All Episodes
Previous Next
May 31, 2017 - Project Camelot
01:24:28
ALAN DRANSFIELD : FREEDOM OF INFORMATION & LIGHTNING
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everyone, I'm Carrie Cassidy from Project Camelot and we have had some sound difficulties with Alan Drensfield who I am interviewing here and we're going to be talking about the Freedom of Information Act.
I want to check and make sure the sound is okay at this moment so if everyone can kind of give us a signal there it would be very helpful.
And Alan, say hello to everyone.
Yes, good morning everyone.
Alan Dransfield in Boston, UK. Okay, and what we're going to do, we're doing things a bit slightly backwards here, I guess you might say.
So just bear with us.
I'm going to now read your bio, and at the same time, I will bring the banner onto the screen so that we can identify the show.
And very sorry for the unusual start.
I've not had that problem with Google Hangouts in the past.
For some reason, there was no sound whatsoever.
We couldn't figure out why.
We had sound on Skype.
Everything was fine at our end, but not going through broadcast.
So we are now broadcasting, and I'm told it is working.
So excellent to know that.
So I'm just going to back up a bit here and see if I can get this bio here.
Actually, why don't we just go ahead with you, and you can introduce yourself in this case, Alan, because I'm afraid in the rush to get you back on the air on this different channel, I seem to have lost your bio.
So, go ahead.
No problems, Kerry.
First of all, thank you very much for the invitation to come and discuss the Freedom of Information Act problems on your show.
It's very kind of you.
Thank you very much.
And it must simply be the gremlins or the Russians that got into your system.
Yes, exactly.
Well, after all...
We blame the Russians or the Gremlins on everything.
My name is Alan M. Dransfield.
I'm a 66-year-old Freedom of Information campaigner and a social watchdog from Boston, Lincolnshire in the good old UK. And I'll just touch on one small subject, that we have a common connection.
I was born and raised less than 500 metres away from where the Founding Fathers, as you guys refer them, and we refer to them as the Pilgrim Fathers, where they set sail on their first attempt to find religious freedom across the seas because there is a monument.
It's not because I'm a history freak, guys.
There is a monument that was erected there in 1957 when I was seven, six or seven years of age, and I passed that monument Twice a day to school, and so it's etched in my brain.
I can read what was on there even now.
Unfortunately, at that time, in September 1607, they were captured and imprisoned again.
I can't remember how long for.
And then they escaped from prison, or were they given the freedom, and then they set sail from Plymouth in the Mayflower, and the rest, as we say, is history.
But some 400 years later, it's a 400-year centenary in September, and a lot of Americans will be over, because it's a very big connection between the states, Boston and Boston, UK, because of the long history we have.
Incredibly, Okay, we've still got the religious persecution all over the world, but that's not what I'm here to talk about today.
We have got freedom of information persecution because that is exactly what is happening to the United Kingdom's Freedom of Information Act.
Joe Public, that's me, And everybody like-minded, they've been denied access to the Freedom of Information Act to get public information that should be readily available under the Act.
And we have to go back to the year 2000, When Tony Lyre, Tony Lyre Blair as I like to call him, the evil man, but he was the guy that invented or brought the freedom of information into the statutory act.
It was designed and brought forward in 2000, but it wasn't enacted and used until the year 2005, which I think is probably some 30, 35 years or so, 40 years later, where you guys introduced it, because you guys introduced the Freedom of Information Act in 1966.
And I remember it very well, because that is the only time that Manchester United...
It's that England won the World Cup, which you call soccer, but I digress again.
But these are connected.
Unfortunately, fortunately for you, your system is working quite well.
Unfortunately for the United Kingdom, it is being ironically attacked by dark forces and majesty's courts and majesty's judges.
Rogue public authorities.
And where I use a term that I'm not sure if you guys will be familiar with, do excuse me if I just explain it because the systems are different a little bit.
A public authority in the UK is the tax office, a local council, a police authority, this and that.
And what Tony Blair had in mind, he said, oh, look at us.
We're so wonderful.
We've got no secrets.
If you need to know anything, put a Freedom of Information request in and we will tell you anything you need to know.
Only three months ago, and it's in his life story, he said that was the worst day's work he'd ever done.
So that just goes to show what a fraud Tony Blair is, because he said that was the worst thing that he'd ever done while he was the Prime Minister.
Okay, well, actually, Alan, let me stop you there and just ask you, why was that the worst?
You know, looking at it from his point of view, not yours, okay, for the moment, why do you think he said that?
I say that, Kerry, because he had been found out, because going back, For seven or eight years, there was a lady, Heather Brooke.
This is where it all started to go downhill for the freedom of information.
She was a journalist, and she had a whisper that the MPs, politicians, lords and ladies were fiddling their expenses.
And yes, indeed, they were.
And that was a major scandal at that time.
They were fiddling and stealing their expenses.
And it's well documented.
It's not just conjecture from...
Boston Lincolnshire.
It is well documented, and I invite the listeners, viewers, to check that out.
Heather Brook, she exposed the MPs.
They were cheating.
It's not just a few pounds, thousands of pounds, and obviously this was coming out of the public purse.
So I maintain that this is why Tony Blair said, well, this is not such a good idea.
And then they all got together at a later stage in their wine bars, as they do.
Now, we need a cunning plan to stop the Joe public getting this information.
Oh, yes, I know what we can do.
We've got this Dransfield guy before us shortly, and we'll find him fixations.
And exactly that's what happened.
Because in 2009, I put in a Freedom of Information request to my local authority, Which was the Devon County Council because for the past 30 years I left my home in Boston, UK to work and live down in Exeter, Devon.
And there was a particular rugby bridge that I had very serious concerns for the safety.
It hadn't been provisioned with lightning protection.
And my company actually built this bridge And they terminated me or what you call canned, sacked, when I raised this issue.
So I thought, well, okay, I will go around the back door and find this information.
And so this is where the vexatious Dransfield history started because the bridge certainly was not provisioned with lightning protection.
So the worst case scenario, you may have one person on the bridge 50 people on the bridge or 500 people.
It's a massive bridge from one side of the highway to the other to the rugby ground.
And when people are passing over this bridge and in the event there was a lightning strike, the worst case scenario is that five people, one people, 500 people could be killed or seriously injured.
So the fact that it could happen, it hasn't happened.
But it could happen.
And so when the Devon County said to me, no, you can't have this information because you're vexatious, that was the first time that that had been this section 14.1 of the Freedom of Information Act had been used adequately and successfully.
So I appeal that vexatious decision to the Information Commissioner, who I refer to as the ICO. And surprise, surprise, they agreed with the Devon County Council and they said, yes, Mr Drumsfield, you're vexatious.
So my next step to that was going to what they call the first tier tribunal.
And this is going back to 2010 or 2011, something like that.
And lo and behold, I came across a very, very eloquent and a very honest Judge at the First Year Tribunal, an Indian lady, and her name slips my mind at this moment in time, and she said, no, Mr Devon County Council, Mr Information Commissioner, you are both wrong.
Not only are you very wrong, you are unlawful.
Mr.
Dransfield's freedom of information request is benign, it is straightforward, it's polite written, and you will give him the information that he's asking and you will give it within 31 days or I will find you in contempt of court.
And I was ecstatic.
Hallelujah!
Hallelujah said me, the freedom of information campaigner.
But Then the Devon County Council or the Information Commissioner had 31 days to appeal that first-tier tribunal.
And usually it is the court authority, the public authority that makes the appeal.
But in this case, my case, it wasn't.
It was the Information Commissioner who appealed the first-tier tribunal's non-vexatious decision to the upper tribunal.
And this is where it really gets sticky and dirty because the rogue judge who sat on the upper tribunal, he said, no, the first-tier tribunal are very wrong.
Mr Dransfield, your request was vexatious because your request held no public interest, it had no serious purpose, and you, sir, have used the Freedom of Information Act improperly.
And I said to him, and I do hope I'm allowed to use this word because I use it.
It's American connection.
I think it's wonderful and very bullshit.
I told him.
Because that is exactly what it is.
Because I told you the worst case scenario on that bridge is 500 people could be killed.
So his public interest, no public interest and no serious purpose, crashes on takeoff.
There and then.
So I maintain now that this was fabricated by the Information Commissioner and the upper tribunal.
They were complicit to raise this vexatious decision, and then they could use that in the future.
I didn't know that at the time, but as the weeks and months progressed, and to date, and you quite rightly said in your introduction, The Dransfield vexatious decision has now been used 6,500 or thereabouts As a vexatious gateway which prevents public authorities from washing their dirty laundry in public.
So it is simply a get-out-of-jail-free card by the public authority as a scapegoat and to hide.
This Transfield vexatious nonsense bullshit has been designed by crooks to protect crooks.
Right.
Okay, very interesting.
Well said, and apparently you have a very good case.
Now, is there any legal means for you to do an appeal on that act?
Unfortunately, Kerry, no.
I have exhausted all legal avenues to try to redress this situation.
And from the upper tribunal, I appealed to the Court of Appeal, which is the UK system.
And the UK Court of Appeal upheld the upper tribunal decision.
Kidding.
On what basis, if it's very clear that if lightning strikes a bridge, and assuming that that was found to be the case, in other words, I don't know if you brought experts out or you're an expert.
Yes, I am an expert, yes.
You are an expert, okay.
And was that documented in your request, in other words, that you are an expert?
Absolutely.
It was all well documented, but the Court of Appeal upheld the tribunal's decision to say that my claims were fabricated.
I forget which actual word, but there is a...
A nursery rhyme in the UK that goes back years and years.
I forget the name of the nursery rhyme.
And it's about a young lady, a young girl that sings about, oh, help, help, help, the fox is coming, the house is on fire.
And the judge, the Court of Appeal judge...
She recognised me as making false allegations.
And I said, you can't be serious.
Of course I'm not making false allegations.
But anyway, from there, I appealed to the Supreme Court.
And the Supreme Court, they came back and they wouldn't allow me to progress.
Into the Supreme Court because they said, I've got no arguable case.
And again, I said to the Supreme Court, bullshit.
Of course I've got case and argument because I'm talking about 5,500 people being dead on a bridge.
Okay, so may I ask you, you know, the way it works with companies, and I imagine the company got quite involved behind the scenes here and may be partially responsible for the rulings that came forward.
In other words, if they found in your side, then they would have to Do repairs to fix the bridge, to get the bridge up to speed, so that if lightning did strike, whatever the repercussions would be, wouldn't happen.
Is that correct?
You're absolutely correct, and the company that I work for, because this is not a question of sour grapes or I'm not happy with a particular lawful decision that came through.
This derived, because I work for the company, and I don't mind naming names, and they work in the States, so I would warn anybody working in the States to be very careful of this company.
It's the biggest construction company in Europe, and it's called Balfabeti.
And we had a company policy.
I was a project engineer for them, going back from 2005.
And we were under instructions and under oath that if we saw any particular issues at any time, That could feed back and give problems with Balfabeti at a later stage.
We were entitled and we were protected that we should speak.
So when I saw this incident and then I checked it out thoroughly myself and then I highlighted it to my line manager and then within a matter of weeks I was canned.
I was sacked.
Well that's also...
So were you not able to take a case on that?
Absolutely.
I must say, Kerry, you've got a very astute and business mind and legal mind, I must say.
And yes, that was the start.
And I went to an industrial tribunal.
And again, you have to say, and I have to say, that Balfour Beatty has got so much influence with these courts, etc., etc.
And I was found to be, because I maintain that I was unlawfully terminated due to...
For my whistleblower activities.
Yes, absolutely.
Which under the UK law, it's called APEDA, Public Information Distribution or something like that, 1989.
So I sought protection on that.
And they said, no, you were not unfairly terminated, Mr Dransfield.
You were terminated under redundancy, which is absolute and utter bullshit.
And that's why I started to go and get the information...
With the hope that I could go back and revisit the employment situation.
But no, that's completely closed down now.
All the legal avenues within the UK, First Year Tribunal, Court of Appeal, and even into Europe, Strasbourg, I took it there.
And incredibly, I find that the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg In Europe are Mickey Mouse.
They are a joke.
And this is not, again, just convection by Dransfield in Boston, Lincolnshire.
For example, I put in my file, and you've got six months from the date of the decision.
So six months from the Supreme Court, I put in an application to the European Court of Human Rights.
And within two months, I had a letter back from a lady...
Her name slips my mind at this moment in time.
She's the assistant registrar.
And she came back to me and said, oh, Mr Dransfield, you are one page missing of your application form.
We are now going to destroy your whole bundle.
You will renew.
So I phoned and I faxed and I said, please don't do that.
I will send you the page.
No, this is our strict policy.
You must do this again.
So at my cost and my And filing and photocopying.
I did this again.
And after four months, she came back.
Same excuse.
Mr.
Dransfield, you are one other, which I knew I wasn't.
She did this three times.
And the third time, she then came back and said, oh, by the way, your six months now has expired.
You will not be allowed to renew.
That's you done.
That's you finished.
So to my mind, Lafferty, Michelle Lafferty is her name, and I don't mind naming names.
And she is the assistant registrar at the European Court of Justice, who is the gatekeeper for the Tory government.
Because the Tories and the Conservative government are completely and utterly within the driving seat of this vexatious bullshit.
Oh, okay.
Well, actually, no, this is very interesting.
So you actually took this to the European court.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Okay, and based on some nefarious situation, they said that you had a paper missing, and therefore it was okay for them to keep postponing dealing with your case, in essence.
Absolutely, yes.
And then, in essence, the time was up, and then you had no recourse.
Absolutely.
I know of another two or three dozen people who have been treated in a certain manner.
Okay, now I'm just curious, because your case is very sort of unique to Britain, and now we see it has an extension in Europe.
How is it that perhaps you didn't ever go to the press?
Because this is quite a good local story.
I did indeed.
I went to my local press, and I actually went to my local television, which was the BBC. There you start to laugh.
Okay, this is good.
The BBC, because in actual fact, the BBC have used the Dransfield Vexatius case more than once to stop their freedom of information going out.
Ah.
But I was interviewed under camera on the bridge, and there I am walking up and down the bridge, and I was with the BBC reporter and the cameraman.
I must have been there for two hours to get a three-minute, and I understand that.
That's fine.
But the outcome, and I clearly told them the situation, as I've told you today, and he was very interested, and they shot it.
And I told them, I said, in two weeks' time, I am going to the Court of Appeal to appeal this upper tribunal vexatious nonsense.
And try and try and try as I can to contact the BBC, the local in Exeter, Devon.
They weren't interested on what had happened at the Court of Appeal.
So, for what reason?
And unfortunately, we find this in Britain, the Freedom of Information campaigners, we find that the general media, all across the board, political persuasions, they've gone completely and utterly silent.
They don't want to rumble.
They don't want to make trouble.
It's not like Heather Brooke, I think she was in The Independent, when she blew the whistle on the original...
Right.
Okay, so, but I'm just curious, did the small segment with you on the bridge that the BBC shot, did that ever get shown?
Oh, absolutely.
But locally.
Locally.
Locally in Devon.
And then, at the very last 30 seconds or one minute of the three or four minutes segment, it shows you the same reporter who had interviewed me one hour before on the bridge,
outside the Devon County Council offices, which is the local authority, saying, oh, we've been here to the Devon County Council to get the version of the Devon County Council Chief Executive, but he hasn't come out, he's not prepared to make a statement, other than Mr Dransfield is making false allegations about our bridge, and he's vexatious.
Oh, wow.
Okay, very interesting.
So every which way I move, I'm vexatious.
And really and truly, Kerry, this is a very heavy cross for me to bear because so many people, well, 6,500 people that I know about and thousands maybe more that I don't know about because the only ones that I know about who have been shelved is by the Information Commissioner...
Who have said, no, you can't have it because Transfield, Section 14.1, you're vexatious.
And so simply, in a nutshell, they're using this as a scapegoat, as a get-out-of-free-jail card, when some thieving, lying, cheating chief executive officer of a local council or something like this do not want to pass on the information.
And I'll give you another good example of where this bears in mind.
The Devon County Council, only 15-18 months ago, they built this brand new eco-school down in Deep Devon, Devonport or somewhere like that I think it was, and I was aware of this, and according to the Devon County Council Chief Executive, They'd had all the trumpets and the drums and play.
These are the wonderful schools of the future.
We've got dandelions on the roof and we can collect the rain harvest and we flush the toilet.
They're fantastic.
This is the thing of the future.
Within three months, the rain was absolutely perfect.
Peeing through the roof, down the wall, down the wall and into the electrical sockets, which I'm sure we all know is not good.
And these schools were then demolished in their entirety.
Oh my God.
And only six months before, I put a Freedom of Information request into the Devon County Council, who are the biggest culprits and fraudsters possible in the UK on this, and they said, no, you can't have this information, Mr Dransfield, with these new schools, because, like before, your request is vexatious.
How the hell can my request be vexatious here?
We're going to acknowledge the bloody schools.
The schools cost £16 million, and then they had to rebuild them for another £16-20 million.
That's fascinating.
Absolutely.
Now, okay, I'm going to ask you again.
In this case, did you get any kind of press involved and make a report to them and get this in Devon?
Obviously, this would be of interest to the residents.
Absolutely, absolutely not.
Because the Devon Press are not interested.
Absolutely not interested.
Another issue, and you'll see where I'm coming from, there were six brand new, what we call PFI schools in the UK, Private Financed Initiative.
And this is where, like companies of Balfour BT, they'll take £600 million from the government, Treasury, and they will go off and they will design these schools, they will provide the teachers, they will provide the sports equipment, they will provide all the gardens and everything, and the teachers and the headmistress, and it's completely turned out to be an utter shambles.
So there's six of these in my hometown, Exeter, Devon, and I'd put a Freedom of Information request in, and it had gone through to the Information Commissioner, no, you're vexatious, the first-tier tribunal, you're vexatious, and it was due to go to the upper tribunal last year, but then when the Court of Appeal had found me vexatious, they turned around and said, no, you can't go any further.
The Court of Appeal have said, you're vexatious, that's the end of the matter.
So how much cover-up are we talking about here?
We're talking about multi-million pound fraud.
That's what it is.
Yes, yes.
Okay, now I've got an idea for you and I wonder if you thought of it and or tried it at any point.
What about the notion of finding one of these situations and then having someone else file the freedom of information under their name?
Would they get the same reply, do you think?
Well, that's a very good question.
There's no flies on you, girl.
I'll tell you that.
You should come with me to the next step of the tribunal.
No, that's a very good question.
And I did this because now I'm going back three to four years.
And When I put my Freedom of Information request in for the bridge, I requested what was called an as-built health and safety file.
And I'm sure you have a very similar situation in the States.
Just a little bit of explanatory.
It is the same situation where if you get a brand new truck or a brand new fridge, it's the manual.
And it will tell you what the tyres are, what the tyre pressure are, the bulbs and things, etc, etc.
Now, on this particular thing, the as-built healthy safety file for this particular bridge, it would tell you what type of concrete was used, steel, electrics, blah, blah, blah.
And I knew if I got that, I could then prove that that bridge had not been Built as purported it was built and not built to standards.
So I got a friend of mine to put in a freedom...
This is quite funny.
He put in a freedom of information request saying something like, from the top of my head, Dear Mr Devon County Council, please provide me with a copy of the Health and Safety as built file for the Exeter Chiefs Rugby Pitch Bridge.
And they came back to him...
Yeah, you guessed it.
And they said, no.
Your request is vexatious, in line with Dransfield, blah, blah, blah, blah.
So he wrote back, under my guidance, I wrote the letter for him, saying, Sir, no, you will, under the Freedom of Information now, review this, and please be aware, I am not acting in complicity, which they said he was.
He was acting with me to defraud...
The Devon County and not to get this information.
Wow.
This is not the situation.
And they came back and they said, yes, Mr.
Joe Ploggs, we understand that.
And that was a mistake for us to say that you were acting in...
No apology.
No nothing.
But we did get the as-built health and safety file for that bridge.
And Guess what?
Lightning is not even mentioned one single time in this file.
So, had it been built and built to standard and built to the health and safety, which is the equivalent of your OSHA, and I've had lots of dealing with OSHA because I've done 14, 15 years in the Middle East in my industry, and I've got great respect for the OSHA way of going on.
But the health and safety in England...
They're a joke.
They are acting in complicity with a Majesty's Judge.
And I will go on to explain this in a little bit more.
So, yes, you're quite right.
Someone else put a Freedom of Information request in on his behalf.
No, you can't have it because you're vexatious.
Then they change their mind.
No, you're not vexatious.
Here's the information.
And the information proves, irrefutably, that that bridge has not got any lightning protection.
Okay.
Now, had you...
So...
You worked for the company that built the bridge originally, correct?
Yes, indeed, but not actually on that bridge.
I was working on other projects, but as I said to you before, part and parcel of their policy and procedures, we were duty-bound if we knew or we heard of any corruption.
It's all a bullshit policy.
I understand.
I'm going around there and I saw this.
Oh my goodness, this is terrible.
I report it back and I was terminated.
You worked for a company now.
Did you ever talk to the other employees, even people who worked on the bridge?
Oh, absolutely.
And before I put the Freedom of Information request in to Devon County Council, this was probably six months or 12 months before, I informed my line management.
And I have proof of emails.
I've still got my emails and letters and discussions with them because I was saying things like, look, I was told that I must report any serious incidents, and I'm telling you that that bridge has not got lightning protection, and I'm also telling you it will come back if some people are killed on that bridge, and we need to do something about it.
I've been instructed to do this by senior management.
Get out of here.
You're out.
Get out.
Kick me out.
Okay, now what I'm curious about is, is this a standard for bridges?
I don't know nothing about construction of bridges, but it sounds kind of logical.
in other words that bridges need to have this lightning protection and uh and why would they even you know there are there are things that we call building codes as far as i know and a building code would necessarily require some kind of certificate where they'd have to go inspect it and then come up and say yes it's lightning safe absolutely it's a good job
i don't start telling lies to you because you've got to pull me up straight away.
It's fantastic of your knowledge.
We have a situation very similar.
This particular bridge was on a very high part of the ground.
It is one of the high spots of Devon, which...
It would automatically bring the attention to the designers.
Guys, we've got a serious problem here.
We're building a quite a very tall bridge, 150 meter bridge, all of steel.
We need to find this out.
And I know because I have got information that the bridge designers and the bridge project team Did not even ask the county council and their designers if they wanted lightning protection until about a month or six weeks before the bridge was finished, which is far, far, far too late.
Ah, that's the problem.
That would be the serious situation.
I see.
Just out of curiosity, I know this maybe is belaboring the point, but just out of curiosity, what about the notion of, first of all, getting a lawyer to represent you, and number two, also wondering, If there are other things wrong with the bridge.
In other words, the indications would be that if something like that, it sounds pretty substantial, especially coming in the UK where you are in a sort of a northerly area where there's lots of rain and lightning storms and so on.
If this is standard procedure to have lightning protection on a bridge and it was overlooked by the company in that case, it's very likely there are other constructions they've done, including that bridge, that are overlooking other requirements.
Have you ever tried to find those other requirements or talk to anyone to do so?
Firstly, to answer your question about lawyers, when anyone mentions lawyer to me, the hair on my back comes up.
I have no faith.
I have represented myself all the way through these courts, and I think I've done quite well.
I haven't had a victory, but I don't have letters costing 150, 200 pounds by your lawyer.
Sure.
So I'm very dubious of lawyers.
Yes, getting back to your next question, are there other issues?
And there are actually.
And I'll give you one specific example.
Balfour Beatty, in 2012...
We had the Olympics down in London.
And after it was finished, a brand new stadium, someone in their wisdom, which was Boris Johnson, who is now the Forest Secretary, one of the biggest idiots on the face of the planet.
God help us if we ever get into war, but I don't wish to digress.
What a lovely idea if we demolish that new stadium and build another brand new stadium for the World Cup of Rugby in 2015.
Incredible.
So they paid, they, the government and the City of London paid £114 million to Balfour Beatty to refurbish this brand new stadium.
That was in 2014 and in 2015 it was finished and it was £700 million over budget.
700 million pounds.
And the mayor has quite rightly asked for a forensic investigation.
But this is also one of my freedom of information projects because that stadium also has not been provisioned with lightning protection.
And to get back to your point about the certificate, Balfour Beatty got these people to bring in a certificate.
Oh, look, Dransfield is wrong.
There's this certificate here.
And this is from one of the top lightning experts.
And in a nutshell, I've gone back to them and said, look, that is a fraudulent certificate, it's bullshit, and you've brought it forward just to win this Freedom of Information case.
It has not got lightning protection on the stadium, and I have proven that it's not got lightning protection, and I have proved to them through their own specifications and their own risk assessments That this stadium has not been provisioned with lining protection.
The worst case scenario, and you must always consider the worst case, when you're a civil engineer, electrical engineer, you must consider the worst case scenario.
The worst case scenario at this Olympic Stadium is that you may well have...
60, 70, 100,000 people at a pop concert come two or three months' time.
And there is absolutely no lightning protection for what they call the field area, the track area.
None at all.
They claim there is some lightning protection for the stadium.
I argue deeply that it's wrong.
So, really and truly, Dransfield and Balfour Beatty are in a peeing competition about what is right and what is wrong.
They bring this certificate, which is bullshit, and in their own statements, they clearly say the track and the field area has not got any lightning protection.
So you might have a big band in there and 50,000 people in that track area, the track and the field area, that are not protected under their own admittance.
It's crazy.
Fascinating.
Okay, well that's very interesting.
This could actually get into a discussion about what I call weather wars.
Because there is reason to believe that, first of all, the weather is controlled, but also the fact that actually there's a weapon that they're using currently and developing, which is called, to some degree, ball lightning.
But it's also the use of lightning for the purposes of...
You know, devising weapons, etc.
So, you know, what you're really, you might be tapping into is a larger, I know it seems large enough, what you're tapping into, certainly, but it may actually be something a bit larger than what you've even envisioned,
because we're talking about something that has to do with the larger picture, as it were, in terms of Protecting people under conditions of weather warfare in which it would be easy enough for them to use ball lightning or these other things that they're trying to work on in what we call black projects.
And I don't know if you're familiar with all of that or have thought about it.
Yes, indeed I am.
But I haven't touched upon it because I'm also familiar with HART, H-A-A-R-T. Which is another weather and sound weapon.
