Ombudsman Services - And The Foreign Secretary's Superb Brexit Model (7)

       Dear Reader,

      

       Thank you for taking the time to read about our campaign for a public

       inquiry into the RICS and its appointed company, Ombudsman

       Services:Property. We sent the sixth email in our, "cover-up" series to the following

       government  Ministers:

   

   To the Leader of the House of Commons and

To the Business Secretary.

Ombudsman Services Part 4: The Full English Cover-Up (6)

7) Ombudsman Services - And The Foreign Secretary's Superb Brexit Model.

Dear Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark,

The Foreign Secretary's speech detailing his superb teleological Brexit model, printed in full in the Spectator, came with gobbledygook instructions. Bits were missing. Those that were there don't appear to fit together.

Regarding laws, Mr Johnson stated, "If we are going to accept laws, then we need to know who is making them, and with what motives, and we need to interrogate them in our own language, and we must know how they came to be in authority over us and how we can remove them."

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, what were the motives behind the RICS' continuing failure to implement their own Rules and Regulations?

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, why do the RICS choose instead to let their unregulated members use their Property  Ombudsman to hand out broken solutions to property complainants?

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, how did the RICS come to be in authority over us when they spectacularly fail to apply their own Rules and Regulations and why haven't they been interrogated about this regulatory failure?

The Foreign Secretary spoke of voters' fears and anxieties over foreign laws, removing people from office and taking back control, and ridiculed, "the exact relationship between the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights, justiciable in Luxembourg and the European Convention on Human Rights whose court sits in Strasbourg."

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, in a purportedly modern democracy how is it acceptable for those working in the private alternative redress sector to have no statutory right to the protection of a Whistleblowing Policy?

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, why is this fundamental human right to free speech being denied them?

He says, "as the PM has said repeatedly, we must be able to take control of our laws...

It would obviously be absurd - if we were obliged to obey laws over which we have no say and no vote."

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, is the Foreign Secretary unaware of the pre-Brexit private civil justice being made up behind the scenes and away from public scrutiny and accountability by "farcical ombudsmen?

The broken solution to a broken market over which we - the British consumer - have no say and no vote.

Next, "The British people should not have laws affecting their everyday lives imposed from abroad, when they have no power to elect or remove those who make the laws. And there is no for us to find ourselves in any such position."

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, in which case why are the British people in the position where they have no power to elect or remove "farcical" ombudsmen who most certainly affect our everyday lives with their private and broken model of civil justice?

Regarding regulation Mr Johnson believes,

 "It is only by taking back control of our regulatory framework and our tariff schedules that we can do those deals and exploit the changes in the world economy."

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, don't we need to begin by first taking back control of the RICS and its regulatory framework - one which has seen an entire market - in surveying - develop practices that do not work in the customer's interests?

Not only does this government appear incapable of regulating this particular regulator, with its "politically influenced" and "engaged" ministers and civil servants, it can't even do a deal with its friends in the DUP. So much for taking on the rest of the world.

He seems to have walked right past The Big Red £350 Million Bus without even noticing it. This enabled him to say,"Freed from EU regimes, we will not only be able to spend some of our Brexit bonus on the NHS - it may be that we will need a regulatory framework, scrupulous and moral but not afraid of the new."

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, didn't the Foreign Secretary and his back-stabbing chum promise the British people that they would spend an extra £350 a week on the NHS?

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, do you not both agree that we urgently need a RICS regulatory framework one which actually enforces its Rules and Regulations and work to actually benefit  the public and not itself?

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, is it not the case that if the RICS actually spent its time regulating its members instead of politically influencing and engaging government ministers and civil servants that there would be no need for its farcical ombudsman scheme?

Mr Johnson believes that, "We will no longer be able to blame Brussels for our woes because our problems will be our responsibility and no-one else's'"

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, if that were indeed the case why has no-one in government taken responsibility for the woes of those countless victims who have fallen prey to the Rev Shand Smith's, "broken solution to a broken market?"

Further, "We are the Olympic gold medal winners in the sport of national self-deprecation."

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, shouldn't that be - you are the Olympic gold medal winners at national cover-ups?

Finally, he staggered over the finishing line with a claim that our genius as an island race is, "In its insistence upon democracy, its openness, its belief in the rights of the individual in its protection of our legal system its scepticism about excessive regulation ......" And on and on he went clearly gifted with an egotistical imagination that who can at all times command an interminable and inconsistent series of arguments to malign Remainers and glorify himself. 

Q. Mrs Leadsom and Mr Clark, where is the democracy when the RICS can politically influence and engage civil servants behind the scenes, where is the openness in a private ADR scheme failing to comply with OFT criteria for its existence, where are the rights of consumers when farcical ombudsmen hand them illogical final decisions, who stood up to protect our judges when the daily Mail called them traitors and where is the excessive regulation at RICS - an organisation that cannot and will not enforce its own Rules and Regulations?

We don't see how Brussels was responsible for any of the above. The Foreign Secretary would make a good - bad - Ombudsman.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com and www.facebook.com Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent.