The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan - Page 2 Mm11

FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan - Page 2 Regist10
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan - Page 2 Mm11

FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan - Page 2 Regist10

FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan - Page 2 Empty Re: FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan

Post by Tony Bennett 16.10.14 9:12

REPLY BY METROPOLITAN POLICE FoI ACT SECTION

I have highlighted the most important parts in bolded dark blue.

Despite the obvious problems with the 'Smithman' sighting, the Met Police have confirmed on the written record:

A. That the two e-fits of different-looking men WERE drawn up by the Smiths, AND

B. That they purport to be of the same man.

All I can say is that just because the Met Police say so in answer to an FoI request, I do not believe either statement to be true


___________________________________________


Dear Mr Bennett

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2014090001604
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 19/09/2014. I note you seek
access to the following information:

Request 1:

On 11 September 2014, Headline published a book, 'Looking for Madeleine',
written by U.S. authors Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan. There has been
widespread concern that this book omits many relevant facts about the
disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The authors have stated on the record
in their book that they "met with Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood
at the outset [who] urged us to be constantly careful that we do nothing
during our research that might...impact negativley on the search for
Madeleine".

1. On what date or dates did DCI Redwood or others meet with Anthony
Summers & Robbyn Swan?
2. Who, apart from DCI Redwood and the authors, was present at those
meetings? AND Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Request 2:

On 14 October 2013, on a special edition of BBC's Crimewatch programme
seen by an estimated 6.7 million people, DCI Andy Redwood of Operation
Grange displayed two e-fits, said to be of a man who, according to
presenter Matthew Amroliwala, 'could now be the key to the entire
mystery'. DCI Redwood added later in the programme: "[We have] two e-fits
that have never been in the public domain of this one individual – [it's]
really important for us to understand who he is". It was suggested by the
programme that this 'sighting' was by 'members of an Irish family'.
However, most people who have seen these two images have said that they
look like two very different people. One is clearly younger-looking than
the other, has a thinnish, triangular-shaped face, thin lips, a long nose,
a much smaller chin, and has a quite different hairstyle from the other.
Matthew Amroliwala said: "An Irish family witnessed a man carrying a
child. Could this have been Madeleine, and her abductor?" Then DCI Redwood
said: "He was a white man, in his 30s, with brown hair..." Matthew
Amroliwala then said: "Two of the witnesses helped create e-fits of the
man they saw. Today, for the first time, we can reveal the true
significance of these images". However, he did not say explicitly that
these e-fits were drawn up from the Irish family's recollections. Further
concerns about these two e-fits have been expressed because, according to
information in the public domain, these e-fits were created in October
2008, 17 months after Madeleine was reported missing, and statements on
the public record by members of the Irish family admit that they only saw
this man for a few seconds at the most, in the dark, with 'weak' street
lighting. It has also been stated on the public record that a member
or members of this Irish family spoke to DCI Andy Redwood and/or members
of his team 'once in 2012 and once in 2013'. In the light of the above
concerns, please provide the following information:

1. On what date were these two e-fits created?
2. Did members of the Irish family create these e-fits, or were the 'two
witnesses' mentioned by Matthew Amroliwala who drew up the e-fits actually
other witnesses? If so, please state who they were.
3. Are the e-fits of the same man, or not?
4. On what date were these two e-fits first shown to members of Operation
Grange?
5. On what dates in 2012 and 2013, or otherwise in 2011 and 2014, did
members of Operation Grange

(a) meet with members of the Irish family or
(b) have contact with the Irish family, whether by telephone,
e-mail, letter or otherwise?

Your request will now be considered in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act). You will receive a response within the
statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act, subject to
the information not being exempt or containing a reference to a third
party. In some circumstances the MPS may be unable to achieve this
deadline. If this is likely you will be informed and given a revised
time-scale at the earliest opportunity.

Some requests may also require either full or partial transference to
another public authority in order to answer your query in the fullest
possible way. Again, you will be informed if this is the case.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet, which details your right of
complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please write
or contact James Young on telephone number 020 7230 2372 quoting the
reference number above.

