Court of Public Opinion

As shown on the pages of this Blog, F tried, from the very beginning, to obtain legal advice, either for free or for a fee.   Without any success.  Perhaps because there is no precedent,  a case dealing with a disclosure of individual’s HIV+ status without his consent, or perhaps because of the nature of the information.

F even tried to obtain advice from a Barrister, through the Direct Access scheme, again without any luck.

The idea of becoming a Litigant in Person, landed F in a legal ‘cul-de-sac’, unable to proceed any  further.  For whatever reasons, perhaps also due to some ‘dark forces’ trying to scarper  his efforts, he could not proceed further. 

Even if he went to court, the case, due to the nature of information, would perhaps be heard in private by  a bewigged judge, who will decide one way, or another.  The case would be closed and files.  The public at large quite unaware of the process.

Therefore, F decided to publish his concerns, together with all the relevant documents, from all  of those asked.

F is now asking the readers of this Blog to comment, advice and even judge RBKC’s actions.  It may be relevant to mention that this is the same RBKC, which was involved in a shameless  charade in respect of GRENFELL TOWER, in which  Fate dealt them an appropriate card – that of DEATH.

Therefore, those interested in giving their judgement, are invited to do so on the ‘Desired Outcome‘ page.

Dr Barry Quirk

When  Mr Holgate, RBKC’s interim CEO, ‘stepped aside’ few days  after the Grenfell disaster,  Mrs May parachuted in Mr Quirk, hoping to save the Tory’s bacon.  It can be alleged, according to the events since Mr Quirk’s Appointment, the bacon has turned rather rancid.

Dr Quirk was an CEO of Lewisham, one of London Boroughs; of  13.57m2 and 286,180 residents.  He is now  in RBKC,  4.68m2 and 155,584 residents.  Considerably smaller than Lewisham, in area as well as population; yet it is considered that he is utterly out of his depth, unable to put into practice what he preaches in his books:

Synopsis for the 256 pages ‘Re-imagining Government‘ published in 2011, states “In an age of austerity, public leaders and managers face a range of external challenges – fiscal, social and political. Combining theoretical insight, empirical commentary and practical experience, this book examines how democratic political systems work and how public decisions are made – and how they could be made better.”  Written in 2011, how relevant is it in 2018?  Mily, wrote a review in February 2012  on Amazon, concluding with  “Let’s not just stop at imagining’…..Let’s hope that the readers  have implemented the imaginations into reality.  As for Dr Quirk, the opinion in the Borough is, judging from his achievements,  a myopic daydreamer.

‘Esprit de Corps:Leadership for Progressive change in local government’.  Sadly, none on them on the  bestseller list.

Just wonder, would these old tomes be available at the Horton Central Library?  If not, perhaps Dr Quirk might think of donation a copy, so that the few many enlighten themselves….

Dr Quirk was very plain  about RBKC.   However, what has he done about it is more difficult to find.

It is alleged that Dr Quirk’s brief was to stifle the progression of the ‘story’, lest it may unearth the dire problem in London’s ‘Social Housing’, as addressed in  the media recently.

It was wholeheartedly hoped by all of those with a vested interested in the “‘Regeneration Process” that the event would  stop hanging around like a smelly pesky fart; go away  and ‘business would return to  as normal’.  RBKC reacting ‘because they have to, rather than that they WANT TO

It can be alleged that Dr Quirk has succeeded in his brief, somewhat.   

However, events since the disaster ensured that ”Grenfell” would not go away, as hoped.   Should you ‘Google’ ‘GRENFELL’,   the response will show that there are almost TEN MILLION internet sites,  which mention this word, which before 14th July 2017, was known only to few; especially the residents of the Grenfell Tower, who have had an ongoing battle with RBKC about the safety and security of the Tower.

Another sorry example of his ‘management expertise’ is the Holland Park fiasco.  Nothing but a third rate operatic venue, subsidised by RBKC, resulting in concerns about the care for the needy and elderly.

Formal Request

In early 2013 F realised that  one of the main responsibilities of his Social Worker   was to keep F’s ‘information confidential and safe at all times’.

On 19th February  2013,  F  submitted a complaint to HCPC, the newly established Social Workers Regulators.

On 25th July 2013, F was told by HCPC that  RBKC confirmed to them that

  1. Mr Leak, F’s Social Worker,was NOT directly responsible for the disclosure of your information to the legal team.
  2. RBKC’s legal team  have access to ALL documentation they require for their role.
  3. If a FORMAL REQUEST was made by the legal team for information contained in a Service User’s file, it would be  the Service Manager within the team, who  would have authorised the sharing of your information with the legal team.
  4. Mr Leak was NOT in a position to obstruct  the legal team from obtaining information from your files.

F  found this very worrisome, as it indicated that RBKC could do as they felt fit with his information, despite his explicit instructions in May 2010 relating to consent.

