Police Markers Suppressing the Press
Dear Cheshire Constabulary / Mr Gannon
[extraneous and potentially defamatory material removed]
I have recently received evidence which suggests [extraneous material removed] Cheshire Constabulary has placed markers against my name deliberately designed to prevent the British press from reporting what I say
[extraneous material removed]
Please provide me copies of those markers or alternatively please deny their existence.
Yours faithfully,
ROBERT PICKTHALL
ROBERT PICKTHALL (Account suspended) left an annotation ()
Hello doyle williams
I hope we both receive the information - but don't hold your breath. Cheshire Police & Cheshire West and Chester Council have established a relationship with the Information Commissioner which permits them to either refuse my requests or simply not respond to them. I in turn complain to the ICO and it simply refuses to acknowledge my complaint. Yes I agree its very hard to believe ...but absolutely true.
regards,
Robert A Pickthall
Dear Mr Pickthall,
I am writing in response to your six requests currently with the
Constabulary and logged under the above reference numbers in the subject
line. I am dealing with all six in this reply.
Having considered each of the requests I am of the opinion that all six
are vexatious both individually and in total.
Section 17 (5) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires the
Cheshire Constabulary, when refusing to provide such information to
provide you with a notice which states that fact thus:-
Your requests are refused as Section 14 (1) does not oblige a public
authority to comply with a request for information if the request is
vexatious. Take note also in accordance with Section 17 (7) (a) (b) that
our complaints procedures are set out in the attached notice.
My reasons for this decision are that your requests, in the main, are
merely to use the publicly available facilities of the web site, WDTK.com,
to continue to air your perceived grievances which are based on inaccurate
and false assertions set out in a defamatory and inflammatory manner. None
of your assertions have any basis in fact therefore neither do your
questions.
You have made a total of 44 FOI requests to the Constabulary the majority
of which concern your ill-founded assertions. These requests demonstrate
an unreasonable persistence with frequent and overlapping requests. I
wrote to you on the 14^th March 2014 regarding similar issues pointing out
that the language used in previous request implying that officers are not
carrying out their duties and that local authority officials are guilty of
serious offences, all of which previously been addressed and your
complaints found to be without substance. You disregard previous findings
and you demonstrate an unwillingness to accept a viewpoint other than your
own, in spite of independent investigations.
You make FOI requests for information and documents about matters that are
based on conjecture and have no foundation in fact. Your lengthy
assertions appear to be designed to create a picture of corruption, cover
ups and malfeasance by officers and staff in dealing with matters that
never existed in the first place.
Dealing with your requests create a significant burden on FOI staff, your
44 request have generated numerous emails and correspondence. They are a
complete distraction from staff’s ability to deal promptly with other
genuine requests. The requests are designed in such a way as to cause
disruption and harassment of staff of the authority. Your use of language
appears to be an attempt to intimidate, blacken the characters of
individuals and the reputations Public Authorities and to provoke a
reaction. The requests are clearly obsessive and manifestly unreasonable
as they are about matters that have no foundation in fact thus having no
serious purpose or value.
Take note also that the Constabulary will not respond to any further
requests from you that continue to fulfil the Upper Tribunal and
Information Commissioner’s guidance of vexatious.
I enclose for your attention a copy of the Constabulary's appeal
procedures.
Regards
John Gannon
Information Compliance
Professional Standards Department
Tel: 01606 364176
Dear Mr Pickthall,
I am writing in response to your six requests currently with the
Constabulary and logged under the above reference numbers in the subject
line. I am dealing with all six in this reply.
Having considered each of the requests I am of the opinion that all six
are vexatious both individually and in total.
Section 17 (5) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires the
Cheshire Constabulary, when refusing to provide such information to
provide you with a notice which states that fact thus:-
Your requests are refused as Section 14 (1) does not oblige a public
authority to comply with a request for information if the request is
vexatious. Take note also in accordance with Section 17 (7) (a) (b) that
our complaints procedures are set out in the attached notice.
My reasons for this decision are that your requests, in the main, are
merely to use the publicly available facilities of the web site, WDTK.com,
to continue to air your perceived grievances which are based on inaccurate
and false assertions set out in a defamatory and inflammatory manner. None
of your assertions have any basis in fact therefore neither do your
questions.
You have made a total of 44 FOI requests to the Constabulary the majority
of which concern your ill-founded assertions. These requests demonstrate
an unreasonable persistence with frequent and overlapping requests. I
wrote to you on the 14^th March 2014 regarding similar issues pointing out
that the language used in previous request implying that officers are not
carrying out their duties and that local authority officials are guilty of
serious offences, all of which previously been addressed and your
complaints found to be without substance. You disregard previous findings
and you demonstrate an unwillingness to accept a viewpoint other than your
own, in spite of independent investigations.
You make FOI requests for information and documents about matters that are
based on conjecture and have no foundation in fact. Your lengthy
assertions appear to be designed to create a picture of corruption, cover
ups and malfeasance by officers and staff in dealing with matters that
never existed in the first place.
Dealing with your requests create a significant burden on FOI staff, your
44 request have generated numerous emails and correspondence. They are a
complete distraction from staff’s ability to deal promptly with other
genuine requests. The requests are designed in such a way as to cause
disruption and harassment of staff of the authority. Your use of language
appears to be an attempt to intimidate, blacken the characters of
individuals and the reputations Public Authorities and to provoke a
reaction. The requests are clearly obsessive and manifestly unreasonable
as they are about matters that have no foundation in fact thus having no
serious purpose or value.
Take note also that the Constabulary will not respond to any further
requests from you that continue to fulfil the Upper Tribunal and
Information Commissioner’s guidance of vexatious.
I enclose for your attention a copy of the Constabulary's appeal
procedures.
Regards
John Gannon
Information Compliance
Professional Standards Department
Tel: 01606 364176
Dear Freedom of Information/Mr Gannon
You deem my requests to be vexatious - the meaning of vexatious is to be troublesome - of course my requests are troublesome to your Force because they each go to proving senior officers of your Force corrupt. I believe you were ordered some considerable time ago not to provide me any information including my Subject Access Request [ SAR ] . The very fact that you refuse my SAR in full and not as is the normal practice to redact it in part suggests you are about dishonest practices.
The fact you show yourself to be a dishonest individual proves the true reason why you have rejected all of my Freedom of Information requests.
Yours sincerely,
ROBERT PICKTHALL
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
doyle williams left an annotation ()
I look forward to this response.