Jump to content

watchingyou

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About watchingyou

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. I think I have given up; I didnt have the supporting documents such as the letter from Greater Manchester Council etc.
  2. Complaint regarding the way Greater Manchester Police, Drakes/Marstons Bailiffs and Greater Manchester City Council processed data unlawfully. Despite making my request to the Information Commissioners Office in writing on 11th February 2009 together with several Email and telephone reminders and supplying all the information necessary for a review of my complaint to take place Helen Ward from the ICO has today sent me a letter asking for their form to be completed she says she has closed the complaint until such times as they receive it back again. I believe there is nowhere in the rules that say a complaint made to the Information Commissioners Office in writing has to be on their forms using their pre printed form. So long as they have the complaint in writing as they have had, then that is sufficient for an investigation into a complaint so made. She also asks for copies of correspondence I have had so if anyone has any extra correspondence about this matter they would like to add please send it to me. The reticence shown by the ICO in asking at this late stage for a form to be filled in with information they already have is reprehensible. I can see the next move coming and she will say she can’t look into this because it’s not MY data. bah This is a clear indication from the Information Commissioner’s Office which again shows their constant reluctance to investigate Government based entities. This is the reply located on www.watchingyou.info reply_page_1.jpg reply_page_2.jpg
  3. Well it looks like we can expect more of the same from Browns Labour gestapo:- Motorists could be banned from leaving Britain over unpaid parking fines - Telegraph
  4. Sorry about the link not working; it should be OK now. We will now have to wait to see if my complaint about the unlawful processing of the data is upheld.
  5. Well, Here at last is the disappointing reply from the Information Commissioners caseworker to my complaint that Greater Manchester Police did not supply the information requested and did not do so within the appropriate timescale. GMP must hold this information somewhere because otherwise without it they would not have been able to stop and detain a motorist for the non payment of an alleged penalty charge by using their ANPR system. Perhaps we need to frame our Freedom of Information Act request in a different way; ideas please. The reply can be downloaded here :- http://www.watchingyou.info/icoreply.doc PS for some reason this site changes [i.c.o]- into its full title so the link didnt work. I changed the name on the link so it should be OK now.
  6. Apart from all the other things that GMP have done wrong they have quite clearly in my view committed an offense under the Data Protection Act by unlawfully processing data, this data being the data passed to them by Drakes and Marstons Bailiffs that they then used unlawfully I believe in their ANPR system.
  7. Here is the latest reply from the Information Commissioner:- http://www.watchingyou.info/ico2.doc
  8. I have today been contacted by a representative of the Information Commissioner’s office who is following up on my complaint regarding the response I have received to my FoIR which was sent to Greater Manchester Police. At this moment the Information Commissioner is looking at 2 outstanding issues that may have not been fully answered by GMP. I have given the URL of this forum to the Information Commissioner’s representative so there is a good chance that the comments made here will be perused. Also if there are more issues that interested viewers feel GMP have not sufficiently answered in their reply to my FoIR then please feel free to voice them here so they may be brought to the attention of the Information Commissioner and taken into consideration. The Outstanding issues the Information Commissioner is looking at are questions :- 2 Which Law or Act of Parliament permits GMP to stop vehicles and detain drivers for unpaid Parking Penalty Charge Notices or matters of alleged decriminalised contraventions? And Question :- 7 A PCN is a civil matter please say which part of the Data protection Act allows the passing of this kind of information. With regard to question 1 in my FoIR I would have thought GMP would know how many people they have detained because not to record when and the reason for it they detain a person would be unlawful. Looking at the response to question 4 GMP have provided no evidence at all that the data passed to them was passed to them by the Marston Group to assist with their policing obligations as per research into offender “self selection” I strongly suspect that the only reason the data was passed to the police by the Marston Group was to simply pursue the recovery of unpaid civil parking penalty charges. To be clear on this the Data Protection Act is concerned at the reasons why data was passed and therefore processed and not only or specifically how it was put to use and because I believe this data was passed for the purpose of recovering a civil debt and this data was then processed by the Marston Group and then by Greater Manchester Police the Data Protection Act has been breached.
  9. I have made other complaints to GMP Professional Standards Branch over other matters. Recently one of my complaints was rejected by GMP Professional Standards Branch as being unsubstantiated. I appealed this to the IPCC and they also rejected my appeal. I contacted my solicitor to complain that the IPCC had acted outside the Law when they rejected my appeal and had refused to consider the evidence I had. The IPCC has subsequently reviewed their initial rejection of my appeal and decided to look again at the original complaint I made against GMP. They have now upheld my original appeal and reversed their previous stance on the matter by now instructing GMP to look again at my complaint which I believe now shows amongst other things that a senior officer of Superintendent rank has written lies to me when he rejected my complaint. The same Superintendent from the Professional Standards Branch has in the meantime written to me to inform me that GMP will not in future allow me to make anymore complaints about GMP at any police station or over the phone. Instead they have restricted me to only one way to make a complaint which must now be in writing to the commander of the GMP Professional Standards Branch who will then decide whether or not the complaint will be investigated which is clearly a puerile way of attempting to stop me making genuine complaints against them. Apparently an Email and letters have been sent to all police stations and call takers in GMP to inform them not to take any further complaints from me. So for the time being that is the current state of play. This is now how the country is policed under the Labour Party led by Gordon Brown and co so don’t worry folks they are just protecting us!
  10. Well I have finally got a reply to my Freedom of Information Act. Unfortunately GMP don’t seem to appreciate that section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 does not allow them to stop and DETAIN someone except to ask for those things that are allowed in the Act eg Name address Driver details etc. They seem to have completely ignored the question which was about detaining someone for unpaid Parking Penalty Charge Notices or matters of alleged decriminalised contraventions? I'm also absolutely amazed at the answer to question 7. Now it appears we self select to be a criminal type if for example we jump the bus or supermarket queue or park on double yellow lines and/or avoids paying the fine. This begs the question; who in the Local Authorities across the land are going to be classed as criminal types when they impose unlawful fines and penalty charges on members of the unsuspecting public? This is most definitely the Orwellian state predicted in George Orwells 1984 Please find below the first email received yesterday which says they won’t be able to give me the information they promised for 24th October 2008 until 14th November 2008. As you all know I have made a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office regarding the outlandish time scale we were already putting up with. The complaint must have had an effect because it seems the reply was soon forthcoming and the speed since the complaint was made of the GMP’s response must be as a result of GMP receiving a warning from the Information Commissioners Office. The letter below clearly being the intended action prior to them receiving the warning from the Information Commissioners Office. NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Dear Mr. XXXXX, I refer to previous correspondence in connection with your request that Greater Manchester Police review the response to your recent request for information in which an anticipated response date of 24 October 2008 was cited. Unfortunately, due to significant staffing shortages, it will not be possible to respond by this date and I write to advise you that a revised response date of 14th November 2008 has been allocated. I sincerely apologise for any inconvenience this delay may cause. Yours sincerely Adrienne Walker Information Governance Manager Information Management Branch Direct dial: 0161-856-2510 Mobile: 07768 924058 Fax: 0161-856-2535 email: adrienne.walker@gmp.pnn.police.uk Here is the actual response from GMP over the Freedom of Information Act received on the same day as the Email above, staggering as it is:- Chris Woolley Information Governance Unit Mr. XXXXX Via e-mail Our ref: GSA 1329 / 2008 23rd October 2008 When telephoning please ask for Chris Woolley Dear Mr. XXXXX RE : Freedom of Information request review - GSA Ref: 1329 / 08 I refer to your e-mail dated the 29th July 2008, in which you requested information under the Freedom of Information Act, and your request that the subsequent information disclosed be reviewed. I can confirm that I have now concluded this review and am writing to update you. The following information was requested: 1. How many vehicles have been stopped in the last 3 years as a result of an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) operation in Greater Manchester for unpaid Parking Penalty Charge Notices or matters of alleged decriminalised contraventions? This information is not held by Greater Manchester Police. 2. Which Law or Act of Parliament permits GMP to stop vehicles and detain drivers for unpaid Parking Penalty Charge Notices or matters of alleged decriminalised contraventions? A person driving a motor vehicle on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform under Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, this is a general requirement and is not specific. 3. How many instances on the ANPR system has a Parking Penalty Charge Notice or matters of alleged decriminalised contraventions been recorded? This information is not held by Greater Manchester Police. 4. From where do GMP obtain their information regarding outstanding PCNs? As of the 19th August 2008 vehicles associated to unpaid court orders are no longer included in Greater Manchester Police ANPR systems and such data is no longer obtained. Data was previously received from the Marston Group to assist with our policing obligations as per research into offender “self selection”, not specifically so unpaid court orders could be enforced by Marston Group representatives. 5. What is the name and job title of the person supplying GMP with the information about unpaid PCNs? As above, data was previously received from the Marston Group National Enforcement Manager. 6. What is the name and rank of the Officer who sanctioned the stopping of vehicles in conjunction with the firm of Drakes and Marstons Bailiffs? Use of the data to assist with policing obligations as per research into offender self selection was previously sanctioned by Chief Inspector Haydn Roberts. 7. A PCN is a civil matter please say which part of the Data protection Act allows the passing of this kind of information. Under the Data Protection Act 1998 Greater Manchester Police may hold and use data which assists in fulfilling our policing obligations, there is considerable research that indicates that those individuals who self select by way of committing civil / minor offences are also the individuals who are more likely to be of immediate interest to the police in relation to criminal matters. A simplistic way of describing the idea on which this research is based is that people who are the most committed criminals are also the most versatile, and will not willingly to be bound by law or convention of any kind; thus the most versatile criminal is also the person who jumps queues, dodges fares on public transport, parks on double yellow lines and illegally in disabled bays etc and avoids paying subsequent fines. Obviously, many individuals who self select are not versatile criminals, but research does conclude that a higher proportion will be, therefore in the interests of being efficient and intelligence led information previously obtained from Marston Group was believed to be of benefit to Greater Manchester Police in fulfilling our policing obligations. It is estimated that during the period that the Marston Group data was utilised that immediate police action for criminal matters was taken in 60% of cases where vehicles were stopped. Should you have any further queries concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me using any of the details contained at the foot of this letter quoting the reference number above. Yours sincerely, Chris Woolley Audit & Compliance Officer Information Governance Unit
  11. Well I still have had no response from GMP to the Freedom of Information Act review request. I have however complained to the Information Commissioner about the undue delay in GMP's response. My complaint to the Information Commissioners Office was in the first instance met with an Email which said they didn’t have page 3 of the complaints form even though I had made sure all the relevant information was provided in the first instance and because of that they were saying they could not deal with my complaint. I rang the case worker who said I should wait until GMP had replied before making a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office. I insisted that he dealt with my complaint as the complaint was about significant undue delay. I followed this up with a further Email reiterating my complaint again so he had no excuses I have received another Email about this today from the Information Commissioners Office caseworker which has given GMP ANOTHER 20 days from the date of his letter to respond even though he says the guidance from the commissioner says the reviews should take no longer than 20 working days and in no case longer than 40 working days. This in my view shows that the Information Commissioners Office is extremely reluctant to back up members of the public against organisations such as GMP when they are seeking to take advantage of privileges given to them by acts of parliament. I can post the complete text of the Emails if necessary but they are quite long. If most people want me to do so and none would be offended by a long posting I have no objections myself of posting them. Let me know what you all think.
  12. I must point out that the reply from GMP printed above was sent to me on the 29/8/2008. So the 24 October will be much more than 20 working days it should take as a maximum.
  13. After receiving this response from GMP and giving it due consideration I have now decided to complain to the Information Commissioners Office about the undue time scale GMP envisage for the review. After ringing up the Information Commissioners Office and asking them about this they have said that the time scale for a review should be no longer than the 20 working days allowed for with the initial Freedom of Information Act request. A complaint has been sent today to the Information Commissioners Office. ******************************************** FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REFERENCE NO: 01329/2008 I refer to your telephone conversation today with my colleague Corine Phipps, requesting that Greater Manchester Police review the response to your request for information. The review will be conducted in accordance to Greater Manchester Police review procedure and every effort will be made to have a response to you by 24 October 2008, however if it becomes clear that the review will not be completed by this date you will be contacted. If you wish to discuss this matter prior to our response please contact Adrienne Walker on 0161-856-2510. Yours sincerely Rebecca Rice Information Access Team Leader Greater Manchester Police Information Governance Unit This e mail carries a disclaimer, a copy of which may be read at: Copyright
  14. No I have not heard anything since making the further request. As soon as I have a reply I will post it here.
  15. green_and_mean I have been called worse than that in my life but if that’s how you feel I have no problem with it. The point I want to make is that this kind of institutionalised attitude to Laws from GMP and other organisations is not unusual when they are dealing with members of the public these days. I don’t believe there is much hope of understanding the rationale behind whats happening in any particular incident without looking at the bigger picture. The police like all the other institutions in this country are driven by a coherent plan which is devised across many other government departments including ACPO and the Home Office therefore for a real understanding it is imperative that the whole is looked at rather than individual incidents in isolation. I am not the least bit interested if anyone does not want to look at my website and of course whether or not the web site is mine or not is not at all relevant; it is however there if you do. It represents a lot of my personal work time and commitment in this area and I strongly believe the content is very relevant when trying to understand why GMP and other police forces in the 43 police force areas we have in this country determine their policy and then by implication their actions. Any policy that a Chief Constable wants to make by the way always falls outside the remit of the IPCC and it is in this way that evasion of very many actions of his officers that would otherwise fall under the scrutiny of IPCC is not looked at. When you look at the kind of response that GMP have given to a perfectly reasonable request under the Freedom of Information Act I think you can see that they are not bothered about any repercussions because they also know there wont be any they cant evade; and don’t hold your breathe if you think the internal review response when it comes will be much different because it wont.
×
×
  • Create New...