Workshops to Raise Awareness of Prevent

Kevin Blowe made this Freedom of Information request to Cheshire Constabulary

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was refused by Cheshire Constabulary.

Dear Cheshire Constabulary,

Officers from Cheshire Constabulary are delivering Workshop to Raise Awareness of Prevent (WRAP) training sessions to public sector staff on the government's counter-terrorism Prevent strategy and 'radicalisation'.

I would be grateful for a copy of the standard presentation your officers currently deliver and clarification on the examples of 'domestic extremism' that they have highlighted when talking to participants (not simply 'left-wing extremism' or 'right-wing extremism' but the specific examples of campaigns or groups), during training held since January 2015.

Yours faithfully,

Kevin Blowe

Freedom of Information,

Dear Mr Blowe

 

I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence received 19/10/2015 which is
being dealt with as a request for information in accordance with the
Freedom of Information Act 2000.

 

I am in the process of dealing with your request and will respond in due
course and in any case by 16/11/2015. Please contact us by e-mail at
[Cheshire Constabulary request email] if you have any further enquiries.

 

Regards

 

 

Tracey Evanson, Freedom of Information Compliance Officer

Information Compliance| Cheshire Constabulary HQ | Clemonds Hey |

Oakmere Road | Winsford | Cheshire | CW7 2UA |

(Office: 01606 364176

 

This communication is intended for the addressee(s) only.
Please notify the sender if received in error. Internet email
is not to be treated as a secure means of communication.
The Constabulary monitors all Internet and email activity
and requires it is used for official communications only. Thank
you for your co-operation.

Freedom of Information,

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Blowe

 

I refer to your recent request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000, as set out below:

 

Officers from Cheshire Constabulary are delivering Workshop to Raise
Awareness of Prevent (WRAP) training sessions to public sector staff on
the government's counter-terrorism Prevent strategy and 'radicalisation'.

 

I would be grateful for a copy of the standard presentation your officers
currently deliver and clarification on the examples of 'domestic
extremism' that they have highlighted when talking to participants (not
simply 'left-wing extremism' or 'right-wing extremism' but the specific
examples of campaigns or groups), during training held since January 2015.

 

In accordance with section 1(1) (b) of the Act, our response is as
follows:

 

The FOI Act obliges us to respond to requests promptly and in any case no
later than 20 working days after receiving your request.  We must consider
firstly where we can comply with S1 (a) (a) of the Act, which is our duty
to confirm whether or not the information requested is held and secondly
we must comply with S1 (1) (b), which is the provision of such
information.  However, when a qualified exemption applies either to the
confirmation or denial or the information provision and the public
interest test is engaged, the Act allows for an extension of time of a
further 20 working days, if the balance of such public interest is
undetermined.

 

In this case we have not yet reached a decision on where the balance of
the public interest lies in respect of either of the above obligations. 
Therefore we plan to let you have a response on or before 14^th December
2015.  

 

The specific exemptions which apply in relation to your request are
Section 24 National Security and Section 31 Law Enforcement which are
qualified prejudice based exemptions. 

 

I will be in touch in due course to ensure your request is dealt with as
promptly as possible, and apologise for any inconvenience this may cause. 

 

If I can be any further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate
to contact me.

 

If you are not satisfied with the decision applied in this case I enclose
for your attention a copy of the Constabulary's appeal procedures.

 

Regards

 

Sarah Davies, Freedom of Information Officer

Information Compliance| Cheshire Constabulary HQ | Clemonds Hey |

Oakmere Road | Winsford | Cheshire | CW7 2UA | (Office: 01606 366556

 

 

Important Notice for Journalists

Disclosure of the enclosed information is in pursuant of the Cheshire
Constabulary's duty under Sections 1 and 11 of the Freedom of Information
Act 2000. This consists of copies of or extracts from recorded
information. When re publishing this information it should be made clear
in any article that the source of the information is in response to a
request under the Act. Officers supplying the information are not
Constabulary spokespersons and must not be quoted as though they were. 
Journalists are invited to make contact with the Cheshire Police Press
Desk on 01606 365945 should they wish to put into context their FOI data
with an official comment from a police spokesperson in the business area
they have sought information on.

