We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Slough Times 01753-511911 please sign in and let everyone know.

SUA: The 2016 Penn Report

We're waiting for Slough Times 01753-511911 to read a recent response and update the status.

Slough Times 01753-511911

INTRODUCTION

(1) In 2016 a councillor, purporting to be a member of staff, wrote an anonymous letter slagging-off other councillors and some members of staff.

(2) The councillor author was assisted in the distribution of that defamatory and false letter by a few members of staff known as "the hard core nasties".

QUESTIONS or requests for truthful information

(3) Who authorised the Penn investigation into that letter ?

(4) Was a budget agreed before the investigation commenced ? If so, what was that budget ?

(5) How many individuals undertook the investigation ?

(6) What was the final cost of the Penn Report ?

(7) To whom was the cost of the investigation and report paid ?

(8) Who had or has a copy of the Penn Report ?

(9) Why has the Penn Report, said to have cost GBP 30,000 of council tax payers' money, not been disclosed to councillors ?

(10) Who made the decision, and why, not to scientifically (or forensically) examine the letter to determine its author ?

(11) When is someone, and whom, going to ask the responsible councillor to refund to the public the GBP 30,000 cost of the Penn investigation and report ?

(12) When will all the councillors slagged-off in the report be made aware of the scurrilous accusations against them and the name of the person making those hate-motivated assertions ?

(13) When will staff or councillors report the councillor author to the usually-malfunctioning Standards Committee or staff-controlled process ?

Mr Janik

FOI, Slough Borough Council

Thank you for your email.

 

Providing excellent customer services is one of the council’s key
priorities.

 

Your enquiry will now be forwarded to the relevant department to answer.

 

We will reply fully to all written enquiries within 10 working days
although we aim to reply to emails sooner than this.

 

If your enquiry is a Freedom of Information request, the council may take
up to 20 working days to respond.

 

 

If you do not receive a satisfactory response by this time you can contact
our complaints department. More details here:

[1]http://www.slough.gov.uk/council/complai...

 

http://www.slough.gov.uk/business/regene...

'Disclaimer: You should be aware that all e-mails received and sent by
this Organisation are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and
therefore may be disclosed to a third party. (The information contained in
this message or any of its attachments may be privileged and confidential
and intended for the exclusive use of the addressee).  The views expressed
may not be official policy but the personal views of the originator.  If
you are not the addressee any disclosure, reproduction, distribution,
other dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited. 
If you received this message in error please return it to the originator
and confirm that you have deleted all copies of it. All messages sent by
this organisation are checked for viruses using the latest antivirus
products.  This does not guarantee a virus has not been transmitted.  
Please therefore ensure that you take your own precautions for the
detection and eradication of viruses.'

References

Visible links
1. http://www.slough.gov.uk/council/complai...
http://www.slough.gov.uk/council/complai...

_Freedom of Information, Slough Borough Council

This is to acknowledge receipt of your FOI request which is receiving attention

show quoted sections

_Freedom of Information, Slough Borough Council

Dear Mr Janik

 

Please see below.

 

Regards, SBC FOI Officer

 

 

show quoted sections

Slough Swan left an annotation ()

Paul,

My neighbours, the Frogs (unsure if they all come from France), assure me Mohammed Nazir didn't do it. Mohammed is innocent.
Mohammed had no powers to do it. True culprits are one councillor and one staff who often stabs you in your back.

XXXXX

Slough Witch left an annotation ()

Dearest Odette

I think you must refer to Von Rothbart, the most evil and formidable enemy of good swans.

Fear not, the European genius has foretold that you will be victorious and your family and neighbours free of this evil.

I shall create a spell to bring strength and courage to all those who must fight this battle.

Slough Times 01753-511911

Hallo Slough Unitary Authority

I request an impartial internal review of the council's handling of my FOI request 'SUA: The 2016 Penn Report'.

Please do not let Linda Walker, her sidekick Steve or her boss at HB Public Law conduct the review as I honestly believe it will not be impartial. I distrust all of them. I am more inclined to trust those uncontaminated by HB Public Law connections.

