To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 504.
504) Critics of the Ombudsman System: Understanding and Engaging Online Citizen Activists 4. Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill.
4. Ombudsman Schemes Don't Do What They Say On The Tin.
Dear Mr Clark,
Point 6 of the Executive Summary is one of the most contentious so far. Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill tell us,
"At the same time, the critiques put forward by the ombudsman watchers may highlight the way in which the public misunderstand the role of ombudsman schemes and be indicative of an apparent gap between public expectation and what ombudsman schemes are set up to provide."
(www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understanding-and-engaging-online-citizen-activists)
This point would seem to suggest that the public are in some way responsible for putting the cart before the horse, getting the wrong end of the stick and trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
The implication being that ombudsman watchers are the ones who have somehow got it wrong. It's all been one huge and unfortunate misunderstanding. If only they'd read the small print more carefully.
But what if the information contained there was misleading?
Surely, the onus must always be on those setting up these schemes in the first place. Why aren't they totally specific about what they are and are not aiming to do? Why do they leave it to their victims to second guess what their, "good intentions" might be? Who stands to benefit more from these misunderstandings: consumers or the businesses ombudsmen front?
We suspect it's the ombified businesses with their suspect, "business practices."
What also needs to be researched is not just the relationship between ombudsmen and their victims but the one between ombudsmen and those markets that so generously permitted them to, "ombuds" them. What is the quid pro quo?
For example, the RICS, "appointed" Ombudsman Services:Property to clear its mess up for them and watches its appointees closely to ensure that they do. The quid pro quo here is financial - instead of facing huge and potentially crippling insurance claims, legal costs and damages, surveyors, through their, "appointed" ombudsman scheme, (and having the "investigations" of complaints carefully monitored for, "effectiveness") tend to walk away scot-free never having had to put their hand in their pocket. The RICS even pay their fees.
This ombudsman scheme legitimises poor regulation and incompetence. It is corrupt.
In doing so the RICS have colonised so called, "civil justice" and have devised - rigged/captured - a highly effective way of passing off the cost of their Members' and Regulated Firms' business inefficiency and corrupt practices, onto their clients.
The RICS philosophy is best summed up by Steven Gould, Director of Regulation at the RICS and who is also a Board Member of Ombudsman Services, when speaking on the subject of letting agents. He is the embodiment of the philosophy of self regulation. He said,
"Self regulation properly developed, implemented and efficiently policed, provides the best and most effective means of ensuring consumer protection, without increasing the regulatory burden on business."
(www.property118.com/new-call-for-government-to-regulate-letting-agents)
The key to the door of this ideology is the - without increasing the regulatory burden on business - bit.
It is just plain wrong. Otherwise things would be very different. If, what the Director of Regulation at the RICS said were indeed true, RICS would have done all the above and policed their Members effectively - there would never had been the need for them to have, "appointed" Ombudsman Services:Property to do their job for them.
Christopher Hamer, the former TPOS ombudsman summed all of this up brilliantly in just one simple sentence,
"Why don't RICS regulate properly in the first place?"
Why don't they?
Is it because to do so would be a burden on their Members' business practices? Regulation being seen a cost - a tax on inefficiency and corruption.
Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill seem to expect consumers to know all of this before they take their complaints to an ombudsman.
We didn't know any of this at the time we were bundled off to OS:Property by our gleeful surveyor. Naively, we thought that the ombudsman was independent and would investigate our complaint, "fairly." We thought ombudsmen were a distant branch of government. The good guys.
We were conned. We didn't con ourselves.
Q. Mr Clark, why don't the RICS efficiently police and regulate their Members and Regulated firms and why do they pass the regulatory burden onto their clients?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Francis Maude, Michael Fallon, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, Oliver Colvile and Mr Clark.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as the SOS before undergoing re-branding) and the role of the RICS.
- compensation for the victims of the ombudsman's illogical final decisions.
- the setting up of a truly fair and independent redress scheme free from RICS malign influence.
Please comment or share your story either on the blog or by emailing: shockingsurveys1@gmail.com. Thanks. Steve Gilbert.
Tuesday, 19 July 2016
Monday, 18 July 2016
The Ombudsman Institution - Deterrent Against Injustice? (503)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 503.
503) Critics of the Ombudsman System: Understanding and Engaging Online Citizen Activists. Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill.
