To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 511.
511) David Blanchflower - Criticism But No Advice,
Dear Mr Clark,
Having read David Blanchflower's self-promoting article, "I advised Corbyn's economics team to learn fast. They didn't" in today's Guardian (www.theguardian.com/commentisfree?2016/Aug02) we almost found ourselves agreeing with Mr Gove and his belief that experts are not to be trusted. Mr Blanchflower is apparently an economics expert although you wouldn't know it from reading his piece for the Guardian. We did learn that Mr Blanchflower is a remarkably important person but very little else.
Where was the economics masterclass and where was the brilliant advice?
Instead of that we're told, "they (Mr Corbyn and his team) will have to accept the realities of capitalism and modern markets, like it or not" but nowhere are we told in detail what the realities of capitalism and modern markets actually are. We didn't like that.
For Mr Blanchflower, don't mention the war seems now to have become don't mention the nature of capitalism and the modern markets it thrives upon.
From Joseph Stiglitz, Thomas Pikkety and Steven A Ramirez we know that markets are rigged ie have become highly organised criminal enterprises and that those who exploit them act to ensure that no laws are passed to regulate their criminality, that the profits generated from this criminality are filtered through offshore bank accounts to reappear as bought property in the world's leading property hotspots. If Mr Blanchflower thinks otherwise he doesn't say.
We did learn that,
"The bond and equity markets would eat him (Mr Corbyn) for lunch."
So, in Thomas Piketty's terminology, not only has capitalism been, "captured" it's also become cannibalistic too. Mr Blanchflower again offers no analysis of this penetrating insight into modern markets. Only that they're modern, they cover a multitude of sins and they don't like being messed with so we just need to get on with it.
What we get from Mr Blanchflower are a series of assertions:
- austerity was a disaster.
- it led to the biggest fall in real wages ever recorded.
(Doesn't capitalism exist to exploit labour, drive down wages and thereby increase margins and profits?)
- this explains Brexit.
- the people are hurting, "but the hurt was little to do with EU regulations or migration."
(that's not what a lot of people down here believe - is this Blanchflowerian false consciousness? He offers no explanation for the way people think the way they do.)
- there's overcrowding in schools and the NHS due to George Osborne's love of austerity.
(wasn't austerity promoted by Christine Lagarde, the European Central Bank and the IMF as the right pill for the patient? Mr Blanchflower doesn't say.
and finally,
- make taxes and spending fairer.
That's it? Theresa May would have been of more help.
His less than dazzling conclusion is;
"The country needs an opposition with a credible set of worked out and carefully funded policies" but he gives no indication as to what they might be.
The juggernaut is hurtling out of control but it's all ok because it'll have a fresh lick of paint, retreds and be taxed for the next six months.
His conclusion appears to be that Mr Corbyn needs to change but that rigged market capitalism doesn't. Anyone trying to change the system will be eaten. No doubt by those sections of the press that are owned by non domiciled, tax-avoiding proprietors who champion self-regulation - ie no regulation.
Q. Mr Clark, are poorly regulated and exploitative markets like the ones in surveying and adult care an essential part of your industrial strategy for post-Brexit Britain?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Francis Maude, Michael Fallon,. Nick Clegg, Dame Julie Mellor, The Rev Smith, Dame Janet Finch, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid and yourself.
- a public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company which formerly traded as the SOS before undergoing re-branding) 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 influence.
Comment is free so please comment or share your story either on the blog or by emailing: shockingsurveys1@gmail.com. Thanks. Steve Gilbert.
Print That Guardian!
Tuesday, 2 August 2016
Monday, 1 August 2016
The Privatisation Of Justice In Rigged Market Capitalism. (510)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 510
.
510) The Privatisation Of Justice In Rigged Market Capitalism.
Dear Mr Clark,
We see that David Cameron has reneged on yet another of his strongly held principles - the one where he vowed to combat capitalist cronyism. Instead he has been handing out gongs like confetti at a fat gypsy wedding. We were mortified to learn that we've been passed over once again. Surely, a painfully long, dogged and bulldog-spirited campaign to highlight; injustice, cronyism, corruption and the dangers that privatised, "civil justice" pose to our fragile democracy, trumps Samantha Cameron's stylist? Apparently not.
