Facebook like

Monday, 3 July 2017

616) From RICS to RIGS and From Healthcare Professionals to Wealthcare Professionals.


To Charles Moore Telegraph.
To The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary,
To The Health Secretary,
To The CEO, Livewell Southwest Ltd.
And to The Chair, Ombudsman Services.

Dear Mr Moore, Mr Clark, Mr Hunt, Prof Waite and Lord Tim Clement Jones,

We have been criticised for not including items from papers other than the Guardian. So, in the interests of balance, here goes: Charles Moore - Telegraph;

Charles Moore, we see you happen to be wearing a tie too - no doubt as ambitious as Jeremy Corbyn and no doubt after the editor's job.

Shouldn't you really be writing about far something important?

Perhaps about light-touch regulators who claim to regulate but who for whatever reasons best known to themselves, don't.

Business, with its cosy, some might say corrupt, relationship with its regulators has found a world-class way of passing the costs of its inefficiencies and incompetence onto the consumer. We believe the RICS' "appointed" redress scheme, Ombudsman Services:Property being just one example.
Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, unknown individuals, "expressed some concern" over the levels of awards and they went from £1.511.76 in 2009 to 50 quid in 2016. Isn't that a direct interference in the independence of the ombudsman and isn't it corrupt?

Another is the House of Commons debate into the regulatory role of the RICS in the Law Property Act (Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors: Property Act Receiverships.(especially column 293)
Q. Mr Clark, RICS have a duty to act in the public interest, so why don't they?

Why are such men and women tolerated surely their careers are the ones
that should be coming to an ignominious end?

Or tax-avoiding proprietors of British newspapers who love this country so much that they live non-domiciled lives. Prepared to pay their journalists to propagandise on their absent behalf but not prepared to pay their taxes like the rest of us.
Q. Mr Moore, wouldn't the Barclay Brother's tax arrangements and control of a once respected British newspaper make for a better story than whether Jeremy Corbyn wears a tie or not?

Why do you tolerate that, Mr Moore, and shouldn't these underhanded practices - tax avoidance - billionaires' patronage of journalism - not also come to an ignominious end too?

Or anonymous healthcare professionals who now seem to have become
extremely anonymous wealthcare professionals. Hugh Jones have so far recovered over £100M in mischarged care fees for their clients.

Why are wealthcare professionals getting it wrong on such an industrial scale? The don't err on the side of those to whom they owe a duty of care? Why is this?
The practices they engage in - which clearly do not work in their customer's interests - seem to be subject to no regulation whatsoever.
Q. Professor Waite, is it not the case that because anonymous wealthcare workers at Livewell Southwest Ltd are not subject to any meaningful regulation they are thus able to freely phone people and tell them nonsense, hand them one-sentence Desk Top Reviews and enormous bills for the full - less two weeks - cost of their nursing care?

Why do we tolerate them? Shouldn't their careers not also come to an ignominious end?

Loosen that tie Mr Moore. In fact why not take it off?
Jeremy Corbyn For Prime Minister.

Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - Workstock number 510458.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogspot.com

No comments:

Post a Comment