I will document here the results of my query to each police force in Britain under the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA), submitted on 14th May 2009, as to how many people have reported the government for the crime of treason starting from 1973 (Ted Heath’s government).
For anybody reading this blog that is not familiar with this subject here is Albert Burgess to explain:
… and a link to the documented evidence that he talks of:
The download is rather large 600MB, which reflects the amount of evidence contained within the archive.
I myself am not too familiar with the finer details but am more interested in why these allegations have not been investigated given the documented proof. Why aren’t the police and other public servants doing what the public pay them to do?
Here is the wording of my request:
Dear Sir or Madam,
Kindly supply me with:
1 – The total number of individual members of public (if any) that have reported, with DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE (as in this download (600MB): [ http://www.megaupload.com/?d=QGYFFSVV ]), the individuals that made up the HEATH GOVERNMENT and SUBSEQUENT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, for the CRIME OF TREASON.
2 – What positive action, if any, by yourselves was taken on receipt of the said documented proof?
3 – If not taken seriously and dismissed:
a) how far up the chain of command the reported crime go until enquiries were terminated?
b) what is the name of the public servant that made the decision?
c) what was the reason for the decision?
d) does that public servant still hold his/her position of authority?
4 – If more than one report has been made to yourselves, was the same public servant responsible for the decision not to submit the documented evidence for the prosecution of the criminals.
As of today 15th May 2009 I have had replies back from quite a few police forces, all saying in one form or another for a request to be valid they must have my full name! Hmmm, that’s new!
On looking at the ICO’s guidelines with regards to identity it seems to me (and maybe you too?) that giving ones name is not strictly necessary.
Dear Sir or Madam,
Thank you for your prompt reply.
I see that you addressed your reply to “the requester” and I would like to point out that that is NOT my name. My name is Keith, as written at the bottom of my request that you are replying to.
With regards to submitting my family name:
The ICO guidelines (and they are only guidelines) quite clearly state that:
“Although one of the underlying principles of the FOIA is that the identity of the applicant is not taken into account, it can be relevant in certain circumstances. For example, when:
• a request is being made by the applicant for his/her own personal data and so would be exempt under section 40(1) of the FOIA (and would comprise a subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998);
• a public authority has good reason to believe a requester is using a pseudonym to shield his/her identity in order to avoid the possibility of the request being considered as vexatious or repeated; or
• determining whether to aggregate costs for two or more requests in accordance with the Fees Regulations. ”
The guidelines are quite clear in stating that the identity of the applicant is not necessary unless certain circumstances dictate otherwise.
None of the above examples apply to me nor my right to request information.
1. A fictitious name used when the person performs a particular social role
I publicly swear that my given name IS Keith and that is the truth.
This request is sent via the public website: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com and it is good practice not to publish full personal details on the internet for obvious reasons.
I have used this website and received information on numerous occasions without the need to submit my family name. My family name has no relevance to my request nor your obligation to comply with my request.
I am not aware of any special circumstances that apply to my request requiring my family name, so therefore reject your statement that implies that there is and conclude that there has been a misinterpretation of the ICO’s interpenetration of the FOIA by someone in your office (an honest mistake).
However, if you insist on implying with absolute authority that you can only process my request on receipt of my family name, I will take that as an obstruction of my right to public authority information and will act accordingly.
I hope this information satisfies you and that the “common sense” approach is used, as recommended by the ICO.