The following piece is to support the Manchester enquiry with Directors of Public Health and the inability of The National Police Chiefs Council to undertake a bit of detective work on behalf of their members. The answers or leads are all in one place and under their noses. Let's make it simpler.
The Terrorist - World Economic Forum Backed - UK Government now lead by Liz Truss Are Bringing In UN Troops To Back Up The Failed Target Take Up Genocide Attempt To Jab All UK Residents Then Radiate Them With 5G Microwave & LED Technologies.
This practice or method of cover up we are fully aware of. We aren't meant to undertake this job ourselves and they determine our observations as vexatious?
They expect us to let them bury the bodies and fudge the cover up as per standard practice in their COVid world.
Refer to Justice for Jabbed and similar resources or The Light Paper.
Archive:
We The People Project helped identify How The E&W Police Really Operate and who they protect. Councils, Government, Corporations, Zionist UN, EU, CCP, WEF agents etc.
With the Data all in one place let's see how they do now? Previous link referenced:
Download
Is A Rising DEATH Count jab related and the use of overseas UN troops a valid enquiry as it would expose further Treason and Genocide being committed and covered up by the NPCC?
NPCC - Get The Picture? As More Die In The Street - At Home - At Work - People Are Going To Be Concerned - Your UN Troops Are To Either Jab More or Deal With Civil Unrest? Hope This Is Clearer now.
NPCC Response: It is unclear what recorded information you are seeking. A public authority is entitled to treat a request as invalid where specific recorded information is not specified. Section 8(1) of the Act sets out the requirements of a valid request for information and says that a request must, amongst things, ‘describe the information’. The Freedom of Information Act affords anyone in the world the right to request information by a Public Authority. It does not cover thoughts and/or opinion, unless recorded. The Act is not designed to answer general questions.
It is therefore reasonable to assert that if we are unable to meet this obligation under S1(1) of the Act we are unable to confirm or deny what information is held by the NPCC. In wishing to assist you, the Freedom of Information Act affords anyone in the world the right to request information held by a Public Authority. It does not cover thoughts and/or opinion. The Act is not designed to answer general questions. Section 84 of the Act states: "Information is defined in section 84 of the Act as 'information recorded in any form'. The Act therefore only extends to requests for recorded information. It does not require public authorities to answer questions generally; only if they already hold the answers in recorded form. The Act does not extend to requests for information about policies or their implementation, or the merits or demerits of any proposal or action - unless, of course, the answer to any such request is already held in recorded form." Additionally, please note in line with your other recent previous responses which have engaged Section 14 – Vexatious, the Freedom of Information Act was designed to give individuals a greater right of access to official information with the intention of making public bodies more transparent and accountable. Whilst most people exercise this right responsibly a few may misuse or abuse the Act by submitting requests which are intended to be annoying or disruptive or which have a disproportionate impact on a public authority.
Then they send you off on a wild goose chase -
Section 14 Vexatious Response?
The Information Commissioner recognises that dealing with unreasonable requests can place a strain on resources and get in the way of delivering mainstream services or answering legitimate requests. Furthermore, these requests can also damage the reputation of the legislation itself. Continued requests for information around this subject are likely to engage a Section 14 – Vexatious response. Yours sincerely Fiona Greenlees NPCC Freedom of Information Officer & Decision Maker www.npcc.police.uk
Section 14(1) states
Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.
FOIA gives individuals a greater right of access to official information in order to make bodies more transparent and accountable. As such it is an important constitutional right. Therefore, engaging section 14(1) is a high hurdle.
Most people exercise their right of access responsibly. However, a few may misuse or abuse FOIA by submitting requests which are intended to be annoying, disruptive or have a disproportionate impact on a public authority.
The ICO recognises that dealing with unreasonable requests can strain resources and get in the way of delivering mainstream services or answering legitimate requests. These requests can also damage the reputation of the legislation itself.
Section 14(1) is designed to protect public authorities by allowing you to refuse any requests which have the potential to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress.
The emphasis on protecting public authorities’ resources from unreasonable requests was acknowledged by the Upper Tribunal in the leading case on section 14(1), Information Commissioner vs Devon County Council & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (ACC), (28 January 2013). It defined the purpose of section 14 as follows:
“The purpose of Section 14…must be to protect the resources (in the broadest sense of that word) of the public authority from being squandered on disproportionate use of FOIA…” (paragraph 10).
Although satisfying section 14(1) is a high hurdle this does not mean that you can only apply it in the most extreme circumstances, or as a last resort. You should consider using it if, after taking account of all the circumstances, you believe the request is disproportionate or unjustified.
It is important to remember that you can only apply section 14(1) to the request itself, and not the individual who submits it. You cannot, therefore, refuse a request on the grounds that the requester themself is vexatious. Similarly, you cannot refuse a new request solely on the basis that you have classified previous requests from the same individual as vexatious.
Section 14(1) is concerned with the nature of the request rather than any damage releasing the requested information may have. If you are concerned about any possible prejudice that might arise from disclosure, then you need to consider whether any of the exemptions listed in Part II of FOIA apply.
You also need to carefully distinguish between FOI requests and requests for the individual’s own personal data. If a requester has asked for information relating to themselves, you should deal with the request as a subject access request under the Data Protection Act 2018 and the UK General Data Protection Regulation.
You can read more about how to handle a subject access request in our Guide to data protection, Right of access.
John O Looney Confirms MPs - Graham Brady cant handle the situation - Beyond their Political reach? So Why Are They Being Listened To At All? As For Truss?
More UN Troops Arrive
Go Ask Your Government?
The Information Commissioner recognises that dealing with unreasonable requests can place a strain on resources and get in the way of delivering mainstream services or answering legitimate requests. Furthermore, these requests can also damage the reputation of the legislation itself. Continued requests for information around this subject are likely to engage a Section 14 – Vexatious response.
Yours sincerely Fiona Greenlees NPCC Freedom of Information Officer & Decision Maker www.npcc.police.uk
No Response So Far From Mike Kane MP but then the guy doesnt know his ARSE from his ELBOW and quite content to let those jabbed get fried by his ZIONIST mates trial by Fire.
Mike Kane covered up what was about to happen from 16.10.2018 in Portcullis House Westminster witnessed by APPG Bankings Exec Director Heather Buchanan and James Ventress APPG Banking......
Whats about to take place is Biblical..
Download
Page 24
Off the leash: The spread of 5G technology
5G will enable wireless connectivity in real time for any device of the internet of things (IoT), such as autonomous cars or sensor-steered factories. Current concerns regarding potential negative health effects from electromagnetic fields are likely to increase. In addition, hackers can also exploit 5G speed and volume to acquire (or steal) more data faster. Major concerns are possible privacy and security breaches, as well as espionage
HIGH POWER MICROWAVE WEAPONS - 5G
First, HPM weapons can minimize collateral damage. These weapons produce little or no physical damage and are therefore ideal for targeting in an urban environment. Second, they have a deep magazine. As long as they have a power source, they can shoot multiple times and engage multiple targets
Abstract
One of the U.S. Military’s greatest strengths, integration of technology, may soon turn into its greatest liability as recent advances in the area of high-power microwave (HPM) weapons are garnering interest around the world. Current U.S. military strategy is to develop and maintain its superiority through the leveraging of information technology, but as recent conflicts have shown, potential enemies are likely to attack asymmetrically. HPMs against electronics is an asymmetric avenue to negate the technological advantage of the U.S. Therefore, nations, groups, and/or individuals will likely seek to use HPM weapons against the U.S. This paper argues that the U.S. should continue to research and develop HPM weapon systems that target electronics, discern how an enemy may use them against us, develop countermeasures, and deter HPM offensive uses, particularly those that can have catastrophic results.
Countermeasures Before one can decide how to defend against a particular threat, one must understand the threat and its impact. Therefore, there are three keys to developing effective countermeasures to HPM weapons. First, the U.S. must continue to research and develop these weapons to appreciate their potential effects and to know when their use is advantageous. Second, the U.S. must continue to monitor potential adversaries to determine their HPM capabilities and intentions. As with all intelligence gathering, this is difficult, but critical for planning a response. Third, the U.S. must test and ascertain the vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure, national, and military systems.51 This costly and time-consuming venture requires testing against the full spectrum of HPM frequencies to include front-door and back-door entries. This information will determine the appropriate defenses.
Directors of Public Health Greater Manchester & North West
08 September 2022
Directors For Public Health Northwest..
Blackburn with Darwen – Dominic Harrison
Blackpool – Arif Rajpura
Bolton – Helen Lowey
Bury – Lesley Jones
Cheshire East UA – Matt Tyrer
Cheshire West and Chester UA – Ian Ashworth
Cumbria – Colin Cox
Halton UA – Ifeoma Onyia (acting/interim)
Knowsley – Sarah McNulty
Lancashire – Sakthi Karunanithi
Liverpool – Matthew Ashton
Manchester – David Regan
Oldham – Katrina Stephens
Rochdale – Kuima Thompson (acting/interim)
Salford – Muna Abdul Aziz
Sefton – Margaret Jones
St Helens – Ruth du Plessis
Stockport – Jennifer Connolly
Tameside – Jeanelle De Gruchy
Trafford – Eleanor Roaf
Warrington UA – Thara Raj
Wigan – Kate Ardern
Wirral – Julie Webster