Yours sincerely

James Young
SC&O Information Manager
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.



Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system. To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).



Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk
Link to this


Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

15 October 2014


Dear Mr Bennett,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2014090001604

I respond in connection with your request for information which was
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 19/09/2014. I note
you seek access to the following information:

1. On what date or dates did DCI Redwood or others meet with Anthony
Summers & Robbyn Swan?

2. Who, apart from DCI Redwood and the authors, was present at those
meetings?

AND

3. On what date were these two e-fits created?

4. Did members of the Irish family create these e-fits, or were the 'two
witnesses' mentioned by Matthew Amroliwala who drew up the e-fits actually
other witnesses? If so, please state who they were.

5. Are the e-fits of the same man, or not?

6. On what date were these two e-fits first shown to members of Operation
Grange?

7. On what dates in 2012 and 2013, or otherwise in 2011 and 2014, did
members of Operation Grange (a) meet with members of the Irish family or
(b) have contact with the Irish family, whether by telephone, e-mail,
letter or otherwise?

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
within the MPS.

RESULT OF SEARCHES

The searches located records relevant to your request.

DECISION

I will answer your questions in turn.

At Question 1 you asked:

On what date or dates did DCI Redwood or others meet with Anthony Summers
& Robbyn Swan?

The MPS response is:

15/02/2013

At Question 2 you asked:

Who, apart from DCI Redwood and the authors, was present at those
meetings?

The MPS response is:

An MPS Detective Inspector was also present at the meeting. The names and
details of witnesses are never given out and are covered by the Section
40(2)(3) which is detailed below.

At Question 4 you asked:

Did members of the Irish family create these e-fits, or were the 'two
witnesses' mentioned by Matthew Amroliwala who drew up the e-fits actually
other witnesses? If so, please state who they were.

The MPS response is:

The program[me - sp.] was referring to members of the Irish family who created the
e-fits.

At Question 5 you asked:

Are the e-fits of the same man, or not?

The MPS response is:

Yes they are the same man.

At Questions 3, 6 & 7 you asked:

3. On what date were these two e-fits created?

6. On what date were these two e-fits first shown to members of Operation
Grange?

7. On what dates in 2012 and 2013, or otherwise in 2011 and 2014, did
members of Operation Grange (a) meet with members of the Irish family or
(b) have contact with the Irish family, whether by telephone, e-mail,
letter or otherwise?

The MPS response is:

DECISION

Before I explain the reasons for the decisions I have made in relation to
your request, I thought that it would be helpful if I outline the
parameters set out by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) within
which a request for information can be answered.

The Act creates a statutory right of access to information held by public
authorities. A public authority in receipt of a request must, if
permitted, confirm if the requested information is held by that public
authority and, if so, then communicate that information to the applicant.

The right of access to information is not without exception and is subject
to a number of exemptions which are designed to enable public authorities
to withhold information that is not suitable for release. Importantly, the
Act is designed to place information into the public domain, that is, once
access to information is granted to one person under the Act, it is then
considered public information and must be communicated to any individual
should a request be received.

In accordance with the Act, this response represents a Partial Refusal
Notice for this particular request under Section 17(1) of the Act.

Please see the Legal Annex for the sections of the Act that are referred
to in this response

REASONS FOR DECISION

The information you have requested is exempt in part by the virtue of
Section 30(1)(a) and Section 40(2)(a)(b) and (3)(a)(i)(ii)(b) of the Act.

To disclose information which could cause a person arrested to be
identified and interfere with any ongoing investigation cannot be
maintained.

Section 30 is a classed based & qualified exemption


Section 30(1)(a) of the Act allows an authority to exempt information
where it has, at any time, been held for the purpose of specified criminal
and other investigations or proceedings; and where it relates to the
obtaining of information from confidential sources and was obtained or
recorded for a number of specified investigations or proceedings.

This exemption can be applied after evidencing the harm, which could be
caused by release of information and following completion of a Public
Interest Test (PIT).

 The purpose of the PIT is to establish whether the 'Public Interest' lies
in disclosing or withholding the requested information.

Section 40(2)(a)(b)(3)(a)(i)(ii)(b) is an absolute exemption and requires
neither an evidence of harm or public interest test in justification of
its use

Under Section 40(2) and (3) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to
withhold information where its release would identify any living
individual and breach the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998
(DPA).

The eight principles of the DPA govern the way in which data controllers
must manage personal data. Under principle one of the DPA, personal data
must be processed fairly and lawfully. I consider that the release of
statistics that are recorded in respect of persons arrested and victims
constitutes personal data. The release of this information would be unfair
as the persons concerned would have no reasonable expectation that the MPS
would make this information publicly available.

In reaching my decision I have in each case, given due regard to Condition
one and six of Schedule 2 of the DPA.

Condition one of the DPA requires that consideration is given to whether
consent for disclosure has been given whilst Condition six requires that
consideration is given to whether disclosure would constitute legitimate
processing of that data.

Having considered both conditions, I have established that no consent is
present or would likely be received to release this information.


This exemption is both absolute and class based. When this exemption is
applied, it is accepted that harm would result from disclosure. There is
accordingly no requirement to consider whether release of information is
in the public interest or demonstrate what harm would result from
disclosure.

Section 30 Evidence of Harm

In considering whether or not this information should be disclosed, I have
considered the potential HARM that could be caused by disclosure.

Under the Act, we cannot, and do not request the motives of any applicant
for information. We have no doubt the vast majority of applications under
the Act are legitimate and do not have any ulterior motives, however, in
disclosing information to one applicant we are expressing a willingness to
provide it to anyone in the world. This means that a disclosure to a
genuinely interested applicant automatically opens it up for a similar
disclosure to anyone, including those who might represent a threat to
individuals, or any possible judicial process.

The prevention and detection of crime is the foundation upon which
policing is built and the police have a clear responsibility to prevent
crime, arrest those responsible for committing crime or those that plan to
commit crime.

The MPS does not generally disclose information from investigations except
through our Directorate of Media & Communication to the media. This is so
potential witnesses are not discouraged to come forward and provide
statements in relation to investigations.

The manner in which investigations are conducted is usually kept in strict
secrecy so that the tactics and lines of enquiry that are followed do not
become public knowledge thereby rendering them useless.


The MPS is charged with enforcing the law and preventing and detecting
crime. Any information released under the Act which reveals investigative
strategies and processes would prejudice the prevention and detection of
crime and the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.

Section 30 Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

Information should be disclosed when it directly relates to the efficiency
and effectiveness of the MPS and its officers. The purpose of the Act is
to make public authorities more accountable and this factor may therefore,
be applied to the MPS's openness in this specific investigation.

Section 30 Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure

During the course of any ongoing police investigation, enquires are made
to secure evidence. These enquires are made for the duration of the case
and are based upon proven methods as well as the judgement and experience
of the officer(s) in charge of the investigation.

The MPS is reliant upon these techniques to conduct its investigations and
the public release of the modus operandiemployed during the course of this
investigation could prejudice the ability of the MPS to conduct further,
similar investigations.

It is not in the public interest to disclose information that may
compromise the MPS's ability to complete this or any future criminal
investigations.

Section 30 Balancing Test

Care must be taken to not compromise any strand of an investigation or
cause any undue harm to any families involved.

The MPS has a duty to protect both witnesses and suspects of criminal
investigations and the integrity of tried and tested investigative
techniques used now and for future criminal investigations. Therefore, I
consider that considerations favouring non-disclosure of the requested
information far outweighs the considerations favouring disclosure.

The disclosure of this information to the public by the MPS would
undermine individuals' confidence in helping the MPS with investigations.
Anything that undermines this would have a detrimental effect, reducing
the quality of information the MPS receives and consequently compromising
the effectiveness of any investigation.

