The Ombudsmans61percent campaign at www.blogspot.com
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 449.
449) Philip Zimbado: The Stanford Prison Experiment.
Dear Mr Javid,
Have you ever stopped to wonder what it takes to turn an average, decent, fun-loving Louise or Michael from Dr Jekyll into Mr Hyde? Or how that lovely person at the queue in Lidl's who thought that the rain must surely stop one day, can then turn up at the Decision Support Tool Assessment for NHS Continuing Healthcare Funding for your parent and proceed to tell you a pack of lies? Or, when it comes to Ombudsman Services, can completely ignore your case's well documented photographic evidence in favour of the scribblings of their fee-paying RICS surveyor, when handling you their unforgiveable and unforgettable illogical Final Decision?
The 1973 Stanford Prison Experiment might be as good a place as any to start.
The first time I came across it back in the seventies I thought, "that can't be true...that's insane... they've made it all up." Now, after being the recipient of Ombudsman Services shocking brand of justice and being stonewalled by Plymouth City Council Adult Social Services, it's Finance Department, Plymouth Community Care, Wellbeing Ltd., and Devon NEW CCG, it's all become crystal clear - Stanford pointed to the future.
Philip Zimbado wanted to know: was the brutality reported among prison guards in American prisons down to the inherent sadism of the guards - ie it was, "dispositional" or had it more to do with the prison environment - ie was it, "situational?"
Both the, "guards" and the, "prisoners" were male student volunteers, most were white, middle class and (at the start) deemed to be psychologically stable and healthy. They were paid 15 dollars a day. The programme was scheduled to last a fortnight. It was terminated on the sixth day.
The results were dramatic and disturbing. Within a very short time some guards began to harass prisoners. They behaved in a brutal and sadistic manner, apparently enjoying it.
The prisoners were taunted, insulted and given pointless and boring tasks to accomplish. They were generally dehumanised. As the guards' contempt for prisoners grew the prisoners became more submissive. The guards appeared to have lost their sense of identity and personal responsibility.
One guard said, "I was surprised at myself. I made them call each other names and clean the toliets out with their bare hands."
Another guard said, "Acting authoritatively can be fun. Power can be a great pleasure."
Christina Maslach, a Stanford Ph.D brought in to conduct interviews with the guards and prisoners, strongly objected when she saw the prisoners abused by the guards. Filled with outrage she said, "It's terrible what you are doing to these boys." Out of 50 or more outsiders who had been to the, "prison" she was the only one who questioned its morality.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign has enormous respect for people like Christina Maslach (Ph.D).
Not all the guards were sadistic but experimenters reported that approximately one-third exhibited genuine sadistic tendencies. Clearly, the experiment dramatically demonstrated just how quickly, "disorientation," "depersonalisation" and "deindividualisation" took hold, with the "good" guards unable to prevent the "sadistic" guards from being sadistic.
The pleasure of power combined with a disposition towards sadism seems a toxic combination - from student prison guards through NHS assessors and their collaborating social work colleagues to investigating officers impersonating ombudsman.
Not all the social workers we came into contact with were happy with what they were expected to do which suggested the, "situational" nature of their job. They weren't nasty people who took pleasure from being nasty.
Two of the three were clearly very unhappy - with one seeking to transfer to another area of social work. Of course the senior managers who orchestrated the operation ensured that they - the managers - remained shadowy figures and off the radar, that questions never reached them. It took a Freedom of Information Act request to discover who these shadowy people are. So much for local government democracy. Alarmingly, they are - and are allowed to be - non transparent and unaccountable in their dealings with local council taxpayers. It has very effectively been rigged that way. Otherwise it would be radically different.
They would be servants of the public. Not quasi jailors or prison mangers .
As for Ombudsman Services - we been told by a former inmate that things are far worse than we could ever imagine. The guards of, "civil justice" obediently cut and paste the Ombudsman's signature onto reports they have written and send them out to unsuspecting complainants. They even have parties to celebrate just how clever they've been in their maladministration of civil justice and how creatively they've cleared backlogs of complaints. Apparently.
There was a Christina Maslach-like figure at the company: the Independent Assessor. But unfortunately for the complainant, after her, "First and Last Report" she appears to have left rather than be further tainted by what she had witnessed in her brief time at the organisation.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign has a lot of time for the former Independent Assessor. It takes courage to be fair and independent.
That leaves the Rev. Lewis Shand Smith, CEO and Chief Ombudsman, who when describing complainants - each with their own complaint and story to tell - as a, "Stock of Work" succinctly encapsulated the, "dehumanising," "disorientating," "depersonalising" and "deindividualisating" nature of his organisations' particular brand of, "civil justice."
Q. Mr Javid, do you still assure taxpayers that when they take their complaints to this government approved and monitored redress scheme, that each and every complaint will be investigated, "fairly" and "independently?"
Q. Mr Javid, isn't it criminal how the relatives of the sick, the elderly and the dying have to battle with local councils and NHS CCGs to reclaim what once rightly belonged to their loved ones?
Saturday, 20 February 2016
Friday, 19 February 2016
A Genuine Respect For People. (448)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 448.
448) A Genuine Respect For People.
Dear Mr Javid,
The scandal of NHS Continuing Healthcare Funding and the scandal of the maladministration of consumers' complaints by Ombudsman Services have at least one thing in common - neither system nor the people abusing them, have much respect for people they interact with and so, according to the Oxford Dictionary's definition of justice, have little respect for justice either.
They have nothing but contempt for our justice and our democracy.
Each day they go to work to stonewall, misinform, lie to, cheat and rob us. An army of conmen and women who now have the upper hand, who will resort to any means - including maladministration - to achieve their end of calling all the shots, of domination, in what has become a quintessentially English, English Uncivil War. Trident is no deterrent to these people. They operate below the radar. The rules of the game no longer apply to them. Under cover of darkness, with great stealth and in contravention of the Geneva Convention they've succeeded in turning the level playing field into a minefield. Mercy and compassion are seen by them as signs of wimpish weakness.
