wightdogs.com ISLE of WIGHT DOGS and OWNERS

Prior to the meeting of the IW council Cabinet on the 13th April I wrote to the council leader Cllr Pugh as the document produced  setting out the four options for the Cabinet to consider included an option which did not appear to comply with the requirements of the legislation for making the Order. ie introducing, changing or revoking the  Dogs Control Exclusion (Isle of Wight) Order , which is a Legal Document.

The order must be produced within the requirements set out in the legislation.

If the council intends to revoke (cancel) an Order (As proposed in the document: Option 4 - To adopt and approve the revised Dogs Control Exclusion (Isle of Wight) Order as outlined in Appendix 1, but with no Dog Exclusion zone in Ryde) the council would have to comply with the requirements set out in:  The Dog Control Orders (Procedures) Regulations 2006, and would have to ensure the following steps were taken:

 Revocation of a dog control order

     4. (1) Before revoking a dog control order it has made, an Authority shall?

  (a) consult upon its proposal to revoke the order by publishing a notice of that proposal in a local newspaper circulating in the area in which the land in respect of which the order applies is situated;

 (b) consult every other Authority having power under section 55 of the Act to make a dog control order in respect of all or part of the land in respect of which the order applies; and

 (c) where all or part of the land in respect of which the order applies is access land, consult?

 (i) the access authority for that access land, and

 (ii) the local access forum for that access land,

 and, in respect of any of that access land that is not situated in a National Park, the Countryside Agency.

 (2) The notice referred to in paragraph (1) shall

 (a) identify the land in respect of which the order applies;

 (b) summarise the order;

 (c) where the order refers to a map, state where the map may be inspected at an address within the Authority's area, and that any inspection shall be free of charge at all reasonable hours during the period mentioned in sub-paragraph (d);

 (d) state that representations may be made in writing or by e-mail within the period of 28 days after the publication of the notice; and

 (e) state the address and e-mail address to which representations may be sent.

 (3) If an Authority decides to revoke a dog control order it shall?

 (a) publish a notice of that decision in a local newspaper circulating in the area in which the land in respect of which the order to be revoked is situated, and specifying the date (which shall not be earlier than the date on which the notice is published) on which the revocation is to have effect;

 (b) make the information referred to in sub-paragraph (a) available on its website (if any);

 (c) send the information referred to in sub-paragraph (a) to every other Authority having power under section 55 of the Act to make a dog control order in respect of all or part of the land in respect of which the order to be revoked applies

 (d) where the order to be revoked applies in respect of any access land, send the information referred to in sub-paragraph (a) to

 (i) the access authority, and

 (ii) the local access forum,

 for that access land, and the Countryside Agency.

All this apears to be necessary to revoke the Order that was in place.

But the only section we are concerned with, at this stage,  is the time-scale required for holding the Public Consultation on the councils option to revoke the Order. 

This would require a minimum time scale of 28 days for the public consultation, which is a legal requirement, to take place.

 However the meeting of the Cabinet was on the 13th April 2010, but the date that the Order would come into operation is included in the Order (1st May) therefore the 17 days between the decision being taken by the Cabinet to adopt this option and the Order actually coming into force would not appear to allow sufficient time for the consultation period that the law requires.

 Consequently I could not see how this Option was legally possible, therefore I wanted an explaination of whether or not this was the situation.

As I no longer have a councillor , due to my representative Cllr Whittaker  being forced to resign, I therefore asked the council leader, who is also the Head of the Cabinet, for an explanation of how I should complain about this. I emailed him on the 12 April 2010 but as I had not had a reply I once again emailed Cllr Pugh on the 12 May 2010 as copied below:

Dear Cllr Pugh,

I wrote to you in your role as Leader of the council on the 12 April,

In that communication I specifically requested:

"Would you please inform me which of the councils policies governs its officers misleading Cabinet Members or order that I can pursue a Formal complaint regarding the matter."

I am still awaiting a reply, as you have not responded within the published time scale I would like to offer you a further opportunity to do so as I understand the terms in your Code of Conduct require a response be made in such circumstances.

 --

Yours Sincerely

 But this email was immediately returned to me marked undelivered as I am "Blacklisted" by the council (copied below). I first became aware I had been "Blacklisted" following the council backing down on their Dog Control Orders prposals last month.

 --------- Forwarded message ----------

From:

Date: Wed, May 12, 2010 at 5:50 PM

Subject: Undeliverable mail

To: xxxxxxxxx@googlemail.com

 This nondelivery report was generated by the amavisd-new program

at host engine55-1387-1.icritical.com. Our internal reference code for your message

is 25244-10.

 Return-Path:

Your message

could not be delivered to:

  :

  250 2.7.1 Ok, discarded, sender blacklisted, id=25244-10

Final-Recipient: rfc822; david.pugh@iow.gov.uk

Action: delivered

Status: 2.7.1

Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 250 2.7.1 Ok, discarded, sender blacklisted, id=25244-10

Last-Attempt-Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 17:50:55 +0100 (BST)

The "Blacklisting" does not only include checking if emails are from a known email address, rather software is employed that scans the contents of emails and identifies my name and address as keywords resulting in the communication being  discarded., regardless of the content. I have already complained to the Information Commisioner regarding this practice.

I recently submitted the Second Stage of my complaint to the council regarding me as the author of this website, who had been making highly embassing revelations over the performance of the Island dog wardens following  Information Requests, being the only person to be issued with a fine for having a dog on an excluded area of a Ryde beach, this complaint was also regarding the conduct of the dog warden concerned.

This complaint was bounced back at me twice and the only way I could get it accepted was to open a new email account, change my IP address so that couldnt be blocked,  and then I had to go to the lengths of only adding my name and address as an attachment in the form of an image file, which I have had to produce with a hard to read background and rotate the text through 90 degrees, in order to send a complaint which I am fully entitled to make.

I copied that complaint to the Island MP, on each occasion, as a safeguard.

The document you refer to is is a Commitee report of the THE CABINET MEMBER FOR FIRE AND COMMUNITY SAFETY 

http://www.iwight.com/council/committees/cabinet/13-4-10/Paper%20B.pdf

apart from the point you have made this document is also misleading as at number 37. it states "The loss of the Blue Flag".

There is no Blue Flag to lose at Ryde as it hasnt held one for at least 2 years due to the poor water quality.

"Without a dog beach ban the Council will be unable to

apply for a Blue Flag for Ryde East beach. The loss of the Blue Flag will inevitably lead

to a gradual reduction in the level of service on the beach and to the local economy as

visitors are drawn elsewhere"

In addition Option 3 would also require a further consultation

How was this document permitted as there are also other misleading statements in it?

If this is the quality of the evidense cabinet decisions on the Island are made on then god help us! Hardly any wonder the island is a laughing stock

Have you contacted the Cabinet member responsible as it has his name on it?

That would be Barry Abraham and although I have contacted him on this and other matters concerning the conduct of council officers who come under him as Cabinet Member for Fire and Community Safety he has yet to even have the courtesy of acknowledging receipt of my emails, this despite him requesting one of this website members to pass his private email address to me.

As my Freedom Of Information Act requests are at present being rejected by the council as "Undeliverable mail" due to me being "Blacklisted" I am having to make my requests through the whatdotheyknow.com website. Although this is not always suitable as I may not wish my request to be public and published to the Internat. But at present I have no option other than to use a proxy

Same request - Rejected if I send it. Accepted if sent through a proxy.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/fatalities_on_ryde_sands

Dear Isle of Wight Council,

Following the recent public consultation on the councils proposed

amendments to the Dog Control Orders I became concerned that the

council was encouraging visitors to the Island to venture into the

hazardous extremities of Ryde Sands, where every year people have

to be rescued by the emergency services due to the fast incoming

tide. I informed the members of the IW councils Cabinet, who

ultimately took the final decision, that such were my concerns that

the council were not taking this matter seriously, I would, in the

event of a fatality on the Sands, supply to the Coroner all the

evidence that the council had been warned of these dangers.

The cabinet ultimately rejected the councils proposals, but during

the course of the wightdogs.com website fighting these proposals

several of the site members contacted me with information of past

fatalities on Ryde sands. Including three children who drowned

trying to escape the incoming tide in the 1970s, and a number of

people who drowned whilst celebrating the end of the

Second World War on the sandbanks off Appley. As I still have my

concerns that the council are not taking this matter seriously, or

taking adequate steps to warn the public of the dangers in this

area.

I therefore wish to request details of any and all records the

council has of the number of people who have been killed in this

treacherous yet apparently tranquil area.

I am having to request this information through the whatdotheyknow

website as following the successful campaign to stop the councils

proposals, co ordinated by me through the wightdogs website, I have

discovered that all my emails to the IW councils are immediately

returned as I am now "Blacklisted".

Yours faithfully,

Alas I thought my new councullor would honour his pre election pledge and assist me by not allowing my emails to him to be intercepted as Im "Blacklisted"

But I have been dismissed like a naughty schoolboy.

Click here for all the details in the Blog

Despite the IW council bouncing my emails back to me, since 23 April,  with a clear message attached stating they had been discarded as I was blacklisted, they now claim that they have not been actively rejecting my emails.

I currenly have a complaint pending with the Information Commissioners Office regarding a Freedom Of Information request which the council did reject but claim to have had no knowledge of it ever existing until the ICO informed them that I had made a complaint about it.

Watch this space.

Well now, three months after the author of this website was informed that he had been blacklisted by the IW council we finally appear to be getting somewhere.

The Information Commissioner Office (ICO) has informed the council that they cannot reject my Freedom Of Innformation requests solely on the grounds that they are from me. As I had said all along. The council in response had informed the ICO that they have  stopped the practice and they had not in fact blaclisted me. This  despite them retuning my emails for the last three months and stating they had been discarded as I was blacklisted.

Armed with this information I emailed them with another FOI request, which was immediately bounced back at me as discarded and blacklisted.

No change whatsoever despite their assurances to the contrary.

I therefore forwarded this further rejected request  to the ICO, and today I received an email from the council, in reply to this second FOI request, informing me they hadnt blacklisted me.

My reply to that is copied below.

Dear Ms xxxxxxx,

In your reply to my Freedom Of Information request you have stated that the council has not blacklisted my communications, and you confirm that the council holds no information further my request for all records relating to the decision to blacklist my communications, and  that you are unable to supply statements relating to why I was not informed that my emails had been blacklisted, as you confirm that the council holds "no information".

You reiterate the council has not blacklisted my communications.  

Apparently the IW council were experiencing problems withtheir understanding of the settings for their email filtering system,which resulted in my original FOI request being discarded without trace.

This apparently was a mistake.

Could you therefore please supply me with an explanation of why the council sent me a message stating categorically that the email had been discarded, which in fact was the case, and why it stated that I was blacklisted.

In addition could you also explain why I continued to receive these same statements, that emails had been"discarded" as I was blacklisted, when emailed the council for the next three months.

Also could you please explain why, despite my alerting the council to the practice. you continued that practice with the return message (copied below) attached to my further FOI request of the 20 July2010. Three months after the first mistake.

Return-Path:

Your message

could not be delivered to:

  250 2.7.1 Ok, discarded, sender blacklisted, id=29351-09

Final-Recipient: rfc822; customer.services@iow.gov.uk

Action: delivered

Status: 2.7.1

Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 250 2.7.1 Ok, discarded, sender blacklisted, id=29351-09

Last-Attempt-Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 20:30:21 +0100 (BST)

Finally as you have chosen to use the terms Blacklisted and Discarded would you also please explain under what circumstance the IW council would in fact  Blacklist  and Discard incoming emails from a member of the public.

Yours sincerely

The Isle of Wight council have now informed me:

"The council was not actively rejecting your, or any other, communications, and we were not aware that the system was rejecting them."

This is despite them returning my emails, for the last three months, with an attached message stating that my email had been "discarded" along with "sender blacklisted".

So although the IW council had chosen to install a system which discarded my emails unread, and dont appear to have scutinised how that system was performing in relation to either their responsibilities, or a persons rights, in making  FOI requests. And although they were continuing to inform me that I was "Blacklisted" with any emails that I sent, including FOI requests,  due to their system which still remained in place three months later on 20 July, and this was despite me repeatedly appealing to my newly elected councillor Cllr. Gary Taylor , who was about as much use as an inflatable dartboard. Regardless of all this the council were however, in their opinion, not rejecting my communications.

I have now made another Freedom Of Information request this time to the Information Commissioner in order to establish whether this situation, of rejecting emails that they hadn't rejected, is actually unique to the IW council:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/foi_requests_auto_rejected_as_th#outgoing-77977

The IW council have refused to supply the legal advisce requested regarding the options considered at the Cabinet meeting on 13 April 2010, on the grounds of it being exempt under Section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act, due to "legal professional privilege".

They consider it to be in the public interest for them to withhold the advise they sought as to the legality of the options considered by their Cabinet in determining the Dogs Control Exclusion (Isle of Wight) Order. 

Read more on the whatdotheyknow.com  website

Update on my "Blacklisting" by the IW council:

The Information Commissioner has now stopped the Isle of Wight councils practice of bouncing my emails back to me with an accompanying message stating they had been "discarded" due too me being "blacklisted".

A practice which had remained in place until the 20 July 2010, three months after it was implemented.

According to the councils Information Manager these measures were only put in place due to an error, and they were unaware that my emails were being bounced back to me, with an accompanying message stating that they had been "discarded" due too me being "blacklisted", until the Information Commissioner raised it with them in July. Following my complaint to the ICO over the practice.

However you will recall that earlier this year my councillor Gary Taylor assured me that he had taken this practice up with the IW council, as my elected representative, he subsequently stated that there was nothing he could do about it.

So it would appear that Cllr Taylor and the IW councils Information Manager version of events are contradictory.

If Cllr Taylor had raised this matter the IW council on my behalf they obviously would have been aware of it, and if they were aware of it  has the IW councils Information Manager also stated otherwise to the Information Commissioner?

Hopefully I will eventually get an answer to that one, but in the meanwhile I had in fact also informed the IW council that my emails were being bounced back at me as I was "blacklisted" in this Freedom Of Information request which I made to them on the 1st June through the whatdotheyknow.com website:

I am having to request this information through the whatdotheyknow

website as following the successful campaign to stop the councils

proposals, co ordinated by me through the wightdogs website, I have

discovered that all my emails to the IW councils are immediately

returned as I am now "Blacklisted"

Hmmm...Such a tangled web, I really must get around to doing a thorough search of my email archive as I'm sure there must be some other little gems that have slipped my mind...Watch this space.

In July this year the Information Commissioner contacted the IW council regarding my emails being returned to me with a message stating that this was because I was blacklisted. These messages continued for a three month period. Because the IW council continued informing me that my emails were being rejected due to me being blacklisted I therefore considered myself to be unable to make requests for information under the FOI Act, unless I did so publicly on the whatdotheyknow.com website. I was being informed by the IW council that I was no longer in the position of being able to make private FOI requests to them, from an electonic adress as the FOI Act states I have a right to do, due to being blacklisted. This privalidge extended to everybody else yet I was being informed that I was excluded.

Following the ICO contacting them on the 21 July the IW council wrote to me stating:"...we were unaware of this particular issue, until the ICO contacted us" The IW council further stated "The Council were not rejecting your, or any other, communications, and we were not aware that the system was rejecting them"

I then wrote to my councillor Gary Taylor and my MP Andrew Turner as I had previously contacted both of them regarding the rejecting of my emails as I was blacklisted.

Cllr. Gary Taylor replied: "I raised the issue of your emails being blocked in May and understand that officers have responded and dealt with your concerns"

Andrew Turner MPs office replied: "I can confirm that we have indeed raised this matter with the Council and await their response. We will forward this on to you as soon as it is available"

The council appear to have contradicted these two statements by stating that the first they were unaware of the issue until the ICO contacted them.

Assuming that is Mr Turners office had contacted the council over this matter prior to my asking them to confirm this in August, as the reply does not mention any date but just confirms they have raised it with the council. Whereas Cllr Gary Taylor confirmed he did so in May.

Therefore iI have made a Freedom Of Information request to the IW council in an attempt to obtain further information.

The IW council have maintained the reason my original FOI request was discarded was due to a mistake in migration to a new email system and that this was this is the only instance of them actually discarding my emails, (even though they continued sending me messages for the next three months contradicting that) However I also requested other information on the same day which I have never had a reply to. The FOI Act states the council must reply within 20 working days, I have currently been waiting 7 months. And Im still waiting!

As mentioned above I  made a further FOI request to the IW council on 19 November for an explanation of why their Information Manager stated to the Information Commissioner (ICO) that they were unaware that they were rejecting my emails and returning them with a message stating that I was"blacklisted".

However this request has been dealt with by the very same Information manager who had informed the ICO of this, and in addition she has decided to reject the request as she has alleged that the request is having the the effect of harassing the authority and causing distress to staff.

Although the IW council appear to now have decided that the request is not having the effect of harassing the authority and causing distress to staff on appeal. (its all very confusing to a simple country lad like me)

I await an explanation prior to making a further complaint to the Information Commissioner about the IW councils handling of a FOI request

From WIKIPEDIA

BLACKLIST:

Political context:

"The term blacklisting are two words put together generally used in a pejorative context, as it implies that someone has been prevented from having legitimate access to something due to the whims or judgements of another"

Dogs Strengthen Communities