Portsmouth News: "Falklands Fighter Ace Calls For Cost Controls Over UK’s £9.2bn F-35 Project"

D

Deleted 59428

Guest
Frivolous or vexatious - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_or_vexatious
In law, frivolous or vexatious, is a term used to deny a complaint or a legal proceeding being heard, or to dismiss or strike out any ensuing judicial or non-judicial processes. The term is used in several jurisdictions, such as Ireland and New Zealand. While the term is referenced in laws and regulations, it is often not defined ...

There is no analogy. The MOD is not a Court of Law.
 

Magic_Mushroom

War Hero
You assume Sharkey's drips are not evidence based He has presumably dreamt them up?
Whether you work, or have ever worked in MOD Main Building-whatever that is- is neither here nor there. You will know that MOD's attitude to anything that they disagree with-whether right or wrong- causes them a lot of sleepless nights and is therefore vexatious--He or she keeps on about it awaiting a researched, courteous reply. They are vexatious and that's that. End of story.

Even a cursory glance through some of Mr Ward’s various blogs, letters and articles shows that much of his opinion is not only not evidence based, it’s even factually incorrect. Moreover, some of what he’s claimed is extremely disrespectful to those that have died on operations.

In terms of the ‘vexatious correspondent’ nomenclature, having worked in MoD I can confirm that this is only very rarely awarded. When it is, it is to those most extreme of serial correspondents who bombard Centre with a constant stream of pointless, groundless and entirely vexatious FoIs and other correspondence to further their own agenda.

Let me stress that to be officially named as a ‘vexatious correspondent’ takes several years of wasting considerable amounts of staff effort. I suspect that few were more embarrassed by Mr Ward’s actions, or more relieved when he was annotated as a vexatious correspondent than the Naval Staff.

Ultimately, I have the utmost respect for what he achieved during CORPORATE. However, it’s a great shame to see what the man has become.

Regards,
MM
 
Last edited:

Stirlin

War Hero
MOD regards Sharkey as "vexatious" that's MOD Speak for anyone with a view contrary to theirs and not particularly descriptive.
If Sharkey has some deep-seated RAF problem ( shared by many Rum Ration correspondents seemingly) then I would suggest that is more tendentious.

Behave , that is mostly banter.
 
D

Deleted 59428

Guest
Even a cursory glance through some of Mr Ward’s various blogs, letters and articles shows that much of his opinion is not only not evidence based, it’s even factually incorrect. Moreover, some of what he’s claimed is extremely disrespectful to those that have died on operations.

In terms of the ‘vexatious correspondent’ nomenclature, having worked in MoD I can confirm that this is only very rarely awarded. When it is, it is to those most extreme of serial correspondents who bombard Centre with a constant stream of pointless, groundless and entirely vexatious FoIs and other correspondence to further their own agenda.

Let me stress that to be officially named as a ‘vexatious correspondent’ takes several years of wasting considerable amounts of staff effort. I suspect that few were more embarrassed by Mr Ward’s actions, or more relieved when he was annotated as a vexatious correspondent than the Naval Staff.

Ultimately, I have the utmost respect for what he achieved during CORPORATE. However, it’s a great shame to see what the man has become.

Regards,
MM
MOD and obfuscation? Well! Vexatious Litigants all.
Cast your mind back to the period 1951 and 1960 and beyond when the Ministry of Defence through AFO's and their Army and Air force equivalents called for volunteers for its Common Cold Research (CCRU) Unit trials conducted between its Harvard Hospital Salisbury site and Porton Down, some eight miles up the road. 30% of the 20,000 volunteers were National Servicemen. The advertisements in AFO's called for volunteers to help find a cure for the common cold. Extra Pay No work and plentiful quality food.
The guinea pigs were subjected to Sarin nerve agent and LSD.
Requests for information for details of just what went on received the usual MOD flannel and obfuscation. The requests would have been deemed Vexatious.
The truth came out in the High Court in 2004. It cost HMG dearly.
It has never been possible to contact AWE Porton Down etc. All enquiries are dealt with by MOD. Why?
 

Magic_Mushroom

War Hero
...The requests would have been deemed Vexatious...

Under current convention, the requests would probably only have been considered vexatious if a single individual had repeatedly asked the same question, or proffered wildly inaccurate data and untruths.

...All enquiries are dealt with by MOD. Why?

Because it was a Defence issue.

It also has nothing whatsoever to do with Mr Ward’s agenda.

Regards,
MM
 
D

Deleted 59428

Guest
Under current convention, the requests would probably only have been considered vexatious if a single individual had repeatedly asked the same question, or proffered wildly inaccurate data and untruths. In whose opinion are they wildly



Because it was a Defence issue.

It also has nothing whatsoever to do with Mr Ward’s agenda.

Regards,
MM

In whose opinion are they wildly inaccurate data and untruths? None ( Except Porton Down) was ever tested by a Tribunal or Court. On the one occasion it has been, MOD was made to look foolish and dishonest--- and it cost them a lot of money.
 

Magic_Mushroom

War Hero
In whose opinion are they wildly inaccurate data and untruths? None ( Except Porton Down) was ever tested by a Tribunal or Court. On the one occasion it has been, MOD was made to look foolish and dishonest--- and it cost them a lot of money.

What on earth are you on about?

At no point have I (or anyone else) ever suggested that anyone from Porton Down’s history produced ‘wildly inaccurate data and untruths.’

So please do not mis-represent my words.

Nor frankly, do I see the relevance of the Porton Down experiments to Mr Ward’s views.

Regards,
MM
 
Last edited:

huwshpis

War Hero
In whose opinion are they wildly inaccurate data and untruths? None ( Except Porton Down) was ever tested by a Tribunal or Court. On the one occasion it has been, MOD was made to look foolish and dishonest--- and it cost them a lot of money.

I don't think @Magic_Mushroom was referring to any specific instances, he was simply describing the conditions that would make a series of communications vexatious. As someone who (some years ago) was a civil service lawyer who acted for MoD, and an expert on vexatious litigants, I have to say that if a particular project was subject to a security classification, questions about it would simply be dodged, but questioning about such a sensitive matter would never be regarded as vexatious unless a non-dodging, closing-down reply had been given . If, however, someone found a way to sue, then MoD would first try to avoid disclosing any classified papers through the public interest immunity process, and, if that failed, find a way to settle the case with minimum fuss.

I did once settle a claim arising from a special forces training accident by finding a suitably large but justifiable sum of money to be paid in compensation.
 

Purple_twiglet

War Hero
Moderator
The MOD is obliged to treat all external correspondence as potentially subject to FOI and thus generate a response. To become considered vexatious you fundamentally need to have abused the goodwill of the system by expecting replies to ever longer rantier letters that don't actually ask for information.

Having worked in MB, I can agree that to get to the stage where you are deemed a 'vexatious correspondent' (a specific FOI term) requires a lot of time and effort. It generally involves writing regular repeated angry diatribes that don't ask for anything. As such, instead of generating an FOI response when a letter is received, they can just ignore it.

To get to this stage would need very senior sign off at the highest levels and and a very considerable body of evidence as to why this was the case. Sadly Sharkey brought this on himself and has no one to blame but himself for his rants.
 
D

Deleted 59428

Guest
The MOD is obliged to treat all external correspondence as potentially subject to FOI and thus generate a response. To become considered vexatious you fundamentally need to have abused the goodwill of the system by expecting replies to ever longer rantier letters that don't actually ask for information.

Having worked in MB, I can agree that to get to the stage where you are deemed a 'vexatious correspondent' (a specific FOI term) requires a lot of time and effort. It generally involves writing regular repeated angry diatribes that don't ask for anything. As such, instead of generating an FOI response when a letter is received, they can just ignore it.

To get to this stage would need very senior sign off at the highest levels and and a very considerable body of evidence as to why this was the case. Sadly Sharkey brought this on himself and has no one to blame but himself for his rants.

Rants need not be inaccurate. MOD would no doubt find them irritating but would have far more credibility if they stated outright that they were lies, giving Sharkey, or anyone else, the opportunity to let a Court decide.
MOD is not a Court and should not conduct itself as if it is.
 
Top