"Bomber" Benn, it's time for another speech.
When it comes to the first scandal, that of CHC Funding, Dr Louise Irvine tells us,
"There is an area of healthcare that the general public in England does not know much about and our politicians would prefer to keep that way. It's only when you have a relative with a serious long term health condition that you discover the complex, unfair and inhumane system that you have to go through to get NHS funding for the care your loved one needs." (Dr Louise Irvine: Huffington Post)
Complex, unfair and inhumane.
That's exactly how it is. People - whose salaries are paid for by the taxpayer - refused to answer our questions, put us on the long finger, fed us the wrong information and then lied to us. It's still going on. Why should there be need of a, "Desk Top Review" for a dead person ? They are, after all, dead. Is it the final indignity for those who worked hard, loved their country, paid their taxes and who prided themselves on playing by the rules of the game?
It's all in a day's work to those shameless individuals tasked with fleecing them.
The second scandal - the maladministration of consumers' complaints by Ombudsman Services - is also unnecessarily complex, unfair and inhumane with the only difference being that those who refuse to answer your questions, who put consumers on the long finger and then give them decisions that have not been arrived at in a logical manner, have their salaries paid for by the very people consumers are complaining about.
Total conflicts of interest and totally rigged markets.
With, the "Continuing Healthcare Care Funding" scandal the state, disgracefully, seeks to pass the cost of care onto the people. When it comes to private redress schemes - scams - incompetent businesses pass the cost of their incompetence very competently onto their consumers.
We believe that both are criminal conspiracies against the people of England.
Q. Mr Javid, is it treating people with genuine respect to have a taxpayer make 448 attempts at raising the issue of the maladministration of consumers' complaints by Ombudsman Services, only for them to be totally ignored by you and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills?
Q. Mr Javid, does that mean that your department is collaborating with and covering up the maladministration of consumers' complaints by the executives at Ombudsman Services?
Q. Mr Javid, is it just good business to wrongly bill the elderly, the sick and the dying and then leave their closest relatives to attempt to claim back what was criminally taken, after they have died?
Q. Mr Javid, where is the justice in that? Is it in any meaningful way, "democratic?"
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 448.
448) A Genuine Respect For People.
Dear Mr Javid,
The scandal of NHS Continuing Healthcare Funding and the scandal of the maladministration of consumers' complaints by Ombudsman Services have at least one thing in common - neither system nor the people abusing them, have much respect for people they interact with and so, according to the Oxford Dictionary's definition of justice, have little respect for justice either.
They have nothing but contempt for our justice and our democracy.
Each day they go to work to stonewall, misinform, lie to, cheat and rob us. An army of conmen and women who now have the upper hand, who will resort to any means - including maladministration - to achieve their end of calling all the shots, of domination, in what has become a quintessentially English, English Uncivil War. Trident is no deterrent to these people. They operate below the radar. The rules of the game no longer apply to them. Under cover of darkness, with great stealth and in contravention of the Geneva Convention they've succeeded in turning the level playing field into a minefield. Mercy and compassion are seen by them as signs of wimpish weakness.
"Bomber" Benn, it's time for another speech.
When it comes to the first scandal, that of CHC Funding, Dr Louise Irvine tells us,
"There is an area of healthcare that the general public in England does not know much about and our politicians would prefer to keep that way. It's only when you have a relative with a serious long term health condition that you discover the complex, unfair and inhumane system that you have to go through to get NHS funding for the care your loved one needs." (Dr Louise Irvine: Huffington Post)
Complex, unfair and inhumane.
That's exactly how it is. People - whose salaries are paid for by the taxpayer - refused to answer our questions, put us on the long finger, fed us the wrong information and then lied to us. It's still going on. Why should there be need of a, "Desk Top Review" for a dead person ? They are, after all, dead. Is it the final indignity for those who worked hard, loved their country, paid their taxes and who prided themselves on playing by the rules of the game?
It's all in a day's work to those shameless individuals tasked with fleecing them.
The second scandal - the maladministration of consumers' complaints by Ombudsman Services - is also unnecessarily complex, unfair and inhumane with the only difference being that those who refuse to answer your questions, who put consumers on the long finger and then give them decisions that have not been arrived at in a logical manner, have their salaries paid for by the very people consumers are complaining about.
Total conflicts of interest and totally rigged markets.
With, the "Continuing Healthcare Care Funding" scandal the state, disgracefully, seeks to pass the cost of care onto the people. When it comes to private redress schemes - scams - incompetent businesses pass the cost of their incompetence very competently onto their consumers.
We believe that both are criminal conspiracies against the people of England.
Q. Mr Javid, is it treating people with genuine respect to have a taxpayer make 448 attempts at raising the issue of the maladministration of consumers' complaints by Ombudsman Services, only for them to be totally ignored by you and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills?
Q. Mr Javid, does that mean that your department is collaborating with and covering up the maladministration of consumers' complaints by the executives at Ombudsman Services?
Q. Mr Javid, is it just good business to wrongly bill the elderly, the sick and the dying and then leave their closest relatives to attempt to claim back what was criminally taken, after they have died?
Q. Mr Javid, where is the justice in that? Is it in any meaningful way, "democratic?"
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Wednesday, 17 February 2016
The English Uncivil War. (447)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 447.
447) The English Uncivil War.
Dear Mr Javid,
Every working day in this blue and unpleasant land there is an army of people - many with salaries paid for by the taxpayer - who go to work to deliberately; stonewall, misinform, lie to and cheat the rest of us.
This in the English Uncivil War.
There are social workers and NHS staff who daily collaborate to deny the sick, the elderly and the dying their right to state funded nursing care
Q. Mr Javid, don't these people have a duty of care to the elderly, the sick and the dying in England, so why are they collaborating to deny them what is, by right, already theirs?
Oxford dictionaries tell us that;
"Justice (is) - the fair treatment of people.
- the quality of being fair and reasonable.
- a concern for justice, peace and genuine respect for people."
(www.oxforddictionaries.com)
Q. Mr Javid, where is the justice, peace and respect the elderly, the sick and the dying deserve - why are they systematically being robbed of it?
Helen Suzman once said;
"I stand for simple justice, equal opportunity and Human Rights. The indispensable elements in a democratic society - all well worth working for." (www.hsf.org.uk)
Simple justice yet so very difficult to obtain - for the overwhelming majority of us especially as it is now being privatised.
It is being privatised by politicians and "politically influenced" civil servants with an ideological commitment to "free" markets and a misplaced messianic and fundamentalist belief in what these markets can never deliver: justice, equal opportunities and Human Rights. Such true believers, yourself included, see only what they want to see and not the chaos and injustice they invariably create - just the massive, risk-free profits for those rigging them.
A free-for-all housing market where on the one hand people are faced with eviction. Their crime? Being too poor to pay the bedroom tax whilst oligarchs, dictators, the sons of dictators, drug barons and terrorist organisations hoover up the London property market and further spend their laundered money on basement swimming pools, car parks and cinemas. Their crime? Who knows and who cares - they're rich aren't they?
A country were regulators seem incapable of doing their job of regulating and where the RICS have rigged the market in civil justice. Where, "in the age of the ombudsman" (The Rev. Lewis Shand Smith, Chief Ombudsman and CEO of Ombudsman Services) many of them lack the courage to make a stand for simple justice, equal opportunities and Human Rights.
Q. Mr Javid, you have a close and continuing relationship with Ombudsman Services, have you asked The Rev. Lewis Shand Smith why it is that his organisation maladministers consumers' complaints?
Q. Mr Javid, can The Rev. Lewis Shand Smith serve both God and mammon?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 447.
447) The English Uncivil War.
Dear Mr Javid,
Every working day in this blue and unpleasant land there is an army of people - many with salaries paid for by the taxpayer - who go to work to deliberately; stonewall, misinform, lie to and cheat the rest of us.
This in the English Uncivil War.
There are social workers and NHS staff who daily collaborate to deny the sick, the elderly and the dying their right to state funded nursing care
Q. Mr Javid, don't these people have a duty of care to the elderly, the sick and the dying in England, so why are they collaborating to deny them what is, by right, already theirs?
Oxford dictionaries tell us that;
"Justice (is) - the fair treatment of people.
- the quality of being fair and reasonable.
- a concern for justice, peace and genuine respect for people."
(www.oxforddictionaries.com)
Q. Mr Javid, where is the justice, peace and respect the elderly, the sick and the dying deserve - why are they systematically being robbed of it?
Helen Suzman once said;
"I stand for simple justice, equal opportunity and Human Rights. The indispensable elements in a democratic society - all well worth working for." (www.hsf.org.uk)
Simple justice yet so very difficult to obtain - for the overwhelming majority of us especially as it is now being privatised.
It is being privatised by politicians and "politically influenced" civil servants with an ideological commitment to "free" markets and a misplaced messianic and fundamentalist belief in what these markets can never deliver: justice, equal opportunities and Human Rights. Such true believers, yourself included, see only what they want to see and not the chaos and injustice they invariably create - just the massive, risk-free profits for those rigging them.
A free-for-all housing market where on the one hand people are faced with eviction. Their crime? Being too poor to pay the bedroom tax whilst oligarchs, dictators, the sons of dictators, drug barons and terrorist organisations hoover up the London property market and further spend their laundered money on basement swimming pools, car parks and cinemas. Their crime? Who knows and who cares - they're rich aren't they?
A country were regulators seem incapable of doing their job of regulating and where the RICS have rigged the market in civil justice. Where, "in the age of the ombudsman" (The Rev. Lewis Shand Smith, Chief Ombudsman and CEO of Ombudsman Services) many of them lack the courage to make a stand for simple justice, equal opportunities and Human Rights.
Q. Mr Javid, you have a close and continuing relationship with Ombudsman Services, have you asked The Rev. Lewis Shand Smith why it is that his organisation maladministers consumers' complaints?
Q. Mr Javid, can The Rev. Lewis Shand Smith serve both God and mammon?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Monday, 15 February 2016
Bias. (446)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 446.
446) Bias.
Dear Mr Javid,
It is beyond all reasonable doubt that the Ombudsman Services:Property redress scheme - "approved" and supposedly, "monitored" - by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) are regulated by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) does not "investigate" consumer complaints, "fairly," "speedily" or "independently."
The laws of probability indicate that dissatisfied clients of RICS regulated surveyors will:
1) Be victims of sub-standard surveys.
2) Pay for a service they do not receive.
3) Be victims of inadequate standards of professionalism.
4) Be the recipients of poor advice and service when making expensive purchasing decisions.
5) Not have their phone calls logged in their surveyor's Case File.
6) Not have visits logged in the surveyor's Case File.
7) Not have agreements confirmed in writing by their surveyor or recorded in their surveyor's Case File.
8) Fail to have their complaint resolved before it is escalated to the RICS surveyors' ombudsman.
9) Not be informed by their surveyor that the ombudsman they are being referred to is funded entirely by their case fees and subscriptions.
10) Have their case misrepresented by Ombudsman Services:Property.
11) Have the nature of their case misunderstood by Ombudsman Services:Property.
12) Have their surveyor's evidence withheld from them by Ombudsman Services:Property.
13) Have their surveyor's messages to the staff of Ombudsman Services:Property withheld from them.
14) Have their confidential information handed to their surveyor by Ombudsman Services:Property.
15) Not have their case mediated by Ombudsman Services:Property.
16) Not have their questions answered by Ombudsman Services:Property.
17) Experience delays in the handling of their complaint by Ombudsman Services:Property.
18) Not have their problem resolved by Ombudsman Services:Property.
19) Not have their case resolved through mediation by Ombudsman Services:Property.
20) Disagree with the recommendations suggested by Ombudsman Services:Property.
21) Disagree with the accuracy of their report's recommendations.
22) Discover errors in their Ombudsman Services:Property report.
23) Have their report written by an officer but have the ombudsman's signature cut and pasted to it implying it was investigated by the ombudsman, when it wasn't.
24) Be denied an independent re-survey by Ombudsman Services:Property.
25) Be denied their Human Right to a face to face meeting with the ombudsman by Ombudsman Services:Property.
26) Be denied their Human Right to a meeting held in public by Ombudsman Services:Property.
27) Be forced to gain access to information held on their case by Ombudsman Services:Property, through the Data Protection Act.
28) Be forced into making further representations due to the inaccuracy of Ombudsman Service:Property's reports.
29) Be unsuccessful with these further representations.
30) Not receive a financial award. Or,
31) Receive a derisory financial award.
32) have their case maladministered by Ombudsman Services:Property.
33) Not serious or persistent breaches of the RICS Rules of Conduct reported to RICS by the Ombudsman.
34) Be confronted with an ombudsman who doesn't appear to know the company's Terms of Reference.
35) Who condones having their name cut and pasted onto reports written by others.
36) Who happens to believe this deception is an effective way of clearing a backlog of cases.
37) No longer have their dissatisfaction with their customer journey documented by Ombudsman Services:Property.
38) Be kept unaware of the RICS continuous monitoring of what they, the RICS, describe as, "the effective resolutions of complaints."
39) Be victims of a negligent disregard for the truth.
40) Be victims of the following:
"To be effective the (redress scheme) must be seen as an impartial arbitrator between parties - currently this does not seem to be the consensus of opinion." (DJS Research: Customer Satisfaction Report)
We asked the Chair of Maladministration at Ombudsman Services, Prof. Dame Janet Finch,
Q 100: Was this bias?
We didn't get an answer.
Q. Mr Javid, is the Ombudsman's apparent bias explained by the need to meet the RICS' Memorandum of Understanding with the company - for the Ombudsman to resolve complaints, "effectively" and that giving a complainant's case a forensic examination - is far from effective?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 446.
446) Bias.
Dear Mr Javid,
It is beyond all reasonable doubt that the Ombudsman Services:Property redress scheme - "approved" and supposedly, "monitored" - by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) are regulated by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) does not "investigate" consumer complaints, "fairly," "speedily" or "independently."
The laws of probability indicate that dissatisfied clients of RICS regulated surveyors will:
1) Be victims of sub-standard surveys.
2) Pay for a service they do not receive.
3) Be victims of inadequate standards of professionalism.
4) Be the recipients of poor advice and service when making expensive purchasing decisions.
5) Not have their phone calls logged in their surveyor's Case File.
6) Not have visits logged in the surveyor's Case File.
7) Not have agreements confirmed in writing by their surveyor or recorded in their surveyor's Case File.
8) Fail to have their complaint resolved before it is escalated to the RICS surveyors' ombudsman.
9) Not be informed by their surveyor that the ombudsman they are being referred to is funded entirely by their case fees and subscriptions.
10) Have their case misrepresented by Ombudsman Services:Property.
11) Have the nature of their case misunderstood by Ombudsman Services:Property.
12) Have their surveyor's evidence withheld from them by Ombudsman Services:Property.
13) Have their surveyor's messages to the staff of Ombudsman Services:Property withheld from them.
14) Have their confidential information handed to their surveyor by Ombudsman Services:Property.
15) Not have their case mediated by Ombudsman Services:Property.
16) Not have their questions answered by Ombudsman Services:Property.
17) Experience delays in the handling of their complaint by Ombudsman Services:Property.
18) Not have their problem resolved by Ombudsman Services:Property.
19) Not have their case resolved through mediation by Ombudsman Services:Property.
20) Disagree with the recommendations suggested by Ombudsman Services:Property.
21) Disagree with the accuracy of their report's recommendations.
22) Discover errors in their Ombudsman Services:Property report.
23) Have their report written by an officer but have the ombudsman's signature cut and pasted to it implying it was investigated by the ombudsman, when it wasn't.
24) Be denied an independent re-survey by Ombudsman Services:Property.
25) Be denied their Human Right to a face to face meeting with the ombudsman by Ombudsman Services:Property.
26) Be denied their Human Right to a meeting held in public by Ombudsman Services:Property.
27) Be forced to gain access to information held on their case by Ombudsman Services:Property, through the Data Protection Act.
28) Be forced into making further representations due to the inaccuracy of Ombudsman Service:Property's reports.
29) Be unsuccessful with these further representations.
30) Not receive a financial award. Or,
31) Receive a derisory financial award.
32) have their case maladministered by Ombudsman Services:Property.
33) Not serious or persistent breaches of the RICS Rules of Conduct reported to RICS by the Ombudsman.
34) Be confronted with an ombudsman who doesn't appear to know the company's Terms of Reference.
35) Who condones having their name cut and pasted onto reports written by others.
36) Who happens to believe this deception is an effective way of clearing a backlog of cases.
37) No longer have their dissatisfaction with their customer journey documented by Ombudsman Services:Property.
38) Be kept unaware of the RICS continuous monitoring of what they, the RICS, describe as, "the effective resolutions of complaints."
39) Be victims of a negligent disregard for the truth.
40) Be victims of the following:
"To be effective the (redress scheme) must be seen as an impartial arbitrator between parties - currently this does not seem to be the consensus of opinion." (DJS Research: Customer Satisfaction Report)
We asked the Chair of Maladministration at Ombudsman Services, Prof. Dame Janet Finch,
Q 100: Was this bias?
We didn't get an answer.
Q. Mr Javid, is the Ombudsman's apparent bias explained by the need to meet the RICS' Memorandum of Understanding with the company - for the Ombudsman to resolve complaints, "effectively" and that giving a complainant's case a forensic examination - is far from effective?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Sunday, 7 February 2016
"The smell from them is simply too putrid to be ignored" - Peter Oborne. (445)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 445.
445) "The Smell from them is simply too putrid to be ignored" - Peter Oborne.
Dear Mr Javid,
The stench that Peter Oborne is referring to isn't coming from the rancid, rank, fetid, rotten and stinking decisions handed to complainants by the Ombudsman Services:Property's Ombudsman, but from, "a political elite who had arrogantly turned its back on voters, "democracy " and - we might add - justice.
You included.
It would seem that David Cameron your, "Teflon-coated commander-in-chief" has dragooned you into docile compliance.
Q. Mr Javid, one way of re-asserting your credentials as a potential leader in waiting is to challenge head-on the total lack of accountability and transparency at Ombudsman Services:Property and initiate a public inquiry into the malodorous maladministration of complaints by Ombudsman Services' executives.
In his article for the daily he works for, Peter Oborne believed that;
"True, the PM has been sharply criticised by a tough, independent-minded press."
A tough, independent-minded press, no less.
Q. Mr Javid, do you not agree that a tough, independent-minded press should now turn its moral and highly principled attention to the plight of hundreds, if not thousands, of consumers swamped with illogical decisions handed to them by the maladministrators at Ombudsman Services?
Now is the time for you to emerge from your silo and show the same steely resolve, to stiffen the sinews and lend your eye a terrible aspect.
Q. Mr Javid, such a bold, nay heroic, course of action would surely show you to be a tough, independent-minded politician. A standard bearer for fair, transparent and accountable government, fair, transparent and accountable business and fair, transparent and accountable justice. Unafraid of snipers, prepared to swim against the tide with targets always firmly fixed on taking and occupying the moral high ground.?
Peter Oborne talks of the, "selfish and gutless conduct that causes politicians to be despised," and how the, "complicity and self interest" of "these senior politicians," sadly, yourself still included, "is in some cases beneath contempt."
This is a very morally high horse to be sat on.
Let's hope for the sake of all the victims of maladministered private, "civil justice" that its rider now leads a charge against the maladministrators at Ombudsman Services and that he doesn't fail to get out of the starting stalls or fall at the first hurdle.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 445.
445) "The Smell from them is simply too putrid to be ignored" - Peter Oborne.
Dear Mr Javid,
The stench that Peter Oborne is referring to isn't coming from the rancid, rank, fetid, rotten and stinking decisions handed to complainants by the Ombudsman Services:Property's Ombudsman, but from, "a political elite who had arrogantly turned its back on voters, "democracy " and - we might add - justice.
You included.
It would seem that David Cameron your, "Teflon-coated commander-in-chief" has dragooned you into docile compliance.
Q. Mr Javid, one way of re-asserting your credentials as a potential leader in waiting is to challenge head-on the total lack of accountability and transparency at Ombudsman Services:Property and initiate a public inquiry into the malodorous maladministration of complaints by Ombudsman Services' executives.
In his article for the daily he works for, Peter Oborne believed that;
"True, the PM has been sharply criticised by a tough, independent-minded press."
A tough, independent-minded press, no less.
Q. Mr Javid, do you not agree that a tough, independent-minded press should now turn its moral and highly principled attention to the plight of hundreds, if not thousands, of consumers swamped with illogical decisions handed to them by the maladministrators at Ombudsman Services?
Now is the time for you to emerge from your silo and show the same steely resolve, to stiffen the sinews and lend your eye a terrible aspect.
Q. Mr Javid, such a bold, nay heroic, course of action would surely show you to be a tough, independent-minded politician. A standard bearer for fair, transparent and accountable government, fair, transparent and accountable business and fair, transparent and accountable justice. Unafraid of snipers, prepared to swim against the tide with targets always firmly fixed on taking and occupying the moral high ground.?
Peter Oborne talks of the, "selfish and gutless conduct that causes politicians to be despised," and how the, "complicity and self interest" of "these senior politicians," sadly, yourself still included, "is in some cases beneath contempt."
This is a very morally high horse to be sat on.
Let's hope for the sake of all the victims of maladministered private, "civil justice" that its rider now leads a charge against the maladministrators at Ombudsman Services and that he doesn't fail to get out of the starting stalls or fall at the first hurdle.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Saturday, 6 February 2016
Email to Monk and Partners - "A Conspiracy Suggestion." (444)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 444.
444) Email to Monk and Partners - "A Conspiracy Suggestion."
Dear Mr Javid,
Ombudsman Services:Property does not readily disclose information to complainants probably because they want the true nature of their relationship with those who pay for the service to be kept well hidden.
We only got the following message thanks to a Data Protection Act request
It reveals a cosy relationship between the RICS Member Firm and their office staff at Ombudsman Services:Property;
"Message, sent 02 November 2009 15:15
To Kelly Samuels
Subject RE: Message from SOS - Case 510458
"20 - He suggested a conspiracy suggestion which is not the case."
"A conspiracy suggestion."
What on earth is a, "conspiracy suggestion?" We tried asking Mr Monk to clarify matters -
Email to Monk and Partners:
Dear Mr Monk,
I see in a message sent 02, November 2009 to Kelly Samuels you state;
"He suggested a conspiracy suggestion which is not the case."
As I have absolutely no idea as to what you are alluding to can I ask you to illuminate me on this matter?"
Yours sincerely
(Your dissatisfied client)
Although more than ready to send such nonsense to the staff at - which to all intents and purposes are - his organisation's paid for redress scheme, Mr Monk never responded to our request for him to explain himself.
Q. Mr Javid, is the conspiracy suggestion the one that exists between RICS fee-paying Members and their office staff at Ombudsman Services:Property?
Mr Javid, we suggest that this conspiracy is now the subject of an urgently needed public inquiry.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 444.
444) Email to Monk and Partners - "A Conspiracy Suggestion."
Dear Mr Javid,
Ombudsman Services:Property does not readily disclose information to complainants probably because they want the true nature of their relationship with those who pay for the service to be kept well hidden.
We only got the following message thanks to a Data Protection Act request
It reveals a cosy relationship between the RICS Member Firm and their office staff at Ombudsman Services:Property;
"Message, sent 02 November 2009 15:15
To Kelly Samuels
Subject RE: Message from SOS - Case 510458
"20 - He suggested a conspiracy suggestion which is not the case."
"A conspiracy suggestion."
What on earth is a, "conspiracy suggestion?" We tried asking Mr Monk to clarify matters -
Email to Monk and Partners:
Dear Mr Monk,
I see in a message sent 02, November 2009 to Kelly Samuels you state;
"He suggested a conspiracy suggestion which is not the case."
As I have absolutely no idea as to what you are alluding to can I ask you to illuminate me on this matter?"
Yours sincerely
(Your dissatisfied client)
Although more than ready to send such nonsense to the staff at - which to all intents and purposes are - his organisation's paid for redress scheme, Mr Monk never responded to our request for him to explain himself.
Q. Mr Javid, is the conspiracy suggestion the one that exists between RICS fee-paying Members and their office staff at Ombudsman Services:Property?
Mr Javid, we suggest that this conspiracy is now the subject of an urgently needed public inquiry.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Friday, 5 February 2016
The Logic Behind The Ombudsman's Illogical Decisions. (443)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 443.
443) The Logic Behind The Ombudsman's Illogical Decisions.
Dear Mr Javid,
1) Monk and Partners, the RICS Member Firm kept no record of the phone calls we made to their surveyor before an immediately after moving into our new home.
2) They kept no record of their first visit at the end of February or the second one in the summer.
3) The Case File contained no record of the problems/issues we sought to raise or the names of all the surveyors who trooped through our home to apparently, "re-survey" it.
4) There was no explanation as to why the original surveyor no longer worked for the company or why Mr Monk, the firm's senior partner, having said he would either write or phone us, did neither.
5) Although we asked for the surveyor's contact details Mr Monk just didn't respond to our requests.
6) We were forced to send the photocopied letter dated 18th January, recorded delivery to the firm and it eventually arrived at the Ombudsman's office stamped, "Received."
7) The Ombudsman doesn't seem to have read the letter but if she had she probably wouldn't have made the following statement, which was that,
"Your first recorded representation to the Firm was in December, although you now say you telephoned Monk and partners immediately after moving I." (Gillian Fleming, 30th June 2010)
It's June - sixteen months after we first contacted Monk and Partners - and their Ombudsman simply refused to acknowledge the fact that we hadn't waited for nearly a year before contacting them to complain even though the evidence was apparently right in front of her nose. This enabled her to maintain the fiction that;
a) We'd been loafing around for nearly a year before complaining.
b) Everything that was wrong with our home wasn't down to a sub-standard survey but due to a cataclysmic series of events that mysteriously all seemed to occur around Christmas time.
Q. Mr Javid, isn't the logic behind this bizarre interpretation of the evidence simply that the Ombudsman was doing her utmost to get her fee-paying Member, Mr Monk, off the hook?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 443.
443) The Logic Behind The Ombudsman's Illogical Decisions.
Dear Mr Javid,
1) Monk and Partners, the RICS Member Firm kept no record of the phone calls we made to their surveyor before an immediately after moving into our new home.
2) They kept no record of their first visit at the end of February or the second one in the summer.
3) The Case File contained no record of the problems/issues we sought to raise or the names of all the surveyors who trooped through our home to apparently, "re-survey" it.
4) There was no explanation as to why the original surveyor no longer worked for the company or why Mr Monk, the firm's senior partner, having said he would either write or phone us, did neither.
5) Although we asked for the surveyor's contact details Mr Monk just didn't respond to our requests.
6) We were forced to send the photocopied letter dated 18th January, recorded delivery to the firm and it eventually arrived at the Ombudsman's office stamped, "Received."
7) The Ombudsman doesn't seem to have read the letter but if she had she probably wouldn't have made the following statement, which was that,
"Your first recorded representation to the Firm was in December, although you now say you telephoned Monk and partners immediately after moving I." (Gillian Fleming, 30th June 2010)
It's June - sixteen months after we first contacted Monk and Partners - and their Ombudsman simply refused to acknowledge the fact that we hadn't waited for nearly a year before contacting them to complain even though the evidence was apparently right in front of her nose. This enabled her to maintain the fiction that;
a) We'd been loafing around for nearly a year before complaining.
b) Everything that was wrong with our home wasn't down to a sub-standard survey but due to a cataclysmic series of events that mysteriously all seemed to occur around Christmas time.
Q. Mr Javid, isn't the logic behind this bizarre interpretation of the evidence simply that the Ombudsman was doing her utmost to get her fee-paying Member, Mr Monk, off the hook?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
At Ombudsman Services:Property 1 + 2 = 0. (442)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 442.
442) At Ombudsman Services:Property 1 + 2 = 0.
Dear Mr Javid,
In our previous attempt For Clarity, we saw that Eric Schmidt, Google's very own chairman with unimpeachable integrity, gave the game away somewhat when he said that capitalism boiled down to making as much money as possible and then salting it away as effectively as possible. Hence the, "double Irish" and "double sandwich" specifically designed by tax lawyers to slickly get the tax avoided money into some secretive off-shore bank account.
If - as we're all in this together in one big happy society - they'd paid their fair share just think how many of the sick, elderly and dying could have had the full cost of their nursing care paid for instead of being forced into the inhumane and degrading process of DST Assessments.
He wasn't confused by any of this - capitalism is fraud on a massive scale.
Which brings us neatly on to the Ombudsman's confused belief that 1 + 2 = 0 or the, "double Ombudsman" or "double Warrrington" as its now become known in the trade.
Where:
1) the evidence + 2) the Ombudsman's decision = nothing for the complainant.
Q. Mr Javid, let's not be confused by any of this - isn't someone who doesn't look at the evidence but is still unwaveringly able to find in favour of their fee-paying Member, not purely and simply engaged in criminal activity. Or is this Ombudsism in Capitalism?
Please feel free to comment!
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 442.
442) At Ombudsman Services:Property 1 + 2 = 0.
Dear Mr Javid,
In our previous attempt For Clarity, we saw that Eric Schmidt, Google's very own chairman with unimpeachable integrity, gave the game away somewhat when he said that capitalism boiled down to making as much money as possible and then salting it away as effectively as possible. Hence the, "double Irish" and "double sandwich" specifically designed by tax lawyers to slickly get the tax avoided money into some secretive off-shore bank account.
If - as we're all in this together in one big happy society - they'd paid their fair share just think how many of the sick, elderly and dying could have had the full cost of their nursing care paid for instead of being forced into the inhumane and degrading process of DST Assessments.
He wasn't confused by any of this - capitalism is fraud on a massive scale.
Which brings us neatly on to the Ombudsman's confused belief that 1 + 2 = 0 or the, "double Ombudsman" or "double Warrrington" as its now become known in the trade.
Where:
1) the evidence + 2) the Ombudsman's decision = nothing for the complainant.
Q. Mr Javid, let's not be confused by any of this - isn't someone who doesn't look at the evidence but is still unwaveringly able to find in favour of their fee-paying Member, not purely and simply engaged in criminal activity. Or is this Ombudsism in Capitalism?
Please feel free to comment!
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Thursday, 4 February 2016
"The Ombudsman arrives at decisions in an illogical manner" - DJS Research (441)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 441.
441) "The Ombudsman arrives at decisions in an illogical manner" - DJS Research: Customer Satisfaction Report.
Dear Mr Javid,
We asked the Chairman of Ombudsman Services, Pof. Dame Janet Finch;
"Q 99: Should it not be a basic requirement to confirm in writing what has been said or agreed on visits? Wouldn't it put an end to nonsense such as this - Letter dated 30th June 2010 Our ref: 510458 From the Ombudsman. Gillian Fleming;
"Your first recorded representation to the Firm was in December although you now say you telephoned Monk and Partners immediately after moving in."
Having disclosed my information to the Ombudsman, not only is this offensive, it is wrong.
As there was no Case File to support the Ombudsman's observation that, "You now say you telephoned Monk and partners immediately after moving in" the Ombudsman appears not to have taken the trouble to read the letter (my letter to Monk and Partners). What is clear is that from the start of the process, the Ombudsman was happy to accept the Firm's version of events.
If she'd taken the trouble to have read my letter dated Sunday 18th Jan she might have come to a more informed and balanced view of the case.. The letter - stamped, "Received" - by Ombudsman Services:Property said;
"After the second visit to our home last summer you had assured me that you would be contacting me either phone or by letter. This has not happened...The stain in the attic ceiling which I had been told (by the surveyor who was responsible for the survey) was probably staining from fires lit over the years, is indeed damp."
I tried to point out that a, "second visit in the summer" logically must have come before December It was a second visit implying one had preceded it. And that the person I was talking to about all this, was the original surveyor.
The Ombudsman has chosen to ignore the evidence placed in front of her.
There is no Case File record of any of this. I have asked Monk and Partners when the surveyor responsible for my survey left the Firm and for a contact number so that some light might be thrown on all of this, but without success.
My case - 510458 began with the ombudsman not looking at the evidence and accepting the Firm's version of events. And it ended that way."
The Chairman didn't write or phone either.
Q. Mr Javid, do you not agree that the Ombudsman does appear to have arrived at her decision in an illogical manner and that logically there needs to be a public inquiry into this RICS regulated private redress scheme so that all the victims of such shocking decisions might eventually get some public justice?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 441.
441) "The Ombudsman arrives at decisions in an illogical manner" - DJS Research: Customer Satisfaction Report.
Dear Mr Javid,
We asked the Chairman of Ombudsman Services, Pof. Dame Janet Finch;
"Q 99: Should it not be a basic requirement to confirm in writing what has been said or agreed on visits? Wouldn't it put an end to nonsense such as this - Letter dated 30th June 2010 Our ref: 510458 From the Ombudsman. Gillian Fleming;
"Your first recorded representation to the Firm was in December although you now say you telephoned Monk and Partners immediately after moving in."
Having disclosed my information to the Ombudsman, not only is this offensive, it is wrong.
As there was no Case File to support the Ombudsman's observation that, "You now say you telephoned Monk and partners immediately after moving in" the Ombudsman appears not to have taken the trouble to read the letter (my letter to Monk and Partners). What is clear is that from the start of the process, the Ombudsman was happy to accept the Firm's version of events.
If she'd taken the trouble to have read my letter dated Sunday 18th Jan she might have come to a more informed and balanced view of the case.. The letter - stamped, "Received" - by Ombudsman Services:Property said;
"After the second visit to our home last summer you had assured me that you would be contacting me either phone or by letter. This has not happened...The stain in the attic ceiling which I had been told (by the surveyor who was responsible for the survey) was probably staining from fires lit over the years, is indeed damp."
I tried to point out that a, "second visit in the summer" logically must have come before December It was a second visit implying one had preceded it. And that the person I was talking to about all this, was the original surveyor.
The Ombudsman has chosen to ignore the evidence placed in front of her.
There is no Case File record of any of this. I have asked Monk and Partners when the surveyor responsible for my survey left the Firm and for a contact number so that some light might be thrown on all of this, but without success.
My case - 510458 began with the ombudsman not looking at the evidence and accepting the Firm's version of events. And it ended that way."
The Chairman didn't write or phone either.
Q. Mr Javid, do you not agree that the Ombudsman does appear to have arrived at her decision in an illogical manner and that logically there needs to be a public inquiry into this RICS regulated private redress scheme so that all the victims of such shocking decisions might eventually get some public justice?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
The Royal Istitution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) - "Byzantine." (440)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 440
.
440) The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) - "Byzantine."
Dear Mr Javid,
At a meeting of the governing council of the RICS, Paul Morrell criticised it for its, "Byzantine structure" and, "lack of accountability." (www.bdonline.co.uk/morrell-issues-rics-ultimatum)
Given that the RICS are supposedly held to account by the Privy Council (on behalf of the UK taxpayer) it would also seem to suggest that the Privy Council also has a Byzantine structure and lacks accountability too.
