The ICO latest guidance to PA ref VEXATIOUS requests falls woefully short of Due Process and Common Law requirements,i.e Alan M Dransfield v ICO&DCC simply because the decision relied upon re GIA/3037/2011 is UNSAFE.

Lets remind all readers that the Rugby Bridge was purported to have been provisioned with all singing all dancing Lightning Protection Systems(LPS) in place but we NOW KNOW that to be HOGWASH owing to the DCC Documents in the Public Domain,i.e. the Operations Maintenance Manual for the Rugby Bridge which confirms there was NO LPS in place, hence, my requests COULD NOT and SHOULD NOT have been declared vexatious.
Are you still with me Tooltime Timmy Turner??!!
I was on record that the Rugby Bridge was devoid of any LPS,hence, the OMM confirmed my allegations.

The ICO and the DCC have shot themselves in the FOOT agains with this latest DECEPTION which they refer to as VEXATIOUS GUIDANCE

Message for Timmy Turner

Have you read the Operation Maintenance Manual(OMM) for the Exeter Chief Rugby Bridge (available at this website)

A simple yes or no will suffice.

The OMM is,in my view CONCRETE evidence that the GIA/3037/2011 is UNSAFE and is also concrete evidence of a WIDER conspiracy to pervert the Course of Justice.
I would rather suspect you haven't read the OMM or otherwise you would NOT keep spouting the same old HOGWASH and claiming ALL my FOIA are vexatious.
Indeed, the DCC have recently overturned one of their most recent VEXATIOUS decisions(please see it on this website ref Exeter Incinerator)

In essence, the OMM is the straw that broke the Camels Back ref Dransfield V ICO &DCC.Ditto your vexatious claims against me??!!

In the event the Exeter Chiefs Rugby Bridge HAD been provisioned with minimum and adequate Lightning Protection, I would accept 110% that the DCC had every right to consider my FOIA requests as VEXATIOUS but we NOW KNOW it was ME who was 110% correct that the Rugby Bridge WAS/IS UNSAFE.

Anytime you feel like issuing a Public Apology via this website Tooltime Timmy , I will accept it.

I don't think so Tim

I would assume the DCC will now contact Sheila Oliver advising her that her FOIA requests for information on the Rugby Bridge will NOW be reviewed once again.
This should automatically happen following the publication of the Operation Maintenance Manual (OMM)for the Rugby Bridge.The OMM confirms NOT A SINGLE reference to Lightning Protection has been made, thus meaning all previous information on the Bridge released to Sheila Oliver is a pack of Lies??!!

I wonder if you have the manners and the Balls to issue BOTH Sheila Oliver and me a Public Apology via this website.
Ditto for Richard Jones.

What do you think Timmy Turner, the resident FOIA "expert".
Did you enjoy reading the Ruby Bridge OMM. I thought not, that's why you decided not to make any further comments ,is it??

I too agree that Mrs Sheila Oliver's account should be restored. She is a stalwart campaigner and is not afraid to challenge what She- and many others- consider to be worthy of investigation.

In my opinion she has been treated unkindly and it would be to the credit of this forum to recognize that fact.

The courts and the independent regulator have determined that your requests are vexatious. All I have done is agree with these relevant authorities, while you invent conspiracies, make baseless accusations and resort to name-calling in a vain attempt to distract readers of this website from what they have said.

Apologies? I don't think so, Alan.