June 26, 2009 5:08 PM
Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing in response to your recent request for information (ref 1831) in which you requested ‘evidence of any senior council officer’s involvement in this case – which is the calling of the police to the peaceful town hall protester around 70 times’. I apologise for the delay responding.
Any information the Council may hold in relation to this request is likely to constitute the personal data of the individual concerned; therefore we are unable to provide the information you have requested because it is exempt information under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
Section 40(2) FOIA states that information which constitutes personal data as defined by the Data Protection Act 1998 is exempt from disclosure if its release would contravene one or more of the data protection principles. Any information held in relation to your request is likely to constitute personal data because it relates to and identifies a living individual. Disclosure of these personal data would be unfair; therefore it would contravene the first data protection principle which requires the Council to process personal data fairly. This means that the information is exempt and will not be provided.
Yours sincerely
Clare Naven
Freedom of Information Officer
SMBC
——————————————————————————
Email sent June 29, 2009 5:36 PM
Dear FoI Officer
Then without identifying the council officer(s) by name, please state their grade within the organisation. I assume this would be someone of senior position. I may take this issue to the Information Commission, which won’t look good for Stockport Council. Maybe we can achieve the same end without getting SMBC even further black marks at the ICO.
Kind regards
Sheila
——————————————————–
Email sent – 09 August 2009 07:28
Dear Ms Naven
The persecution of the town hall protester may well cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not more. So, we need to know the grade within the Council of the person who decided to proceed with the court case in January, which was abandoned on the day of the hearing, the calling of the police over 80 times, the 11 arrests, the four days in prison, the further trial in September and the possible High Court costs.
I very much doubt these decisions were taken by a lowly security guard. If you won’t given me the actual name of the person who made these decisions, then please let me know what grade they were.
I shall cc this to Councillor Weldon who believes all FoI requests are answered by this Council and to the Information Commission.
Kind regards
Sheila
——————————————————
