - -
In your responses to the original request, which referred to an article in which officers were told to 'wind their necks in' with respect to investigations into child sex exploitation, there were associated references to council held records.
Council records include minutes of meetings among members of the police and crime panel, The Police Authority, elected members, council officers, police officers, and the PCC's office.
Also in existence is the correspondence between these parties and local MP's with respect to the order given to 'wind their necks in'.
There must also be internal memos related to this issue.
Please provide those records.
Yours sincerely,
p cialfi
Dear SCC,
As the ICO is now involved, will you please send the ICO all the information that you have failed to provide to me.
I am considering prosecution under Section 77.
P. Cialfi
Dear Sheffield City Council,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Sheffield City Council's handling of my FOI request 'Cover-up of Child Sex Exploitation by Sheffield City Council'.
Please provide the metadata associated with my request(s) for information.
In addition, please (re-) review your responses so far.
To help you further, the following additional references are useful:
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2015/03...
http://disq.us/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Fuk.l...
https://rotherhampolitics.wordpress.com/...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31859931
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31872553
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sou...
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/03/...
https://rotherhampolitics.wordpress.com/...
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/coun...
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/20...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politic...
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/cri...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...
https://www.thetrumpet.com/12081-rotherh...
https://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/child...
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/cy/reques...
It is clear that more information is held.
I look forward to the metadata and the information that remains unlawfully outstanding.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...
Yours faithfully,
p cialfi
Dear FOI,
Would you be so kind as to reply to my communication on 24 May 2021.
I asked for the case metadata.
I have still not received the information that is being withheld.
The requests concerns 'Cover-up of Child Sex Exploitation by Sheffield City Council'
On 30.03.21 you were asked to provide the ICO with the information that you failed to provide to me.
Please confirm that you have done so.
Yours sincerely,
p cialfi
Dear Mr Cialfi,
Internal Review of Freedom of Information Request FOI ID 2019-20-2415
I am writing in response to your request for a review of the handling of
your Freedom of Information Request. I am very sorry to hear that you were
dissatisfied with the original response you received.
Please accept our apologies for the lengthy delay in responding to your
request, and for any inconvenience this may have caused you. We have been
dealing with a backlog of Freedom of Information Requests and Internal
Reviews, and also had to reprioritise some of our work to focus on the
coronavirus pandemic, which led to a shortage of resources.
I have now had the opportunity to review the case file for your request,
and carry out extensive further searches. I can confirm that the Council
does hold records of meetings about children considered to be at risk of
sexual exploitation. However, these were meetings about individual
children, rather than general discussions about child sexual exploitation
in Sheffield.
Minutes of these meetings are stored in such a way that we would have to
manually check each child’s social care records to see if such a meeting
took place. Although the Council now flags children considered to be at
risk of sexual exploitation on its electronic social care case management
system, this was not the case prior to 2015. Almost 45,000 children had a
record on the Council’s electronic social care case management system on
01 January 2015, and it would take upwards of 10 minutes per child to
check whether any minutes were held amongst their records. I estimate that
it would take us in excess of 7,500 hours to locate this information,
which is more than the cost limit of 18 hours or £450 specified in the
[1]Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees)
Regulations 2004 (SI 2004 No. 3244).
As these meetings were about individual children considered to be at risk
of sexual exploitation, the records will likely be exempt from disclosure
under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This is
because they will contain personal data, and disclosure would contravene
the data protection principle under Article 5(1)(a) of the General Data
Protection Regulation that processing of personal data must be fair,
lawful and transparent.
Only four members of staff in Children’s Social Care who were in senior
positions on 01 January 2015 are still employed by Sheffield City Council
today. All four work behind the scenes managing business support
functions, rather than managing front line social work.
If you remain dissatisfied with the outcome of your internal review, you
can contact the Information Commissioner’s Office. Please see [2]Official
information concern | ICO for further details.
Yours sincerely,
Sheffield City Council
PO Box 1283
Sheffield, S1 1UJ
Email: [3][Sheffield City Council request email]
This Email, and any attachments, may contain non-public information and is
intended solely for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It may
contain sensitive or protectively marked material and should be handled
accordingly. If this Email has been misdirected, please notify the author
immediately. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose,
distribute, copy, print or rely on any of the information contained in it
or attached, and all copies must be deleted immediately. Whilst we take
reasonable steps to try to identify any software viruses, any attachments
to this Email may nevertheless contain viruses which our anti-virus
software has failed to identify. You should therefore carry out your own
anti-virus checks before opening any documents. Sheffield City Council
will not accept any liability for damage caused by computer viruses
emanating from any attachment or other document supplied with this e-mail
References
Visible links
1. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/...
