Information Request: 2012030079 – referred to ICO

From: Ian McFerran <>
Subject: Fwd: Information Request: 2012030079
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 06:27:40 -0400 (EDT)

Dear Freedom of Information Commissioner, UK.

You will see from the correspondence below that Shropshire Council has, yet again, A) lied to the public and B) failed to amend the lie in a timely manner, as per their requirements under the Act.  Therefore, I now submit my grievance to you and ask that Shropshire Council be made to comply with their legal requirements with immediate affect.

Thank you for your assistance.

Yours sincerely,

Ian McFerran


—–Original Message—–
From: Ian McFerran <>
To: InformationRequest <>
Sent: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 21:36
Subject: Re: Information Request: 2012030079

Dear Shropshire Council,

Regretfully, I find that I have to contact you again in response to your reply in order to APPEAL against TWO of the answers you have provided and ask that you reconsider them and get back to me with accurate answers within the next 10 consecutive days.

I will explain my reasons for this appeal per question.

Question ONE:
The figure of £40 for 4 hours of attendance at the home of Anne & Hollie Greig by two Council employees, does not sound correct to me, as this would place both Council employees on a salary of just £5 an hour each – which is beneath the National Minimum wage for the year 2010.  If that figure is correct, then Shropshire Council is illegally under-paying its staff.  Please double check your figures and reply with the correct ones within the next 10 consecutive days.  You also state in your reply to Question ONE that the Council did not instigate the forced entry into Anne & Hollie’s home.  Documentary evidence exists to PROVE that it was Shropshire Council who approached West-Mercia Police Force and lied to them about Hollie being under the care of the Council and that both Anne & Hollie were ‘missing’.  This evidence can be produced in Open Court if you wish to contest this point further, which I openly challenge you on public here and now.  Therefore, by misleading the Police, the forced entry occurred illegally and, as such, was instigated by the Council.  You will recall that I asked in my initial FoI to you that you stop lying to me.  I ask you again, PLEASE STOP LYING TO ME!

Question TWO:
Response Accepted

Question THREE:
I am doubtful as to the accuracy of the figures you have provided as it is known that the Official Solicitor currently being employed by Shropshire Council to persecute Anne & Hollie is THE TENTH HIGHEST PAID BARRISTER IN THE LAND. Therefore, I request a full and complete breakdown of the figures quoted by the Council if the Council wishes to stand by the figures it has publicly presented.  Failing that, I request that the Council re-visit the figures and provide an accurate statement that clearly reflects those involved.  Given that Shropshire Council is known to have used THREE BARRISTERS in Court against Anne & Hollie, plus the matter of one being the tenth highest paid in the land, I simply cannot accept the figures presented by the Council and strongly suspect the true expenditure of the public’s money by the Council in persecution of Anne & Hollie to be much, much higher.  I must, therefore, ask the Council to provide evidence to support the Council’s claims within the next 10 consecutive days.  Again, as with Question ONE, I must ask the Council to PLEASE STOP LYING TO ME!  Shropshire Council’s credibility is already shot to pieces, constantly lying to the public in responses to Freedom of Information Requests only makes things appear an awful lot worse for the Council.  The intentions of Shropshire Council are perfectly clear to anyone following this case, so please do not try to insult my intelligence any further by suggesting that the Council has not taken action to try to remove Hollie from her mother, when both you (the Council) and I know different.

I am sure that the Council will appreciate the importance of this case and the relevance of the requested information.  So, there is now a great importance placed on the quality of the Council’s reply to this Appeal, a reply that should conform fully to the points…

All replies to this Freedom of Information Request APPEAL are on the following conditions:
·         All senders’ rights are reserved and none Assumpsit
·         All respondents affirm to the best of their knowledge full disclosure is provided with motives logically identified
·         All respondents affirm that any statements declared are honest and wilfully contain no non sequiturs
·         All respondents affirm full disclosure is provided and no wilful attempt is made to make false or fraudulent declarations
·         All respondents affirm to the best of their knowledge under penalty of perjury that they have written the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God
·        Respondents accept this oath under the Statutory Declarations Act 1835.

I await your reply. Please don’t make me wait too long as I did not appreciate having my initial FoI request ignored, then being lied to when I finally got a reply, now having to endure a further delay in obtaining the correct information.  If I am not in possession of factually correct answers within 10 consecutive days, I shall take the matter further without further notice to the Council.

As before, this response has been made public knowledge and I have copied my initial FoI request at the bottom of this request for an INTERNAL REVIEW.

By Ian McFerran

—–Original Message—–
From: InformationRequest <>
To: ianmcferran <>
Sent: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 18:11
Subject: Information Request: 2012030079

Dear Mr McFerran,

Further to your Freedom of Information request received on 24 March, please find our response below. Taking your points in order:

1.        Council officers called by the Police to attend the premises on 3rd June 2010 recorded a total cost of £40. This action was not instigated by the Council.

2.        Staff time is not allocated to individual cases. Therefore information relating to staff costs for this particular case is not held.

3.        The Council has spent £21,287 in relation to costs of legal action. No action has been taken by the Council to remove Hollie from the care of her mother.

We trust that this answers your request satisfactorily.

Yours sincerely

Information Governance Team
Shropshire Council
Abbey Foregate


Dear Shropshire Council,

I am making this Freedom of Information request to you on very specific points, related to public finances and man-hours only.  I understand Robert Green has made a similar request in the past to your Council but failed to get an appropriate reply.  Likewise, I also caught the Council lying to me in a previous, directly related, FoI request.  I trust that these issues are now behind us and that this will not happen again.

My request is laid out below in the form of three questions…
How much public money was spent by Shropshire Council in respect of the illegal raid the Council instigated and assisted in on the home of Anne & Hollie Greig on 3rd June 2010?  This question relates only to the day of the raid itself.
1. How much public money, since the raid to-date, has been spent via public servant man-hours and other administrative duties & operations, as a result of the raid?  This question requires an ‘up-to-date’ figure, which we know and accept is ongoing.
2. How much public money has been spent so far in relation to the Council’s legal action through the Courts to take Hollie into care and away from her mother, Anne?  This question relates to the Council’s entire time addressing this specific point, including man-hours and other financially accountable operations.
3. As always, I am prepared to follow this request through to the bitter end if I do not receive an appropriate answer.  However, again, as always, I do hope that the benefit of the doubt will be enough for the Council to answer these questions accurately and within the 20 consecutive days allowed for such a response.

As always, in matters related to the ongoing persecution of Anne & Hollie Greig, this FoI request has been made public knowledge, as will all responses to it also be.

Yours sincerely,

Ian McFerran

Comments are closed.