What have Bexley Council got to hide is the question.

[peperami gsxr]

Ok, before you read on, can you go get a cuppa tea and i couple of custard creams, as this makes a good read. but the question will remain, what has Bexley Council got to hide.

 All I'm going to do is present a few facts that have come up from FOI's submitted to Bexley and the VCA. 

I would also like everyone to read our statement of intent, just so you know what we are about as will need to be refered to later.

http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php/page,soi.html


Ok, you you got your cuppa, lets start with this little fact that has been given under FOI rules by Greg Tippet, now this FOI was submitted by someone, and they asked a number of questions, some Bexley claim cant answer, and other they did, I'll kick off with Question 1,

I would like to know the registration numbers of each of Bexleys 4 CAMERA CARS/MICE/MEV used for CCTV enforcement.

Responce: FV59 RWU, GX53 OSM, KX04 BKT, KX04 BKR 

And question 2 asked.....

I would like to know when each of the cars started operating for Bexley Council, Identified by registation number.

Responce: Information not held, however, three units were transferred to the council from the prevoius parking enforcement contract as part of the contract negotiations for commencement of the new contract (April 2010) and one of the units was provided by the new contractor as a back up in case of breakdown etc of the other vehicles for the start of the new contract.


So, lets get this right, Bexley have 4 Camera cars, and 3 have been in use since the start of the new contract April 2010, and we have to guess the 4th car started not long after.

Ok no problem there. 

But when i  popped a FOI to the VCA asking them all sorts of questions, i did ask what equipment Bexley have and how many.

They would not give me all the information I requested, but this was the answer i got back.....

These systems have been used as mobile camera enforcement equipment fitted to 2 smart cars.

This  FOI answer is dated 7th June 2011

Hold on Bexley use 4 camera cars, (3 smart and 1 IQ)

Some of you may remember myself and our Nigel went to the council for a meeting with the Head of Parking at Bexley..... Tina Brooks (hi Tina, hope all is well in your dept   )

Now the above FOI from the VCA i showed Tina, she took a look, and handed it back withour comment, and I never asked any questions, (as silence is loud enough). 

Ok, more information is needed, so I went back to Bexley  and asked a few simple questions in the form of an FOI, after all an FOI will clear everything up. 

I would like to know the following information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000

Q1, Can you please tell me if any amendments have been made to your Tecnical Construction File and submitted to the VCA since 1st of MAY 2011.

(if the answer is yes, please also answer the 3 questions below)

Q2, If any amandments have been made, what are they, (brief description).

Q3, On what date/s  was any amandment made to the VCA as detailed in your TCF.

Q4, On what date was this information as detailed in any amendments confirmed by the VCA as being fit for purpose.


ok the above was submitted on 10th November 2011, and today I got this reply, read an enjoy, and just remember myself and Nigel attended a meeting with Bexleys head of Parking on the 28th October, as reported here ( http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php/topic,1429.0.html )


Your request for information has now been considered and it is not possible to meet your request. In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 this letter acts as a Refusal Notice.

The Authority relies upon Section 14(1) which does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious. The Authority considers that the request is vexatious for the following reasons:

The request is the latest in a series of similar requests from various linked sources, (acting in concert), concerning the topic in question. In each instance the Authority has responded, in full compliance with any regulations and / or best practice guidance or protocols. Requests for similar information from known associates have already been refused in accordance with the regulations.

In addition, at the invitation of the Authority, you accompanied an associate to the Authority’s office to carry out your own supervised inspection of the information held by the Authority in respect of this and previous requests. You were advised at that point that the Authority would be seeking to publish either a redacted copy of the documents requested or a summary of said documentation in the future and that verbal discussions were ongoing with the supplier of said equipment to ensure that there were no regulatory breaches in any such disclosure, (as the Authority has already confirmed that said data is commercially sensitive in it’s original format).

During the above meeting with the Head of Traffic & Parking Services, aggressive behavior was displayed by your colleague and personal threats were made against the Head of Service which were both distressing and suggest an unreasonable fixation with an Officer of the Authority. The Authority is also aware that aggressive and attacking articles have been posted onto a forum site of which you are a known prominent member and group organiser.


The Authority also considers that this request will be used to cause disruption and annoyance as you are a known associate of a group which has publicly stated it intends to disrupt the service and has indeed taken direct action to do so by harassing Officers of both the Authority and it’s civil parking enforcement contractor on numerous occasions.

Information disclosed previously has been displayed on the above mentioned forum and other sites together with personal attacks and other inflammatory and derogatory comments, and the Council contends that there is reasonable cause to consider that such disclosure would be used in such a manner in the future. 

If you have any queries or concerns then please contact me.


Yours sincerely,


Jenny How
Service Review Officer


Ok, so the responce makes interesting reading, as i said at the start, more questions, than answers, and not the answer i was looking for.


Ok, now can we please not go down to their level with the comments, and keep it clean, and remember this area is seen by anyone, so no swearing please, or writting letters to anyone who you may feel needs to be set straight.

And if anyone (press welcome  )  would like a copy sent of all FOI's please email me.

[The Bald Eagle]

Oh dear! It would appear all the toys are being thrown out of the pram.

I am afraid the response is typical of this particular council, or am I being too provocative by stating this? I now await the order for my summary execution which will undoubtedly follow.

Oh, by the way can we all please say a big hello to our Tina. We know you are an avid follower of our forum Tina, but I have a couple of questions. If we have been writing such "aggressive and attacking articles" as is suggested, why do you and your colleagues still come on here?

If what is written on here is so outrageous, why have you not contacted the moderators of the forum with your concerns? If you consider what is written libellous where is the letter before action? If you consider what is written is classed as harassment, why don't you do your usual trick and send the cops round to put the frighteners on?

Actually Tina, these are all rhetorical questions so you don't have to answer them. You know as well as any of us that your accusations carry no weight whatsoever because you can't sue or have someone arrested for being sarcastic.

And another thing Tina, perhaps you might want to have a word with your friend Jenny How (the author of the FoI request refusal) to ask if she can enlighten us as to who those pesky members of the public are (other than our Peperami) who keep on writing to your council asking all those nasty little awkward questions that you seem so keen to avoid answering. Are they all members of the NoToMob? If so, how does she know?

And will she be accusing every member of the public of being a conspirator if they ask a similar question? Will she deny the public you both SERVE their right of access to information by entirely lawful requests? I am sure the Information Commissioner will take a great deal of interest in your council's actions if she does. Believe me, he is already going to be extremely interested in what you have said so far in your refusal, so may I respectfully suggest you just cough up the information before you dig yourselves in any deeper.

And before you go (not that you will be reading this anyway because you will obviously be mitigating against us causing any further offence,) I'm sure the press are going to be very interested in the fact that you consider the service you provide in your department is to issue PCNs at a hundred and twenty quid a pop. We always knew that your "service" was revenue driven and you have just proved it for us. And there we were, almost convinced that you meant it when you said that it was all about public safety and your noble attempts to reach the Secretary of State's aim of 100% compliance without penalties". Thank you for clearing that up for us Tina. (where's a shooting yourself in the foot emoticon when you need one?)

P.s. I was in a bit of a quandary as to where I might go $chunting tomorrow, but not now. Bexley anyone?

[tommy the trumpet]

This is a democraticaly elected representative of the public that in most peoples eyes are resorting to nothing more than Dick Turpin tactics to make their books balance.
Perhaps Bexley could also explain why certain roads in Sidcup were made no through roads, then no one can explain why it was done, I know these questions have been put to a prominent well known councillor who used similar evasive tactics( I think he lives in one of the roads in question).
I also heard a mention allegedly of Morrison's shares,wonder how long they have been a possesion.What with the lovely big store destroying most of the local trade in the High Street.

The above comments may have little to do with parking but do demonstrate the attitude of who we are dealing with here.

ALL WE ARE REALLY ASKING BEXLEY IS FAIRNESS AND HONESTY.

[Nigel W]

"During the above meeting with the Head of Traffic & Parking Services, aggressive behavior was displayed by your colleague and personal threats were made against the Head of Service which were both distressing and suggest an unreasonable fixation with an Officer of the Authority".

Tina,

All I can say is that our meeting was recorded.

Therefore this will act as a definitive record of our meeting. As you are aware there was no "aggressive behaviour" displayed by myself. There were also no threats, personal or otherwise, whatsoever made by myself or my colleague.

The recording details your repeated attempts at interrupting and talking over me. Because I would not allow you do this you 'threatened' to terminate the meeting. This was the only threat made during the entire meeting. You did not terminate the meeting instead the meeting continued to its natural end. The meeting ended with cordial remarks from your staff and yourself. This was hardly the kind of comment from someone who was in any way "distressed".

The "unreasonable fixation" part of this farcical response to a perfectly reasonable FOI request would appear to be a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

[Ewan Hoosami]

'The Authority also considers that this request will be used to cause disruption and annoyance as you are a known associate of a group which has publicly stated it intends to disrupt the service and has indeed taken direct action to do so by harassing Officers of both the Authority and it’s civil parking enforcement contractor on numerous occasions.'