The council twice lied thus destroying its credibility as an honest, decent and truthful public authority disclosing information. What is the point in lying to me ? I am bound to eventually find-out.

A full history of my FOI request is available on the Internet at: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...

Mr Janik
News reporter

FOI, Slough Borough Council

Thank you for your email.

 

Providing excellent customer services is one of the council’s key
priorities.

 

Your enquiry will now be forwarded to the relevant department to answer.

 

We will reply fully to all written enquiries within 10 working days
although we aim to reply to emails sooner than this.

 

If your enquiry is a Freedom of Information request, the council may take
up to 20 working days to respond.

 

 

If you do not receive a satisfactory response by this time you can contact
our complaints department. More details here:

[1]http://www.slough.gov.uk/council/complai...

 

http://www.slough.gov.uk/business/regene...

'Disclaimer: You should be aware that all e-mails received and sent by
this Organisation are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and
therefore may be disclosed to a third party. (The information contained in
this message or any of its attachments may be privileged and confidential
and intended for the exclusive use of the addressee).  The views expressed
may not be official policy but the personal views of the originator.  If
you are not the addressee any disclosure, reproduction, distribution,
other dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited. 
If you received this message in error please return it to the originator
and confirm that you have deleted all copies of it. All messages sent by
this organisation are checked for viruses using the latest antivirus
products.  This does not guarantee a virus has not been transmitted.  
Please therefore ensure that you take your own precautions for the
detection and eradication of viruses.'

References

Visible links
1. http://www.slough.gov.uk/council/complai...
http://www.slough.gov.uk/council/complai...

Slough Witch left an annotation ()

Dear Mr Janik

I fear that any hope you have of an honest or independent review is futile. The authority has attempted willfully to mislead you and in so doing is acting unlawfully.

It is clear from their response that they do not intend to disclose the truth. It is time to report all their FOI failures to the ICO so they can carry out a full audit.

SW

Slough Swan left an annotation ()

Your Majesty, my Queen of the Night,

Leisurely I glide across my lake as Opus.71 "Pas de deux" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_brMBTn...) drifts towards me.

Thank you profusely.

Odette.

Slough Times 01753-511911 left an annotation ()

Forlornly devoid of expectation, I pursue their convoluted procedure. Like others I keenly await your spell :-)

_Freedom of Information, Slough Borough Council

Mr Janik

If you require a review you need to be clear about what is it in the response which you are unhappy about.

Regards, SBC FOI Officer

show quoted sections

Slough Times 01753-511911 left an annotation ()

Another question asked at SUA: The 2016 Penn Report #3
https://whatdotheyknow.com/request/411306

Slough Times 01753-511911

An anonymous person at Slough Unitary Authority stated

"If you require a review you need to be clear about what is it in the response which you are unhappy about."

I previously told the Council .....

"I request an impartial internal review of the council's handling of my FOI request 'SUA: The 2016 Penn Report'.

.........

The council twice lied thus destroying its credibility as an honest, decent and truthful public authority disclosing information. What is the point in lying to me ? I am bound to eventually find-out."

Surely lying to the public is a good place to start and I reiterate my request for a COMPLETE review of the entire handling of my request for information.

Mr Janik.
News reporter.

Slough Witch left an annotation ()

Good Mr Janik, seeker of truth

Odette's neighbours, the frogs, are well known to me. I can assure you they are both knowing and honest. If they say Mohammed Nazir didn't do it, you can be sure Mohammed Nazir didn't do it. He is indeed innocent.

That being the case, Von Rothbart is indeed trying to deceive you and will ensure your review request will reveal nothing.

Your only chance of finding the truth is to enlist the assistance of a greater power - the Information Commissioner. She has power greater than yours or mine and will compel Von Rothbart to speak the truth or try to deceive at its peril.

SW

_FreedomOfInformation, Slough Borough Council

               

7^th July 2017

 

 

Dear Mr Janik

 

Requests for Internal Reviews of FOIA Decisions – Refusal Notice

 

Thank you for your requests dated 8^th June and two requests dated 10 June
2017 (your ‘Recent Requests’) for internal reviews to your requests of the
14, 24 and 25 May 2017 and the councils responses to your Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the ‘Act’) requests relating to the Arvato
Outsourcing Contract and the 2016 Penn Report all dated 6^th June 2017.

