Total Visits

Sunday, 25 August 2019




Following up on my previous Blog article about taking on Facebook, I am trailblazing taking on Facebook.  As far as the Data Protection line of attack this is where I have got to so far:-
Letter sent to Facebook Ireland Limited on the 29th July:-

Dear Sir
Re:  GDPR request for information
I, Robin Tilbrook, make the following request:
Under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (EU) 2016/679.[ Data Protection Act 2018 (UK)] please supply copies of all correspondence, emails, letters, instant messenger, text, Whatsapp, data, informal notes, transcripts of off the record conversations, meeting minutes, internet articles that were read, and other records relating to:-
1.      The blocking of my profile ( No proper explanation has been given to me as to why that happened or any right of appeal. 
In the circumstances I formally ask, pursuant to the General Data Protection Regulation, for you to provide me with full disclosure of all information/data which you might rely upon to justify your Company’s behaviour in disabling my profile. 
The history of this case is as follows:-
Some time on Thursday, 16th May 2019 Facebook “Disabled” my “Personal Profile”.
The first I knew about this was when I tried to sign on to check if I had had any messages. I was then told that the account had been “Disabled”. 
Here is exactly what the text said:-
Your account has been disabled
For more information, or if you think your account was disabled by mistake visit the Help Centre”
For more information about our policies please review the Facebook Community Standards.  If you think your account was disabled by mistake please contact us.”
I of course thought that that must be wrong and therefore went to their next page which said:-
Why was my account disabled?
Your account has been disabled for violating Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.
Our Policies
One of Facebook’s main priorities is the comfort and safety of our members.  The following are not allowed on Facebook:
·       Support for a violent and/or criminal organization or group
·       Credible threats to harm others or the promotion of self-destructive behaviour
·       Targeting other individuals on the site
·       Hate speech or singling people out based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or disease
·       Graphic content including sadistic displays of violence against people or animals and depictions of sexual assault
·       Selling recreational or pharmaceutical drugs
Learn More
After looking carefully at that page I was able to see that there was some element of an appeal process, so I clicked onto the link they provided and got a page which only told me to send them a PDF of my passport or other ID.
So all I was able to do in response to my Profile being “Disabled” was to send them an image of my passport to confirm my identity!
On Friday I received a response saying that the ID Team couldn’t help with any appeal!
Which is absolutely hopeless.
At that point I thought Facebook’s procedures for appeals were completely inadequate and didn’t even remotely approach the basic “Rules of Natural Justice”.  I therefore sent off an email to every Facebook email address that I had got. 
Here is my email to them:-
Dear Sir
I have tried to log in to my above profile and your system asked me to submit an ID check.  There is no proper detail of any reason why this happened nor a clear appeal process just some generic items which can’t be relevant to me.
I am currently a candidate standing in an election here in England and I have already done your double identity check for political figures and advertising so you should be aware.
Here in the UK it is a crime under the Representation Of the People Acts for candidates to be slandered so I would politely ask you to sort this out and restore my profile or I shall get the police involved tomorrow.”
In reply I did get this answer:- 
“Hi Robin,
Thanks for your report.  We’ll review the information you provided and get back to you when we have an update on your report.
In the meantime, you can review our Community Standards to learn more bout what is and isn’t allowed on Facebook:
We appreciate your patience.
View updates from your Support Inbox:
The Facebook Team
Since then I have not received any substantive response explaining either why they have done it or what they are going to do about it.
2.       Any discussions between staff and Employer regarding the above.
And I would like access to the following: -
a)    Any memoranda and notes taken (including handwritten notes) at any meetings where the above was discussed.
b)    E-mails, or any form of instant messaging or text message communications, between individuals at employer, including personal e-mails to the extent that they were used for work purposes regarding the above.
c)    Transcripts of Telephone conversations where the above was discussed.
In conducting a search, please ensure that search terms include for my full name, my initials, a short name or any name or variation that might be used by any of the above people to identify me.
If you do not disclose any of the documents mentioned above, I would be grateful if you could confirm that a search has been conducted and no results have been found. I may in due course, request sight of the search terms that were used and the results of the searches conducted.
It may be helpful for me to point out that there are time limits set for you response under the Data Protection Act 2018 (UK) and sanctions, including criminal sanctions, for non-compliance.
Yours faithfully
R C W Tilbrook
Facebook’s Reply of the 14th August:-
Dear Mr Tilbrook
Thank you for contacting Facebook.
In relation to the disablement of your account, our specialist team reviewed the disablement of your account and we can confirm that your account was correctly disabled for violations of our Terms of Service and Community Standards.  Our internal policies and protocols with respect to the application of our Terms and Community Standards are not your personal data and so these documents do not fall within the scope of Article 15 GDPR.
With respect to our decision to disable your account we reserve the right not to provide users with access to data relating to disablement and we are entitled to do so under the exemptions to article 15 GDPR.
To the extent information contained in internal documentation in respect of the violation of our policies and protocols comprises personal data about you, we are not able to provide this information to you as such provision could adversely affect the rights and freedoms of others, as set out in Article 15 (4) GDPR.  This would include the rights and freedoms of the members of our Community Operations team but more importantly, the rights and freedoms of users who have reported your behaviour.
Furthermore, providing specific information around what exactly triggers disablement may have the propensity to prejudice the effective application of our policies and protocols by potentially allowing individuals to understand how we determine breaches and therefore how to adjust their behaviour slightly so as to avoid their account being actioned.  As such, we will not comply with your request for this specific data.
We hope this is helpful information, but please do let us know if you have any further questions.
I then responded on the 20th August as follows:-
Dear Sir
Thank you for your letter of the 14th August. 
Your answer is wholly unsatisfactory and amounts to a blatant breach not only of the GDPR but also of the basic “Rules of Natural Justice”.
I shall now seek your prosecution for criminal breaches of the GDPR.
Yours faithfully
R C W Tilbrook
I have also written to the Information Commissioner as follows on the 21st August:-
Dear Sir
Complaint against Facebook
I enclose a copy of my letter to Facebook dated the 29th July 2019 requesting information under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (EU) 2016/679 [Data Protection Act 2018 (UK)].  I also enclose a copy of Facebook’s response dated the 14th August, together with my reply. 
In the circumstances I formally request that you accept this as a complaint against Facebook.  I should like to see them prosecuted if they fail to provide the requisite data.
Yours faithfully
R C W Tilbrook