The disclosure of this information to the public by the MPS would inhibit
the flow of free and frank discussion, sharing of advice and best
practices for investigations between police services. Anything that
undermines this would have a detrimental effect on the thoroughness,
efficiency and effectiveness of police investigations and ultimately the
apprehension and prosecution of offenders.

I consider that considerations favouring non-disclosure of the requested
information far outweighs the considerations favouring disclosure.


Additional information can be located via the below websites, please see
the links attached below:

[1]http://content.met.police.uk/Appeal/Made...

[2]http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/profiles...

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet which details your right of
complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please email
me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely
   
James Young
SC&O Information Manager

LEGAL ANNEX

Section 17(1) 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.

Section 30(1)(a) of the Act provides:

1) Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it has
at any time been held by the authority for the purposes of-
(a) any investigation which the public authority has a duty to conduct
with a view to it being ascertained-
(i)whether a person should be charged with an offence, or
(ii) whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it,

Section 40(2) & (3) of the Act provides:

(2) Any information to which a request for information relates is also
exempt information if-
(a) it constitutes personal data which do not fall within subsection (1),
and
(b) either the first or the second condition below is satisfied.
(3) The first condition is-
a) in a case where the information falls within any of paragraphs (a) to
(d) of the definition of "data" in section 1(1) of the [1998 c. 29.] Data
Protection Act 1998, that the disclosure of the information to a member of
the public otherwise than under this Act would contravene-

i) any of the data protection principles, or
ii) section 10 of that Act (right to prevent processing likely to cause
damage or distress), and
(b) in any other case, that the disclosure of the information to a member
of the public otherwise than under this Act would contravene any of the
data protection principles if the exemptions in section 33A (1) of the
[1998 c. 29.] Data Protection Act 1998 (which relate to manual data held
by public authorities) were disregarded
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.

The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at [3]www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700
  
Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system. To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).


Find us at:
Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk
References

Visible links
1. http://content.met.police.uk/Appeal/Made...
2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/profiles...
3. file:///tmp/www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk

____________________

Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".  

Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 16906
Activity : 24770
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 76
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan - Page 2 Empty Re: FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan

Post by pennylane 16.10.14 9:21

Thank you Tony, very interesting indeed!  


I have always believed the two e-fits are of the same man and they were both done by the Smiths.  It's good to have it confirmed though.
avatar
pennylane

Posts : 2770
Activity : 4406
Likes received : 1638
Join date : 2009-12-07

Back to top Go down

FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan - Page 2 Empty Re: FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan

Post by Guest 16.10.14 9:28

An MPS Detective Inspector was also present at the meeting. The names and
details of witnesses are never given out and are covered by the Section
40(2)(3) which is detailed below.

Witnesses?
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan - Page 2 Empty Re: FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan

Post by Tony Bennett 16.10.14 9:40

BlueBag wrote:
An MPS Detective Inspector was also present at the meeting. The names and
details of witnesses are never given out and are covered by the Section
40(2)(3) which is detailed below.

Witnesses?
I think they mean that the Detective Inspector might be a witness of some kind e.g. giving details at any trial about the evidence, could be giving details of forensic evidence for example ["on such-and-such a day I sent a bag-full of soil gathered by a police officer with a pickaxe on a patch of waste ground in Praia da Luz and Exhibit 94B gives the result of the chemical tests on the soil samples carried out by the Benfica Forensic Science Laboratory, Portugal"]

____________________

Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".  

Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 16906
Activity : 24770
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 76
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan - Page 2 Empty Re: FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan

Post by pennylane 16.10.14 9:54

Tony,

Thank you so much for the exhaustive work you have done, and continue to do, in order to work through this extensive web of deception.  Thank you for kindly sharing all the valuable information with us!    roses
avatar
pennylane

Posts : 2770
Activity : 4406
Likes received : 1638
Join date : 2009-12-07

Back to top Go down

FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan - Page 2 Empty Re: FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan

Post by AndyB 16.10.14 9:55

At the beginning of the explanation for non-disclosure of the dates you 'be highlighted this bit of the MPS response:
"To disclose information which could cause a person arrested to be identified and interfere with any ongoing investigation cannot be maintained."

