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

#26 · 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?

#27 · 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?

#28 · 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'.

#29 · 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!

Yes - I agree with that wholeheartedly. At least we understand the SY 'take' on this.

Thanks Tony for pursuing this

#30 · 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

#31 · 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!

#32 · 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.

#33 · 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?

#34 · 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.

#35 · 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.

#36 · 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.

#37 · 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.

#38 · 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

#39 · 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"?

#40 · 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.

#41 · 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 26^th 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 26^th 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 26^th 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.

#42 · 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.

#43 · 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!

#44 · 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.

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