It would appear that the model of "governance" at the RICS has become a blueprint for other businesses, from Google - and its, "double Irish" "double sandwich" tax arrangements to local Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) with their bamboozling decision making processes when determining who should foot the cost of care for the sick, the elderly and the dying - scandalously, it's usually the sick, the elderly and the dying. (Ali Hussain: Never accept 'No' for an answer on care funding. Sunday Times 31.01.2016)
At least there was an answer even if was only, "No." Organisations like Ombudsman Services:Property are far less forthcoming.
Eric Schmidt, the Goole Chairman's answer to Parliament that his company's tax avoidance is called, "capitalism" and that he is, "very proud" of Google's tax structure suggests the enormity of the problem when it comes to perceptions of company accountability and corporate responsibility.
He said he was, "Not confused by this." (www.telegraph.co.uk>Techology>Google.)
We were confused - very confused - by our surveyor's inability to keep and maintain a proper case file. We asked the Chairman of Ombudsman Services, Prof. Dame Janet Finch;
"Q. 98: In this day and age isn't it simply unacceptable that there is no requirement for a RICS Member to keep even a basic log of phone calls (in their case file)?"
We didn't even get, "No" for an answer from the professor.
Q. Mr Javid, is this called, "Capitalism" or, "Criminalism?"
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 440
.
440) The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) - "Byzantine."
Dear Mr Javid,
At a meeting of the governing council of the RICS, Paul Morrell criticised it for its, "Byzantine structure" and, "lack of accountability." (www.bdonline.co.uk/morrell-issues-rics-ultimatum)
Given that the RICS are supposedly held to account by the Privy Council (on behalf of the UK taxpayer) it would also seem to suggest that the Privy Council also has a Byzantine structure and lacks accountability too.
It would appear that the model of "governance" at the RICS has become a blueprint for other businesses, from Google - and its, "double Irish" "double sandwich" tax arrangements to local Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) with their bamboozling decision making processes when determining who should foot the cost of care for the sick, the elderly and the dying - scandalously, it's usually the sick, the elderly and the dying. (Ali Hussain: Never accept 'No' for an answer on care funding. Sunday Times 31.01.2016)
At least there was an answer even if was only, "No." Organisations like Ombudsman Services:Property are far less forthcoming.
Eric Schmidt, the Goole Chairman's answer to Parliament that his company's tax avoidance is called, "capitalism" and that he is, "very proud" of Google's tax structure suggests the enormity of the problem when it comes to perceptions of company accountability and corporate responsibility.
He said he was, "Not confused by this." (www.telegraph.co.uk>Techology>Google.)
We were confused - very confused - by our surveyor's inability to keep and maintain a proper case file. We asked the Chairman of Ombudsman Services, Prof. Dame Janet Finch;
"Q. 98: In this day and age isn't it simply unacceptable that there is no requirement for a RICS Member to keep even a basic log of phone calls (in their case file)?"
We didn't even get, "No" for an answer from the professor.
Q. Mr Javid, is this called, "Capitalism" or, "Criminalism?"
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Monday, 1 February 2016
The Evidence Points To A System That Destroys The Evidence. (439)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 439.
439) The Evidence Points To A System that Destroys The Evidence.
Dear Mr Javid,
The finger prints have been wiped clean, the smoking gun carefully disposed of, questions not answered, Freedom of Information Act requests denied, MPs "politically influenced," the press bought off, time allowed to elapse and RICS surveyors' Case Files neither complied nor kept up to date. Against this backdrop the consumer faces an uphill struggle for justice or as its now rebranded - redress.
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) may have once been a profession who acted for the public benefit, but they have since been allowed to become an organisation apparently beyond scrutiny who spend so much time in, "engagement work" and "politically influencing" MPs, Ministers and civil servants that they've taken their regulatory eye off the ball and for some reason can't even get their Members to keep and maintain a proper case file.
Given this convenient regulatory lapse, RICS Members - surveyors - take full advantage and unsurprisingly, don't log phone messages, letter, visits or record agreements with their clients. This is very convenient for them when things invariably go wrong.
We asked the Chair of Maladministration at Ombudsman Services, Prof. Dame Janet Finch why the regulator - the RICS - couldn't enforce this simple professional standard, to keep and maintain a proper Case File;
"Q. 97: Why? Is the simple truth of the matter that proper case files are not kept because they should contain important information which at some future date could be used to verify what was or wasn't said, what visits did or didn't take place and what agreements were reached. Unlike doctors, teachers, nurses and social workers there is no requirement to keep even the most basic of record of events. Until, that is, the Client becomes a Complainant and has entered the firm's Complaints Handling Procedure."
Q. Mr Javid, is a regulator who doesn't regulate really a regulator?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 439.
439) The Evidence Points To A System that Destroys The Evidence.
Dear Mr Javid,
The finger prints have been wiped clean, the smoking gun carefully disposed of, questions not answered, Freedom of Information Act requests denied, MPs "politically influenced," the press bought off, time allowed to elapse and RICS surveyors' Case Files neither complied nor kept up to date. Against this backdrop the consumer faces an uphill struggle for justice or as its now rebranded - redress.
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) may have once been a profession who acted for the public benefit, but they have since been allowed to become an organisation apparently beyond scrutiny who spend so much time in, "engagement work" and "politically influencing" MPs, Ministers and civil servants that they've taken their regulatory eye off the ball and for some reason can't even get their Members to keep and maintain a proper case file.
Given this convenient regulatory lapse, RICS Members - surveyors - take full advantage and unsurprisingly, don't log phone messages, letter, visits or record agreements with their clients. This is very convenient for them when things invariably go wrong.
We asked the Chair of Maladministration at Ombudsman Services, Prof. Dame Janet Finch why the regulator - the RICS - couldn't enforce this simple professional standard, to keep and maintain a proper Case File;
"Q. 97: Why? Is the simple truth of the matter that proper case files are not kept because they should contain important information which at some future date could be used to verify what was or wasn't said, what visits did or didn't take place and what agreements were reached. Unlike doctors, teachers, nurses and social workers there is no requirement to keep even the most basic of record of events. Until, that is, the Client becomes a Complainant and has entered the firm's Complaints Handling Procedure."
Q. Mr Javid, is a regulator who doesn't regulate really a regulator?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)