FOI Response from the Cabinet Office re COBRA activation on 17th and 18th July 2003

In the preceding post, FOI Request to the Cabinet Office re COBRA activation on 17th and 18th July 2003, I set out a Freedom of Information Request made on 16th May 2011 to the Cabinet Office about possible COBRA activation on 17th and 18th July 2003.

Below I set out the relevant part of the response from the Cabinet Office dated 20th September 2003. I've edited out the routine material about how to ask for a formal review etc.

Following a search of our records, I must inform you that the Cabinet Office, which includes the Prime Minister's Office, does not hold information relevant to your request.

So, it seems that the Cabinet Office is asking me to believe that it doesn't know whether or not the COBRA procedure was activated on 17th and/or 18th July 2003 or not.

Not suprisingly, I've lodged a request for a formal review of the response dated 20th September 2011.

My working hypothesis is that COBRA was activated and the Cabinet Office doesn't want to admit that.

I could be wrong.

If COBRA wasn't activated on 17th and/or 18th July 2003 in relation to the disappearance and death of David Kelly, why not just put a simple "No" in response to question 1. and question 2.?

FOI Request to the Cabinet Office re COBRA activation on 17th and 18th July 2003

On 16th May 2011 I wrote to the Cabinet Office making the following Freedom of Information Request.

The purpose of the request was to establish whether or not UK Government emergency procedures, often referred to coloquially as "COBRA", were activated on 17th or 18th July 2003.

ACC Michael Page of Thames Valley Police was "gold commander".

The possibility of a so-called "platinum command" at UK Government level existed (and exists).

The FOI Request was designed to attempt to find out if the COBRA procedure was activated in relation to the death of David Kelly.

This is a Freedom of Information request.

I understand the term "Cabinet Office Briefing Room" broadly to refer to procedures applicable to an emergency and/or crisis response by the UK Government. I ask that the following questions are interpreted using that broad definition.

1. Was a Cabinet Office Briefing Room procedure activated at any time between 14.30 on 17th July 2003 and 23.59 on 18th July 2003?

2. During the period described in question 1. was a Cabinet Office Briefing Room procedure activated with respect to the death of Dr. David Kelly?

3. Which individual was in charge of the COBRA response with respect to the disappearance and death of Dr. David Kelly?

4. Who was Platinum commander with respect to the disappearance and death of Dr. David Kelly?

5. At what time was that individual (or those individuals) referred to in questions 4. and 5. notified that Dr. David Kelly was missing?

6. At what time was that individual (or those individuals) referred to in questions 4. and 5. notified that a body had been found?

7. At any time during the period referred to in question 1 did anyone associated with a Cabinet Office Briefing Room procedure contact the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, regarding the disappearance and/or death of Dr. David Kelly?

8. At any time during the period referred to in question 1 did anyone associated with a Cabinet Office Briefing Room procedure contact the then Director of Communications and Strategy, Alastair Campbell, regarding the disappearance and/or death of Dr. David Kelly?

9. If a Cabinet Office Briefing Room was activated with respect to the disappearance and death of Dr. David Kelly, at what time did that happen and at what time was it deactivated?

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

FOI Request to Thames Valley Police re TVP handling of DC Coe's false statement to the Hutton Inquiry

This post consists largely of a Freedom of Information request to Thames Valley Police sent earlier today regarding its awareness and handling of DC Graham Coe's false statement to the Hutton Inquiry.

It seems to me that Thames Valley Police have handled the issue badly in not being honest about the false testimony at an early date.

This is a Freedom of Information request.

On 16th September 2003 DC Graham Coe made a false statement to the Hutton Inquiry about the number of individuals he was accompanied by in the vicinity of Harrowdown Hill, Oxfordshire.

1. When did Thames Valley Police first become aware that DC Coe had made a false statement to the Hutton Inquiry?

2. Did Thames Valley Police conduct an internal inquiry of any type into DC Coe's false statement? Did Thames Valley Police impose any disciplinary penalty on DC Coe?

3. What steps have Thames Valley Police made to inform the public about DC Coe's false statement?

4. Has Thames Valley Police ever issued a formal statement to the public on the matter? If so, on what date? I ask for a copy of any and all such statements.

5. Has Thames Valley Police ever publicly apologised about this matter?

6. Was Chief Constable Peter Neyroud party to the concealment of DC Coe's false testimony?

7. What costs have been incurred by Thames Valley Police subsequent to 16th September 2003 as a result of promptly failing to be open and honest about DC Coe's false testimony?

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

FOI Request to Thames Valley Police re vehicle with a communications mast

The following Freedom of Information request was sent to Thames Valley Police on 8th December 2010.

Thames Valley Police have refused to answer the question. That refusal was sent to me on 8th January 2011.

I asked for a formal internal review. Following that review, Thames Valley Police continue to refuse to answer the question.

Thames Valley Police allocated the request the following reference: RFI2010000848

This is a Freedom of Information request.

With respect to the vehicle with a communications mast on it (described by Janice Kelly in evidence to the Hutton Inquiry at Lines 7 and 8 on Page 53 at http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans24.htm ),

1. At what time on 17th July 2003 or 18th July 2003 was the presence of the vehicle at the Kelly home requested?

2. At what time on 18th July 2003 did the vehicle arrive at the Kelly house?

3. On whose authority was the presence of the vehicle requested?

4. Where, in July 2003, was the vehicle normally based?

5. From what location did the vehicle travel to the Kelly house?

6. Which organisation(s) owned the vehicle and its associated communications equipment?

7. What was the make and model of the communications equipment on the vehicle?

8. What was the maximum range of the communications equipment on the vehicle?

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

FOI Internal Review Request to Thames Valley Police re communication of fingerprint evidence to the Hutton Inquiry

This post consists primarily of the text of a Freedom of Information Internal Review Request sent earlier today to Thames Valley Police regarding the communication of (or failure to communicate) fingerprint evidence to the Hutton Inquiry.

Thames Valley Police Reference No: RFI2011000175

The issue is important since it helps to clarify where the "concealment of evidence" in relation to fingerprint evidence arises.

If Thames Valley Police communicated the fingerprint evidence to the Hutton Inquiry then the ultimate responsibility for the concealment of that evidence lies with Lord Hutton and counsel to the Inquiry.

If Thames Valley Police withheld the fingerprint evidence then that organisation's culpability regarding "concealment of evidence" is evident.

The text of the Internal Review Request is here:

Mr. Hopgood,

I write to request an internal review of your initial decision.

I do not accept that my request was "vexatious".

My request asks for information that, so far as I'm aware, neither myself nor anybody else has previously requested.

Additionally, you seem to have failed appropriately to have taken into account the time span since any previous FOI requests by myself which have been answered. In doing that it appears to me that your decision is wrong in terms of the Act.

Further, the seeming declaration in the email of 1st April 2011 and previous correspondence that any question from me about the "subject" of Dr. David Kelly's death is "vexatious" seems to me to be a transparent attempt at obstructing the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act by yourself and Thames Valley Police.

To the best of my understanding there is no power given in the Act to declare a "subject" off limits. It seems to me that this is what you are seeking to do.

Additionally, as I have expressed in previous correspondence, I consider that some members of staff in Thames Valley Police in 2003 and in 2010-11 may have "perverted the course of justice" with respect to the concealment of what I believe to be the murder of Dr. David Kelly. I view your obstructiveness with respect to Freedom of Information requests in that context.

You are, I believe, aware that I have formally written to the Chief Officers of Thames Valley Police regarding the matter of the perceived perverting the course of justice both in 2003 and 2010-11.

In that context I believe that I have a "proper or justified cause" as expressed on page 2 of the ICO guidance to which you refer. ( http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/detailed_specialist_guides/awareness_guidance_22_vexatious_and_repeated_requests_final.pdf )

Since, in my opinion, the evidence indicates that Thames Valley Police is engaging in the process of perverting the course of justice in relation to a murder, it seems to me that a powerful case can be made on appeal to the Information Commissioner that I have a "proper or justified cause".

In the interests of transparency and public accountability, I anticipate that the text of this email will be posted on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/ or my "Come Clean on Kelly" blog, http://comecleanonkelly.blogspot.com/ .

