Vaccine INSTRUCTIONS that were sent cascading down chain of command for Troops to give their informed consent to Gul War 1991

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Ministry of Defence should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear Ministry of Defence,

In 2003 in PARLIMENT. Whilst discussing MOD's immunisation programme for the Gulf War in 1991 (HANSARD 03 NOV 2003 Volume 654)

Lord Bach stated the following -

" when INSTRUCTIONS from MoD Headquarters were sent cascading down the command chain, in some cases the voluntary nature of the immunisation programme was not adequately communicated" and sited the following link

http://www.mod.uk/ issues/gulfwar/info/medical/bwa/chl.htm.

My very simple Questions are as follows

What were the INSTRUCTIONS word for word surrounding the immunisation programme that troops should have received to enable them to be able to give their INFORMED consent to?

On what date were these INSTRUCTIONS from WHITEHALL sent CASCADING down the chain of command?

Where is this data recorded for MOD to be able to make this claim, as there is no data in the public domain surrounding the so called INSTRUCTIONS?

Regards,

gavin roberts

SG SecFin-Sec Gp Mailbox (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Roberts,
Further to your enquiry below, please see the attached.

Regards,

Joint Medical Group

show quoted sections

Dear SG SecFin-Sec Gp Mailbox (MULTIUSER),

Thankyou for your reply,

I have read the links and annexes as advised.

I would like to view the original signals and not the transcripts of the signals by a Fact Finding Team that will have passed through legal teams in the past. For Obvious reasons. The signals/fax exist and have obviously been declassified, so if copies could be put in the public domain. If they are already in the public domain, please point me in the right direction, thankyou.

Also in reference to the fact finding team, could you please give me some more information surrounding them (I don't mind if you deal with this part as a new request, if you need up to 20 days)

From what dates were the FFT working between? How many were on it? Were they Military or civilian? Where were they recruited/contracted from?

Thankyou

Regards,

gavin roberts

People-Sec-FOI Mailbox (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Roberts,

Please find attached response to your correspondence.

Regards,

Defence People Secretariat

 

 

 

 

Dear People-Sec-FOI Mailbox (MULTIUSER),

Thankyou for your reply, whilst i look into the links that you have provided,
please answer my questions surrounding the fact finding team. i have not requested personal data of each individual on the fft!
I have asked how many were on it? The date they started and finished? and if they were recruited from the military, government or civilian? None of this is personal data. Blocking the freedom of information is breaking the Law! Thankyou for a swift response in advance!

Regards,

gavin roberts

People-Sec-FOI Mailbox (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

Dear Mr Roberts,

Thank you for your email. It may be helpful if I explain that Personal data is defined in the Data Protection Act as any information relating to an
identified or identifiable living individual. If an individual cannot be directly identified from the information, it may still be possible to identify them.

As individuals could be identifiable if the requested data was provided to you, albeit indirectly, Section 40 of the FOI Act is engaged and the MOD is not permitted to accede to your request for this information.

Further guidance on Section 40 of the FOI Act can be found at the following link: https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...

I hope this clarification is helpful.

Regards,

Defence People Secretariat

show quoted sections

Dear People-Sec-FOI Mailbox (MULTIUSER),
I disagree

for example, if you were to say there were 6 people on the Fact Finding Team
from this Date to this date. 2 were recruited from tge military, 2cfrom tbe government and 2 civilians employed to fact find, then it would virtualy impossible. Witholding rank (if applicable) and names is quite sufficient

So if you will allow the data to flow freely please.

Regards,

gavin roberts

People-Sec-FOI Mailbox (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

Dear Mr Roberts,

Thank you for your email. I am sorry to learn you disagree with the application of Section 40 of the FOI Act in this instance but the MOD is bound to follow the law and the data cannot be provided to you for the reasons cited.

I note you have attempted informal resolution by engaging with us further, however, it is not possible to accede to your request for the information you have requested. If you are still dissatisfied then you may apply for an independent internal review by contacting the Information Rights Compliance team, Ground Floor, MOD Main Building, Whitehall, SW1A 2HB (e-mail [email address]). Please note that any request for an internal review must be made within 40 working days of the date on which the attempt to reach informal resolution has come to an end.

If you remain dissatisfied following an internal review, you may take your complaint to the Information Commissioner under the provisions of Section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act. Please note that the Information Commissioner will not normally investigate your case until the MOD internal review process has been completed. Further details of the role and powers of the Information Commissioner can be found on the Commissioner's website, http://www.ico.org.uk.

Regards,
Defence People Secretariat

show quoted sections

Dear People-Sec-FOI Mailbox (MULTIUSER),

Thankyou for your reply, but the precedent has been set before, with names being witheld. It is a simple a request for numbers and dates of the Fact Finding Team put in place post Gulf War?

Ok i will request an internal review,
have good Xmas and New year!

Regards,

gavin roberts

CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

Dear Mr Roberts,

Your email of 20 December has been passed to this office so that an internal review can be conducted about your complaint specifically regarding the information you are seeking about the Fact Finding Team, under reference FOI2019/13367.

The Department's target for completing internal reviews is 20 working days and we therefore aim to complete the review and respond to you by 23 January 2020. While we are working hard to achieve this, in the interests of providing you with a more realistic indication of when you should expect a response, we should advise that the majority are currently taking between 20 and 40 working days to complete. The internal review that will involve a full, independent reconsideration of the handling of the RFI as well as the final decision.

Regards,
MOD Information Rights Compliance Team

show quoted sections

CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

1 Attachment

  • Attachment

    20200220 Rev Mr Gavin Roberts Fact Finding Team MOD final review resp FOI2019 13367.pdf

    118K Download View as HTML

Dear Mr Roberts,

Please find attached MOD's internal review, our reference FOI2019/13367.

Regards,
MOD Information Rights Compliance Team

Dear CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER),

Thankyou for your internal review Sandra.

I would argue, that as previous responses to questions in reference to the labelled FACT FINDING TEAM (FFT) - were basically stating they could not release the information surrounding the numbers in the FFT, as it could possibly lead to identification of the individuals involved and would be against their data protection. Of course this is nonsense, however to make such a statement they must have had the individuals details in front of them to come to this conclusion. So I disagree that costs should be the reason numbers involved should not be released, as the information was there already for them to come to data protection claim. Of course if this was a blatant lie from MOD to fob veterans off, then that is an entirely different matter!

May I take this opportunity to point out that a team in support of veterans have thoroughly sifted through all the thousands of documents/data in the public domain both sides of the pond, over the past 2 years with no regard to expense or costs. There are several points that stand out glaringly when the information is put together. MOD may wish to update their records with no cost to them at all.

36 Nations deployed to Gulf War 90/91
5 of the 36 nations subjected troops experimental vaccines/combinations.
5 of the 36 Nations have released Government reports surrounding epidemic levels of sickness in their troops (30%), each nation even mentioning the other 4 suffering nations in their reports.
The remaining 31 Nations have not reported any epidemic levels of sickness, on any way shape or form in just short of 30 years.

The 5 suffering Nations (now veterans)are EXACTLY the same 5 suffering that were subjected to experimental vaccines! This is no coincidence! Take the experimental vaccines out of the equation, then the problems disappear, just like in the 31 non suffering Nations troops (now Veterans)

In reference to 'INFORMED CONSENT' according to MOD's own links at best, some information was sent to JUST 2 units? Not forgetting there were over 100 British units deployed? That said even the information allegedly sent to less than 2% of the units, does not legally satisfy the information required for them to be able to give their INFORMED consent! No mention of unlicensed vaccines (pertusis, singular use only), no mention of vaccines that had only been tested on animals(the results of these tests resulting in serious loss of condition to animals, Metters Fax). MOD report this as 'SOME'. The vast vast majority were given zero information. Many many threatened with threats against their careers others physically pinned down .

Pertusis requires 4 weeks between vaccinations, manufacturers safety instructions blatantly ignored and more information not given to troops to allow INFORMED consent.

What this actually requires is someone within MOD/foi to step up, take the higher ground and be honourable to these cohort of veterans. The cause is so obvious, it is actually now embarrassing for anyone to stand against it.

Veterans should not have to become Detectives and lawyers after serving Queen & Country. We should be enjoying our retirement. If we have to, we will take a Civil case to High Court London, where it is 'MOST PROBABLE/MOST LIKELY (51% or more)' and NOT 'beyond reasonable doubt as in a criminal case. We will be in Court in 7/8 months. Veterans will have justice around Christmas!