Leaving to one side the seemingly ridiculous assertion that dates can possibly be "information which could cause a person arrested to be identified", the obvious question is who has been arrested and for what?
avatar
AndyB

Posts : 692
Activity : 724
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2013-06-03
Age : 60
Location : Consett, County Durham

Back to top Go down

FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan - Page 2 Empty Re: FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan

Post by Guest 16.10.14 10:34

AndyB wrote:At the beginning of the explanation for non-disclosure of the dates you 'be highlighted this bit of the MPS response:
"To disclose information which could cause a person arrested to be identified and interfere with any ongoing investigation cannot be maintained."

Leaving to one side the seemingly ridiculous assertion that dates can possibly be "information which could cause a person arrested to be identified", the obvious question is who has been arrested and for what?
The potential future arrest of people who are being investigated?

Yes, but who do they mean?
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan - Page 2 Empty Re: FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan

Post by Doug D 16.10.14 12:16

I think we are looking at this too deeply.
 
The three refusals:
 
3. On what date were these two e-fits created?
 
6. On what date were these two e-fits first shown to members of Operation
Grange?
 
7. On what dates in 2012 and 2013, or otherwise in 2011 and 2014, did
members of Operation Grange (a) meet with members of the Irish family or
(b) have contact with the Irish family, whether by telephone, e-mail,
letter or otherwise?
 
Taking the exemption clauses separately:
 
Condition one of the DPA requires that consideration is given to whether
consent for disclosure has been given whilst Condition six requires that
consideration is given to whether disclosure would constitute legitimate
processing of that data.
 
Having considered both conditions, I have established that no consent is
present or would likely be received to release this information.
 
This exemption make little sense. Answers to any of these three have no bearing under the Data Protection Act that I can see, as they have already confirmed that they are the Smith family e-fits.
If they had refused to answer Q4 under the DPA it would have made more sense and they could then have refused Q7 as it could conceivably tie back to Q4.
 
However I think that all three can happily be refused under the provisions attached to the next bit, rather than the header, which seems to be what people are jumping at.
 
To disclose information which could cause a person arrested to be
identified and interfere with any ongoing investigation cannot be
maintained.
 
Section 30 is a classed based & qualified exemption
 
Section 30(1)(a) of the Act allows an authority to exempt information
where it has, at any time, been held for the purpose of specified criminal
and other investigations or proceedings; and where it relates to the
obtaining of information from confidential sources and was obtained or
recorded for a number of specified investigations or proceedings.
 
The disclosure under Q4 & Q5 can be justified on the basis that this information was considered to already be public knowledge, based on Crimewatch, and was merely confirming what was implied or stated in the programme.

Q1 & Q2 were answered as they do not relate to 'the investigation'.
avatar
Doug D

Posts : 3716
Activity : 5283
Likes received : 1299
Join date : 2013-12-03

Back to top Go down

FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan - Page 2 Empty Re: FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan

Post by HelenMeg 16.10.14 12:19

pennylane wrote:Tony,

Thank you so much for the exhaustive work you have done, and continue to do, in order to work through this extensive web of deception.  Thank you for kindly sharing all the valuable information with us!    roses
Yes - I agree with that wholeheartedly. At least we understand the SY 'take' on this.

Thanks Tony for pursuing this
avatar
HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Activity : 2081
Likes received : 213
Join date : 2014-01-08

Back to top Go down

FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan - Page 2 Empty Re: FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan

Post by AndyB 16.10.14 12:54

Doug D wrote:I think we are looking at this too deeply.
Quite possibly.

I took the purpose of the 'header' to be an explanation of the use of section 30 but you seem to read it differently to me. Why do you think the 'header' is there? The response carries the same meaning without it as far as I can see
avatar
AndyB

Posts : 692
Activity : 724
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2013-06-03
Age : 60
Location : Consett, County Durham

Back to top Go down

FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan - Page 2 Empty Re: FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan

Post by Doug D 16.10.14 14:20

Andy B.
 
I agree the header just seems poorly worded but I suspect it is just ‘legalise crap’ and it doesn’t really help.
 
Further down it re-states the section slightly differently:
 
Section 30(1)(a) of the Act provides:
 
1) Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it has
at any time been held by the authority for the purposes of-
(a) any investigation which the public authority has a duty to conduct
with a view to it being ascertained-
(i)whether a person should be charged with an offence, or
(ii) whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it,
 
which to my mind is saying ‘If it pertains to an investigation – tough’.
 
I think that would make a better header!
avatar
Doug D

Posts : 3716
Activity : 5283
Likes received : 1299
Join date : 2013-12-03

Back to top Go down

FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan - Page 2 Empty Re: FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan

Post by Guest 16.10.14 16:01

Enid O'Dowd wrote:Perhaps another pertinent question would be about any existing protocols re senior officers on an ongoing case meeting authors planning to write the 'definitive' book about the case.

clapping

friends
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan - Page 2 Empty Re: FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan

Post by Guest 16.10.14 16:17

Tony Bennett wrote:REPLY BY METROPOLITAN POLICE FoI ACT SECTION

I have highlighted the most important parts in bolded dark blue.

Despite the obvious problems with the 'Smithman' sighting, the Met Police have confirmed on the written record:

A. That the two e-fits of different-looking men WERE drawn up by the Smiths, AND

B. That they purport to be of the same man.

All I can say is that just because the Met Police say so in answer to an FoI request, I do not believe either statement to be true

Can someone ask the Smiths?
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan - Page 2 Empty Re: FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan

Post by aiyoyo 16.10.14 20:06

viaveritasvita wrote:

SORRY AIYOYO CAN YOU give some patience for us elders. I am more of a Sunday Post reader than a computer wiss.
I WAS TRYING to say earlier I agree with Tony in that the you can,t believe anyone these days unless there family or you,ve known them for a long time.
I know that is sad but it is the truth.

My apology, but I don't understand why you would agree that MET police would lie in FOI request.
Why would they do that, when they can easily fob off inconvenient questions and say they can't answer by listing some sub sections plus sub clauses as they clearly apply when they want to.
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan - Page 2 Empty Re: FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan

Post by Liz Eagles 16.10.14 23:36

aiyoyo wrote:
viaveritasvita wrote:

SORRY AIYOYO CAN YOU give some patience for us elders. I am more of a Sunday Post reader than a computer wiss.
I WAS TRYING to say earlier I agree with Tony in that the you can,t believe anyone these days unless there family or you,ve known them for a long time.
I know that is sad but it is the truth.

My apology, but I don't understand why you would agree that MET police would lie in FOI request.
Why would they do that, when they can easily fob off inconvenient questions and say they can't answer by listing some sub sections plus sub clauses as they clearly apply when they want to.
If the MET had refused to divulge in a FOI response that the e-fits came from the Irish family and are one person then the whole sorry bloody CrimeWatch extravaganza would become even more questionable.

Just my opinion.
Liz Eagles
Liz Eagles

Posts : 10944
Activity : 13351
Likes received : 2216
Join date : 2011-09-03

Back to top Go down

FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan - Page 2 Empty Re: FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan

Post by aiyoyo 17.10.14 1:39

aquila wrote:If the MET had refused to divulge in a FOI response that the e-fits came from the Irish family and are one person then the whole sorry bloody CrimeWatch extravaganza would become even more questionable.

Just my opinion.


I see your point, however, in the Crimewatch it was implied and not explicit, hence that leaves room for opinion differences.  Had the information not been true and the CrimeWatch was a shamble (or red herring) more reason not to commit a lie on paper in a FOI response one would think when certain section can be used to cite witness protection.

Just my opinion also.
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan - Page 2 Empty Re: FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan

Post by Guest 17.10.14 2:02

aiyoyo wrote:
aquila wrote:If the MET had refused to divulge in a FOI response that the e-fits came from the Irish family and are one person then the whole sorry bloody CrimeWatch extravaganza would become even more questionable.

Just my opinion.


I see your point, however, in the Crimewatch it was implied and not explicit, hence that leaves room for opinion differences.  Had the information not been true and the CrimeWatch was a shamble (or red herring) more reason not to commit a lie on paper in a FOI response one would think when certain section can be used to cite witness protection.

Just my opinion also.

aiyoyo, you've got it in a nutshell.

Redwood was ambiguous with his wording on CW regarding the compiler of the efits.

It's kept us rubbing our chins for a year.

But now we have a categorical assurance. The Irish family drew up the efits. They are the same man (the impossibly lop-sided and narrow-chinned one being the result of one of the sighter's angle of view - the child's head/hair obscured that side of the face. In my opinion,  this explains the discrepancy). Cover both pictures from the nostrils down and it is obvious this is the same man.

Same man. Smiths' efits. This is welcome clarity.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan - Page 2 Empty Re: FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan

Post by tigger 17.10.14 6:32

viaveritasvita wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
viaveritasvita wrote:

SORRY AIYOYO CAN YOU give some patience for us elders. I am more of a Sunday Post reader than a computer wiss.
I WAS TRYING to say earlier I agree with Tony in that the you can,t believe anyone these days unless there family or you,ve known them for a long time.
I know that is sad but it is the truth.

My apology, but I don't understand why you would agree that MET police would lie in FOI request.
Why would they do that, when they can easily fob off inconvenient questions and say they can't answer by listing some sub sections plus sub clauses as they clearly apply when they want to.
I agree with Tony Bennett that the MET would lie in a FOI request because like the other clowns who follow him blindly I can,t think for myself.
Now if you are going to go on thinking for yourself I  suggest you do so elsewhere.
We don,t want this forum contaminated with non believers like you.
You probably believe in Darwin  and science.
Thanks to Tony for leading us all up the garden path.

Aiyoyo has been a member here for very nearly 5 long years, during which  time he has always contributed valuable insights and  intelligent observation.  Steady as a rock  you might say, as are many others here whether they've been here a long time or not.
Of course he's been thinking for himself from time to time, can't help himself I suppose. Your last sentence about the garden path puzzles me, you're not  'foreign' by any chance?

Might I ask why believing in Darwin's theories and 'science' (btw do you drive a car Veritas? Do you wear glasses? Science is a rather wide comcept)  would prevent  anyone  from taking part in this discussion?

I do believe the response to the FOI was the truth.

Now all we have to do is wait for those two friends of Exton  in Sussex to come forward to tell us it wasn't them?

But what if they don't?     eek

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
tigger
tigger

Posts : 8116
Activity : 8532
Likes received : 82
Join date : 2011-07-20

http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan - Page 2 Empty Re: FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan

Post by AndyB 17.10.14 8:43

tigger wrote:Your last sentence about the garden path puzzles me, you're not  'foreign' by any chance?
You're unfamiliar with the phrase "to be led up (or down) the garden path"?
avatar
AndyB

Posts : 692
Activity : 724
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2013-06-03
Age : 60
Location : Consett, County Durham

Back to top Go down

FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan - Page 2 Empty Re: FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan

Post by aiyoyo 17.10.14 8:58

TheTruthWillOut wrote:Um.....So Viva and Capstick are the same poster, right?

This is all very silly now.

You spotted it first and spotted it well.

Unlikely to be same poster, but likely same pros camp.
They just can't help themselves these pros.  They stalk every one of TB's posts ever ready to jump at any given chance thereby outing themselves.  Stupid or what ?