I look forward to your reply.

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt

FOI Refusal by Thames Valley Police re communication of fingerprint evidence to the Hutton Inquiry

This post consists largely of a Freedom of Information Refusal by Thames Valley Police dated 1st April 2011 in relation to a request relating to whether or not Thames Valley Police withheld fingerprint evidence from the Hutton Inquiry.

The text of the Refusal by Thames Valley Police follows:

Dear Dr Watt

Reference No: RFI2011000175

I write in connection to your request for information dated 06/03/2011 which for clarity I repeat below.

For each of the listed items was the absence of fingerprints on the item concerned communicated to the Hutton Inquiry and, where such evidence was communicated, on what date it was communicated to the Hutton Inquiry together with the Hutton Inquiry reference number for the document in which such information was communicated?

1. The knife found at Harrowdown Hill

2. The water bottle found at Harrowdown Hill

3. The blister packs for co-proxamol found at Harrowdown Hill

4. The mobile phone found at Harrowdown Hill

5. The watch found at Harrowdown Hill

As Thames Valley Police is aware it is my view that a number of individuals including Thames Valley Police officers may have perverted the course of justice with respect to the death of Dr. David Kelly. Such considerations apply, in my view, in 2003 and in 2010/11.

We regard your request for information as vexatious and by virtue of section 14(1) of the Act we are therefore not obliged to comply with it.

In reaching this decision, we have taken into account guidance on “Vexatious or repeated requests” issued by the Information Commissioner on 3 December 2008. We have also considered your request in the context of numerous previous requests on this subject made by you (19 including this one since 27 October 2010). In that context, we take the view that your current request can fairly be seen as obsessive, that complying with it would impose a significant burden on police officers and staff and that it lacks serious purpose or value. In our refusal notice dated 6 January 2011 in respect of other requests, we asked you to note that further requests by you on this subject may be treated as vexatious.

This letter represents a refusal notice under section 17 of the Act.

I have attached our Complaints Procedure to this email as the first stage of appealing this decision is by writing to me and requesting an Internal Review, detailing why you believe our decision is not in accordance with the FOIA.

FOI Request to Thames Valley Police re the "communications blackout" at Harrowdown Hill on 18th July 2003

This post puts on record a Freedom of Information request made to Thames Valley Police on 21st May 2011.

Thames Valley Police did not disclose to the Hutton Inquiry that any type of "communications blackout" was imposed.

Further, the "communications blackout", if it occurred, took place during the period when the "secret helicopter flight" took place at Harrowdown Hill, including the intriguing "secret helicopter landing".

This post, The Death of David Kelly - The Secret Helicopter Landing of 18th July 2003, contains the text of my communication of 3rd April 2011 to the Attorney General on the matter.

Here is the text of the Freedom of Information request.

This is a Freedom of Information request.

Press reports indicate that a "communications blackout" was imposed at Harrowdown Hill on 18th July 2003. This information (if accurate) was not, so far as I'm aware, disclosed to the Hutton Inquiry.

By "communications blackout" I mean any request or requirement by Thames Valley Police (or other agency) that radio or other communications equipment of any type, e.g. that in the ambulance of Vanessa Hunt and Dave Bartlett, should not be used.

1. On 18th July 2003 which individuals, after logging out of the outer cordon were asked not to leave the area or otherwise prevented by Thames Valley Police (or other agency) from leaving the area of Harrowdown Hill and/or Longworth Village?

2. Was a "communications blackout" imposed at or close to Harrowdown Hill at any time on 18th July 2003?

3. If so, at what time did the "communications blackout" start? (If there was more than one "communications blackout", I ask for such information for each blackout period.)

4. At what time did the "communications blackout" finish? (If there was more than one "communications blackout", I ask for such information for each blackout period.)

5. Was the imposition of the "communications blackout" related to the presence in the vicinity of Harrowdown Hill related to the secret helicopter flight from around 10.25 to 11.00?

6. What was the purpose of each period of "communications blackout"?

7. On whose authority was the "communications blackout" imposed?

Thank you

(Dr) Andrew Watt