Okay, do you mean HARP? Are you talking about HARP? Yes, HARP. Right.
Yes, of course.
But so many people, the average Joe Bloggs is not familiar with this.
And it's nice for you to mention this because you are obviously familiar.
And what I find with the general public, certainly the general public in the United Kingdom, As long as they've got their television programs and a full stomach, they're not really bothered about the future.
Because this is what I'm bothered about.
I'm bothered about the future, my grandchildren, and people that are using these facilities.
And I can give you dozens of locations where there are lightning protection issues.
Okay.
Where there's been failures by not only Balfour Beatty, but definitely by the planning authorities.
Very interesting.
Well, actually, this interview is going public, and so people that might be interested in this sort of thing could delve into it in more depth, and also scientists.
Have you thought of consulting a scientist on this matter?
No, frankly, I haven't.
I haven't even thought of that because I'm just an ordinary Joe Bloggs and I probably don't have the intelligence to have made that.
Well, I wouldn't say that.
You sound quite intelligent to me.
I would say if you were able to find...
You know, a scientist who worked with things like lightning and the effects of lightning, etc., etc., they might be able to bring a sort of more scholarly angle to your case.
In actual fact, what I have got, I've got a connection with one of the U.S.'s leading, and I won't mention names, but be He is one of the US's leading lightning protection specialists.
What this guy doesn't know about lightning is not worth knowing.
He agrees with me and my principles, what I'm saying.
And going back, you've actually alerted me to something now and it's quite frightening because what is also happening in the UK and I've worked in the Middle East, I've worked overseas and there is in actual fact a scam A very major scam in lightning going on.
And the problem is when the average Joe Bloggs is writing about, they see things.
And these are being installed in refineries, oil refineries, gas refineries, and even on nuclear stations.
And what it is, it is a huge, great...
You know the old-fashioned chimney sweep brush when you used to push it up the chimney and it came out, it was like a big Christmas tree.
No, I don't.
I'm sorry.
This is something very British, I think, but go ahead.
Oh, no, no, no, definitely not British.
It is an American design.
It's used in the States and it's used all over the world, but it's actually banned.
In the United States, and they're still using it.
So I have tried to alert, and one of the world's leading oil companies, Saudi Aramco, who I also worked for six years, that was my last delve into the overseas market, and I'm retired now, back in the UK. They're using it.
And what it professes to purport to do is not to collect the lightning, as in the conventional...
What happens under a proper system, you've seen on the cathedrals, they have huge, great lightning finials, and when the lightning comes, it will strike the finials, and it will, what they call, dissipate down to the ground, and earthen...
And all the dangers taken away.
But this particular scam where this huge great Christmas tree, this steel Christmas tree, is sitting on top of a nuclear site or an oil refinery, it will make lightning go away.
Now how the bloody hell can they say that it will send lightning away?
It will prevent the strike from happening.
There is nothing in God's world that can absolutely remove lightning.
Lightning, and it is quite exciting to think that they can remake, and what's the word I'm looking for, to reintroduce lightning.
Because they do this in the laboratories to test lightning strikes.
So if they can do this, they can...
They can, in essence, make a lightning gun.
I wouldn't like to see the size of the bloody holster though.
Right.
Well, no, just to make me, I just want to understand what you're saying.
So you're saying that they have installed this, I don't know what you call it, a broom or a tower or some kind of device that's supposed to collect lightning.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
And from just...
I haven't got my notes.
It's called a DAS system.
It's the Dissipation Array System.
And what it's saying or purporting that it can prevent lightning striking...
The presence, the premises, or the structure, which is complete and utter nonsense.
And it's been proven, it's a scientific fact, that this DAS system, and it's also called a CHAR system, for the next interview in the show, I will have all the technical details if you would like.
I can get on something.
It is a scam.
Okay, so is now this expert that you consulted in America, does he also know it's a scam and is this why it's banned in America?
Oh, absolutely.
Okay, he agrees.
And so have you, in other words, has anybody brought the case because you're saying it's still in use even though it's banned?
Absolutely.
And you see, the thing is, unfortunately, it's the same across the states and it's the same across the world.
People who are in positions We'll not rock the boat because they've got a mortgage, they've got children, and it's happened.
I know of situations where these things happen, and they will turn a blind eye.
And I'm one of these people that will not turn a blind eye.
If I see something wrong, and it's my duty of care, I will speak out, whatever the concept.
I certainly see that.
Well, I mean, it's a wonderful thing that you will.
Now, it's very interesting.
So isn't there a way, though, because, you know, you've got this expert and you've got yourself, who is also an expert, apparently, and the two of you could make quite a good case, it seems to me, and especially if you're talking about A major industry like nuclear power plants, for one thing, that's very dangerous.
If you had evidence that one of these things was in place in the nuclear power plant, it would be quite an interesting case to bring, wouldn't it?
Yes, it would.
You're actually dropping things on me now, which I have no problems at all, Kerry, and it's great, and I'm just having to stutter a little bit.
And I just recall, only a matter of six months ago or something like this, when I was revisiting this scam, Lightning Protection, I wrote to the equivalent of OSHA in this country, the Health and Safety Executive, and the Ministry of Defence.
And I got a letter back from them saying, Different letters, but within a day of each other, which I'm very sceptical of these people, they obviously spoke to each other, and they said something like,
oh, Mr Dransfield, rest assured that there isn't a problem because the contractor who has installed this lightning protection has given us every guarantee that there isn't a problem, And even if there is a problem, it is the contractor's responsibility.
Bloody hellfire.
What the hell are they talking about, Kerry?
Because that is not how we should be operating.
If I am working on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive or the Ministry of Defence, I should know if that lightning protection is right, is proper and will work.
I don't then say, oh, it's the contractor's responsibility.
Oh, and by the way, if we blow up Scotland or Northern Wales or we completely obliterate the United Kingdom through a lightning strike on a nuclear site, well, that contractor said it was his problem.
Exactly.
Placing the blame with no responsibility.
So a very interesting scenario because you're starting with what appears to be a very small situation that does bump up against the Freedom of Information Act, basically the corruption there, but it actually becomes a much bigger problem than even information.
Right.
It goes beyond that, as we can see, into public safety and possibly, I can't say for sure, there may have been evidence of other places where actually these lightning strikes perhaps did happen and were not prevented and maybe there were some dynamic or diabolical results.
Have you ever investigated that?
Absolutely.
And I do keep abreast on this.
And I think it was in Venezuela two years ago where this scam lightning protection, this DAS lightning, was installed and there was lightning and it blew it apart.
Excellent.
Excellent.
So you've got a good case, in other words.
Well, absolutely.
But, you know, the first reaction is, oh, that's Venezuela.
That's a problem there.