TB has unwaveringly fight Madeleine's corner and proves he does not shun away from posting up material that is contradictory to his stance.  Kudos to him for posting up the FOI response.
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan - Page 2 Empty Re: FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan

Post by Doug D 17.10.14 9:06

Dee Coy:
 
‘But now we have a categorical assurance. The Irish family drew up the efits.’
 
But we still don’t know how!
 
How much pressure was put on them/leading questions asked to get them to agree to the e-fit suggestions put to them by Exton & co?
 
MS 26th May 2007
 
‘His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone. He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good.
 
States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.’
 
AS 26th May 2007
 
She thinks that he had a clean-shaven face. She does not remember seeing tattoos, scars or earrings. She did not notice his ears. His hair was thick-ish, light brown in colour, short at the back (normal) and a bit longer on the top’
 
PDS 26th May 2007
 
‘About 35 years, or older. He was somewhat tanned as a result of sun exposure. Average build, in good shape. Short hair, brown in colour. He does not remember if he wore glasses, or had a beard or a moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details as the lighting was bad.
 
States that it would not be possible to recognize the individual in person or via photograph.’
 
We know that the e-fits had not been done by Jan 2008, 7 months or so later and it has been suggested that it was probably more than a year later that they were made.
 
MS, in September 2007, 60/80% ‘recognised’ GM from the way he was carrying the child, nothing whatever about facial recognition.
  
I still believe the reason the Smiths did not come up with any e-fits for the PJ at the time, when that would have been one of the first things the PJ would have asked them for, was that they honestly felt that they couldn’t, based on what they had actually seen, and this is backed up by their statements.
 
 'Smithman' has to remain on TM's agenda as it is their only remaining vestige of an 'abduction', but these e-fits are worthless and more to the point, would be laughed out of Court if ever they were used as evidence against anyone.

There was not sufficient light on the night to enable reliable e-fits to be constructed, even if the Smiths had seen their faces properly.
avatar
Doug D

Posts : 3716
Activity : 5283
Likes received : 1299
Join date : 2013-12-03

Back to top Go down

FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan - Page 2 Empty Re: FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan

Post by Verdi 21.06.15 23:00

@ Tony Bennett today brought over from Claim by 'Stevo' thread.

Thanks for putting me right, I apologize again to the forum for disrupting the thread and bitching (was that the word?)  Also I apologize to the poster on the other forum for making an incorrect accusation.  Slap on the wrist duly noted!

Hold my hands up to basing my comment only on the Crimewatch production aired in October 2013 when DCI Andy Redwood released the e-fit/s, being totally unaware of your FOI request. 

Just for the record I don't believe it either.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
Verdi
Verdi
ex forum manager
ex forum manager

Posts : 35069
Activity : 42327
Likes received : 5932
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan - Page 2 Empty Re: FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan

Post by Tony Bennett 21.06.15 23:08

Verdi wrote:@ Tony Bennett today brought over from Claim by 'Stevo' thread.

Thanks for putting me right, I apologise again to the forum for disrupting the thread and bitching (was that the word?)  Also I apologise to the poster on the other forum for making an incorrect accusation.  Slap on the wrist duly noted!

Hold my hands up to basing my comment only on the Crimewatch production aired in October 2013 when DCI Andy Redwood released the e-fit/s, being totally unaware of your FOI request. 

Just for the record I don't believe it either.
Thank you.

I think many of us by now no longer believe that the police can be relied on to tell the truth.

When you think about it, they really had no option, did they, but to confirm on the record what they had preached to 6.7 million viewers on Crimewatch on 14 October 2013?

But if the police were indeed lying - about the efits - about how they were drawn up nd who by - about Crecheman...what a risk to take, if your lies are ever found out!

____________________

Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".  

Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 16906
Activity : 24770
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 76
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan - Page 2 Empty Re: FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan

Post by Guest 22.06.15 8:33

The Crimewatch crecheman thing was amazing.. with absolutely no proof as to his identity (or existence).

No idea what was going through their heads there.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum