The freedom of information request that was submitted by KD to West Yorkshire Police has, as predicted come back with a REFUSAL to disclose whether any raids did take place on the day White alleges he was turned over. To put this in to perspective, almost TWO HUNDRED freedom of information requests have been submitted in the past year in relation to various nationalist events and issues and NOT ONE has ever been refused. Yet this one was? One in approximately two hundred? On that basis there was less than one percent of it being declined yet it was when we attempted to prove whether the raid of Nationalist's biggest police informer actually took place! Their refusal is more prrof than we ever hoped for in retrospect - this undoubtedly is indicative of the Police covering for White. Below is the transcript of the West Yorkshire Police's decision which states it would not be in the public's interest (ie White's because he is a grass)to reveal the information:
DECISION
This letter serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Section 17 of the Act provides:
(1) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information, is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision in part II relating to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request or on a claim that information is exempt information must, within the time for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which-
(a) states the fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
In accordance with the Act, this letter represents a Refusal Notice for this particular request. West Yorkshire Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds the information you requested as the duty in s1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 30(3) - Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities
Section 31(3) - Law enforcement
Section 23(5) - Information supplied by, or relating to bodies dealing with security matters
Section 24(2) - National security
Potential harm - Disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is a disclosure to the world and not just to the individual making the request. Evidence suggests that groups and individuals with criminal intent routinely make use of the Freedom of Information Act as a source of intelligence into policing activity. The police service rarely confirm their involvement or otherwise in any operation that has not already been placed in the public domain as to do so would provide information that would be useful to individuals and groups of criminal intent, compromising the force’s ability to provide effective law enforcement.
Public interest test - In relation to Section 30 – Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities, Section 31 – Law Enforcement and Section 24 – National Security, there is a requirement to consider whether there is any public interest which may overcome the harm in confirming or denying the existence of such information in this case.
Accountability and public awareness and debate are factors favouring the disclosure of the information.
Factors favouring non-disclosure are the efficient and effective conduct of the police service and their investigations.
Balancing test - On this occasion, the need to ensure that investigations can continue to be conducted effectively outweighs any benefit from greater public awareness of police operations and the balance therefore falls in favour of neither confirming nor denying that the information is held.
No inference should be drawn from this response as to whether the information you have requested does exist or does not exist.
COMPLAINT RIGHTS
If you are not satisfied with how this request has been handled or with the information provided, please read the advice notice attached to this letter. If you do wish to take up your right of complaint, please remember to quote the reference number above in any future correspondence.
Yours sincerely
Claire Pearson
Freedom of Information Project Officer
One has to wonder how long these retards supporting him will bury their heads before they suffocate from the reality of what they have known all along - their 'mate' is a police informer and red infiltrator.
This letter serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Section 17 of the Act provides:
(1) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information, is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision in part II relating to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request or on a claim that information is exempt information must, within the time for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which-
(a) states the fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
In accordance with the Act, this letter represents a Refusal Notice for this particular request. West Yorkshire Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds the information you requested as the duty in s1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 30(3) - Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities
Section 31(3) - Law enforcement
Section 23(5) - Information supplied by, or relating to bodies dealing with security matters
Section 24(2) - National security
Potential harm - Disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is a disclosure to the world and not just to the individual making the request. Evidence suggests that groups and individuals with criminal intent routinely make use of the Freedom of Information Act as a source of intelligence into policing activity. The police service rarely confirm their involvement or otherwise in any operation that has not already been placed in the public domain as to do so would provide information that would be useful to individuals and groups of criminal intent, compromising the force’s ability to provide effective law enforcement.
Public interest test - In relation to Section 30 – Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities, Section 31 – Law Enforcement and Section 24 – National Security, there is a requirement to consider whether there is any public interest which may overcome the harm in confirming or denying the existence of such information in this case.
Accountability and public awareness and debate are factors favouring the disclosure of the information.
Factors favouring non-disclosure are the efficient and effective conduct of the police service and their investigations.
Balancing test - On this occasion, the need to ensure that investigations can continue to be conducted effectively outweighs any benefit from greater public awareness of police operations and the balance therefore falls in favour of neither confirming nor denying that the information is held.
No inference should be drawn from this response as to whether the information you have requested does exist or does not exist.
COMPLAINT RIGHTS
If you are not satisfied with how this request has been handled or with the information provided, please read the advice notice attached to this letter. If you do wish to take up your right of complaint, please remember to quote the reference number above in any future correspondence.
Yours sincerely
Claire Pearson
Freedom of Information Project Officer
One has to wonder how long these retards supporting him will bury their heads before they suffocate from the reality of what they have known all along - their 'mate' is a police informer and red infiltrator.
No comments:
Post a Comment