2. https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/offi...
3. mailto:[Sheffield City Council request email]
p cialfi left an annotation ()
In my opinion, this latest response from SCC proves the case for a Section 77 prosecution.
No attempt has been made to answer the request for metadata.
No attempt has been made to provide the minutes of meetings between SCC and SYP and PCC.
Instead, using a deliberate completely false premise, the council responds with reference to individual cases relating to CSE, which was never asked.
The ICO, in my opinion, now have no excuse for not prosecuting.
Dear FOI,
On 24 May 2021 requested metadata relating to my request concerning child sex exploitation on 6 February 2020.
I have not received the metadata, could you please provide the metadata.
Here are some quotes from the relevant article from 2015:
Retired detective Tony Brookes, who spent 30 years with the force, worked
on inquiries in 2007 which led to six abusers being convicted, and he wanted
to build on the case as he recognised the size of the problem.
He said the issue of child sexual exploitation in Sheffield was ‘massive’ and
bigger than in neighbouring Rotherham, where at least 1,400 children were
abused over a 16-year-period.
Mr Brookes said his team was told by a senior officer to ‘wind your necks in’.
Dr Billings has met local MPs, the chief constable and city council officials
and is in negotiations with the Home Office about how to proceed.
Therefore, unless Dr Billings is not telling the truth, city council officials were involved and therefore the council always had the information that it has denied having.
In my opinion this is a wilful breach of section 77 of the FoIA.
Yours sincerely,
p cialfi
Dear Ms Cialfi,
Freedom of Information Request – FOI ID 2019-20-1673
The Information Commissioner’s Office have asked us to provide an updated
response to your request.
The article you refer to in your original request was published in The
Star on Saturday 14 March 2015. We have searched the Council’s email
servers for any emails containing the search phrases “cse” and “child
sexual exploitation” sent or received between Saturday 07 March and
Saturday 28 March 2015 (inclusive). We thought that this would capture any
consultation with the Council prior to publication, any reaction within
the Council following publication, and the drafting of any press
statements in response to the article.
These searches located 1,911 emails containing the search phrase “cse” and
3,208 emails containing the search phrase “child sexual exploitation”.
When we looked at a sample of the results, it became clear that the
article in The Star had been published in the wake of several other
articles about child sexual exploitation in Sheffield, including:
• BBC News, 12 March 2015 - [1]South Yorkshire Police 'ignored Sheffield
abuse claims' - BBC News
• Daily Mail, 12 March 2015 - [2]South Yorkshire Police accused of
covering up Sheffield sex abuse | Daily Mail Online
• Hallam FM, 13 March 2015 - [3]South Yorkshire Police To Face
Investigation Over CSE | News - Hallam FM (planetradio.co.uk)
The sample of results also suggested that there had been considerable
discussion amongst both Council Officers and Elected Members about the
issue of child sexual exploitation at that time. We would need to check
each email to see whether it concerned the article in The Star, one of the
other media articles published at the same time, or the wider issue of
child sexual exploitation in Sheffield. It will take at least 5 minutes to
read each email. This equates to 25,595 minutes, or almost 427 hours (well
in excess of the appropriate limit set out in section 12 of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000).
We then carried out two further searches of the Council’s email servers.
The first for any emails containing both the search terms “cse” and
“Star”, and the second for any emails containing both the search terms
“child sexual exploitation” and “Star”. The time period for these searches
was again Saturday 07 March to Saturday 28 March 2015 (inclusive).
These further searches located 271 emails containing both the search terms
“cse” and “Star”, and 358 emails containing both the search terms “child
sexual exploitation” and “Star”. Please note that one of Sheffield City
Council’s offices is called ‘Star House’. This houses a ‘Drop-In’ Advice
Centre for young people, as well as the Council’s Youth Justice, Looked
After Children and Leaving Care Teams. Staff based in these teams will
have “Star House” in their email signatures. We believe this is why these
further searches have turned up so many results.
Again, we would need to check each email to see whether it concerned the
article in The Star or the wider issue of child sexual exploitation. It
will take at least 5 minutes to read each email. This equates to 3,145
minutes, or more than 52 hours (in excess of the appropriate limit set out
in section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000).
Under section 16 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, we have a duty to
provide advice and assistance to requesters. If you would like to narrow
down the focus of your request, or suggest alternative search terms or
phrases for us to use, we would be happy to process your revised request
as a new request for Information under the Freedom of Information Act
2000.
Yours sincerely,
Sheffield City Council
PO Box 1283
Sheffield, S1 1UJ
Email: [4][Sheffield City Council request email]
This Email, and any attachments, may contain non-public information and is
intended solely for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It may
contain sensitive or protectively marked material and should be handled
accordingly. If this Email has been misdirected, please notify the author
immediately. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose,
distribute, copy, print or rely on any of the information contained in it
or attached, and all copies must be deleted immediately. Whilst we take
reasonable steps to try to identify any software viruses, any attachments
to this Email may nevertheless contain viruses which our anti-virus
software has failed to identify. You should therefore carry out your own
anti-virus checks before opening any documents. Sheffield City Council
will not accept any liability for damage caused by computer viruses
emanating from any attachment or other document supplied with this e-mail
References
Visible links
1. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31859931
2. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...
3. https://planetradio.co.uk/hallam/local/n...
4. mailto:[Sheffield City Council request email]
Dear Sheffield City Council,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Sheffield City Council's handling of my FOI request 'Cover-up of Child Sex Exploitation by Sheffield City Council'.
My first request on this issue was made on 6 February 2020.
31 months later, and I am no nearer to receiving the required information.
Original reference: FOI / 1673
Freedom of Information Request – FOI ID 2019-20-1673
Thank you for your reply, received today, 23 August 2022, following contact with the Information Commissioner.
In essence, you say that you have too much information to process the request within the FoIA cost limit under section 12.
In 12 February 2022 I wrote:
“ The second quote suggests that the reason for ordering council officers to 'wind necks in' was because of fear of creating racist or religious tension.
Therefore, the 'bosses' would have had directions from senior politicians. ”
Your response confines itself solely to material within a range surrounding the publicity.
I thank you for your diligence in identifying thousands of references following a search using key words.
It appears that there must be much material yet to be publicly disclosed, and SCC was much engaged with the issue of CSE in Sheffield.
You have invited proposals for a more focussed search, perhaps using alternative key words, to bring the costs under the S12 limit.
Firstly, the original request asked for all ‘associated’ documents with the publicity.
The reported incident actually happened around 2008, which is when Detective Constable Tony Brookes was ordered to ‘wind their necks in’ and cease investigating child sex exploitation.
It might therefore be appropriate to have looked at including key words such as ‘Tony Brookes’, along with your other search parameters, for the period when the reported incident took place, along with those senior politicians who on the relevant panels or committees at that time.
I also wrote on 12 February 2015:
“ There would be internal memos relating to the political decision to cover up child sex exploitation in Sheffield. ”
Unfortunately, none of those memos have been disclosed.
On 3 March 2020 you replied, correctly saying that it was not council officers that made the order to cease investigating child sex exploitation, but [ senior ] police officers.
However, my request to yourselves was for the disclosure of associated information, i.e. whatever is held by SCC, for example, within the minutes of meetings of the South Yorkshire Joint Secretariat around the time of the incident.
On 4 March I asked that you review your response of ‘no information held’ and I wrote, citing five more publicity references:
“Having found these references, it is inconceivable that local politicians and Council child welfare personnel would claim that they were not aware of what was going on.
For example, there would have been many joint meetings between South Yorkshire Police, the Police Authority, and senior council officers.
The minutes of these meetings, and the associated briefings and memos, will be found in the Council's records. ”
It is proposed therefore that any new search be around the dates of the incident, rather than around the date of publicity in 2015, which further disclosed that there was a claim by the same whistleblower, and supported by others close to the subject, that the issue of child sex exploitation was far worse in Sheffield than in Rotherham.
On 3 July 2020 you suggested that I contact South Yorkshire Police for the information required.
You also quoted from my original request:
“ The second quote suggests that the reason for ordering council officers to
'wind necks in' was because of fear of creating racist or religious
tension. ”
On 3 July 2020 you claimed that providing the information required with respect to minutes of meetings and memos etc was outside the scope of the request, i.e. SCC was concerned only with the publicity of 15 March 2015, not the referenced incident.
On 18 August 2020 I wrote:
“ I would like to close this request under the heading 'Information not held', if this is acceptable to you.
However, before I do this, I will need to see the minutes and associated material related to the meetings between South Yorkshire Police, the Police Authority, and senior council officers.
You have said that this material is outside the scope of my original request.
Accordingly, could you please provide a link to these records? ”
On 20 August you replied with yet another request for clarification. ( As with so many others, these constant requests for clarification are perceived as a tactic to wear down the requester whilst buying time. )
On 20 August I replied:
“ These council records would have included minutes of meetings among members of the police and crime panel, The Police Authority, elected members, council officers, police officers, and the PCC's offce.
Also in existence would be the correspondence between these parties and local MP's with respect to the order given to 'wind their necks in'.
There would also be internal memos related to this issue.
. . . . . .
Below the headline is written:
"After trying to notify the authorities of one of the worst crimes to have ever
been committed on British soil, they shouldn't have dared to 'notice' something about the majority of the perpetrators."
On 27 August 2020 you again replied: ‘No information held’, for which I requested a review, whilst noting:
“ What has been observed is the consistent presence of a third party organisation within each of the 'actor' institutions, the extent of influence, interest and control of which has yet to be determined. ”
On 16 February 2021 the Information Commissioner was engaged, and on 30 March 2021 you were informed that a section 77 prosecution was being considered.
On 24 May 2021 I asked for a review, and gave new references, and requested the case metadata.
SCC replied on 3 November , claiming a section 12 costs exemption because of the time needed to review the files, which in any case identified individuals ( 45000 deemed to be at risk of CSE ) could not be disclosed.
This misses the point. The information required relates to the incident when Detective Tony Brookes was told to cease investigating child sex exploitation.
NO metadata was produced.
It is believed that the case for a section 77 prosecution remains as of 14 April 2022.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...
Yours faithfully,
p cialfi
Dear FOI,
I am rather concerned that I have not yet had a response to my request for review.
Whilst there was no given deadline for a review response, considering the simplicity of the request, it was reasonably expected to have been received by now.
I was helpful in providing you with search parameters that would have disclosed the information required and kept within S12 limits.
It would be appreciated if you could give this issue your prompt attention.
Yours sincerely,
p cialfi
Dear P Cialfi,
Thank you for your recent request for an internal review relating to
Sheffield Star article relating to CSE. We are sorry to hear that you are
not happy with your response.
We apologise for the delay in registering this internal review which has
been due to a backlog of requests. We hope you will accept 21/10/2022 as
the start of the 20 day period within which you can expect a response.
This has now been logged and will be carried out by a member of the team.
Please be aware that Sheffield City Council’s response to the global
COVID-19 pandemic has led to a reduction in resources across the Council,
meaning that we are currently dealing with a backlog of requests.
The Freedom of Information Code of Practice states that we should aim to
your request for internal review within 20 working days, by 18/11/2022,
but we kindly ask for your patience as we anticipate that there may be a
delay in some cases. Please do not hesitate to contact us at the email
address below if you have any queries.
Please note that the Code of Practice does allow us to extend this
deadline by an additional 20 days in some situations. If we need more time
to complete the internal review, we will contact you to inform you of
this.
If you have any queries in the meantime, please contact us at the email
address below.
Yours sincerely,
Sheffield City Council
PO Box 1283
Sheffield, S1 1UJ
Email: [1][Sheffield City Council request email]
From: p cialfi <[FOI #643861 email]>
Sent: 21 September 2022 11:27
To: FOI <[Sheffield City Council request email]>
Subject: Re: Freedom of Information Request - FOI ID 2019-20-1673
Dear FOI,
I am rather concerned that I have not yet had a response to my request for
review.
Whilst there was no given deadline for a review response, considering the
simplicity of the request, it was reasonably expected to have been
received by now.
I was helpful in providing you with search parameters that would have
disclosed the information required and kept within S12 limits.
It would be appreciated if you could give this issue your prompt
attention.
Yours sincerely,
p cialfi
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now
p cialfi left an annotation ()
This case is so blatant that the Information Commissioner must now be asked to intervene, and also to consider prosecuting SCC under section 77.
Council records included minutes of meetings among members of the police and crime panel, The Police Authority, elected members, council officers, police officers, and the PCC's office.
Also in existence is the correspondence between these parties and local MP's with respect to the order given to 'wind their necks in'.
There would also be internal memos related to this issue.