Once again the spoils continue to go to the victors (or in David Cameron's case the loser) within The Elite. And in The Golden Age of the Ombudsman, ombudsmen are now knocking loudly and eagerly at its door.
Naomi Creutzfeltd and Chris Gill explain the purpose behind their project;
"From an academic perspective, the project aimed to shed light on a new and rapidly developing phenomenon at a time when ombudsman schemes are taking on an increasingly important role within the justice system and, therefore, coming under more intense scrutiny. As a spotlight is increasingly directed towards ombudsman schemes, it is important to begin to understand and examine those voices that are critical of the system."
(www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understanding-and-engaing-online-citizen-activists)
We agree with the two researchers - ombudsman schemes are beginning to dominate the justice system and are now in urgent need of meaningful scrutiny and control.
In short, ombudsman schemes are effectively colonising the justice system and compliantly serve the interests of badly regulated businesses and not - as they would have us believe - those of, "civil justice."
Unelected and unaccountable, self styled "ombudsmen" are - with the help of RICS in the case of OS:Property - making up the rules up as they go along. There is no meaningful scrutiny of what they do.
In, "Lawless Capitalism: The Sub Prime Crisis and the Case for the Economic Rule of Law" Steven A Ramirez tells us that,
"In the end, if elites hold power to change law in their favour then all others lose by being forced to compete in a rigged market. The sub prime debacle constitutes a preview of the costs of a pervasively rigged economy."
He could have been describing the RICS and its use of Ombudsman Services:Property to mete out what it determines to be, "civil justice." A civil justice that's brokered behind the scenes and away from any meaningful scrutiny by the people's elected representatives in Parliament.
He could also have describing Livewell South West and the way it arrives at DST (Diagnostic Support Tool) Decisions without bothering to explain to the sick, the elderly and the dying residents of Plymouth just exactly how they arrived at those decisions. Some residents have been waiting years for justice.
He goes on to say,
"Law needs to curb power, and a modern economy needs an economic rule of law ... corporate and financial incumbents subvert the law and entrench their power."
(Steven A Ramirez page 212)
We were told by the company's Independent Assessor that the OS:Property ombudsman's decision was final. There was no right of appeal. They have entrenched their power - totally.
Q. Mr Clark, when maladministrators at Ombudsman Services:Property are left free - with RICS approval - to determine what is or isn't civil justice aren't they cynically subverting the law and entrenching their power?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking;
- answers from Vince Cable, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Francis Maude, Michael Fallon, Dame Julie Mellor, Nick Clegg, 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 re-branding) 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' influence.
Please comment or share your story either by using the blog or emailing: shockingsurveys1@gmail.com . Thank you.
For Clarity - Attempt 510
.
510) The Privatisation Of Justice In Rigged Market Capitalism.
Dear Mr Clark,
We see that David Cameron has reneged on yet another of his strongly held principles - the one where he vowed to combat capitalist cronyism. Instead he has been handing out gongs like confetti at a fat gypsy wedding. We were mortified to learn that we've been passed over once again. Surely, a painfully long, dogged and bulldog-spirited campaign to highlight; injustice, cronyism, corruption and the dangers that privatised, "civil justice" pose to our fragile democracy, trumps Samantha Cameron's stylist? Apparently not.
Once again the spoils continue to go to the victors (or in David Cameron's case the loser) within The Elite. And in The Golden Age of the Ombudsman, ombudsmen are now knocking loudly and eagerly at its door.
Naomi Creutzfeltd and Chris Gill explain the purpose behind their project;
"From an academic perspective, the project aimed to shed light on a new and rapidly developing phenomenon at a time when ombudsman schemes are taking on an increasingly important role within the justice system and, therefore, coming under more intense scrutiny. As a spotlight is increasingly directed towards ombudsman schemes, it is important to begin to understand and examine those voices that are critical of the system."
(www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understanding-and-engaing-online-citizen-activists)
We agree with the two researchers - ombudsman schemes are beginning to dominate the justice system and are now in urgent need of meaningful scrutiny and control.
In short, ombudsman schemes are effectively colonising the justice system and compliantly serve the interests of badly regulated businesses and not - as they would have us believe - those of, "civil justice."
Unelected and unaccountable, self styled "ombudsmen" are - with the help of RICS in the case of OS:Property - making up the rules up as they go along. There is no meaningful scrutiny of what they do.
In, "Lawless Capitalism: The Sub Prime Crisis and the Case for the Economic Rule of Law" Steven A Ramirez tells us that,
"In the end, if elites hold power to change law in their favour then all others lose by being forced to compete in a rigged market. The sub prime debacle constitutes a preview of the costs of a pervasively rigged economy."
He could have been describing the RICS and its use of Ombudsman Services:Property to mete out what it determines to be, "civil justice." A civil justice that's brokered behind the scenes and away from any meaningful scrutiny by the people's elected representatives in Parliament.
He could also have describing Livewell South West and the way it arrives at DST (Diagnostic Support Tool) Decisions without bothering to explain to the sick, the elderly and the dying residents of Plymouth just exactly how they arrived at those decisions. Some residents have been waiting years for justice.
He goes on to say,
"Law needs to curb power, and a modern economy needs an economic rule of law ... corporate and financial incumbents subvert the law and entrench their power."
(Steven A Ramirez page 212)
We were told by the company's Independent Assessor that the OS:Property ombudsman's decision was final. There was no right of appeal. They have entrenched their power - totally.
Q. Mr Clark, when maladministrators at Ombudsman Services:Property are left free - with RICS approval - to determine what is or isn't civil justice aren't they cynically subverting the law and entrenching their power?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking;
- answers from Vince Cable, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Francis Maude, Michael Fallon, Dame Julie Mellor, Nick Clegg, 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 re-branding) 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' influence.
Please comment or share your story either by using the blog or emailing: shockingsurveys1@gmail.com . Thank you.
Sunday, 31 July 2016
Ombudsman Needed - Brass Neck And Conscience Bypass Essential (509)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 509
.
509) Ombudsman Needed - Brass Neck And Conscience Bypass Essential.
Dear Mr Clark,
We've already attempted to point out that power without accountability - checks or counterbalances - is tyrannical. Combine that with Prime Ministers who as a point of principle refuse to answer questions on the floor of the House of Commons and the tone is set for the rest of The Establishment and those aspiring to get their snouts into The Golden Trough.
As taxpayers we pay people not to answer our questions and call this democracy.
The first rule for those intent on rising up the food chain - social mobility in early 21st century - is: Never Answer Questions.
Naomi Creutzfeltd and Chris Gill's research was in part funded by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, Dame Julie Mellor. They say;
"The project was delivered in partnership with the PHSO, which is currently under close scrutiny from a group of ombudsman watchers called, 'PHSO the Facts.' Several other UK ombudsman schemes have one or more ombudsman watcher groups, so that this phenomenon and the outputs of this project are likely to be of significant interest within the ombudsman community."
(www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understanding-and-engaging-online-citizen-activists.)
We tried taking our complaint about the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman which was like asking the Camorra to investigate crime in Naples.
We acted more in hope than expectation.
Things did, however, start quite promisingly. We were invited to submit further evidence to Dame Julie Mellor's department to support our complaint and this we did. It included the remarkable claim by a former employee that the Ombudsman Service's investigating officers masqueraded as the ombudsman by cutting and pasting the ombudsman's signature onto reports written by them and then sending the bogus reports out to unsuspecting complainants. It was a cunning wheeze dreamt up by a new section head in order to clear a backlog of complaints. It seems to have worked spectacularly well and the executives rewarded themselves with a back-slapping celebratory party to celebrate just how civil their justice had been.
We thought this was corrupt.
Dame Julie Mellor didn't agree.
It would seem that because the ombudsman, the new section head and their investigating officers are only accountable to government and its docile monitors for the estate agent side of the charade and not the surveyors side (which is "regulated" by the RICS which means it isn't) there was nothing she could apparently do.
Except threaten to prosecute us should we disclose her department's detailed findings in our case. As far as Dame Julie Mellor was concerned this private redress scheme can cut and paste the ombudsman's signature onto reports written by minions until the cows come home. Apparently, there's nothing that she can do about it.
We admire, "PHSO the Facts" and wish them every success in their seemingly hopeless task - of bringing Dame Julie Mellor to account. Who knows, Naomi Creutzfelt and Chris Gill's project may play a crucial part in this quest for justice and accountability.
Q. Mr Clark, is a brass neck and conscience bypass essential requirements for the job of ombudsman in post-Brexit Britain?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Francis Maude, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Michael Fallon, Nick Clegg, Jo Swinson, Oliver Colvile, Sajid Javid, Dame Julie Mellor and yourself.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property "a company formerly trading as he SOS before undergoing re-branding) 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 or share your story either on the blog or by emailing: shockingsurveys1@gmail.com. Thank you. Steve Gilbert.
For Clarity - Attempt 509
.
509) Ombudsman Needed - Brass Neck And Conscience Bypass Essential.
Dear Mr Clark,
We've already attempted to point out that power without accountability - checks or counterbalances - is tyrannical. Combine that with Prime Ministers who as a point of principle refuse to answer questions on the floor of the House of Commons and the tone is set for the rest of The Establishment and those aspiring to get their snouts into The Golden Trough.
As taxpayers we pay people not to answer our questions and call this democracy.
The first rule for those intent on rising up the food chain - social mobility in early 21st century - is: Never Answer Questions.
Naomi Creutzfeltd and Chris Gill's research was in part funded by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, Dame Julie Mellor. They say;
"The project was delivered in partnership with the PHSO, which is currently under close scrutiny from a group of ombudsman watchers called, 'PHSO the Facts.' Several other UK ombudsman schemes have one or more ombudsman watcher groups, so that this phenomenon and the outputs of this project are likely to be of significant interest within the ombudsman community."
(www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understanding-and-engaging-online-citizen-activists.)
We tried taking our complaint about the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman which was like asking the Camorra to investigate crime in Naples.
We acted more in hope than expectation.
Things did, however, start quite promisingly. We were invited to submit further evidence to Dame Julie Mellor's department to support our complaint and this we did. It included the remarkable claim by a former employee that the Ombudsman Service's investigating officers masqueraded as the ombudsman by cutting and pasting the ombudsman's signature onto reports written by them and then sending the bogus reports out to unsuspecting complainants. It was a cunning wheeze dreamt up by a new section head in order to clear a backlog of complaints. It seems to have worked spectacularly well and the executives rewarded themselves with a back-slapping celebratory party to celebrate just how civil their justice had been.
We thought this was corrupt.
Dame Julie Mellor didn't agree.
It would seem that because the ombudsman, the new section head and their investigating officers are only accountable to government and its docile monitors for the estate agent side of the charade and not the surveyors side (which is "regulated" by the RICS which means it isn't) there was nothing she could apparently do.
Except threaten to prosecute us should we disclose her department's detailed findings in our case. As far as Dame Julie Mellor was concerned this private redress scheme can cut and paste the ombudsman's signature onto reports written by minions until the cows come home. Apparently, there's nothing that she can do about it.
We admire, "PHSO the Facts" and wish them every success in their seemingly hopeless task - of bringing Dame Julie Mellor to account. Who knows, Naomi Creutzfelt and Chris Gill's project may play a crucial part in this quest for justice and accountability.
Q. Mr Clark, is a brass neck and conscience bypass essential requirements for the job of ombudsman in post-Brexit Britain?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Francis Maude, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Michael Fallon, Nick Clegg, Jo Swinson, Oliver Colvile, Sajid Javid, Dame Julie Mellor and yourself.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property "a company formerly trading as he SOS before undergoing re-branding) 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 or share your story either on the blog or by emailing: shockingsurveys1@gmail.com. Thank you. Steve Gilbert.
Friday, 29 July 2016
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.
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.
Wednesday, 27 July 2016
The Unacceptable Face Of Capitalism (507)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary,
For Clarity - Attempt 507.
507) The Unacceptable Face Of Capitalism.
Dear Mr Clark,
A headline in today's Telegraph tells us,
"Sir Philip Green should be stripped of his knighthood unless he funds BHS's £750m pensions deficit, MPs say."
Surely, this is wrong?
Shouldn't it have said,
"Philip Green has been stripped of his knighthood, will refund BHS' pension fund, will compensate BHS staff and will serve time in Wormwood Scrubs, MPs say."
Why are MPs still soft on knighthoods and soft on the causes of knighthoods if post-Brexit anti-Establishmentarianism is now all the rage?
Q. Mr Clark, aren't maladministrating Ombudsman Services executives not also part of the unacceptable face of rigged market capitalism?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Mark Prisk, Norman Lamb, Francis Maude, Nick Clegg, Michael Fallon, Jo Swinson, Oliver Colvile, Sajid Javid and yourself.
- a public inquiry into 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 their 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.
Yours sincerely,
steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Please comment or share your story either on the blog or by emailing - shockingsurveys1@gmail.com. Thanks. Steve Gilbert.
For Clarity - Attempt 507.
507) The Unacceptable Face Of Capitalism.
Dear Mr Clark,
A headline in today's Telegraph tells us,
"Sir Philip Green should be stripped of his knighthood unless he funds BHS's £750m pensions deficit, MPs say."
Surely, this is wrong?
Shouldn't it have said,
"Philip Green has been stripped of his knighthood, will refund BHS' pension fund, will compensate BHS staff and will serve time in Wormwood Scrubs, MPs say."
Why are MPs still soft on knighthoods and soft on the causes of knighthoods if post-Brexit anti-Establishmentarianism is now all the rage?
Q. Mr Clark, aren't maladministrating Ombudsman Services executives not also part of the unacceptable face of rigged market capitalism?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Mark Prisk, Norman Lamb, Francis Maude, Nick Clegg, Michael Fallon, Jo Swinson, Oliver Colvile, Sajid Javid and yourself.
- a public inquiry into 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 their 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.
Yours sincerely,
steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Please comment or share your story either on the blog or by emailing - shockingsurveys1@gmail.com. Thanks. Steve Gilbert.
Sunday, 24 July 2016
Academics Ask: Should Troublesome David Take On Goliath? (506)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 506.
506) Academics Ask - Should Troublesome David Take On Goliath?
Dear Mr Clark,
When your research is in part funded by Dame Julie Mellor, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, it must make being unbiased and totally objective - difficult.
Point 8 of Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill's Executive Summary is concerned with troublesome ombudsman watchers. They say;
"The influence of ombudsman watchers and the degree to which they should be engaged with is likely to remain a troubling issue for ombudsman schemes. This involves balancing the need to address negative publicity and the desire to draw lessons from the experiences of dissatisfied complainants, at the same time as recognising that this risks privileging potentially unrepresentative perspectives."
(www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the ombudsman-system-engaging-online-citizen-activists)
What is troubling for democracy and the citizens it purports to represent and protect, is that a government intent on privatising justice should see its approved ombudsman schemes in need of monitoring by ombudsman watchers.
Something is seriously wrong with ombudsman schemes and the people running them. That's troubling.
That dissatisfied complainants are rendered powerless by ombudsman schemes is troubling.
That dissatisfied complainant's only hope for something approaching redress is reduced to the potentially privileging perspectives of ombudsman watchers is also troubling.
That academics should see criticisms of ombudsmen cosying up to regulators, arriving at decisions in an illogical manner and maladministrating complaints as, "negative" publicity is troubling.
That researchers should conceptualise their research in such language is troubling.
What is David supposed to do? Write a letter of complaint, address it to Goliath and hope that that brings him crashing down?
Q. Mr Clark, don't you agree that it is troubling that government does nothing to protect its citizens from ombudsman schemes, choosing instead to leave the job to ombudsman watchers?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Michael Fallon, Francis Maude, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, Oliver Colvile and yourself.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company which formerly traded as the SOS before undergoing e-branding) 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.
For Clarity - Attempt 506.
506) Academics Ask - Should Troublesome David Take On Goliath?
Dear Mr Clark,
When your research is in part funded by Dame Julie Mellor, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, it must make being unbiased and totally objective - difficult.
Point 8 of Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill's Executive Summary is concerned with troublesome ombudsman watchers. They say;
"The influence of ombudsman watchers and the degree to which they should be engaged with is likely to remain a troubling issue for ombudsman schemes. This involves balancing the need to address negative publicity and the desire to draw lessons from the experiences of dissatisfied complainants, at the same time as recognising that this risks privileging potentially unrepresentative perspectives."
(www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the ombudsman-system-engaging-online-citizen-activists)
What is troubling for democracy and the citizens it purports to represent and protect, is that a government intent on privatising justice should see its approved ombudsman schemes in need of monitoring by ombudsman watchers.
Something is seriously wrong with ombudsman schemes and the people running them. That's troubling.
That dissatisfied complainants are rendered powerless by ombudsman schemes is troubling.
That dissatisfied complainant's only hope for something approaching redress is reduced to the potentially privileging perspectives of ombudsman watchers is also troubling.
That academics should see criticisms of ombudsmen cosying up to regulators, arriving at decisions in an illogical manner and maladministrating complaints as, "negative" publicity is troubling.
That researchers should conceptualise their research in such language is troubling.
What is David supposed to do? Write a letter of complaint, address it to Goliath and hope that that brings him crashing down?
Q. Mr Clark, don't you agree that it is troubling that government does nothing to protect its citizens from ombudsman schemes, choosing instead to leave the job to ombudsman watchers?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking:
- answers from Vince Cable, Norman Lamb, Mark Prisk, Michael Fallon, Francis Maude, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, Oliver Colvile and yourself.
- a public inquiry into the workings of Ombudsman Services:Property (a company which formerly traded as the SOS before undergoing e-branding) 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.
Thursday, 21 July 2016
Critics of the Ombudsman System: Understanding and Engaging Online Activists 7. (505)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 505.
505) Critics of the Ombudsman System: Understanding and Engaging Online Activists 7. Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill.
5. Ombudsman Schemes Are A Law Unto Themselves.
Dear Mr Clark,
We suggested to Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill that it might be a good idea if both sides met on the same day as there were several questions we wanted to ask Ombudsman Services:Property, but apparently this wasn't possible. There was to be no dialogue. It would seem that the ombudsman schemes were not prepared to countenance such a democratic exchange of viewpoints and information.
Even Yasser Arafat and Yitzak Rabin had managed to shake hands on that momentous day back in 1993 but a coming together of ombudsman watchers and ombudsman schemes was a step too far - for the ombudsman schemes
Point 7 of Naomi Creutzfeltd and Chris Gill's Executive Summary examines the willingness, or otherwise, of ombudsman schemes to take on board criticism and act upon it. They say,
"Some ombudsman schemes had been very proactive in terms of engagement. However, it is not clear, from the ombudsman scheme's perspective, engagement is likely to result in learning for service improvement. There was variation in the degree to which ombudsman schemes had found the critiques of ombudsman watchers constructive and useful and to what extent those critiques had informed service improvements and resulted in meaningful dialogue."
(www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understanding-and-engaging-online-citizen-activists)
We had no meaningful dialogue with the Ombudsman Services executives and they refused to accept our criticisms of their, "service."
When significant sums of money rest on an ombudsman's illogical decision, corruption is never far away.
However, the executives do appear to have read what we and others had said in criticism of their business practices because they:
- removed the company's highly revealing minutes from its website.
- replaced DJS Research with another organisation.
- significantly changed the reporting of OS:Property's performance in investigating consumers' complaints.
- and battened down the hatches and adopted a siege mentality.
Forget PPI. This is miss-selling, "civil justice" on an industrial scale.
The only dialogue Ombudsman Services:Property has had was with government over how best to implement the EU Directive on ADR and how to amend the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill.
The RICS even installed Mary Thorogood as its UK Parliamentary Affairs Manager. She talked of the,
"on-going political influencing and engagement work to achieve better regulation of letting agents," but the better regulation of surveyors had clearly slipped her mind.
We asked your department if the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign could have a Parliamentary Pass too so that we could also try our hand at political influencing and engagement work - lobbying - but we didn't receive a reply.
This scheme's approach to engagement with their countless victims (countless because the company no longer provide any statistics on complainant dissatisfaction) is best summed up in their sod-off letter in which they helpfully suggest that the complainant is perfectly free to take their complaint elsewhere and, "find a solution that suits them better."
The only really meaningful dialogue - the one that's right on the money as it were - is the one between the RICS and its appointed hired hands at OS:Property. The RICS Memorandum of Understanding lays down the law;
"RICS and OS:Property will work together.....to meet the agreed aims of ensuring that:
- there is regular communication to foster the effective resolution of complaints by OS:P."
Nowhere do RICS the Regulator say what they actually mean by the term, "the effective resolution of complaints."
It is key to the con.
Q. Mr Clark, when the RICS tells OS:Property what the effective resolution of a complaint is, how can the OS:Property ombudsman be in any meaningful way - independent?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 505.
505) Critics of the Ombudsman System: Understanding and Engaging Online Activists 7. Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill.
5. Ombudsman Schemes Are A Law Unto Themselves.
Dear Mr Clark,
We suggested to Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill that it might be a good idea if both sides met on the same day as there were several questions we wanted to ask Ombudsman Services:Property, but apparently this wasn't possible. There was to be no dialogue. It would seem that the ombudsman schemes were not prepared to countenance such a democratic exchange of viewpoints and information.
Even Yasser Arafat and Yitzak Rabin had managed to shake hands on that momentous day back in 1993 but a coming together of ombudsman watchers and ombudsman schemes was a step too far - for the ombudsman schemes
Point 7 of Naomi Creutzfeltd and Chris Gill's Executive Summary examines the willingness, or otherwise, of ombudsman schemes to take on board criticism and act upon it. They say,
"Some ombudsman schemes had been very proactive in terms of engagement. However, it is not clear, from the ombudsman scheme's perspective, engagement is likely to result in learning for service improvement. There was variation in the degree to which ombudsman schemes had found the critiques of ombudsman watchers constructive and useful and to what extent those critiques had informed service improvements and resulted in meaningful dialogue."
(www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understanding-and-engaging-online-citizen-activists)
We had no meaningful dialogue with the Ombudsman Services executives and they refused to accept our criticisms of their, "service."
When significant sums of money rest on an ombudsman's illogical decision, corruption is never far away.
However, the executives do appear to have read what we and others had said in criticism of their business practices because they:
- removed the company's highly revealing minutes from its website.
- replaced DJS Research with another organisation.
- significantly changed the reporting of OS:Property's performance in investigating consumers' complaints.
- and battened down the hatches and adopted a siege mentality.
Forget PPI. This is miss-selling, "civil justice" on an industrial scale.
The only dialogue Ombudsman Services:Property has had was with government over how best to implement the EU Directive on ADR and how to amend the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill.
The RICS even installed Mary Thorogood as its UK Parliamentary Affairs Manager. She talked of the,
"on-going political influencing and engagement work to achieve better regulation of letting agents," but the better regulation of surveyors had clearly slipped her mind.
We asked your department if the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign could have a Parliamentary Pass too so that we could also try our hand at political influencing and engagement work - lobbying - but we didn't receive a reply.
This scheme's approach to engagement with their countless victims (countless because the company no longer provide any statistics on complainant dissatisfaction) is best summed up in their sod-off letter in which they helpfully suggest that the complainant is perfectly free to take their complaint elsewhere and, "find a solution that suits them better."
The only really meaningful dialogue - the one that's right on the money as it were - is the one between the RICS and its appointed hired hands at OS:Property. The RICS Memorandum of Understanding lays down the law;
"RICS and OS:Property will work together.....to meet the agreed aims of ensuring that:
- there is regular communication to foster the effective resolution of complaints by OS:P."
Nowhere do RICS the Regulator say what they actually mean by the term, "the effective resolution of complaints."
It is key to the con.
Q. Mr Clark, when the RICS tells OS:Property what the effective resolution of a complaint is, how can the OS:Property ombudsman be in any meaningful way - independent?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)