 

Cheshire Constabulary in complying with their statutory duty under
sections 1 and 11 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to release the
enclosed information will not breach the Copyright, Designs and Patents
Act 1988. However, the rights of the copyright owner of the enclosed
information will continue to be protected by law. Applications for the
copyright owner’s written permission to reproduce any part of the attached
information should be addressed to The Force Solicitor, Cheshire
Constabulary HQ, Clemonds Hey, Oakmere Road, Winsford, Cheshire, CW7 2UA

 

 

 

This communication is intended for the addressee(s) only.
Please notify the sender if received in error. Internet email
is not to be treated as a secure means of communication.
The Constabulary monitors all Internet and email activity
and requires it is used for official communications only. Thank
you for your co-operation.

Freedom of Information,

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Blowe

 

I refer to your recent request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000, as set out below:

 

Officers from Cheshire Constabulary are delivering Workshop to Raise
Awareness of Prevent (WRAP) training sessions to public sector staff on
the government's counter-terrorism Prevent strategy and 'radicalisation'.

 

I would be grateful for a copy of the standard presentation your officers
currently deliver and clarification on the examples of 'domestic
extremism' that they have highlighted when talking to participants (not
simply 'left-wing extremism' or 'right-wing extremism' but the specific
examples of campaigns or groups), during training held since January 2015.

 

In accordance with section 1(1) (a) of the Act, our response is as
follows:

 

The information requested is owned by the Home Office, who do not release
WRAP content under FOI on the grounds that releasing this information into
the public domain risks it being taken out of context, or used without
authorisation in an uncontrolled fashion, which could discredit WRAP
training. This in turn would lead to fewer people being referred to the
Prevent programmes such as Channel, which provides safeguarding support to
individuals at risk of radicalisation. This could increase the risk of
criminal offences being committed in support of terrorism.

Therefore this information is exempt in accordance with Section 24(1),
31(1)(a) and 40 of the Freedom of Information Act. These provide that
information can be withheld where disclosure would prejudice safeguarding
national security; prejudice the prevention and detection of crime; and
prejudice, or would likely otherwise prejudice, the effective conduct of
public affairs; disclosure of personal data.

Considerations in favour of disclosing the information
There is general public interest in the disclosure of the information
within the scope of your request. Openness in government increases public
trust in, and engagement with, the Government.  The disclosure of the
requested information could enhance the openness of government, inform the
public debate and help the public understand, in greater depth, how the
government is responding to the threat posed to the United Kingdom from
terrorism. Releasing this content may also raise public awareness of the
work of Prevent leading to vulnerable people being identified and
receiving support through Prevent where opportunities to identify concerns
may not otherwise present themselves.

Considerations in favour of withholding the information
Releasing this information into the public domain risks it being taken out
of context, or used without authorisation in an uncontrolled fashion,
which could discredit WRAP training. This in turn would lead to fewer
people being referred to the Prevent programmes such as Channel, which
provides safeguarding support to individuals at risk of radicalisation.
This could increase the risk of criminal offences being committed in
support of terrorism.

Conclusion
We have considered whether in all circumstances of the case the public
interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in
disclosing the information. We have concluded that the balance of the
public interest identified does lie in favour of maintaining the exemption
in withholding the information as requested. 

Public interest test
Some of the provisions in the FOI Act are qualified, and subject to a
Public Interest Test (PIT). This test is used to balance the public
interest for and against the disclosure of the information requested. We
must carry out a PIT where we are considering using any of the qualified
exemptions in response to a request for information.

The ‘public interest’ is not the same as what interests the public. In
carrying out a PIT, we consider the greater good or benefit to the
community as a whole in deciding whether or not to disclose information.
The ‘right to know’ must be balanced against the need to enable effective
government and to serve the best interests of the public.

The FOI Act is ‘applicant blind’. This means that we cannot, and do not,
ask about the motives of anyone who asks for information. In providing a
response to one person, we are expressing a willingness to provide the
same response to anyone, including those who might represent a threat to
the UK.

Section 24(1) – National Security
Section 24(1) of the Act states:
24(1) Information which does not fall within section 23(1) is exempt
information if exemption from section 1(1)(b) is required for the purpose
of safeguarding national security.

Considerations in favour of disclosing the information

There is general public interest in the disclosure of the information
within the scope of your request. Openness in government increases public
trust in, and engagement with, the Government.  The disclosure of the
requested information could enhance the openness of government, inform the
public debate and help the public understand, in greater depth, how the
government is responding to the threat posed to the United Kingdom from
terrorism. 

Considerations in favour of withholding the information

Releasing this could provide useful information to extremists who wish to
radicalise others about how public sector workers are trained to spot the
signs of vulnerability. Such extremists would then be able to provide
advice to those they wish to radicalise on changing behaviour to avoid
detection and potential referral to Prevent programmes such as Channel.
Additionally, if WRAP training material is taken out of context it could
be discredited, leading to possible disengagement of partners. Both these
scenarios would lead to fewer vulnerable people being referred, and
therefore an increase in the risk from terrorism.

Balance of the public interest test

We conclude that the balance of the public interest lies in withholding
the information requested.
Section 31- law enforcement

Section 31(1)(a)) states:
(1) Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is
exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be
likely to, prejudice
a)    The prevention or detection of crime

Considerations in favour of disclosing the information

There is general public interest in the disclosure of the information
within the scope of your request. Openness in government increases public
trust in, and engagement with, the Government.  The disclosure of the
requested information could enhance the openness of government, inform the
public debate and help the public understand, in greater depth, how the
government is responding to the threat posed to the United Kingdom from
terrorism. 

Considerations in favour of withholding the information

Releasing this information into the public domain risks it being taken out
of context, or used without authorisation in an uncontrolled fashion,
which could discredit WRAP training. This in turn would lead to fewer
people being referred to Prevent programmes such as Channel, which
provides safeguarding support to individuals at risk of radicalisation.
This could increase the risk of criminal offences being committed in
support of terrorism.

Balance of the public interest test

We conclude that the balance of the public interest lies in withholding
the information requested.

All those involved in delivering WRAP training do so under a Service Level
Agreement which allows the Home Office to ensure consistency of delivery
of the product as well as requirements for feedback, which allow the Home
Office to understand both the reach and impact of the product. All
facilitators deliver the full product using the authorised script, which
ensures that the context behind the training material is fully explained.
The agreement also prevents unauthorised use of the material or the use of
parts of it in isolation. Furthermore, parts of the material are used
under licence, which do not permit its use for any other purpose.  All
these conditions are necessary for WRAP training to be delivered
effectively and for the public sector audience to gain a proper
understanding of Prevent and of their role in reducing the threat from
terrorism. Releasing the information into the public domain would
jeopardise these careful controls, and would come with the risk of parts
of the material being used by people that are not accredited to deliver
WRAP, out of context, inaccurate messaging or adapted for other purposes. 
Release of the product in a way which undermines these controls could lead
to the product being discredited making it more difficult for facilitators
to reach those they need within the public sector leading to vulnerable
people not being identified. This may result in staff not attending
accredited WRAP sessions or impact the essential involvement of
multi-agency partners in wider Prevent processes, such as the Channel
programme. 

Balance of the public interest test

We conclude that the balance of the public interest lies in withholding
the information requested.

Section 40 - Personal information

Some of the information you have requested is exempt under section 40 of
the FOI Act has an obligation under the Data Protection Act to protect
personal data.

Section 40(2) is an absolute exemption as defined in section 2 of the FOI
Act. This means that there is no need to consider the public interest test
when assessing whether to release the information requested.

 

If I can be any further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate
to contact me.

 

If you are not satisfied with the decision applied in this case I enclose
for your attention a copy of the Constabulary's appeal procedures.

 

Regards

 

Sarah Davies

Freedom of Information Officer|Cheshire Police HQ| Clemonds Hey|Oakmere
Rd|Winsford |CW7 2UA 

( Office: 01606 366556 |

[1]cid:image001.png@01D12E82.F0927010

 

 

 

Important Notice for Journalists

Disclosure of the enclosed information is in pursuant of the Cheshire
Constabulary's duty under Sections 1 and 11 of the Freedom of Information
Act 2000. This consists of copies of or extracts from recorded
information. When re publishing this information it should be made clear
in any article that the source of the information is in response to a
request under the Act. Officers supplying the information are not
Constabulary spokespersons and must not be quoted as though they were. 
Journalists are invited to make contact with the Cheshire Police Press
Desk on 01606 365945 should they wish to put into context their FOI data
with an official comment from a police spokesperson in the business area
they have sought information on.

 

Cheshire Constabulary in complying with their statutory duty under
sections 1 and 11 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to release the
enclosed information will not breach the Copyright, Designs and Patents
Act 1988. However, the rights of the copyright owner of the enclosed
information will continue to be protected by law. Applications for the
copyright owner’s written permission to reproduce any part of the attached
information should be addressed to The Force Solicitor, Cheshire
Constabulary HQ, Clemonds Hey, Oakmere Road, Winsford, Cheshire, CW7 2UA

 

 

This communication is intended for the addressee(s) only.
Please notify the sender if received in error. Internet email
is not to be treated as a secure means of communication.
The Constabulary monitors all Internet and email activity
and requires it is used for official communications only. Thank
you for your co-operation.

References

Visible links

Dear Cheshire Constabulary,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Cheshire Constabulary's handling of my FOI request 'Workshops to Raise Awareness of Prevent'.

In refusing my request for the standard presentation for WRAP training, you have indicated that releasing this information into the public domain risks it being taken out of context, or without authorisation in an uncontrolled fashion, which could allegedly discredit the training. You also claim disclosure could “provide useful information to extremists who wish to radicalise others about how public sector workers are trained to spot the signs of vulnerability”.

However, there is clearly always a risk any document released under Freedom of Information legislation by any public body may be used in way that it cannot control, or that may be used to discredit it – especially if relates to policy that is controversial.

The fact that any resulting scrutiny might also lead future participants in a training session to raise questions about the information they are provided is hardly unique to law enforcement (and surely a positive step).

Furthermore, as there has been documented instances of WRAP trainers wrongly labeling legitimate campaigning activity as 'extremist', there is a compelling public interest in knowing what precise examples of 'domestic extremism' (a quite separate issue from 'terrorism') are given to training participants in the North West region, as there is a considerable risk that the inaccurate impression participants are left with might lead to an unwarranted investigations into any form of political dissent (such as opposition to shale gas 'fracking', for example). This would run counter to Prevent's purported promotion of the ‘British Value’ of democracy.

In addition, since the introduction of the Counter Terrorism and Security Act in April 2015, all of the estimated 5.4 million people employed in the public sector in the UK have a statutory duty to participate in Prevent and report on alleged signs of radicalisation. In the north east region, around 19% of those in employment – 602,000 people – worked in the public sector in 2014, according to the Office of National Statistics.

This means there are potentially tens of thousands of people within your area who will pass through WRAP training sessions at some point and will see the standard presentations delivered by each force.

What you appear to want to create is thus a first for information retention and data transparency – a 'secret' document that has been widely viewed by members of the public who are neither part of law enforcement or the intelligence services.

The idea that non-disclosure is all that stands in the way of 'extremists' finding out about 'signs of vulnerability' is therefore incomprehensible: the only way to achieve this would be to screen every WRAP training participant for any sign of extremism before they can take part, so they cannot lay eyes on the secret, supposedly sensitive presentation. Bearing in mind how imprecise the definition of 'domestic extremism' remains, this is obviously impossible. Unsurprisingly, I have spoken to several public sector workers who have sat uncomfortably through a WRAP training session, listening to a Prevent trainer disparaged their lawful campaigning activities as a supposed threat to public order.

I believe you have therefore misapplied Section 24(2) on National Security and Section 31(3) on Law Enforcement for the precise data that I have requested on WRAP training, for the reasons I have outlined.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/w...

Yours faithfully,

Kevin Blowe

Freedom of Information, Cheshire Constabulary

1 Attachment

 

Dear Mr Blowe

 

Thank you for your email dated 03/02/2016  in which you express
dissatisfaction with our response to your request under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000, our reference number 6939

 

In view of your comments your request has been forwarded to our
independent appeals/reviewing officer, who has been appointed by the
Authority. In accordance with our current policy, in line with the
requirements of the Act and guidance from the Information Commissioner,
our response to a review will be provided on or before the 02/03/2016.

 

If you require any further information please feel free to contact me,
details below;

 

Regards

 

 

Sarah Davies

Freedom of Information Officer|Cheshire Police HQ| Clemonds Hey|Oakmere
Rd|Winsford |CW7 2UA 

( Office: 01606 366556 |

[1]cid:image001.png@01D12E82.F0927010

 

This communication is intended for the addressee(s) only.
Please notify the sender if received in error. Internet email
is not to be treated as a secure means of communication.
The Constabulary monitors all Internet and email activity
and requires it is used for official communications only. Thank
you for your co-operation.