Put this to the legal team Sandra,

Remembering this is all past MOD corruption and Cover Up ( 1990 - 2010). Do current MOD ( At present NOT COMPLICIT)choose to fight veterans? Or choose to work with us?

The biggest Insult anyone can pay these Veterans is To thank them for their service then direct them to their Perpetrator (MOD) to beg for support (so called compensation scheme)

So we have done all the work, i guess it is going to come down to current staff, to which way this plays out. Corrupt as in the past or honourable?

We have high Hope's under Boris's leadership with a new Defence Minister that the correct decision will be made to become United, Level Up, as at the end of the day MOD will lose, if they choose to go to War with veterans. Then they are Complicit. Boris will also become Complicit.
More so, as we have given you just the latest information (As all the links are over 15 years old).

I look forward to MOD response and finally dealing with some honourable people like yourself Sandra

Kind Regards,

gavin roberts

CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

Dear Mr Roberts,

Thank for your email, the contents of which have been noted. As requested, I have forwarded your email to the MOD's legal team.

If you remain dissatisfied with the internal review of 20 February, you may make a complaint to the Information Commissioner about the handling of your request as advised in the last paragraph of my letter.

Regards,
Sandra Gardiner
Head of MOD Information Rights

show quoted sections

Dear CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER

Dear Sandra,

Thankyou for your efforts, we agree with your internal review, that recognises this poor practise at best, at worst.................................?

This is always going to happen though, when foi personnel are having to work from Corrupt Data!
As we know, when digging, the hole ONLY gets deeper! We genuinely believe that is it totally unfair on MOD foi staff trained up to copy and paste this corrupt data.

Thankyou for forwarding onto MOD legal team. When should I expect contact from them Sandra? Within 7 days?

Kind Regards,

Gavin Roberts

Dear CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER),

It is now over 2 weeks Sandra and I have not heard from MOD? Not even a courtesy email to acknowledge receipt. What is the MOD protocol (timescale) on this please?

Regards

gavin roberts

SPO DJEP-ClaimsGeneral (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

Dear Mr Roberts

 

Further to your email of 20 February, we can advise that it is open to you
to seek legal advice, at your own expense, if you wish to pursue
proceedings against MOD.  You will appreciate that the MOD’s Legal
Advisers cannot advise you on this.

 

Yours sincerely

 

for Common Law Claims & Policy Team

SPO Directorate of Judicial Engagement

 

 

 

 

Dear SPO DJEP-ClaimsGeneral (MULTIUSER),

Thankyou for replying on this public forum,

We have pointed out some of the corruption in through foi over the last 18 months, this is to give current MOD administration opportunity to deal with it in a proper transparent and open manner.

If it is still your line is take us to court. Firstly be careful what you wish for. Secondly it flys in the face of what MOD publicly display to our citizens! We are telling you that there has been corruption and it has been covered up and that we can prove it! An innocent , transparent organisation would requesting to be presented with the evidence! The MOD is not any old organisation. It is a Government dept that is supposed to practise openness and transparency. Which you have declared in public many times! Not in practise though. Words are cheap and so it seems are veterans lives and health.

It is certainly not inline with the New Government initiative which is to work with veterans, level up. 1 Nation. You claim to have people monitoring the Gulf War Illness issues, well were about to find out! Veterans legal team have contacted MOD twice in the last 12 months, without even a common courtesy letter in reply!

This is a public forum for all our Nations eyes to see. Thankyou for displaying to our Nations eyes what MOD are all about, what veterans really have to deal with behind the lip service .

Take us to Court! Just Wow. Expected but still unbelievable none the less!

You can be proud of becoming complicit with those that have gone before you. Keep making your families proud within those walls of MOD, practise your drills for when those same walls come crumbling down!

Dont ever thank Gulf War Veterans for their service again. It is the biggest Insult you can pay them.

We are not begging or pleading, those days are long gone. We have given you the opportunity to deal with in a professional manner. You have chosen the route of disrespect and dishonour to this cohort of veterans. We will be getting Justice Done! That we can promise. Good day.

Regards,

Gavin Roberts
J4V💜🖤