MET TELLS BENNETT TO TAKE THE SEX'N'TRAVEL OPTION AGAIN AS A 'VEXATIOUS NOSEY OLD .... PERSON'

 DECISION

Section 14 (1) - Vexatious or repeated requests

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 (the Act) I have decided to refuse your request as it has been
deemed as a vexatious request.

Under Section 14(1) of the Act, a public authority does not have to comply
with vexatious requests. There is no requirement for a public interest
test.

You have made multiple requests for information relating to the Operation
Grange investigation. You have also engaged in voluminous correspondence
with the Operation Grange team all regarding this single investigation.

You have been warned previously about the vexatious nature of these
requests.

The Act was designed to give individuals a greater right of access to
official information with the intention of making public bodies more
transparent and accountable

Whilst most people exercise this right responsibly, a few may misuse or
abuse the Act by submitting requests which are intended to be annoying or
disruptive or which have a disproportionate impact on a public authority.

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.

ue Sep 02, 2014 7:02 pm
A new Freedom of Information Act request to the Home Office about the selective leaking to the media of a confidential report by Jim Gamble, former head of CEOP

Post Tony Bennett Today at 7:01 pm
This request was sent earlier today in view of the unprecedented selective leaking yesterday to Sky News and other Britiish media of a highly confidential scoping report prepared by Jim Gamble for the Home Office in 2010 in the Madeleine McCann case.

The leak appeared to be being used to put a 'spin' on the failure over 7 years of the British police forces to make any progress in the investigation of Madeleine's disappearance, despite enormous resources, and to promote a forthcoming book on the case by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan:


+++++++++++++++++++++++++


NEW REQUEST 2 SEP 2014 - SUMMARY: This request is about factual matters relating to a report prepared by Jim Gamble, former boss of CEOP, about the Madeleine McCann case

Dear Home Office,

re: Freedom of Information - A Scoping Report in 2010 by Jim Gamble about the Madeleine McCann case

During 2009 and 2010, there were numerous reports in the British print and TV media about the preparation of a scoping report in connection with a possible review of the Madeleine McCann case. Alan Johnson was the Home Secretary at the time. Some newspapers made reference to the Metropolitan and West Yorkshire police forces having been asked to carry out this scoping exercise, but eventually it was announced that Jim Gamble, former boss of CEOP, was doing it. It is now known that this scoping exercise was used by the Home Office when, after the intervention of News International's then Chief Executive Officer, Ms Rebekah Brooks, the Home Office in conjunction with the then Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, decided to set up Operation Grange, the investigative review into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. This report was not made public and was described in the British press as 'top secret'.

Despite that, on Sky News yesterday (1 Sep 2014) and in several British newspapers within the past 24 hours, it was stated that a persons or persons unknown had 'briefed' Sky News and the press with partial disclosures from this 'top secret' report.

Arising out of the above facts, and notwithstanding that there continues to be an investigation into the facts surrounding Madeleine's disappearance, please answer the following questions:

1. What other persons or organisations or agencies were asked if they could carry out this scoping exercise, before Jim Gamble was approached?

2. On what date was Jim Gamble approached to carry out this exercise?

3. On what date did Jim Gamble complete his report and/or submit it to the Home Secretary?

4. Was any payment made to either CEOP or to Jim Gamble personally for carrying out this report; if so, what was the fee?

5. Is the report marked or treated as confidential?

6. If the report is confidential, has the Home Office authorised partial release of its contents to the media?

7. If it has so authorised such release, (a) who authorised the release of this information and (b) on what date was it authorised?

8. If any release of its contents has not been authorised by the Home Office, (a) has the Home Office begun an enquiry into who leaked this information and (b), if so, on what date did the leak enquiry begin?

9. Specifically, did the Home Office authorise Jim Gamble to disclose some of his report's contents to the media; if so, who authorised this disclosure and on what date was such authority given?

If the 'public interest' test is deemed to apply to any of the above questions, the issue of whether and under what circumstances persons are at liberty to release selected details of a confidential document within an investigation to the media is, it is submitted, manifestly a matter of the public interest.

Yours faithfully,

Anthony Bennett

Re: Freedom of Information requests re Madeleine McCann - The cost of Operation Grange - Request REFUSED
Post Tony Bennett Today at 8:30 pm

Doug D wrote:
It must have taken them longer to come up with that bollocks than it would have done to just answer the questions!

I have discovered that a broadly similar request - relating this time specifically to the Praia da Luz 'dig' - was made on 12 June 2014 by a Mr Mike Stapes.

Nearly three months later, and well outside the statutory 20-day time limit for processing requests, the Metropolitan Police still haven't answered.

These were Mike Stapes' questions:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Mike Stapes

12 June 2014

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Please can you provide the following information, regarding the
recent police operation (2nd June-11th June, 2014) in Praia da Luz,
Portugal, relating to Madeleine McCann?

1) How many officers from UK police forces went to Praia da Luz –
and how many of those were from the Metropolitan Police.

2) Can you please provide a breakdown of the role of every officer
who went to Portugal. (ie Dog Handlers, Family liaison officers,
scientific support staff, etc

3) How much did the entire operation cost?
(2nd June-11th June, 2014)

4) What was the direct cost to the Metropolitan Police?

5) Will that cost be met from the Metropolitan Police's budget, or
from a separate government fund?

6) Are the Metropolitan Police liable to pay any other UK police
forces for their respective officer’s time / expenses? If so,
please provide a breakdown of what sums are owed to which forces.

7) Did Metropolitan Police / UK police forces / UK government funds
cover any of the expenses incurred by the Portuguese authorities –
for example, cost of excavators, any expenses for Portuguese search
and rescue volunteers, any expenses for Portuguese police officers?

Yours faithfully,

Mike Stapes

Re: Freedom of Information requests re Madeleine McCann - The cost of Operation Grange - Request REFUSED
Post Tony Bennett Today at 7:29 am

Okeydokey wrote:
Well if you genuinely feel like that, just reflect on all the times there have been just a few devotees to a cause that has eventually won out: whether it be Einsteinian physics, Christianity, the anti-slavery movement, Fidel Castro's small band of followers, Gay Marriage, feminism... history is replete with such examples.

@ Okeydokey,

Or, in the case of Albert Dreyfus, the French Jew wrongly accused of spying and treason, just one man, the famous writer Emile Zola, stood alone in alleging that a serious injustice had been done against Dreyfus - and despite having to go into exile as a result of his claims, set out in his public letter J'accuse, he won out in the end. It was in fact a Major Esterhazy who was eventually identified as the man who had leaked secrets to the Germans

He kept going despite the smears against him: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]