References

Visible links

Freedom of Information, Cheshire Constabulary

1 Attachment

 

Dear Mr. Blowe,

I write with reference to your email dated 3 February 2016 requesting an
independent appeal against the decision made in relation to your request
for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

In line with S45 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Code of
Practice), I have conducted an internal review in relation to your request
for information. In carrying out this review, reference is made to the
legislation guidance, the Code of Practice on the Discharge of the
Functions of Public Authorities under Part 1 of the Freedom of Information
Act. 

 

For the purposes of clarity, your request was:

Officers from Cheshire Constabulary are delivering Workshop to Raise
Awareness of Prevent (WRAP) training sessions to public sector staff on
the government's counter-terrorism Prevent strategy and 'radicalisation'.

 

I would be grateful for a copy of the standard presentation your officers
currently deliver and clarification on the examples of 'domestic
extremism' that they have highlighted when talking to participants (not
simply 'left-wing extremism' or 'right-wing extremism' but the specific
examples of campaigns or groups), during training held since January 2015.

 

The Constabulary’s response:

The information requested is owned by the Home Office, who do not release
WRAP content under FOI on the grounds that releasing this information into
the public domain risks it being taken out of context, or used without
authorisation in an uncontrolled fashion, which could discredit WRAP
training. This in turn would lead to fewer people being referred to the
Prevent programmes such as Channel, which provides safeguarding support to
individuals at risk of radicalisation. This could increase the risk of
criminal offences being committed in support of terrorism.

Therefore this information is exempt in accordance with Section 24(1),
31(1)(a) and 40 of the Freedom of Information Act. These provide that
information can be withheld where disclosure would prejudice safeguarding
national security; prejudice the prevention and detection of crime; and
prejudice, or would likely otherwise prejudice, the effective conduct of
public affairs; disclosure of personal data.

Considerations in favour of disclosing the information
There is general public interest in the disclosure of the information
within the scope of your request. Openness in government increases public
trust in, and engagement with, the Government.  The disclosure of the
requested information could enhance the openness of government, inform the
public debate and help the public understand, in greater depth, how the
government is responding to the threat posed to the United Kingdom from
terrorism. Releasing this content may also raise public awareness of the
work of Prevent leading to vulnerable people being identified and
receiving support through Prevent where opportunities to identify concerns
may not otherwise present themselves.

Considerations in favour of withholding the information
Releasing this information into the public domain risks it being taken out
of context, or used without authorisation in an uncontrolled fashion,
which could discredit WRAP training. This in turn would lead to fewer
people being referred to the Prevent programmes such as Channel, which
provides safeguarding support to individuals at risk of radicalisation.
This could increase the risk of criminal offences being committed in
support of terrorism.

Conclusion
We have considered whether in all circumstances of the case the public
interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in
disclosing the information. We have concluded that the balance of the
public interest identified does lie in favour of maintaining the exemption
in withholding the information as requested. 

Public interest test
Some of the provisions in the FOI Act are qualified, and subject to a
Public Interest Test (PIT). This test is used to balance the public
interest for and against the disclosure of the information requested. We
must carry out a PIT where we are considering using any of the qualified
exemptions in response to a request for information.

The ‘public interest’ is not the same as what interests the public. In
carrying out a PIT, we consider the greater good or benefit to the
community as a whole in deciding whether or not to disclose information.
The ‘right to know’ must be balanced against the need to enable effective
government and to serve the best interests of the public.

The FOI Act is ‘applicant blind’. This means that we cannot, and do not,
ask about the motives of anyone who asks for information. In providing a
response to one person, we are expressing a willingness to provide the
same response to anyone, including those who might represent a threat to
the UK.

Section 24(1) – National Security
Section 24(1) of the Act states:
24(1) Information which does not fall within section 23(1) is exempt
information if exemption from section 1(1)(b) is required for the purpose
of safeguarding national security.

Considerations in favour of disclosing the information

There is general public interest in the disclosure of the information
within the scope of your request. Openness in government increases public
trust in, and engagement with, the Government.  The disclosure of the
requested information could enhance the openness of government, inform the
public debate and help the public understand, in greater depth, how the
government is responding to the threat posed to the United Kingdom from
terrorism. 

Considerations in favour of withholding the information

Releasing this could provide useful information to extremists who wish to
radicalise others about how public sector workers are trained to spot the
signs of vulnerability. Such extremists would then be able to provide
advice to those they wish to radicalise on changing behaviour to avoid
detection and potential referral to Prevent programmes such as Channel.
Additionally, if WRAP training material is taken out of context it could
be discredited, leading to possible disengagement of partners. Both these
scenarios would lead to fewer vulnerable people being referred, and
therefore an increase in the risk from terrorism.

Balance of the public interest test

We conclude that the balance of the public interest lies in withholding
the information requested.
Section 31- law enforcement

Section 31(1)(a)) states:
(1) Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is
exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be
likely to, prejudice
a)    The prevention or detection of crime

Considerations in favour of disclosing the information

There is general public interest in the disclosure of the information
within the scope of your request. Openness in government increases public
trust in, and engagement with, the Government.  The disclosure of the
requested information could enhance the openness of government, inform the
public debate and help the public understand, in greater depth, how the
government is responding to the threat posed to the United Kingdom from
terrorism. 

Considerations in favour of withholding the information

Releasing this information into the public domain risks it being taken out
of context, or used without authorisation in an uncontrolled fashion,
which could discredit WRAP training. This in turn would lead to fewer
people being referred to Prevent programmes such as Channel, which
provides safeguarding support to individuals at risk of radicalisation.
This could increase the risk of criminal offences being committed in
support of terrorism.

Balance of the public interest test

We conclude that the balance of the public interest lies in withholding
the information requested.

All those involved in delivering WRAP training do so under a Service Level
Agreement which allows the Home Office to ensure consistency of delivery
of the product as well as requirements for feedback, which allow the Home
Office to understand both the reach and impact of the product. All
facilitators deliver the full product using the authorised script, which
ensures that the context behind the training material is fully explained.
The agreement also prevents unauthorised use of the material or the use of
parts of it in isolation. Furthermore, parts of the material are used
under licence, which do not permit its use for any other purpose.  All
these conditions are necessary for WRAP training to be delivered
effectively and for the public sector audience to gain a proper
understanding of Prevent and of their role in reducing the threat from
terrorism. Releasing the information into the public domain would
jeopardise these careful controls, and would come with the risk of parts
of the material being used by people that are not accredited to deliver
WRAP, out of context, inaccurate messaging or adapted for other purposes. 
Release of the product in a way which undermines these controls could lead
to the product being discredited making it more difficult for facilitators
to reach those they need within the public sector leading to vulnerable
people not being identified. This may result in staff not attending
accredited WRAP sessions or impact the essential involvement of
multi-agency partners in wider Prevent processes, such as the Channel
programme. 

Balance of the public interest test

We conclude that the balance of the public interest lies in withholding
the information requested.

Section 40 - Personal information

Some of the information you have requested is exempt under section 40 of
the FOI Act has an obligation under the Data Protection Act to protect
personal data.

Section 40(2) is an absolute exemption as defined in section 2 of the FOI
Act. This means that there is no need to consider the public interest test
when assessing whether to release the information requested.

 

If I can be any further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate
to contact me.

 

If you are not satisfied with the decision applied in this case I enclose
for your attention a copy of the Constabulary's appeal procedures.

 

In consideration of this appeal I have reviewed the original request and
uphold the decision to exempt for the reasons provided in the email of 14
December 2015.

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, you have further recourse for
appeal, if required, to the Information Commissioner. Information can be
obtained about the appeal procedure from:

 

The Information Commissioner

Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK8 5AF

 

If I can be of any further assistance in this matter, please do not
hesitate to contact me.

 

Regards

 

Jenny Lawson – Information Compliance

Cheshire Constabulary HQ | Clemonds Hey| Winsford | Cheshire| CW7 2UA

Phone: 01606 365285 | Email: [1][email address]

Visit [2]www.cheshire.police.uk | Follow [3]@cheshirepolice on Twitter |
Like [4]Cheshire Police on Facebook

[5]cid:image001.jpg@01D11C69.CBBCD8F0

 

This communication is intended for the addressee(s) only.
Please notify the sender if received in error. Internet email
is not to be treated as a secure means of communication.
The Constabulary monitors all Internet and email activity
and requires it is used for official communications only. Thank
you for your co-operation.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.cheshire.police.uk/
3. http://www.twitter.com/cheshirepolice
4. http://www.facebook.com/cheshirepolice