But you actually planted a seed in my mind now that has started growing already, and you make a very good case, and I will look at this and investigate this further.
And maybe this is why this vexatious bullshit is being so well protected.
Yes, exactly.
Also, it's something of, I guess you might say a slap in the face, that they actually named it after you.
Is that right?
Well, absolutely.
And that's normal when they do a case president or a case authority.
Oh, really?
If I may, I'll just give you and the listeners a couple of more briefings on how it's been used.
And I claim that this is to do with paedophilia as well.
Two years ago, someone, and you never know who is the requester.
I don't know who the requester is.
And they always refer to it as the complainant or the requester.
Someone in the UK made a request to the Surrey Police for copies of the Jimmy Savile, and I'm sure you're all aware in the States who Jimmy Savile was.
He was a terrible pedophile, and his actions were terrible, absolutely awful.
And so someone asked for the interview tapes from Surrey Police of Jimmy Savile.
And what do you think they came back with?
No, you can't have these files in line with Section 14.1, Dransfield versus...
Oh, no.
Absolutely.
May I ask you, in Britain, how is it that they can hide behind something they call vexatious?
How are they interpreting that term, I guess, in a legal jargon?
To be vexing is to be annoying, so that would indicate repeated annoyance.
In other words, not just once, but you'd have to repeat it multiple times, it seems to me.
How are they interpreting this in the legal sense in the UK? You raised a very good question, and it's brilliant.
I could be interviewed by you all day, Kerry, because you're smack on it every time.
Incredibly, the Freedom of Information Act 2000, although Section 14.1 is clearly defined as vexatious, vexatious is not defined.
It has not got any legal definition.
And three years after my vexatious decision, which was, I forgot to tell you, a test case, it was a test case for the first-year tribunal, the upper tribunal, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
So it's absolutely bonkers that my case can be vexatious because there is no legal interpretation.
So they couldn't possibly have reached that decision.
It is incredible.
Well, this is very interesting.
I don't know if you're familiar with the barrister Michael Shrimpton.
Yes, I have heard of that name.
Yes, I have.
All right.
Well, I've interviewed him actually several times now, and he's obviously a British citizen.
And he actually raised an issue about a nuke threat to the Olympic Games.
And then when he did so, which turned out to be true, actually, was substantiated, as it happens, by the NSA, according to his story, and certainly some other people that were involved in giving him the information to begin with.
Basically, he was thrown in jail for raising a nuke threat, for telling them that there was a nuke threat, a potential one.
And as it happened, he turned out to be correct.
But they still threw him in jail for six months, and he's now suing them.
He's quite a brilliant lawyer.
And he was, I guess, temporarily taken away from being a barrister, whatever you call that.
He's on suspension, I think you call it.
He writes an article, he writes a column for Veterans Today, a pretty well-known publication at this point worldwide, which you can look it up and see his name there as one of their columnists, really, editors.
And so he's a fascinating man.
He has a very interesting background.
I don't know if he could do anything for you, but it's possible that he might...
I could send him this link to our discussion and maybe there's something he could help you with in knowing the legal system as he does, of course, in Britain.
But if they've made a case against you and they've got a precedent and they've never...
They've never defined the term.
I think it's actually illegal to actually make, as far as I know, a law or a precedent the way they've done and to reject all these cases in which they haven't defined the word vexatious.
Absolutely.
And I agree on that.
And thank you for that with Mr.
Shrimpton.
I will try and hunt him out.
Just another very simple freedom of information that someone else put in.
You've heard of the Gurkhas, haven't you?
Gurkhas.
Gurkhas are part of the British Army.
They're from India or Tibet or somewhere like that.
And they've got such a wonderful history of assisting the British Ministry of Defence in the wars of Falklands and the Gulf, etc.
And about 12 months ago, there was 30 Gurkhas that were due to retire.
Listen to this.
It's incredible.
And so they were having problems with their pension, and they couldn't get the information they wanted.
So they put in a Freedom of Information request to the Ministry of Defence on this pension problems.
You guessed it.
No, you can't have it.
In line with Dransfield, you're vexatious.
It is incredible how these authorities are using the Dransfield Vexatius to prevent law.
This is basically what it is.
Incredible.
So they don't have to do anything.
That's just a blanket provision.
That's really extraordinary.
I can't believe they can actually do that.
It doesn't even sound legal.
You better believe it, they are doing it.
And they've done it 6,500 times.
But again, I have to say, how many times they've done it, we don't know.
It's incredible, because what happens when you put a freedom of information request into your public authority and they say, no, you're vexatious, I would think probably a large percentage of people are saying, well, okay, that's the end of it, I can't do anything, because it's vexatious and it's Stransfield's fault, you know?
LAUGHTER So I'm getting the blame for people not being able to obtain justice.
And it's a very heavy cross to bear.
And for sure, I don't think I can...
There is a legal avenue open to me.
But there is a very big avenue for me to expose these cheats and liars and fraudsters who call themselves barristers and judges.
Because these are the people that are denying Joe Publix Right.
Well, you've got a very good case, and actually, you know, starting small, and really, if you follow this all the way out, of course, it gets to the things that I deal with, which have to do with denying people their rights,
etc., etc., and And there's so many of these kinds of things going on where the companies, corporations, of course, people, so-called titans of industry, are working together with government in order to To basically deny human rights on so many levels.
And this is where, of course, whistleblowing, even in the corporate sense, comes to bear and being so important.
So thank you so much for bringing this to our notice.
And I really do appreciate it.
I'm going to, at this time, we've been going for a while.
So what I want to do is go to the chat and see if there's any questions for you.
We do have a live show going on here, and we do have questions that do come into the chat.
In other words, it's written.
We won't hear the people.
But if you don't mind, we're going to do that for a moment.
Yes, that's super.
Did you say you wanted me to just quickly talk about Able Danger?
Yes, why don't you do that right now?
Okay, listeners, I do a regular Friday night show with Abel Danger.
Phil McConnell and his assistants are doing a fantastic job on exposing.
So obviously you've got similar problems with freedom of information and judiciary problems within the States.
And there, this Abel Danger are blowing holes and whistleblowing about 9-11, fraud in airlines, et cetera, et cetera.
So you can go on there and listen to these shows also.
Yes, absolutely.
Well, I've interviewed both David Hawkins and Field McConnell, right?
And they're both pilots, as I recall, and we did talk about...
I think it was Flight 370.
I'm not sure.
It might have been MH17. But at any rate, I have them on my Project Camelot YouTube channel.
I've got an interview with both of them.
I'd love to have them both back on the show to talk about anything they're currently doing.
And you did say they are currently bringing some very interesting 9-11 issues to the fore.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
Very much so.
And it is all to do with the fraud and For want of a better word, murder, corruption, etc.
The government, the US government, have got a system now where they can take over the full control of a plane.