Wednesday, 21 August 2019

Our Application to Appeal to the Court of Appeal has been dismissed

The Right Honourable Lord Justice Hickinbottom has dismissed our Application to Appeal to the Court of Appeal and has used the device of “Totally without Merit” to prevent us from demanding a hearing of our Application. 
Given that this is a case that very many lawyers, both distinguished and retired members of the judiciary, QCs, barristers and solicitors think has strong legal credibility, this decision can only be based upon the Judge’s politics. 
In the English and Welsh Jurisdiction these days a Judge’s politics perhaps should not be a surprise, given the blatant bias in the appointments system introduced under Blair by his last proper Lord Chancellor, Lord Derry Irvine, who created the Judicial Appointments Commission publicly boasting that he had created a system which would not allow the appointment of any Judges who had “Reactionary Views”. 
The Judicial Appointments Commission requires all Judges to prove that they have “a life-time’s commitment to Equality and Diversity”.  Lord Justice Hickinbottom has this in spades, as it says on his biography published on the Judicial website which says he is:- “the former Senior Liaison Judge for Diversity”.
Also Lord Justice Hickinbottom is a Fellow of the European Law Institute.  The first among ELI’s core objections is:- “To evaluate and stimulate the development of EU law, legal policy, and practice, and in particular make proposals for the further development of the acquis and for the enhancement of EU law implementation by the Member States.”
So it is perhaps not a surprise that a Judge with such views would be more a Europhile Left-wing political activist than someone who would judge simply according to law. 
Such is my explanation of why we have had this decision go against us. 
The reasoning behind a claim that the case was ‘Totally without Merit’ is not about an actual finding of fact, since as our QC made clear, it was blatantly obviously that the first Judge had actually got his decision wrong and therefore our Application to Appeal clearly had substantial merit. 
No, this decision is not about the genuine merits of the case, it is about preventing this case from being heard, which the device of ‘Totally without Merit’ achieves, as I explained in a previous blog. 
I think the only sensible reaction to this is to make an Application to the European Convention of Human Rights Court, based in Strasbourg.  This is of course not the EU Court, but a court that will look at whether or not these decisions to exclude our case from even getting a hearing is simply on the political orientation of the Judiciary and is a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which states:-
"In the determination of his civil rights....everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an...impartial tribunal"
Another interesting questions is why Lord Justice Hickinbottom was chosen by the Civil Service to hear the case? 
I think Jacob Rees-Mogg rather gave the game away when he was asked about the case.  He made clear that he did not want it to succeed.  Maybe that is also true of the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson.  If so that would simply be a demonstration that both of them are much more concerned about the Conservative Party in “getting Brexit done” than about the interests of our country in how it is done.
The worrying element of that thought is that it means that they will be quite open to agreeing completely unacceptable surrender terms to the EU in some sort of Withdrawal Agreement. 
Boris’ Ministry of Justice did of course have the opportunity to influence which Judge got to look at these papers and what steer that that Judge was probably given as to the outcome that was desired. 
Let’s see now if the European Court of Human Rights considers that the politicised way that the High Court and the Court of Appeal operate is in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights!
I think it is a sad reflection on the state of our country in which we have allowed Leftist social justice warriors to dictate the agenda, not only in politics and in the media, but also in the court system.  A court system which used to be renowned for its impartial and incorruptible justice!
What do you think?

