Ombudsman Watchers - A Bit Like Crime Watchers But Different. (508)

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 508.

508) Ombudsman Watchers - A Bit Like Crime Watchers But Different.

Dear Mr Clark,

Ombudsman Watchers are a bit like Crime Watchers but only different. With Crime Watchers something is actually done about the crimes being perpetrated on the public.

In, "Online Activism" Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill attempt to explain what they mean by the term, "Ombudsman Watcher."
"We call online these online activist consumer groups, 'ombudsman watchers ' after one of the first such websites to be set up. The aim of the project was to help policymakers, practitioners and stakeholders of ombudsman schemes by exploring the drives for this particular form of protest and the ways in which this social phenomenon can be better understood and managed to ensure the continued legitimacy of ombudsman schemes. A key goal for the project was to lead to an exchange of views between ombudsman schemes and ombudsman watchers."
(www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understanding-and-engaging-online-activists)

We believe that the term, "ombudsman watcher" is in itself problematic implying a passive voyeuristic fascination with the social phenomenon of ombudsman and their devious pro-business schemes which miss-sell what they call, "civil justice" to an unsuspecting public. But we admire the original Ombudsman Watcher for what they are attempting to achieve.

It's just that we prefer the term, "Ombudsman Activist."

However, the important relationship - the one between ombudsmen and their bosses - would have made for a really interesting project, but as the researchers admit, their aim was: to help policymakers, practitioners and stakeholders of ombudsman schemes and not it would seem ombudsman watchers.

This apparent bias towards the perpetrators of the crime - ombudsman schemers - at the expense of their victims and advocates (the ombudsman activists) is further underlined by the researchers' commitment to better understand and manage what activists are attempting to achieve so as to;
"ensure the continued legitimacy of ombudsman schemes."

It would seem from this perspective that ombudsman activists are the ones in need of, "management" and not ombudsman schemers. To the neutral this must appear conceptually confusing, upside down and back to front.

Furthermore, what legitimacy would that be? And why, continued? To us Ombudsman Services:Property  was never legitimate in the first place. Hence the need to critically explore the relationship between ombudsmen and their bosses, those shadowy figures who like to operate behind the scenes - or stakeholders as they're known here.

Simply by parking their tanks on Victoria Tower Gardens and proclaiming, "civil justice" shouldn't mean that ombudsman schemers are automatically granted legitimacy by an unquestioning and compliant Parliament. .

Q. Mr Clark, doesn't legitimacy have to earned and just exactly how does maladministrating consumers' complaints earn it?

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Francis Maude, Michael Fallon, Oliver Colvile, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid and yourself.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the SOS before undergoing rebranding) and the role of the RICS.
- compensation for the victims of its ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration.
- the setting up of a truly, "fair" and "independent" redress scheme free from RICS malign influence.

Please comment either on the blog or by emailing - shockingsurveys1@gmail.com Thanks.
Steve Gilbert.