3. The Ombudsman Institution - No Deterrent Against Injustice.
Dear Mr Clark,
Trident has proven to be no deterrent, whatsoever, against the illogical decisions and maladministration of Ombudsman Services that have been raining down on defenceless complainants in ever increasing numbers since it launched its campaign of co-called, "civil justice" back in 2008.
Since then, consumers' Human Rights have been under constant daily attack with governmental knowledge and approval.
Point 5 of Naomi Creutzfeltd and Chris Gill's Executive Summary states,
"Many of the issues raised by the ombudsman watchers touch upon important and widely recognised dilemmas for the ombudsman institution. These matters are likely to continue to be controversial and, perhaps, require a clearer and more coherently developed position amongst the wider ombudsman community."
A major dilemma for the Ombudsman Property:Service ombudsman is that being sat in the pocket of RICS it's extremely difficult for that individual to actually see what's going on.
Another dilemma for the ombudsman is that the RICS Memorandum of Understanding with its "appointed" company and its close monitoring of what it deems to be, "the effective resolution of disputes" leaves its, "appointed" ombudsman totally lacking in independence.
Added to that, the wider ombudsman community - in the guise of the Ombudsman Association - is that the CEO and Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services happens to be its Chairman. The Ombudsman Association once had as on of the requirements for club membership the need for member schemes to have a whistleblowing policy. Ombudsman Services doesn't have a whistleblowing policy and, strange to say, now no longer does the Ombudsman Association.
We wrote to the Ombudsman Association to ask them why they no longer had having a whistleblowing policy as a requirement for membership but still had the Ombudsman Service CEO and Chief Ombudsman as its chairmen.
We didn't get a reply.
Ombudsman Services do not answers consumers' questions. The Ombudsman Association do not answer consumers' questions about its member ombudsman schemes failing to answer consumers' questions.
An Ombudsmans61percent recommend:
- Just as drivers and their passengers are required to wear seat belts so all ombudsman schemes must, by law, have a whistleblowing policy.
Q. Mr Clark, when ombudsmen do not answer consumers' questions, how is this in any way, "civil justice" and why has government done nothing to deter such undemocratic behaviour?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 503.
503) Critics of the Ombudsman System: Understanding and Engaging Online Citizen Activists. Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill.
3. The Ombudsman Institution - No Deterrent Against Injustice.
Dear Mr Clark,
Trident has proven to be no deterrent, whatsoever, against the illogical decisions and maladministration of Ombudsman Services that have been raining down on defenceless complainants in ever increasing numbers since it launched its campaign of co-called, "civil justice" back in 2008.
Since then, consumers' Human Rights have been under constant daily attack with governmental knowledge and approval.
Point 5 of Naomi Creutzfeltd and Chris Gill's Executive Summary states,
"Many of the issues raised by the ombudsman watchers touch upon important and widely recognised dilemmas for the ombudsman institution. These matters are likely to continue to be controversial and, perhaps, require a clearer and more coherently developed position amongst the wider ombudsman community."
A major dilemma for the Ombudsman Property:Service ombudsman is that being sat in the pocket of RICS it's extremely difficult for that individual to actually see what's going on.
Another dilemma for the ombudsman is that the RICS Memorandum of Understanding with its "appointed" company and its close monitoring of what it deems to be, "the effective resolution of disputes" leaves its, "appointed" ombudsman totally lacking in independence.
Added to that, the wider ombudsman community - in the guise of the Ombudsman Association - is that the CEO and Chief Ombudsman of Ombudsman Services happens to be its Chairman. The Ombudsman Association once had as on of the requirements for club membership the need for member schemes to have a whistleblowing policy. Ombudsman Services doesn't have a whistleblowing policy and, strange to say, now no longer does the Ombudsman Association.
We wrote to the Ombudsman Association to ask them why they no longer had having a whistleblowing policy as a requirement for membership but still had the Ombudsman Service CEO and Chief Ombudsman as its chairmen.
We didn't get a reply.
Ombudsman Services do not answers consumers' questions. The Ombudsman Association do not answer consumers' questions about its member ombudsman schemes failing to answer consumers' questions.
An Ombudsmans61percent recommend:
- Just as drivers and their passengers are required to wear seat belts so all ombudsman schemes must, by law, have a whistleblowing policy.
Q. Mr Clark, when ombudsmen do not answer consumers' questions, how is this in any way, "civil justice" and why has government done nothing to deter such undemocratic behaviour?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Saturday, 16 July 2016
Creutzfeldt and Gill (2). (502)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 502.
502) Critics of the Ombudsman System: Understanding and Engaging Online Activists (2). Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill.
(www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understand-and-engage)
2. How Ombudsman Schemes Interact With Their Critics.
Dear Mr Clark,
Part 4 of Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill's Executive Summary stated:
"The aim of the workshop with ombudsman schemes was to discuss what they felt the issues to be and how they had interacted with ombudsman watchers operating in their area."
Our first Blog - "Blog Forever" - was an European Funded Project and, yes you've guessed it, closed down. Nothing but injustice seems to last forever. We began each of those blogs to the various Business Secretaries who preceded you with the heading, "Being More Specific" because that was what civil servants asked us to be - more specific.
Interaction has proven to be difficult. An uphill struggle. Sisyphus had it easy.
This series of Blogs start with, "For Clarity" and is based on ombudsman, Gillian Fleming's, letter to us where she set out what she meant by clarity. (Please see Blog 414)
Ombudsman Services:Property's preferred way of interacting with those of us who seek to challenge their illogical decisions is summed up by Gillian Fleming's definition of clarity. It is anything but. What is clear - and it appears to be matter of principle - is that complainant's questions will not be answered.
Ombudsmen wish us to believe that an ombudsman's decision is sacrosanct.
We were told by one Independent Assessor (who was neither of those things) that the ombudsman's decision is final and can only be overturned by judicial review.
In which case it is not final.
An analysis of the way in which language is used by the company's executives, ombudsman and Independent Assessor would be an interesting area for future research. It would reveal a hidden world of meaning. A melange of quasi-judicial, pro-business ombudspeak.
Complainants who have the cheek to complain about being handed illogical decisions are viewed as timewasting troublemakers.
We tried asking Richard Brown to forward our complaint to the company's council of lay members. We were told;
"In your email you say we have failed to inform you of the contact details of the lay members of the council. It is not that we have refused rather that the provision of this information would not advance your case any, as they, have no part to play in ombudsman decisions."
He inadvertently seemed to have acknowledged that our case did need advancing. It did. and it still does. Only he wasn't going to help in its advancement.
The Campaign replied;
"If you have not refused then why is it you still haven't sent me their details? It is not for you to decide what information would advance my case or not as to do so would appear to be both patronising and undemocratic.
I am challenging the ombudsman's decision and I wish to contact the council members because in your publication - 'Resolving complaints fairly' - I read that their job is to; agree the appointment of the ombudsman, keep the service independent, review our performance and recommend any changes that might need to be made to the way we work.
I will be sending copies of my case to them by recorded delivery along with a raft of recommendations for change. Some of these recommendations I included in my email to you. I see that you have failed to comment on them."
We sent copies to Warrington. We never heard from any of the lay council members.
The Ombudsman Services scheme is a secretive organisation. It has no whistleblowing policy, withholds information from consumers and denies them their Human Rights. Its reporting of its own performance is highly sanitised and even the lay council members are kept in the dark as to what is actually going on.
One wonders how the lay council members can possibly do their job if all the time they're being told that they inhabit a magical ombudsland of unicorns, crystal clear waterfalls and beautiful rainbows.
The Ombudsman61percent Campaign's recommendations are as follows:
1. Ombudsman Services urgently needs a whistleblowing policy.
2. All cases should automatically go on a database which is freely available to consumers to scrutinise.
3. If a, "financial award" is made it should say what that award was.
4. Each case should clearly state whether the complainant was; very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied or vey dissatisfied with the outcome of the investigation of their case.
5. The complainant's views should always be sacrosanct.
The complainant is king.
Q. Mr Clark, isn't enormous power without accountability a definition of tyranny?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 502.
502) Critics of the Ombudsman System: Understanding and Engaging Online Activists (2). Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill.
(www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understand-and-engage)
2. How Ombudsman Schemes Interact With Their Critics.
Dear Mr Clark,
Part 4 of Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill's Executive Summary stated:
"The aim of the workshop with ombudsman schemes was to discuss what they felt the issues to be and how they had interacted with ombudsman watchers operating in their area."
Our first Blog - "Blog Forever" - was an European Funded Project and, yes you've guessed it, closed down. Nothing but injustice seems to last forever. We began each of those blogs to the various Business Secretaries who preceded you with the heading, "Being More Specific" because that was what civil servants asked us to be - more specific.
Interaction has proven to be difficult. An uphill struggle. Sisyphus had it easy.
This series of Blogs start with, "For Clarity" and is based on ombudsman, Gillian Fleming's, letter to us where she set out what she meant by clarity. (Please see Blog 414)
Ombudsman Services:Property's preferred way of interacting with those of us who seek to challenge their illogical decisions is summed up by Gillian Fleming's definition of clarity. It is anything but. What is clear - and it appears to be matter of principle - is that complainant's questions will not be answered.
Ombudsmen wish us to believe that an ombudsman's decision is sacrosanct.
We were told by one Independent Assessor (who was neither of those things) that the ombudsman's decision is final and can only be overturned by judicial review.
In which case it is not final.
An analysis of the way in which language is used by the company's executives, ombudsman and Independent Assessor would be an interesting area for future research. It would reveal a hidden world of meaning. A melange of quasi-judicial, pro-business ombudspeak.
Complainants who have the cheek to complain about being handed illogical decisions are viewed as timewasting troublemakers.
We tried asking Richard Brown to forward our complaint to the company's council of lay members. We were told;
"In your email you say we have failed to inform you of the contact details of the lay members of the council. It is not that we have refused rather that the provision of this information would not advance your case any, as they, have no part to play in ombudsman decisions."
He inadvertently seemed to have acknowledged that our case did need advancing. It did. and it still does. Only he wasn't going to help in its advancement.
The Campaign replied;
"If you have not refused then why is it you still haven't sent me their details? It is not for you to decide what information would advance my case or not as to do so would appear to be both patronising and undemocratic.
I am challenging the ombudsman's decision and I wish to contact the council members because in your publication - 'Resolving complaints fairly' - I read that their job is to; agree the appointment of the ombudsman, keep the service independent, review our performance and recommend any changes that might need to be made to the way we work.
I will be sending copies of my case to them by recorded delivery along with a raft of recommendations for change. Some of these recommendations I included in my email to you. I see that you have failed to comment on them."
We sent copies to Warrington. We never heard from any of the lay council members.
The Ombudsman Services scheme is a secretive organisation. It has no whistleblowing policy, withholds information from consumers and denies them their Human Rights. Its reporting of its own performance is highly sanitised and even the lay council members are kept in the dark as to what is actually going on.
One wonders how the lay council members can possibly do their job if all the time they're being told that they inhabit a magical ombudsland of unicorns, crystal clear waterfalls and beautiful rainbows.
The Ombudsman61percent Campaign's recommendations are as follows:
1. Ombudsman Services urgently needs a whistleblowing policy.
2. All cases should automatically go on a database which is freely available to consumers to scrutinise.
3. If a, "financial award" is made it should say what that award was.
4. Each case should clearly state whether the complainant was; very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied or vey dissatisfied with the outcome of the investigation of their case.
5. The complainant's views should always be sacrosanct.
The complainant is king.
Q. Mr Clark, isn't enormous power without accountability a definition of tyranny?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Friday, 15 July 2016
What Ombudsman Watchers Do. Why They Do It. And How Successsful They Are. (501)
To The New Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 501.
501) Critics of the Ombudsman System: Understanding and Engaging Online Activists (1). Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill.
1. What Ombudsman Watchers do. Why they do it. And how successful they are.
Dear Mr Clark,
The Ombudsmas61percent Campaign would like to congratulate you on your promotion to the position of Business Secretary.
It has been a long journey from student activist for the Social Democrats to Secretary of State for the BIS in a Tory post-Brexit unelected government.
No doubt history will judge your legacy to a large extent on just how speedily and effectively you dealt with our complaint.
You predecessors; Vince Cable and Mr Javid were, let's face it, hopeless. Neither of them, "fixed" it for consumers. Both made matters far worse with their, "close and continuing relationship" with the maladministrators at Ombudsman Services.
We see that your intention is in, "turning government upside down." May we suggest you begin by, turning Ombudsman Services, "inside out?"
In pat 3 of their Executive Summary, Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill state:
"The workshop with the ombudsman watchers covered the nature of their critique of ombudsman schemes and the goals of their campaigns, the methods used to achieve them and the responses they had obtained from ombudsman schemes and others."
We were unable to attend the workshop for family reasons.
And for the fact that it was, in part, funded by the PHSO. (Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman). The response we had obtained from the Head of the PHSO, Dame Julie Mellor, had been to threaten us with prosecution should we make public her response to our complaint. Which of course we will do at some future date.
We asked Dame Julie Mellor what prosecution would entail - maybe a trip to the Tower of London? A hefty fine perhaps?
She rather unhelpfully told us to ask our solicitor.
On our behalf our MP, Oliver Colvile, asked the Chief Ombudsman and CEO of Ombudsman Services, The Rev Smith, to clarify what the ombudsman's duty was as set out in the company's Terms of Reference.
The Rev Smith also rather unhelpfully suggested that we had misunderstood the Terms of Reference and not his ombudsman, Gillian Fleming.
Mr Colvile was satisfied with the Rev Smith's response.
We weren't.
Our method was simply to ask various people to explain their decisions and actions. They found it easier not to.
Q. Mr Clark, if the ombudsman's Terms of Reference state that it is her duty to, "Report to the RICS Regulatory Body any cases which involve, serious or persistent breaches of the RICS Rules of Conduct by RICS Member Firms" - Monk and Partners in this instance - why did the ombudsman, Gillian Fleming write, "I would reiterate that the question of whether the Firm (Monk and Partners) has acted in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct required is a matter for the professional body concerned which in this case would be the RICS?"
Q. Mr Clarke, how are the RICS ever going to know if their Member Firm (Monk and Partners) has been involved in a, "serious or persistent breach of the RICS Rules of Conduct" if their ombudsman doesn't tell them?
Q. Mr Clark, as their ombudsman wasn't going to report them is at all likely that Monk and Partners would hand themselves in?
Q. Mr Clark, is this in any way logical?
Q. Mr Clark, isn't the ombudsman, Gillian Fleming, just letting her fee-paying Member Firm off the hook?
Q. Mr Clark, do you consider that the ombudsman, Gillian Fleming, has acted, "fairly" and "independently?
Q. Mr Clark, the Rev Smith stated that we had misunderstood the Terms of Reference. In what way do you think we have misunderstood them?
Q. Mr Clark, why was Mr Colvile satisfied with the Rev Smith's response?
Our goal is for a public inquiry into the maladministration and illogical Final Decisions coming from Ombudsman Services.
We believe that the victims of this injustice deserve to be compensated.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 501.
501) Critics of the Ombudsman System: Understanding and Engaging Online Activists (1). Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill.
1. What Ombudsman Watchers do. Why they do it. And how successful they are.
Dear Mr Clark,
The Ombudsmas61percent Campaign would like to congratulate you on your promotion to the position of Business Secretary.
It has been a long journey from student activist for the Social Democrats to Secretary of State for the BIS in a Tory post-Brexit unelected government.
No doubt history will judge your legacy to a large extent on just how speedily and effectively you dealt with our complaint.
You predecessors; Vince Cable and Mr Javid were, let's face it, hopeless. Neither of them, "fixed" it for consumers. Both made matters far worse with their, "close and continuing relationship" with the maladministrators at Ombudsman Services.
We see that your intention is in, "turning government upside down." May we suggest you begin by, turning Ombudsman Services, "inside out?"
In pat 3 of their Executive Summary, Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill state:
"The workshop with the ombudsman watchers covered the nature of their critique of ombudsman schemes and the goals of their campaigns, the methods used to achieve them and the responses they had obtained from ombudsman schemes and others."
We were unable to attend the workshop for family reasons.
And for the fact that it was, in part, funded by the PHSO. (Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman). The response we had obtained from the Head of the PHSO, Dame Julie Mellor, had been to threaten us with prosecution should we make public her response to our complaint. Which of course we will do at some future date.
We asked Dame Julie Mellor what prosecution would entail - maybe a trip to the Tower of London? A hefty fine perhaps?
She rather unhelpfully told us to ask our solicitor.
On our behalf our MP, Oliver Colvile, asked the Chief Ombudsman and CEO of Ombudsman Services, The Rev Smith, to clarify what the ombudsman's duty was as set out in the company's Terms of Reference.
The Rev Smith also rather unhelpfully suggested that we had misunderstood the Terms of Reference and not his ombudsman, Gillian Fleming.
Mr Colvile was satisfied with the Rev Smith's response.
We weren't.
Our method was simply to ask various people to explain their decisions and actions. They found it easier not to.
Q. Mr Clark, if the ombudsman's Terms of Reference state that it is her duty to, "Report to the RICS Regulatory Body any cases which involve, serious or persistent breaches of the RICS Rules of Conduct by RICS Member Firms" - Monk and Partners in this instance - why did the ombudsman, Gillian Fleming write, "I would reiterate that the question of whether the Firm (Monk and Partners) has acted in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct required is a matter for the professional body concerned which in this case would be the RICS?"
Q. Mr Clarke, how are the RICS ever going to know if their Member Firm (Monk and Partners) has been involved in a, "serious or persistent breach of the RICS Rules of Conduct" if their ombudsman doesn't tell them?
Q. Mr Clark, as their ombudsman wasn't going to report them is at all likely that Monk and Partners would hand themselves in?
Q. Mr Clark, is this in any way logical?
Q. Mr Clark, isn't the ombudsman, Gillian Fleming, just letting her fee-paying Member Firm off the hook?
Q. Mr Clark, do you consider that the ombudsman, Gillian Fleming, has acted, "fairly" and "independently?
Q. Mr Clark, the Rev Smith stated that we had misunderstood the Terms of Reference. In what way do you think we have misunderstood them?
Q. Mr Clark, why was Mr Colvile satisfied with the Rev Smith's response?
Our goal is for a public inquiry into the maladministration and illogical Final Decisions coming from Ombudsman Services.
We believe that the victims of this injustice deserve to be compensated.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Wednesday, 13 July 2016
OS:Property/The Labour Party: Logic? Where's Spock When You Need Him? (500)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 500.
500) OS:Property/The Labour Party: Logic? Where's Spock When You Need Him?
Dear Mr Javid,
The Labour Party has just tied itself in knots over just what exactly its own Rules actually mean. It took 6 hours, lots of people, two m'learned friends but no sandwiches to arrive at a decision: 18-14. So much for the "Rules."
Why didn't the genius writing them simply add: and the incumbent leader automatically goes on the ballot? That would have been sensible. Would have saved a lot of time and heartache.
The Rule said;
"Where there is no vacancy nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of Party Conference. In this case any nomination must be supported by 20% of the combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void."
As Mr Corbyn isn't challenging himself he doesn't need the support of 20% of PLP and EPLP members. Logical and straightforward. Or so you'd think.
Not so logical or straightforward was what Gillian Fleming, the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman wrote in response to our complaint that she avoided answering our questions;
"For clarity, I do not agree that any failure (by me or any colleagues for that matter) to give an answer to a question means we have refused to answer that question."
That's clarity?
We tried asking the Chair of Ombudsman Services, Prof Dame Janet Finch, if she could shed some light on the logic behind this statement. She couldn't. A sad case of one expert apparently not being able to interpret what another expert says.
You could fill a room with lots of people, two m'learned friends, hand them sandwiches and 6 hours and they'd probably arrive at a majority decision that whatever way you looked at it - the ombudsman still hadn't answered the question or given a satisfactory reason for not doing so.
We live in a world where those in positions of power - whether it be Prime Ministers at Prime Minister Question Time, OS:Property with its executives and ombudsmen, local government or Livewell Southwest Ltd simply believe themselves to be above answering questions. It's beneath their dignity.
If that's democracy I'm Captain Kirk.
Spock, would probably said of all this that;
"Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth." (And The Children Shall Lead 1968)
Q. Mr Javid, how can the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman investigate complaints, "fairly" and "independently" when she avoids answering a complainant's questions?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 500.
500) OS:Property/The Labour Party: Logic? Where's Spock When You Need Him?
Dear Mr Javid,
The Labour Party has just tied itself in knots over just what exactly its own Rules actually mean. It took 6 hours, lots of people, two m'learned friends but no sandwiches to arrive at a decision: 18-14. So much for the "Rules."
Why didn't the genius writing them simply add: and the incumbent leader automatically goes on the ballot? That would have been sensible. Would have saved a lot of time and heartache.
The Rule said;
"Where there is no vacancy nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of Party Conference. In this case any nomination must be supported by 20% of the combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void."
As Mr Corbyn isn't challenging himself he doesn't need the support of 20% of PLP and EPLP members. Logical and straightforward. Or so you'd think.
Not so logical or straightforward was what Gillian Fleming, the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman wrote in response to our complaint that she avoided answering our questions;
"For clarity, I do not agree that any failure (by me or any colleagues for that matter) to give an answer to a question means we have refused to answer that question."
That's clarity?
We tried asking the Chair of Ombudsman Services, Prof Dame Janet Finch, if she could shed some light on the logic behind this statement. She couldn't. A sad case of one expert apparently not being able to interpret what another expert says.
You could fill a room with lots of people, two m'learned friends, hand them sandwiches and 6 hours and they'd probably arrive at a majority decision that whatever way you looked at it - the ombudsman still hadn't answered the question or given a satisfactory reason for not doing so.
We live in a world where those in positions of power - whether it be Prime Ministers at Prime Minister Question Time, OS:Property with its executives and ombudsmen, local government or Livewell Southwest Ltd simply believe themselves to be above answering questions. It's beneath their dignity.
If that's democracy I'm Captain Kirk.
Spock, would probably said of all this that;
"Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth." (And The Children Shall Lead 1968)
Q. Mr Javid, how can the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman investigate complaints, "fairly" and "independently" when she avoids answering a complainant's questions?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Tuesday, 12 July 2016
Regulators Help Rig "Justice" in Rigged Market Capitalism. (499)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 499.
499) Regulators Help Rig "Justice" in Rigged Market Capitalism.
Or how The establishment looks after its own.
Again. And Again. And again and again and again.
Soft on Crime. Soft on the causes of Crime.
Dear Mr Javid,
"HSBC escaped the money-laundering charges after UK intervention."
(www.guardian.co.uk 12 June 2016)
This seems to be yet another example of Telegraph journalist Juliet Samuel's devious politicians/civil servants/regulators fixing things behind the scenes.
She approves of this sort of thing.
The Guardian article stated;
"The US government decided not to pursue criminal charges against HSBC for allowing terrorists and drug dealers to launder millions of dollars after George Osborne and the UK banking regulator intervened to warn that prosecuting Britain's biggest bank could lead to a financial disaster."
No doubt a sizeable chunk of the laundered-money ended up in the London Property Market helping to further inflate house prices and heap more stress and misery on the dispossessed trying to cope with the bedroom tax. Or just trying to put a roof over their head.
Government colluding with organised crime to prop organised crime in the form of banking.
The article continued;
"The report said the FSA (Financial Services Authority) was, 'problematic,' 'weighed in very strongly' and caused a, 'firestorm' which led the then Attorney General, Eric Holder, to overrule the advice of his own prosecutors and not pursue criminal action."
Unlike the Telegraph journalist we disapprove of this sort of thing.
Q. Mr Javid, why hasn't the RICS the regulator of Ombudsman Services:Property weighed in strongly to end the illogical Final Decisions and maladministration?
Q. Mr Javid, why haven't government monitors caused a firestorm and prosecuted those responsible for the illogical Final Decisions and maladministration?
Q. Mr Javid, isn't this a form of state sponsored terrorism and state organised crime?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 499.
499) Regulators Help Rig "Justice" in Rigged Market Capitalism.
Or how The establishment looks after its own.
Again. And Again. And again and again and again.
Soft on Crime. Soft on the causes of Crime.
Dear Mr Javid,
"HSBC escaped the money-laundering charges after UK intervention."
(www.guardian.co.uk 12 June 2016)
This seems to be yet another example of Telegraph journalist Juliet Samuel's devious politicians/civil servants/regulators fixing things behind the scenes.
She approves of this sort of thing.
The Guardian article stated;
"The US government decided not to pursue criminal charges against HSBC for allowing terrorists and drug dealers to launder millions of dollars after George Osborne and the UK banking regulator intervened to warn that prosecuting Britain's biggest bank could lead to a financial disaster."
No doubt a sizeable chunk of the laundered-money ended up in the London Property Market helping to further inflate house prices and heap more stress and misery on the dispossessed trying to cope with the bedroom tax. Or just trying to put a roof over their head.
Government colluding with organised crime to prop organised crime in the form of banking.
The article continued;
"The report said the FSA (Financial Services Authority) was, 'problematic,' 'weighed in very strongly' and caused a, 'firestorm' which led the then Attorney General, Eric Holder, to overrule the advice of his own prosecutors and not pursue criminal action."
Unlike the Telegraph journalist we disapprove of this sort of thing.
Q. Mr Javid, why hasn't the RICS the regulator of Ombudsman Services:Property weighed in strongly to end the illogical Final Decisions and maladministration?
Q. Mr Javid, why haven't government monitors caused a firestorm and prosecuted those responsible for the illogical Final Decisions and maladministration?
Q. Mr Javid, isn't this a form of state sponsored terrorism and state organised crime?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Saturday, 9 July 2016
New Labour's Take On Things. (497)
To the Business secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 497.
497) New Labour's Take On Things.
Dear Mr Javid,
The Labour Party's relationship between Michael Gove's dispossessed victims of unreformed capitalism and wealth (and therefore justice) is an interesting one.
At about the exact same time as we were being packed off to the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman by our surveyor this headline appeared in The Express:
"Lord and Lady Kinnock's £10 Million Euro Grave Train... Gleny's Kinnock was last night facing questions over her impartiality as Europe Minister after research suggested she and her husband Neil may have pocketed £10 Million..." (Jason Groves Sun 14 June 2009)
Questions over impartiality and lots of Wonga. Sounds familiar.
This is the same Neil Kinnock who has had so much to say about the Labour Party recently but very little - in fact nothing - about his diary commitments at the time of the Miner's Strike.
"Owing to the short notice of the arrangements I will not be able to attend the rallies on the dates that have been decided.. As you will understand I am already fully committed to a series of long standing engagements which cannot be broken."
Along with Eric Heffer we didn't understand it then and we don't understand it now. As the miners faced poverty the Kinnocks were booking their first class seats on The Gravy Train.
His diary was full for all the rally dates. Even for when the last Welsh pit closed.
Then there's the Blair's property empire. It typifies New Labour.
"Tony and Cherie Blair's property empire worth £27 million." (Guardian 14 May 2016)
"he, his wife and children owning at least 10 houses and 27 flats between them." (Independent 14 March 2016)
As Iraq was being bombed back to the middle ages the Blairs were hoovering up property like there was no tomorrow. For thousands of unfortunate Iraqis there was to be no tomorrow. It goes a long way to explaining why, when we tried to raise the issues of the Ombudsman's lack of impartiality and a subsequent 61% dissatisfaction rate with her bizarre decisions with a local Labour MP we were told, "That's normal."
Q Mr Javid, is it "normal" for 61% (rising to 64% in 2011 and who knows what today) of property complainants to be very dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint and the lack of impartiality of the Ombudsman presiding over them?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 497.
497) New Labour's Take On Things.
Dear Mr Javid,
The Labour Party's relationship between Michael Gove's dispossessed victims of unreformed capitalism and wealth (and therefore justice) is an interesting one.
At about the exact same time as we were being packed off to the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman by our surveyor this headline appeared in The Express:
"Lord and Lady Kinnock's £10 Million Euro Grave Train... Gleny's Kinnock was last night facing questions over her impartiality as Europe Minister after research suggested she and her husband Neil may have pocketed £10 Million..." (Jason Groves Sun 14 June 2009)
Questions over impartiality and lots of Wonga. Sounds familiar.
This is the same Neil Kinnock who has had so much to say about the Labour Party recently but very little - in fact nothing - about his diary commitments at the time of the Miner's Strike.
"Owing to the short notice of the arrangements I will not be able to attend the rallies on the dates that have been decided.. As you will understand I am already fully committed to a series of long standing engagements which cannot be broken."
Along with Eric Heffer we didn't understand it then and we don't understand it now. As the miners faced poverty the Kinnocks were booking their first class seats on The Gravy Train.
His diary was full for all the rally dates. Even for when the last Welsh pit closed.
Then there's the Blair's property empire. It typifies New Labour.
"Tony and Cherie Blair's property empire worth £27 million." (Guardian 14 May 2016)
"he, his wife and children owning at least 10 houses and 27 flats between them." (Independent 14 March 2016)
As Iraq was being bombed back to the middle ages the Blairs were hoovering up property like there was no tomorrow. For thousands of unfortunate Iraqis there was to be no tomorrow. It goes a long way to explaining why, when we tried to raise the issues of the Ombudsman's lack of impartiality and a subsequent 61% dissatisfaction rate with her bizarre decisions with a local Labour MP we were told, "That's normal."
Q Mr Javid, is it "normal" for 61% (rising to 64% in 2011 and who knows what today) of property complainants to be very dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint and the lack of impartiality of the Ombudsman presiding over them?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)