By Gavin Mackintosh
The to data protection rights of an Essex Paedophile is splitting the information Commission office( ICO)- the body that regulates complaints about freedom of Information requests turned down.
The Eye Of Media.Com called the ICO on two occasions this week, acting as a random member of the public requesting information about how Data Protection Rights Are Applied To Paedophiles.
We would meet two random ICO officers for discussion, though a separate two were spoken to a few weeks ago when we first began exploring whether to formally present a request for an FOI request declined by Essex police be looked at again.
Authority from high up was for us to avoid putting in a complaint and being told we were wrong in the end. It was still the popular view in the team that a complaint is put to the ICO to assess the decision of Essex police not to tell us why they bailed a vile Paedophile three doors away from where he committed obscene offenses of pedophilia online. We dragged and delayed any decision to officially complain to the ICO, whilst closely assessing the grounds.
Since 2017, The Eye Of Media.Com has been investigating why in 2016, Essex Police bailed paedophile Stuart Sargent three doors away from where he lived with three young children under 10 years of age. In February 2017, Sargent was found guilty of one of the most depraved levels of internet paedophilia , as he circulated images of very young children being sexually abused on the dark web to his paedo pals online. He was bailed three doors away from where he lived when he committed the offense. Sargent
Data Protection Rights
Police still bizarrely thought it reasonable to bail him three doors away from his home, for a whole year. The blunder only came to light after the aggrieved father of one of the three children he lived with began to kick up a fuss about the whole affair. Essex police was asked to explain their actions, and they said risk assessments were undertaken.
The Eye Of Media.Com then sent Essex police where a freedom of Information request to reveal the risk assessments they took so they can be examined, but the request was turned down on the basis it would breach the paedophile’s Data Protection Rights. This explanation was not accepted by The Eye Of Media.Com, so we reported it to the ICO. However, since then, we have called the ICO on different occasions, giving them the scenario and asking for their view. Our latest findings show they are split in their view of whether Essex Police were right or not.
One ICO officer told The Eye Of Com: ” it all depends on the scenario. The Data Protection Act is there to protect the basic rights and freedoms of citizens to prevent discrimination or abuse”. Personal data for instance, is protected by the Act unless there is a justified reason for having it, like to detect or prevent crime”. According to this officer, the reason for requesting the information is key to whether it is right for information to be given. In this instance, the reason we requested the information was to assess the decision by the particular officer in bailing Sargent three doors away, and whether the risk assessment taken by the police was sound.
However, The ICO told the Eye Of Media.Com that even a paedophile can have grounds for their personal information to be protected by the Data Protection Act. Another ICO Officer, who insisted on anonymity told the Eye Of Media.Com : ” it all depends whether it is fair for the information to be given. So, we would be looking at whether the purpose serves a legitimate course”. Asked whether journalistic purposes meet the requirement for obtaining personal information about a paedophile, she said
” If when all things are considered, it is fair to have that information then it will be appropriate for the information to be supplied. It will depend on the benefit of that information balanced with the sensitivity of the information. The sensitivity of information is always crucial, but it is better for complaints about blocked FOI requests to be sent through for us to closely examine”. A request
