Lancashire Police block Freedom of Information requests

A person (the victim) who has been targeted by Lancashire Police which includes sexual assault and malicious prosecution has resorted to undertaking an investigation into the misconduct and criminal behaviour of Lancashire Police.

The victim made a number of Freedom of Information requests to assist with his private investigation and to help seek justice.

Police refused to answer some of the FOI’s saying the victim was ‘vexatious‘ for making so many requests (six!) in a few days.

The request that where made where:

  1. 08/06/17 – Osman Warnings – The victims personal data was provided to a police informer under the guise of an Osman Warning.  A request to determine the correct procedure for such am ‘Osman warning’ warning was requested.  This was answered and proved that police lied.  No Osman warning was given and no process was followed.  This was a clear breach of data and police attempted to lie to cover it up. This is now with the IPCC.

  2. 08/06/17 – Policy creation or amendments – The victim was discriminated against because he ‘asked too many questions’.   Police do not like being asked questions, especially questions that uncover their lies.  They responded to this in an over complex way.   The question was simple and a simple reply was requested.

  3. 06/07/17 – Recording of Complaints either Local Resolution or Local Investigation – [Sent 6th July 2017] – This was also a very awkward request for information as Lancashire police (and other forces) often intentionally abuse the complaints system knowing that they can.  This request asked very important questions to help with a complaint of criminal assault by police and the resultant failure to investigate.  This request was deemed vexatious and refused.

  4. 09/07/17 – Misconduct allegations after officers resign – Anther important request due to the fact the victim has made numerous complaints against an officer who has now resigned from the force. The victim simply wants to know his rights about how his complaints will be investigated in light of the fact the officer resigned mid investigation. This request was deemed vexatious and refused.

  5. 09/07/17 – Officers with pending complaints – Finally, a request was made about a police officers ability to have any involvement in decisions against a victim who has had to make a complaint against that officer.  The victim has made a complaint against two specific officers, yet both officers had made a decision to not investigate a crime reported by the same victim. This is a conflict of interest in that the officers will clearly not have the victims best interest at heart. This request was deemed vexatious and refused.

  6. 09/07/17 – CCTV recording for crime detection – This is where it started to get very awkward for police.  This FOI relates to this article whereby a Lancashire officer disclosed an incident where Lancashire police installed and recorded illegally in a toilet cubicle in a public toilet.  It is important to note that this is a LIVE complaint and is currently with the IPCC.  This FOI request helps with this complaint.  This request was deemed vexatious and refused.

  7. 10/07/17 – Police who are Freemasons – A very important question and it is suspected that a number of high ranking officers (and lower ranks also) are members of this ‘secret’ organisations and certain decision are made from members of this organisation that affect the UK justice system.  Strangely, This request was NOT deemed vexatious and was answered!

  8. 10/07/17 – Police Informants – Another very important question as it relates to the source of all the victims suffering in that a police informant was allowed to continue a course of conduct of harassment against the victim. This request was deemed vexatious and refused.


From the list above of 8 requests, the first TWO were answered.

Then police decided that the requests were vexatious from then on (requests 3 through to 6).

They then DID answer request 7

Then refused request 8.


Notice how they are picking and choosing what they answer?

The reason for this is, they could answer request 7 honestly without incrimination as it appears that they do not have to hold information on Freemasons so answering it correctly gives nothing away.  The big question is why did they respond to a ‘vexatious person‘ as they declared the victim was in points 3,4,5  & 6?

If you look at the requests made, they refused to answer any question where the answer would have provided information leading to further questions or action against the police so decided that the easiest way was to make an allegation the requester is vexatious.

This has now been reported to the Information Commissioner (ICO).


1 Comment

  1. They have done the same to me and still refuse via the PSD (Professional Standards Department) to hand over evidence on the grounds that it would open the force up to litigation and the duty of the CC (Chief Constable) is to protect the force as is the PCC (Police Crime Commissioner). This force is corrupt beyond all measure and the PCC states the Chief Constable can not be held accountable for any conduct in his force as he is to high up and hands down his obligations and then they are not his concern.Both CC and PCC have refused the ICO ruling via PSD as they are above the law as a police force.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.