We are a group of of people, from various backgrounds with various interests and, indeed, with varying views on FOI and the FOI Act. However, we are all concerned that the post-legislative scrutiny of the Act might result in less openness and more bureacracy.

We are, as a group, apolitical, and neither this campaign, nor our participation in it, should be taken to be representative of the views of our organisations or employers.

Tim Turner runs 2040training, blogs at 2040info.blogspot.com and tweets as @tim2040

Ibrahim Hasan is a director of ActNowTraining, blogs at informationlaw.org.uk and tweets as @ActNowTraining

Paul Gibbons works in the higher education sector. He blogs at foiman.com and tweets as @FOIManUK

Jonathan Baines works in local government. He blogs at informationrightsandwrongs and tweets as @bainesy1969





3 thoughts on “About

  1. drannyboy50 says:

    Hello Guys
    My name is Alan M Dransfield from Exeter and my FOI battles against my local council and the ICO have been covered already on you website and by Ibrahim in the LS Gazette..
    Last Aug ,I was successful in my appeal to the FTT ref an earlier ICO vexatious decision by the ICO in which the FTT overturned an earlier vexatious decision ref EA/2010/0079.
    The ICO and the joined party,i.e Devon County Council appealed that FTT decision and I am now awaiting an Upper Tribunal hearing date.
    In the mean time, I have another FTT FOI RETRIAL at the FTT ref EA 0152/2010,which was adjourned in Mar this year pending the current test case.Incidently, this FOI is dated april 09. Sounds confusing but it is not.

    I fervently believe my test case will have serious ramifications for the FOI Act 2000 ref VEXATIOUS decisions.My test case ref is GIA/3037/2011.

    I have represented myself at three FTT hearings and thus far,quite pleased with my progress.

    My local authority have deemed me vexatious on all my requests and they recently advised me they were going to review ALL my FOI requests since Apr09.

  2. savefoi2012 says:

    The point about alleged “ghost” documents appears to be dealt – and dispensed – with at paras 68 & 69 of the comprehensive judgment. Presumably if there is an error of fact or law you will be appeal to appeal. However, this post is perhaps not the best place to discuss individual cases.

    The consistently excellent Panopticon blog has a post on all three recent “vexatiousness” cases in the Upper Tribunal by the – also consistently excellent – Robin Hopkins: http://is.gd/6bFKGL


    I am amazed ,shocked and disappointed that neither the ICO or Lord McNally recognise Sub-Judice rules in there consistent publication and discussion on the GIA/3037/2011 Alan M Dransfield V ICO case.
    Its about time the so called FOIA Campaigners WOKE UP and smelled the coffee.

    The ICO are the gamekeepers of the FOIA 2000 but the Dransfield Case suggests they are the BIGGEST POACHER also.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: