This person's Freedom of Information requests (approximately 240)
Was escalated to the ICO IC-312760-B8V4, however the ICO found no fault with the DfT's actions so referred to GRC First-tier Tribunal.
Dear FOI,
Thank you for the transparent response to FOI.2465/24
I have 2 queries just to clarify if I've understood.
1) What is the purpose of t...
Dear I Hudson
Freedom of Information Internal Review Reference No: 01/FOI/24/039898/R
Please see the attached in respect of your Freedom of Inf...
Thank you for contacting the Home Office Freedom of Information Requests
Mailbox.
This is to acknowledge receipt of your email.
Dear FOI,
Please could you answer the clarification as the lack of answer is directly hindering Police Scotland who you specifically advised I should...
Dear I Hudson,
Please find attached a response and supporting information for your recent
Freedom of Information request regarding the above subject...
Good Afternoon,
Please see the attached document in relation to your information request.
We apologise for the delay in our reply.
Kind Regards,...
It's interesting to note, Dan Micklethwaite who appears to be managing the DfT team dealing with Gatwick is far from impressed with the video from (LGW...
Good afternoon
Please find attached NPCC response to your Freedom of Information request.
With kindest regards.
Fiona
NPCC Freedom of Informati...
Dear FOI Requests,
Thank you for the clarification for F0006978, I'll now mark this as answered on WhatDoTheyKnow.
Yours sincerely,
I Hudson
Dear NPCC FOI Request Mailbox,
Can you pass on my thanks for a complete and transparent reply to FOIA 272/2024.
Yours sincerely,
I Hudson
The ICO have accepted this case.
FOI 925/23 and FOI 925/23IR
ICO reference: IC-329516-C3Z3
The CAA replied to this FOIA within: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/drone_infringement_datasources
I have discussed this FOIA via Sussex Police's solicitor at Cyxcel.com.
I am seeking the service of Barrister Richard Ryan of Blakiston's Legal to co...
Can you detail the residential schemes where flats were intended to be built in Leeds where you provided funds towards the project being completed sinc...
Dear Steve Hirst,
Thank you for a complete and transparent reply to the FOI question 16731.
Yours sincerely,
I Hudson
Dear I Hudson,
Thank you for contacting the Home Office. We have no record of recieveing a follow up FOI request from you. You are advised to resubmit...
Dear I Hudson,
Please find attached a response to your FOI request.
Kind regards
Security and Information Directorate
Ministry of Justice
═══...
Dear I Hudson
I write in connection with your Freedom of Information request, which was
received by Devon & Cornwall Police on 12 December 2...
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE - Named Parties Only. This email and any files transmitted
with it are intended for the use of the entity, department, team or indi...
OFFICIAL SENSITIVE - Named Parties Only. This email and any files transmitted
with it are intended for the use of the entity, department, team or indi...
Dear I Hudson,
Please see attached the response to your request for a Freedom of
Information request. Reference - [FOI-00017135].
Kind regards,...
The number is neither a date in UK format nor incident logs, but it is a date which is the 20th, day 2 of the Gatwick incident.
From the internal rev...
This person's 76 annotations
Was escalated to the ICO IC-312760-B8V4, however the ICO found no fault with the DfT's actions so referred to GRC First-tier Tribunal.
It's interesting to note, Dan Micklethwaite who appears to be managing the DfT team dealing with Gatwick is far from impressed with the video from (LGW...
The ICO have accepted this case.
FOI 925/23 and FOI 925/23IR
ICO reference: IC-329516-C3Z3
The CAA replied to this FOIA within: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/drone_infringement_datasources
I have discussed this FOIA via Sussex Police's solicitor at Cyxcel.com.
I am seeking the service of Barrister Richard Ryan of Blakiston's Legal to co...
Complaint made to the ICO.
The number is neither a date in UK format nor incident logs, but it is a date which is the 20th, day 2 of the Gatwick incident.
From the internal rev...
See this follow up which answers this question fully:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/policing_of_gatwick_airport_deta
The value in the email title despite looking like 18122018 being truncated might be 181,220 and could for example be police calls log "incidents" being...
The reply confirms that Defence Warning and Reporting Flight (DWaRF) who are part of the RAF's 8 Force Protection Wing (FP Wg) were deployed to Gatwick...
I was referred back to NPAS, but I can see helicopter flights occurred near/over Gatwick which weren't on the NPAS flights originally provided.
Queri...
The FOIA was answered by e-mail at 11:17am UK time, 14/05/24
Info as follows (all relating to 20/12/18):
Time..........Agency
07:08:03....Airport S...
I noticed on double checking the flight logs, that at least 1 NPAS flight is missing, I've queried this in the following FOIA:
https://www.whatdotheyk...
These are the references associated with this FOIA:
Case: EA/2023/0272
NCN:[2024] UKFTT 00166 (GRC)
FT/EJ/2024/0004
The FOIA has been answered (though notably after the ICO had noted the MOD was failing to answer requests).
The answer was provided as follows:
The...
The application has now been referred to the Tribunal Judge to issue decision/direction.
The new appeal reference number is : FT/EJ/2024/0003
The excuse Sussex Police have used in the Internal Review that unredacting the logs for the period of the Gatwick Drone incident would reveal the "make...
Rule 7a Application - Contempt of court application submitted to the Upper Tribunal against Sussex Police.
The Tribunal outcome did not result in a Sussex Police reply within 28 days.
The case reference is: EA/2023/0281
NCN: [2024] UKFTT 00168 (GRC)
The response by Sussex Police following a First-tier Tribunal ruling against the ICO (who were arguing the Sussex Police stance), is in bad faith.
Th...
See follow-up questions on some specific e-mails revealed in this FOIA: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/follow_up_to_foia_f0021336_2_gat
The First-tier Tribunal allowed the appeal so Suusex Police are expected to answer the question:
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/grc/202...
The First-tier Tribunal allowed the appeal so Suusex Police are expected to answer the question:
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/grc/202...