 

I have been asked to refer you to Roger Parkins letter of [13] June 2017 
which set out in detail why the council considered your 13 April request
to be vexatious under section 14 (1) of the Act.

 

In summary Mr Parkin set out the context of the recent history of your
numerous requests to the council. Since January this year you have
submitted now over 45 requests under the Act to the council, sometimes 2
or more in one day. The council have tried to answer your requests in
accordance with its obligations under the Act and have tried to work with
you to make proportionate use of the Act, including sending you the ICO’s
list of dos and don’ts as a quick reference tool to help requesters make
effective freedom of information requests. 

 

The tone and content of your requests are accusatory and unpleasant. A key
theme of your requests, insofar as there is one, is corruption,
concealment and improper behaviour at the council, and your requests often
target individual council officers without proper justification, as do
your Recent Requests.

 

In reaching a decision to treat your Recent Requests as vexatious the
council can take into account the context and history of your requests, as
this is clearly relevant. The numerous unsubstantiated allegations of
cover-up, wrong doing, incompetence and bribery at the council, is clearly
vexatious and is causing a number of council officers serious distraction,
irritation and distress.

 

Dealing with your constant requests under the Act is also causing the
council a disproportionate and unjustified level of disruption and
diversion of scarce resources when weighed against any evidence about the
serious purpose and value of your requests, including your Recent
Requests. As mentioned a key theme of your requests is a conspiracy based
campaign without any substantive evidence that council officers and senior
individually targeted officers in particular, are guilty of improper
conduct and even fraud and illegality.

 

The Information Commissioner recognises that dealing with unreasonable
requests can place a strain on resources and get in the way of delivering
mainstream services or answering legitimate requests. Furthermore, these
requests can also damage the reputation of the legislation itself.

 

Section 14(1) of the Act is designed to protect public authorities by
allowing them to refuse any requests which have the potential to cause a
disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or
distress.

 

The key question that has been considered is whether your Recent Requests
(in context) are likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level
of disruption, irritation or distress, and the answer is clearly ‘Yes’.

 

Most of the indicative list of factors making a request vexatious set out
in the ICO’s Guidance on dealing with vexatious request are wholly or
partially present here. Please refer to the 13^th June letter.

 

Therefore, having taken account of the context and history in which your
Recent Requests have been made, the council confirm that they are refusing
to conduct internal reviews of the three responses dated 6^th June 2017,
relying on section 14 (1) of the Act because your Recent Requests are
vexatious. The council have taken into account other requests made by you
and the number and subject matter of those requests. You are placing a
significant strain on the council’s resources by submitting frequent
disparate requests, and your Recent Requests are vexatious and are adding
to that aggregated burden.

 

Given the wider context and history and your past pattern of behaviour the
council conclude that you will continue to make numerous requests of a
similar nature in a similar way with a similar focus, and your Recent
Requests confirm this.

 

The council will not be responding to any further requests from you unless
and until there is a significant change in circumstances.

 

Right to Complain to the ICO

 

If you remain dissatisfied with our decision you have a right to appeal to
the Information Commissioner at:

 

Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

 

Tel:  0303 123 1113

 

Web site: [1]https://ico.org.uk

 

 

Yours sincerely, SBC FOI Officer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.slough.gov.uk/business/regene...

'Disclaimer: You should be aware that all e-mails received and sent by
this Organisation are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and
therefore may be disclosed to a third party. (The information contained in
this message or any of its attachments may be privileged and confidential
and intended for the exclusive use of the addressee).  The views expressed
may not be official policy but the personal views of the originator.  If
you are not the addressee any disclosure, reproduction, distribution,
other dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited. 
If you received this message in error please return it to the originator
and confirm that you have deleted all copies of it. All messages sent by
this organisation are checked for viruses using the latest antivirus
products.  This does not guarantee a virus has not been transmitted.  
Please therefore ensure that you take your own precautions for the
detection and eradication of viruses.'

References

Visible links
1. https://ico.org.uk/

We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Slough Times 01753-511911 please sign in and let everyone know.

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org