And the pilots are completely hapless.
Yes, I'm aware of their case in that regard, and it's excellent.
The Boeing, it's some kind of Boeing technology.
Yes.
Yes.
And they've got a very good case.
Let me see.
Field will fill you in on that and I'm sure that he will be only too willing because he does travel the world and he's a very good speaker.
And just to give the listeners some idea that I spoke with you earlier, he has been in the UK for about two weeks ago to attend a convention on Peter Fidelia and And other issues.
And bless him, he is married and had an English wife.
And the idea was that they would be rejoined and fly back to the States afterwards.
But when they got to the States, the customs on the plane would not allow his wife on board.
So this is obviously, I'd read into this, this is a smack in the face for field as punishment by the US government.
I can't imagine that the UK... Government would disallow it because as long as you've got your passport and your visa to travel to the States, and unless you've got a bag full of cocaine or fraudulent documents, there's no other reason why they would stop you, a British citizen, going.
Yeah, that's most extraordinary.
So his wife was unable to get onto the plane to go back to America, even though they're married.
And this is clearly, again, we've got what appears to be coming from the angle of a corporation, which may be Boeing, may be some upper echelons of the aerospace industry, who knows, but basically pulling a lever to cause him To cause him to be aggravated and to prevent her from going on a plane when she's got all the legal documents.
I would be really curious what they claimed the risk was, treating her really in all intents and purposes like a terrorist.
Absolutely.
It is incredible.
And if the government, which most people, most general public, would think that most of these US governments and UK governments, they're righteous.
They wouldn't do things wrong.
Yeah, exactly.
I thought that would cause a titter.
Unfortunately, it's gone 360 now, and we are dealing with some of the most vilest Ugly, terrible, evil people.
And a lot of this has to do with paedophilia.
Paedophilia, I mean, they're saying in the UK now, we are chief constable, we must treat first-time paedophiles with gentle touch and let them off.
Ah, very interesting.
Yes.
Well, I want to say this is also harassment.
You know, I was also harassed coming into Britain, as a matter of fact, right before I was about to interview Michael Shrimpton, who obviously is a persona non grata to them because he...
He tried to raise a notice about a nuke and they didn't like it.
So they stopped me at the airport and they delayed me coming out of customs, cross-examining me about my finances, believe it or not.
And made me delayed and kept me standing for a good half hour of cross-examination at the podium type place where you go for customs.
And then they wouldn't let me go even then and they sent me to sit in this little corral.
And then while they supposedly called my bank to verify how much money I have in the world.
Oh dear.
Because saying, and in spite of the fact that I'm actually coming to stay at my boyfriend's parents' house anyway, but aside from that, I do have a very decent income, and my tax returns show that every year.
It's not huge.
You know, I'm not going to say what it is here over the air necessarily, but it's below, let me say it's below $100,000, but it's above $50,000.
So obviously I can support myself.
I'm a single woman and I have a very nice apartment in quite a very nice city and I own an Audi, etc.
So I have several credit cards, not just one, and it's just extraordinary.
Are you an American citizen or UK?
I'm an American citizen.
Well, it matters not, does it?
It matters not what you've all been talking about, which is wonderful, but, you know, you're innocent until you're proven guilty.
Well, I thought so, but not the day that I tried to get into.
This was Christmas vacation that I came.
I came for Christmas, believe it or not.
It was extraordinary, and I was only coming for two weeks.
So what is worrying to me, after thinking that this was related to the UK, it is not.
You've got your fair share of fraudsters, cheats, liars and scoundrels, as I call them, in the US system.
Oh, absolutely.
I mean, but this was the British authorities, let me remind you.
Okay, but they must have been tipped off on a false allegation.
Right.
Well, it has to do with, again, Michael Schrift and the barrister.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
So it's harassment.
You're talking about Field McConnell being harassed.
Well, I was harassed.
I know other people that have been harassed that are in my same field of work and so on.
So this kind of thing does go on.
Now, there's some very good questions coming up in the chat.
So what I want to do is ask you a couple of these questions, if you don't mind.
Yeah, absolutely.
Fire away.
Go on.
All right.
Well, one person is asking about the Manchester incident and wondering if you have any thoughts on the recent events in Manchester, whether you have looked into anything in that regard.
Yes, and I can see where the question is coming from because there are some suggestions at this moment in time that it might be a false flag.
Yes.
I really can't say because I don't know.
But what I would say is that nothing would surprise me from...
The UK government.
We have a government in place there.
And the incredible thing is, and it's related, Theresa May, who is our Prime Minister, before she took that job, which was only a few months ago, she was the Home Secretary, which is a very important position.
And she also used the Dransfield vexatious case at least three dozen times during her run.
Oh no, okay.
So, she's a baddie.
Theresa May is a cheat, a liar and a fraudster.
And I don't mind going on air saying that because I wrote to her last week accusing her of that.
She should not be in that position.
And nothing would surprise me because it stinks.
And there is a smoking gun on Manchester.
All right.
Okay, well, we'll stay tuned and come back to us if you do get a report on that.
We'd be very interested.
Let's see.
I'm trying to see.
Someone is saying, well, what is lightning being used for?
And another person wondering if it has anything to do with CERN creating a portal that CERN is trying to open.
And indeed, I think it's possible that I'm not a physicist.
What would you say to that?
Unfortunately, I got a very lot of static there, and all I heard was the question, what is lightning?
No, actually, the question was, what could it be used for?
One person is asking, another person is saying, could it be used to open a portal at CERN? Is CERN using lightning?
It's an interesting question.
That again, I don't know.
But if they were able to reinvent the lightning and to use this as a basic...
I would think they could, because if we go back...
Even 15 years ago, all the police forces now have got the electric stun guns.
And, you know, 20 years ago, that was in the comics.
So that is a form of that.
So if they reintroduced that and reinvented that from a very larger machine...
There's nothing to stop that machine being used as a Ministry of Defence weapon or a terrorist weapon.
I would not laugh the suggestion out of court.
Yes, of course, with the right research and the scientists, it would be possible to reinvent the lightning tool as a weapon.
Alright, now someone along those lines is asking about a secret Tesla lightning weapon.
Do you happen to be familiar with this?
No, I haven't heard anything on that.
I'm sorry.
Alright, well, you could do some research.
This might also be a good point for you because Tesla, of course...
A brilliant scientist.
You know, obviously you know about the cars that are named after him, that Elon Musk has released these electric cars.
But Tesla apparently did create a lightning weapon that they're probably basing their weaponry on in secret projects.
Everything he did they stole from him right when he died and they probably killed him on top of it.
At any rate, it's somebody to research and to look into, really associated with lightning.
I think that's a great point.
I am so pleased, Kerry, that I've met you guys because there was, I think, I just had a very simple lightning protection issue.
Right.
And you've opened my eyes and my imagination now.
Oh, good.
Something even, even greater.
Yeah.
It's absolutely, and it's been a pleasure for me to speak with you.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Yeah, a pleasure.
It's mutual here.
Now, here's another very interesting question, I think.
There is this Temple of Baal that they opened in Trafalgar Square that was clearly, well, I think a satanic sort of...
But it was also the Temple of Baal.
There are several of them that were erected, and they do come from the Middle East as well.
And these are, in essence, portals.
They symbolize portals.
So they erected something that was a symbol of a portal in Trafalgar Square.
Now, they're just thinking perhaps there's a connection, I guess, with lightning.
I mean, the lightning story, and that you're bringing it up in a small way, actually, in spite of, you know, you haven't gone down this road, but I have to say, you have actually...
And it may well be what you're saying, that they really wanted to head you off at the pass, as they say in America, because you are touching on a secret weaponry that they are heavily developing in secret projects.
And the question to do with the Temple of Baal and the Trafalgar Square, that was a very nefarious situation there that they set up.
This was actually a couple years ago, I think now.
Are you familiar with that at any rate?
No, and I feel actually ashamed because speaking to you guys and Americans are showing me up as being an ignorant Englishman because I do apologize.
I mean, I haven't been to London for a number of years, but I'm not aware of any of this.
So my imagination is wide open now.
So it's incredible.
I do apologize for not knowing more.
I don't know what this is about, but somebody is saying something about justice for Declan, found hanged in York.
Do you know who this person is, or is this...
How are you spelling Declan?
D-E-C? Yeah, L-A-N. L-A-N. No, again, I don't know, but I will look it up.
All right, maybe...
We have so many, Kerry, so many subjects of...
Questionable, questionable justice.
And another one I must tell you, where a young mother in the Midlands area, Birmingham Way, who I'm now contacting, and she's contacted me because she knows about the Dransfield vaccination, she lost a child through forced adoption 10 years ago.
Now, that is very big in the UK. Forced adoption, stealing children, etc., etc.
And she put in a Freedom of Information request.
Yeah, you guessed it.
No, you're vexatious.
Oh, that's incredible.
With transfer bill.
Right.
It's being used by all people in authority to hide.
Yes, absolutely.
Divert justice.
Well, this seems to be a major issue.
I'm surprised.
So, have you ever been picked up by any newspapers?
No, no, no.
I've written to every newspaper in the UK, and I've given them a small brief and a story, as I've given to you.
And obviously, you are a very intelligent lady who's some of this...
Well, look, there's a problem here.
Look, whether or not...
What I'm saying, notwithstanding the veracity of my claims, the gravity of my assertions are so serious, you would think, the average fair-minded person would think, right, Yes.
Well, he is stating the truth.
And I can assure you, I am stating nothing but the truth.
So, I have been to court inquiries on this case, and people have put their hand on their Bible and swore to tell the truth and the old truth.
And they're lying scoundrels.
It's as simple as that.
Right.
Well, it's a major problem, and one almost would say, at least in terms of what you call civil law, I think, that you don't have a legal system or any legal recourse if every time someone brings a case, they can just cite the vexatious Dransfield Act.
Well, it is a little different here because there are so many what they call civil litigants.
And what happens in the UK if...
And this happens in the US a lot, where you get vexatious litigants.
And usually they are from very wealthy people, ex-spouses, that know they haven't got...
One ounce of credibility in their case, but they will push money after it, push money after it, and just to cause trouble and cause problems.
They are vexatious litigants.
Now, this, under English law, cannot be confused with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, because there's no such thing as a vexatious litigant under the Freedom of Information Act.
You are a Freedom of Information And incredibly, the Freedom of Information Act clearly states that it must be the request that is vexatious, not the requester.
And I have recently, from our good friends, the London Legacy are in charge of the stadium.
They have come back to me on appeal on a review and said, no, Mr Dransfield, you in person are vexatious.
Which again is bullshit because it matters not to me or anyone if I'm vexatious or not.
It is my request and that is the law.
So I am dealing with idiots, liars, cheats, fraudsters, buffoons, etc., who are working for these people that don't even know the law.
So I can't get past the first stage.
I hear you.
I definitely hear you.
Okay, so we're going to close this down at this time.
I want to thank you so much for coming on the show and, you know, really had no idea we were going to go in this direction.
But it is fascinating.
Kerry, it's been fantastic to meet you.
I thank you, and I thank you, your able assistant, Neil.
Well done, mate, for sorting out the gremlins.
And I thoroughly enjoyed it.
And my first job now is to contact Phil McConnell with a view of talking to you guys again.
Lovely.
Please don't hesitate to call me if you need information.
Excellent.
All right.
Thank you so much, and we'll have you back in the future.
It's been a lot of fun and really quite fascinating.
So thanks again for being on the show.
Thank you, and bye-bye, listeners.
Bye-bye.
Thank you.
All right.
Bye-bye.
Fascinating.
Wow, that is just extraordinary, I've got to say.
So I want to thank everyone for listening, as always.
It's been a very interesting week already.
It's not even over.
And I've had so many requests from people to do shows.
And had to add them just sort of really quickly.
And as many people will know, last night I did a late show with Shane, who is called Shane the Ruiner, and we discussed, well, the sort of situation to do with what's going on in this sort of Rashomon plan with a lot of people coming forward to do with the Corey Goode, David Wilcock story.
If you want to call it that.
And Gaia TV. And it ropes in a lot of players.
And what's really going on in what we call the alternative world, of which I am a part.
And actually branches into the so-called mainstream as well.
So that's something that we talked about last night.
And then prior to that, I had a very interesting show with David John Oates and his partner, who is named Jay Wilder.
And both of those are now on my site and on my YouTube channel.
So you can watch them at your leisure.
And we're constantly doing new shows.
And I've got some more guests lined up.
Can't say when exactly because I'm going on a tour tomorrow starting of the Ancient Stones with Maria Wheatley and we do have some free tickets.
Not free, but available tickets.
It does cost quite a bit to put this kind of thing on, so I apologize for the cost, but nonetheless it may be very worth it.
So we'll be going around to the ancient sites for a period of, I think it's seven days, and one of those nights will be Stonehenge.
I don't know if we have any tickets left for the Stonehenge night, to be honest.
There might be one.
But you can write to me.
It's all on my website under the Events tab.
And then, of course, the 24th and 25th of June, I'm over here indeed to do another conference at High Elms Manor, which is a lovely manor house here in the area.
And it's been very successful in the past.
We have a lineup of wonderful speakers, and all of that is, again, on my website under the Events tab.
So, um, thanks for watching and have a great night.
Take care.
▲
Export Selection