A developing series of FOI requests seeking previously undisclosed material in the David Kelly case is currently being rejected as vexatious essentially on the grounds that they are all from a single individual and addressing the same “subject”.

Reviews of the decisions have been requested.

However it is open to the recipient to reject requests which are
“vexatious” (section 14(1) of the Act).

Steve- as mentioned previously, “vexatious” has a technical meaning in law that was developed long before FOI. It also occurs when seeking to dismiss suits. It has no relevance to my request for Yamal data.

Nurse made a hearsay claim. He claims he was told. My question: well, did you ask the
person for proof, because the proof would be GREAT.

“As far as I can tell, the institutions themselves block/deny all FOI possible, so they never reach the scientist at all. If Nurse is referring the the Mann subpoena, it is 1 “one” case, and a strange one (and not FOI at all).”

For this to be similar Craig would have to say ” I’ve been told that all institutions”

In which case I’d ask him

1. who told you this
2. did you ask that person for the back up data?

When he reports “as far as he knows” he is claiming something about his knowledge.
and look what you can do. you can ask him the basis of his knowledge and he answers you.
See that you are doing EXACTLY what Nurse should have done. and everytime you do it
you demonstrate the fundamental difference between what you can do here and what Nurse should have done. You see how skepticism works now. X makes a claim. You ask X for evidence. When we see Nurse NOT exercising the skeptical method, we of course have good reason to dismiss him and his views.