Our 2nd Article 50 case

2nd Article 50 case

I set out below the letter which I have sent starting the legal process to bring our second Article 50 case.   

The aim of this case is to box in the UK Government into a No Deal Brexit.  

If the required undertakings are given then they will have legal force! 

If they are not given then we will know that Boris intends to stitch us all up in a version of Theresa May's terrible "Deal".

Mr Jonathan Stowell                                     
c/o Government Legal Department
Team B6
One Kemble Street
London WC2B 4TS

Dear Sirs

Matter: In the matter of a further Judicial Review on the legal basis of Brexit

Letter Before Claim

This letter is drafted under the judicial review protocol in section C of the White Book, which provides for a response within 14 days.

1.    Respondent: Our clients identify two defendants: the Prime Minister (or, if necessary, the First Lord of the Treasury), as the person with overall responsibility for Brexit policy and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.

2.    Applicant: The English Democrats (Reg. No. 6132268) of Quires Green, Willingale, Ongar, Essex, CM5 0QP, for and on behalf of the 15,188,406 voters in England who voted to Leave the European Union in the June 23rd 2016 referendum.

3.    The details of the Applicant’s legal advisers, if any, dealing with this claim:-

Tilbrook’s Solicitors, of Quires Green, Willingale, Ongar, Essex, CM5 0QP
4.    The details of the matters being challenged:-

Any further purported non-statutory Extensions or Revocation of the United Kingdom’s notification to Leave the European Union given under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.
5.    The details of any Interested Parties:-

Every person in England and in particular the 15,188,406 voters in England who voted to Leave the European Union in the 2016 referendum.
6.    The Issues:-

Following the Judgments of the High Court, of the Court of Appeal and of the Supreme Court in R (on the application of Miller and another) – v – Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC5 and the consequent enactment of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, there is no discretionary prerogative power vested in Her Majesty’s Government to agree any extension to the Article 50 Notice, or to Revoke the said Notice without a further express Act of Parliament to authorise such Extension or Revocation. 

Accordingly any further purported Extensions or Revocation are also void and of no effect. 

7.    The details of the action that the Defendant is required to take:-

What is sought from the Respondents is:

(i)             An undertaking that there will be no further attempts to purport to vary the Notice given under the said EU Notification of Withdrawal Act 2017 except pursuant to an express Act of Parliament; and
(ii)           The formal admission that the Government admits that any such purported extension of the notice period or revocation would be legally invalid; and
(iii)         A formal admission that, in the absence of any further statute, that the UK’s departure from the European Union shall go ahead as currently notified on the 31st October 2019. 

8.    ADR proposals:-

9.    The details of any information sought:-

Not applicable.

10.The details of any documents that are considered relevant and necessary:-

          Not applicable.

11. The address for reply and service of all documents:-

Tilbrook’s Solicitors of Quires Green, Willingale, Ongar, Essex, CM5 

12.  Proposed reply date:-

14 days from the date hereof.

Yours faithfully