Disrupt the service? You're providing the good people of Bexley with a 'service' now, are you? Why, thank you very much. I do apologise if Nigel Wise-you-up-with-a-knuckle-duster and peperami-bit-of-an-animal were aggressive and made threats toward you. They've never acted in that way before and I'm sure it was an isolated incident. Actually, that's completely out of character for either of them. Are you sure you haven't made all this up? I will finish by saying I have no knowledge of this sinister organisation you mention, who are hell bent on disruption. All the NoToMob have ever done is assisted your staff to help them achieve their goals (Just in case you didn't read the manual, it's 100% compliance with no PCNs issued.) Effectively, the Mob are your colleagues, fellow council employees and should be extended every courtesy.

 

[Bonkers]

During the above meeting with the Head of Traffic & Parking Services, aggressive behavior was displayed by your colleague....

you are a known associate of a group which has publicly stated it intends to disrupt the service

"Under the FOI Act, a request can be refused if it's vexatious, but this has to be an issue about the request itself, not the person making it. Just because you are a really annoying person is not sufficient grounds for turning down your freedom of information applications."

From a possibly helpful page on the BBC's website.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2009/07/vexatious_and_irresponsible_qu.html?postid=82867488

[seggsy]

"Disrupt the service". When has the NoToMob interrupted the operation of the $camera cars? Exactly the opposite, they assist them in achieving the Sec of State's stated aim, 100% compliance with no penalty. They never block, hinder or harrass the cars or operators. How is that disrupting the "service". Oh sure the $camera cars don't issue anything like the number of PCNs when being assisted, but I would have thought, as has been stated many time, surely that is a good thing, if drivers are not comitting acts that would warrant the issuing of a PCN then surely the roads are safer, something we all, and I include Bexley Council in this, would want.

They strike me as being pretty wild allegations for turning down a FoI.

[The Bald Eagle]

They strike me as being pretty wild allegations for turning down a FoI.

Not just wild seggsy. Try "wholly unsustainable".
 
Bonkers is right that just because you don't like a member of the public, it doesn't mean to say that the question is vexatious and they can refuse to answer it if anyone else asks it.
 
So how about if Granny Smith from Ecclefechan went on "Whatdotheyknow" and put in a similar FoI to the one Pep did? According to Bexley's pathetic "vexatious" defence, Granny Smith would be labelled a Mob collaborator, called vexatious and similarly refused access to information she has every right to see.
 
Like I say, their defence is unsustainable and the Information Commissioner will have to come to the same conclusion or be seen to effectively label every citizen a NoToMob member if they ask a question this nasty little council don't want to answer.
 
And I just love this bit. "Information disclosed previously has been displayed on the above mentioned forum and other sites ..." 
 
So let me get this right Tina. This site is open to any member of the public to view and/or join (even you Tina since we at least acknowledge your right to participate in open debate), and yet we have committed some kind of heinous crime because we dared to publish materials previously provided by your council, that are in the public domain purely because you deigned to provide them pursuant to the public's lawful right to see them under the Freedom of Information Act?!
 
Well whoop de feckin' do. You had best send the cops round now Tina, because I guarantee that when you do finally provide the answers we want (and you will), regardless of what you or your council think, I guarantee here and now that I will plaster it anywhere I like regardless of whether you think "there is reasonable cause to consider that such disclosure would be used in such a manner in the future."
 
Sooner or later Bexley council are going to wake up to the fact that they are there to serve us, the public, and that they have to respect our rights. And I will never cease to remind Tina and her colleagues of who their employers are. You Tina, and all council employees everywhere are Public SERVANTS.
 
YOU work for US.
 
You would do well to remember that and one other important fact.
 
WE ARE WATCHING YOU
 
 

[seggsy]

But what we, the members of the public, are not are cash cows for Bexley and every other council to milk.
That is how we feel and that is why we are intent on ensuring that when you do something to raise revenue you will be scrutinised by members of the public, as is our right. Whether you like it or not.

[The Bald Eagle]

Here you go Tina. Just in case you and your colleagues haven't seen Bonkers recently here is a link for you. 12 December (Part 1) makes particularly interesting reading in that it seems even the allegedly "vexatious" Bonkers (he is a member of the Mob after all) has received a "totally acceptable apology" from Chief Inspector Gowen, and his complaint about the obscene blog is now being taken seriously by Chief Superintendent Stringer.

Bloomin' coppers eh? Seems even they might be taking us "vexatious" types more seriously.

http://www.bexley-is-bonkers.co.uk/blogs/2011/december.shtml

[Bonkers]

Not sure about the 'taken seriously by Stringer' bit BE, he has said that since the outset, told two MPs the same but six months on there is still no progress - but we live in hope that the police will see sense and shouldn’t be so keen to jump at Bexley council's command.