Without asking for a copy of the ‘formal request’, he  asked many local authorities in England, how would they approach the matter.

On  10th September 2013, F  sent an FOI to many local authorities, asking them how they would treat the matter.

Those who replied, stated  failed to endorse RBKC’s reasoning.

However,  what should have happened or not, becomes rather academic, because,  RBKC  could NOT provide a copy of the ‘formal request’.

On 16th February 2016, RBKC was asked  for a copy of the ‘order’ which would have to be issued by the LGO, ordering  RBKC to disclose F’s  HIV relevant information.  The LGO merely issued a polite REQUEST for copies of F’s assessment documents and relevant information.

  RBKC replied  on 2nd March 2016,   telling F that  RBKC does NOT have a copy of this important document.

This fact now presents a very important question: how come that Mr Leak permitted access to F’s confidential file, when there was NO compelling  legal reason to do so.

It must be remembered that Social Workers are independent legal entities, with their own professional legal obligations, imposed by their LICENCE to work as Social Workers, issued by the HCPC.

Had Mr Leak not been Ms Baillie’s  meek, sycophantic  lap dog, wagging his tail to her whistles, he was entitled to tell them all to go away and return with a proper legal document, a Court Order, in the case of F’s information, compelling his to disclose F’s HIV information.   

There is NO evidence that the LGO was aware of any of F’s medical conditions, as they were not collected by the ASAQ, or mentioned on the FACE Report, where the medical information space is BLANK.   This would confirm that F’s medical conditions, let alone HIV,  were relevant to the assessment process; otherwise they would have been provided.

It can be alleged that RBKC invented the notion of the existence  of a ‘formal request‘, thus perverting the course of  HCPC’s investigation.

However, what is very strange and gives rise to collusion, is the fact that HCPC failed to ask RBKC for this crucial document, which would have put the investigation in a different light.   Mr Leak DID NOT have  a reason to permit access to F’s HIV information.

HCPC told F about the ‘formal request’ in wholehearted believe that he would accept this narrative, shut up and go away.

Data Protection Act – Section 10 – Notice

In accordance with DPA Section 10 – Right to prevent processing likely to cause damage or distress, any individual can instruct a data controller, in F’s case, RBKC, to  stop or begin processing his personal information; meaning NOT to disclose any of his information.  Specifically,  any information relating to his HIV+ status, as this would cause him much damage and distress.

This is called a NOTICE, which is in fact a free and a long winded  version of an INJUNCTION, to be used by those who have time on their hands to wait for a reply from the party who wish/have disclosed the information causing concern, distress and/or damage..

It was only in 2016 when F discovered that his May 2010 Amendment to his Information Sharing Agreement, was in fact a NOTICE, in accordance with section 10.   The NOTICE instructed RBKC that it must not start processing any of his personal information without his explicit written consent.

Furthermore, it instructed RBKC to remove all information relating to his HIV status from his files.

Although he asked for confirmation, this NEVER happened.

In accordance with  Section 10-(3), the data controller, RBKC, HAD  TO REPLY within 21 DAYS, whether (a) RBKC intends to comply with the instructions, or (b), tell F that they consider his instructions unjustified or are prepared to comply to a certain extent, giving a  reason for this.

ICO’s guidance to section 10 is clear that  F was NOT obliged to tell RBKC that he was presenting a NOTICE, or refer to Section 10 of the DPA,  or present  the NOTICE in any particular format.

The onus to recognise the existence of the NOTICE was solely on RBKC, who should have  taken prompt action to comply with the 21 day limit to reply.

RBKC FAILED to reply AT ALL.  The NOTICE was simply ignored.

The ICO confirmed in his response, dated 1st March 2016, that  RBKC’s failure to comply with para 10-(3) of the DPA,  would be a breach of SIXTH Principle  of the DPA.

It must be appreciated that the DPA does NOT provide a REMEDY for the VICTIM of any non-compliance with the Act.   The ICO is in NO WAY interested in providing this. He is empowered  to issue notice  to the culprit. However, he cannot even compel him to issue a simple apology.

In order to seek a REMEDY, the VICTIM must avail himself of DPA’s paragraph 13 and present his concerns to a Court.   The Judge is in NO way compelled to take any notice of the ICO’s ASSESSMENT, should there be one.   He will consider the matter anew and issue his own ruling.  

This is clearly addressed in the Soho HIV Clinic’s disclosure of Newsletter recipients’ email addresses.   The ICO issue a high Monetary Penalty Notice.  However, he was powerless to provide any resolution to the many VICTIMS of the disclosure, who may have suffered distress and anxiety

Should they wish to claim  COMPENSATION from the Clinic, they can ONLY do so  through the Courts,  as provided in paragraph 13 of the DPA, with the assistance from legal professionals, such as Leigh Day..

In respect of the damage and/or distress,  the matter has become somewhat easier, with the  decision in Vidal v Google.