Shropshire Council v Ian McFerran


I really don’t know what to say about this!  The public, in my view, are now at risk from those paid to serve and protect them!

I spend many months trying to find out who the public servants were that Shropshire Council sent (at the public’s expense) to assist in the raid on Anne & Hollie’s home.  I also asked for the chain of command details.

Initially, I was refused the information outright from the Council (seems to be the Council’s default position in anything to do with Hollie’s case).  I appealed and they stood their ground.  I then reported the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office, who managed to get the line-manager’s name released.  Interestingly, on releasing the line-manager’s name, the Council said that the line-manager knew NOTHING about the event.  This has very serious consequences for the Council’s ‘public liability insurance’ and standard operating protocols as due process was not being followed for the raid on Anne & Hollie’s home… but that’s something for their staff to raise with their senior management – as it is the senior management who are placing their lower ranked staff at risk.  Add to that, the question: ‘what is the point in having someone (paid by the public) as a line-manager when they are not aware of what is going on in their own department, where their staff are or even if their staff will be returning safely to the office’.  Can you imagine calling your local Council and asking for a member of staff, only to be told by their line-manager, “I’m sorry, but I have no idea where my staff are, what they are doing or even if they will ever return safely to the office.  Can I take a message in the event that they may, someday, return?”

Whilst the Information Commissioner’s Office agreed with the Council that the lower ranked staff should have their identity protected from the public but the line-manager should have their details made known, I feel that it if line-manager knew nothing of the event related to the raid on Anne & Hollie’s home, I should not disclose the name of that individual now… as it is not the aim of this ‘campaign for justice’ to attack or discredit genuinely innocent people!

As I had failed to get the ICO to achieve the result I was after (obtaining the details of the Council officials who attended Anne & Hollie’s home so that they could be approached formally for an account of what they knew and did leading up to the day, on the day and after) I appealed their decision and a Judicial review was held.  This is why I was not able to go public until now, it had become a legal matter and a Judge was to rule on it.  So, to ensure I did not pervert the course of justice, I had to keep quiet.

On Thursday 6th September 2012, I received the ruling… my appeal was dismissed, meaning I failed to obtain the public servant’s details.

The judge agreed with the Council and the ICO that, in effect, if lower ranked member of the public services are used by much higher ranked public officers, bypassing the line-managers and those lower ranked staff subsequently become involved in criminal activity during the course of their public duties, the Data Protection Act 1998 can be used to hide their personal details – effectively making them immune from prosecution due to the identity of the alleged perpetrators of those crimes not being known.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that the implications for this ruling are monumental!!!  It means that the public can now be targeted (at the public’s cost) by anyone in local Government and there is NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT!

I have attached the ruling for your information.  The ruling is now on their website so you are free to publish it as well.  I have also copied this to the UK Column as I’m sure they will find it interesting reading in respect of people’s rights in the UK.

Yours sincerely,

Ian McFerran


10 thoughts on “Shropshire Council v Ian McFerran

  1. well u about said it all Ian,does this happen in nhs too that the left hand doesnt know what the right hand is doing ,seems to me it happens in all departments that is run by our government ,they all run around like chicken with no heads ,and no one knows nothing about anything ,well done Ian you are a great writer of letters best regards dear friend and GOD BLESS VICTIMS AND SURVIVORS OF CHILD ABUSE DONT BE SILENT GOOGLE HOLLIE GREIG love to hollie and anne greig

    • I work in the NHS, and can comment on a personal experience. My family made a complaint about a nurse causing injury to my grandmother (now dead) who was an in patient having fractured her femur. My gran, who had all her wits about her, had asked the nurse to assist her to the toilet. She specifically needed supported on one side. The nurse refused and told her to get on with it. My gran attempted and fell, resulting in severely bruising her face. She was very depressed and ended up with a chest infection, and through repeated treeatments with antibiotics ended up with a bowel infection. We got her home and she died within months.

      The whole incident brought her down. Initially she was reluctant to tell us the details for fear of repercussion. I was furious when they took the side of the liar. My gran was mentally capable of identifying her and what she had done. Most nurses are very caring, but there are some who should get out of the job as they don’t have what it takes. The NHS made their inquiry into our complaint and came back in favour of the nurse without interviewing us or my gran. I was absolutely appauled. Any complaint should not be dealt with internally by NHS as they hate scandal and hassle. I felt this lack of involvement on our part in the inquiry stages made a mockery of the complaints system. These complaints should be dealt with by a board of independent people and all parties should be heard. It is the same with the police. Internal complaints are rarely objective. A doctor didn’t even ask her how this happened. So much for the caring profession, and not even an appology.

  2. absolutly disgusted with Shropshire Council ,and we pay these people out of our council tax ggggggggggggrrrrrrrrrrrr

  3. This comes as no surprise. All Councils are controlled by the ‘Dark Forces’. My own brother was doing a fine job for one in Dorset. He was effectively levered into sourcing a new position in the private sector (on double the money!!). Even he (as my conspiracy theorist alter-ego) saw the Devils work at first hand.

    Ian, you, like Robert, have served the cause to the best of your abilities. There comes a time that one has to step back and look after yourself and your loved ones. Don’t knock yourself out over this, we, the informed, respect you for what you have done.

    ‘By their deeds thy shall know them’.

  4. This is utter clap-trap.

    Obviously politics has interfered in the justice process here, which is extremely alarming?

    There is a little something here called ‘contributory negligence’ which states that in an incidence such as this the Council would be committing a common law offence by not revealing the identies of the persons sought, as you may have a right as a citizen (and in any event Anne & Holly have the right as the injured party), where you are going to sue them they MUST disclose the identies of all of the chain of people involved in order that you can pursue them all in court?

    This way each and every individual involved can be sued for their part in the act, regardless if they were instructed to carry out the act by a superior or not?

    This is precisely the law which prevents corrupt individuals for attempting to hide or obfuscate to cover up their unlawful acts?

    There is no such thing as immunity and the individuals lower down the chain who have less to lose will always squeal on the ones higher up who are the instigators and have an enormous amount to lose?

  5. Oh! And forgot to mention. The law is as follows:

    Data Protection Act 1998

    Part IV Section 35

    Disclosures required by law or made in connection with legal proceedings etc.

    (1) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is required by or under any enactment, by any rule of law or by the order of a court.

    (2) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is necessary—

    (a)for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings), or

    (b)for the purpose of obtaining legal advice,

    or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights.

    The judges ruling would appear to conflict with the law. That too is sadly the norm when it comes to dealing with official corruption. The law is never used against corrupt officials, but if you complain about the corruption, expect to get arrested (and jailed!)

  6. If enough people got to know about it and all agreed to to hold payments of the council tax untill this was all resolved then perhaps it might start making the people resposible too uncomfortable to keep quiet and the hole starts to open up, just a thaught

  7. Yes it smells like it and looks like it. It is clap trap.It is impossible to tell who the proper authorities are anymore.

    • If this whole conspiracy against Hollie Greig gets out into the mainstream, there are a lot of people heading into embarrassing positions for their collusion in the whole cover up. I’m afraid there are too many vested interests at stake here. I would rather not be a part of a stinking rotten system and would be a whistle blower. Some are too afraid to be honest and will lie and even obstruct the course of justice to save their own skins. I pray with all my heart that Hollie and others like her get justice. It would give me no greater pleasure than to see the house of cards falling down. The system sucks and it needs purged to its rotten core. Has any one written to the queen and askid her to examine the facts in this case? It is, after all, her justice system that stinks. Just a thought. I wonder if the queen would be happy to be implicated in a cover up like this. Now it is world wide.