To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy secretary,
And To the health secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 586.
586) Ta Tillbaka Kontrollen.
Dear Mr Clark and Mr Hunt,
Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill, under the heading, "Motivation" tell us that what drives online citizen activists is the desire to take back control and make opaque ombudsman schemes - transparent and accountable. The say,
"In addition to providing information and campaigning for change, a strong motivation noted by participants was to act as a form of accountability. As noted above, they perceived a lack of accountability to be a key problem of the ombudsman system."
(www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system-understanding-and-engaing-online-citizen-activists)
The Ombudsman Services company is a case in point.
It is a shambles. Unfit for purpose. A black hole into which information disappears never again to see the light of day. A company which maladministers consumers' complaints and yet has the temerity to dictate what, "civil justice" should be.
Livewell Southwest Ltd informed us that should we remain unhappy with their failure to address our complaint in a meaningful way, we were free to raise the matter with Dame Julie Mellor, The Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman.
Dame Julie Mellor, has threatened to prosecute us should we disclose details of her response to our complaint about Ombudsman Services.
This is an abuse of power.
Q Mr Clark and Mr Hunt, until there is an independent public inquiry into Ombudsman Services (and the lack of transparency and accountability within the ombudsman system) doesn't talk of taking back control remain just that - talk?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
Saturday, 6 May 2017
Friday, 5 May 2017
Campaign For A Public Inquiry Into Ombudsman Services:Property and Livewell Southwest Ltd. (585)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy secretary.
And.
To the Health Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 585.
585) We'll Be Doing Our Bit For Quite Some Considerable Time To Come Or So It Would Seem.
Dear Mr Clark and Mr Hunt,
We're getting used to being given the runaround by British bureaucrats - it's the way things are done over here. It's a big part of our British identity.
Apparently, according to Yanis Varoufakis, it's also the way things are done over there in Europe by the Brussels bureaucrats in particular. He tells us that,
"The runaround is a systematic means of control over uppity governments...As for its apparatchiks, the EU runaround is essential to their personal status and power." (Yanis Varoufakis - 6 Brexit traps that will defeat Theresa May. The Guardian)
The people at Ombudsman Services and Livewell Southwest Ltd: Gillian Fleming, The Rev Smith, Professor Dame Janet Finch and Professor Waite each had the means, the method and the opportunity to answer our questions, only they chose not to.
Yanis Varoufakis put it this way,
"Their responses, when they came, would be perfectly independent of anything I had said. I might have been singing the Swedish national anthem. It would have made no difference."
He's right and here are two examples by way of illustration.
First example - We tried asking Professor Dame Janet Finch, Chair of Ombudsman Services, wasn't it the case that her Lead Ombudsman, Gillian Fleming, had failed in her duty as an Ombudsman when not disclosing Monk and partners' photographs to us or reporting Mr Monk to the RICS Regulatory Board?
We wrote,
"Q 88: I asked, was agreeing to carry out essential repairs not a tacit acceptance (by Monk and Partners) that the original survey was not of an acceptable standard?"
(Otherwise why did Mr Monk of Monk and Partners agree to carry them out?)
I didn't get an answer from the Ombudsman.
(This was an Ombudsman who didn't answer questions from an uppity complainant)
Q 89: I asked the Independent Assessor to comment on the professional integrity of Monk and Partners, given the Ombudsman's statement that,
"I did not look at the photographs." And, "Your view seems to be that external photographs taken without express permission are somehow inadmissible because they amount to evidence gathered in a suspect way."
(But Mr Monk had previously stated he would not come to our home again! Isn't it evidence gathered in a suspect way? And why didn't Mr Monk give us a copy of the photographs - We were employing him after all?)
I pointed out to the Independent Assessor that I knew what I thought, but then I wasn't the ombudsman. I know that a teacher standing outside a pupil's home and photographing it would be in serious trouble but that similar standards did not seem to apply to certain surveyors.
The Ombudsman had the evidence but seems to have seen nothing wrong with this.
The Independent Assessor's response was,
"The Terms of Reference, which can be downloaded from the website, provide that the procedure for the conduct of an investigation will be such as the Ombudsman considers appropriate subject, in brief, to the duty to proceed fairly, to make reasoned decisions, not to disclose details of a complaint except in certain circumstances and to have regard to any rule of law, contract, code of conduct."
That is not what the Terms of Reference say (in this instance). 7.3 is quite specific on the matter,
"Information passed to the Ombudsman will be disclosed to the other party unless reasons are given setting out circumstances justifying non-disclosure."
(We got Mr Monk's photographs via a Data Protection Act Request. Why weren't they disclosed to us and when they weren't, why weren't we given a reason for the non-disclosure by the Ombudsman as stipulated in her Terms of Reference?)
How is this fair and transparent?
The Ombudsman had written to me on 24th August,
"I would reiterate that the question of whether the Firm 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."
Yet the Terms of Reference 10(b) state that the duty of the Ombudsman is,
"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."
There are two issues here:
Firstly, it is a matter for the Ombudsman - it is a duty - (of which she and her Independent Assessor both seem to be totally unaware) to report breaches to the RICS Regulatory Board. Otherwise how are they - the RICS - ever going to know? It would be a remarkable turn of events should the Member Firm report itself to the RICS Regulatory Board
Secondly, if the Ombudsman didn't consider Monk and Partners actions to be serious enough to report to the RICS Regulatory Board, surely she should have said why. They are, after all, part of her duties and responsibilities as set out in the Terms of Reference.
It is not, "a matter for the professional body" (as Gillian Fleming states) - it is a matter for her as Ombudsman, a duty. Opting out is not an option.
Professor Dame Janet Finch, Chair of Ombudsman Services, passed our complaint on to The Rev Smith, CEO and Chief Ombudsman at Ombudsman Services, who in turn passed it on to Gillian Fleming, Lead Ombudsman at Ombudsman Services:Property they very person we were complaining about in the first place. The Lead Ombudsman did not answer our questions about her.
We asked |Oliver Colvile our MP to ask The Rev Smith the same questions which he duly did. The reply from The Rev Smith was that we had misunderstood the company's Terms of Reference. The Rev Smith didn't offer an explanation as to how we'd come to misunderstand them or what, exactly, it was about them that we had misunderstood.
So no transparency or accountability there either.
Yanis Varifoukis' description - one of being given the runaround seems both accurate and appropriate.
The second example involves Professor Waite, CEO of Livewell Southwest Ltd. We tried asking Professor Waite why we hadn't been given the name of his Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer - the one responsible for the ludicrous decision - and were told by him that we should have known the person's name. That was it. Nothing more was forthcoming.
I'm thinking of learning Swedish.
Q. Mr Clark and Mr Hunt, are the two above examples, examples of acceptable standards of transparency and accountability in a modern 21st century democracy that has proudly just Take Back Control?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert
And.
To the Health Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 585.
585) We'll Be Doing Our Bit For Quite Some Considerable Time To Come Or So It Would Seem.
Dear Mr Clark and Mr Hunt,
We're getting used to being given the runaround by British bureaucrats - it's the way things are done over here. It's a big part of our British identity.
Apparently, according to Yanis Varoufakis, it's also the way things are done over there in Europe by the Brussels bureaucrats in particular. He tells us that,
"The runaround is a systematic means of control over uppity governments...As for its apparatchiks, the EU runaround is essential to their personal status and power." (Yanis Varoufakis - 6 Brexit traps that will defeat Theresa May. The Guardian)
The people at Ombudsman Services and Livewell Southwest Ltd: Gillian Fleming, The Rev Smith, Professor Dame Janet Finch and Professor Waite each had the means, the method and the opportunity to answer our questions, only they chose not to.
Yanis Varoufakis put it this way,
"Their responses, when they came, would be perfectly independent of anything I had said. I might have been singing the Swedish national anthem. It would have made no difference."
He's right and here are two examples by way of illustration.
First example - We tried asking Professor Dame Janet Finch, Chair of Ombudsman Services, wasn't it the case that her Lead Ombudsman, Gillian Fleming, had failed in her duty as an Ombudsman when not disclosing Monk and partners' photographs to us or reporting Mr Monk to the RICS Regulatory Board?
We wrote,
"Q 88: I asked, was agreeing to carry out essential repairs not a tacit acceptance (by Monk and Partners) that the original survey was not of an acceptable standard?"
(Otherwise why did Mr Monk of Monk and Partners agree to carry them out?)
I didn't get an answer from the Ombudsman.
(This was an Ombudsman who didn't answer questions from an uppity complainant)
Q 89: I asked the Independent Assessor to comment on the professional integrity of Monk and Partners, given the Ombudsman's statement that,
"I did not look at the photographs." And, "Your view seems to be that external photographs taken without express permission are somehow inadmissible because they amount to evidence gathered in a suspect way."
(But Mr Monk had previously stated he would not come to our home again! Isn't it evidence gathered in a suspect way? And why didn't Mr Monk give us a copy of the photographs - We were employing him after all?)
I pointed out to the Independent Assessor that I knew what I thought, but then I wasn't the ombudsman. I know that a teacher standing outside a pupil's home and photographing it would be in serious trouble but that similar standards did not seem to apply to certain surveyors.
The Ombudsman had the evidence but seems to have seen nothing wrong with this.
The Independent Assessor's response was,
"The Terms of Reference, which can be downloaded from the website, provide that the procedure for the conduct of an investigation will be such as the Ombudsman considers appropriate subject, in brief, to the duty to proceed fairly, to make reasoned decisions, not to disclose details of a complaint except in certain circumstances and to have regard to any rule of law, contract, code of conduct."
That is not what the Terms of Reference say (in this instance). 7.3 is quite specific on the matter,
"Information passed to the Ombudsman will be disclosed to the other party unless reasons are given setting out circumstances justifying non-disclosure."
(We got Mr Monk's photographs via a Data Protection Act Request. Why weren't they disclosed to us and when they weren't, why weren't we given a reason for the non-disclosure by the Ombudsman as stipulated in her Terms of Reference?)
How is this fair and transparent?
The Ombudsman had written to me on 24th August,
"I would reiterate that the question of whether the Firm 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."
Yet the Terms of Reference 10(b) state that the duty of the Ombudsman is,
"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."
There are two issues here:
Firstly, it is a matter for the Ombudsman - it is a duty - (of which she and her Independent Assessor both seem to be totally unaware) to report breaches to the RICS Regulatory Board. Otherwise how are they - the RICS - ever going to know? It would be a remarkable turn of events should the Member Firm report itself to the RICS Regulatory Board
Secondly, if the Ombudsman didn't consider Monk and Partners actions to be serious enough to report to the RICS Regulatory Board, surely she should have said why. They are, after all, part of her duties and responsibilities as set out in the Terms of Reference.
It is not, "a matter for the professional body" (as Gillian Fleming states) - it is a matter for her as Ombudsman, a duty. Opting out is not an option.
Professor Dame Janet Finch, Chair of Ombudsman Services, passed our complaint on to The Rev Smith, CEO and Chief Ombudsman at Ombudsman Services, who in turn passed it on to Gillian Fleming, Lead Ombudsman at Ombudsman Services:Property they very person we were complaining about in the first place. The Lead Ombudsman did not answer our questions about her.
We asked |Oliver Colvile our MP to ask The Rev Smith the same questions which he duly did. The reply from The Rev Smith was that we had misunderstood the company's Terms of Reference. The Rev Smith didn't offer an explanation as to how we'd come to misunderstand them or what, exactly, it was about them that we had misunderstood.
So no transparency or accountability there either.
Yanis Varifoukis' description - one of being given the runaround seems both accurate and appropriate.
The second example involves Professor Waite, CEO of Livewell Southwest Ltd. We tried asking Professor Waite why we hadn't been given the name of his Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer - the one responsible for the ludicrous decision - and were told by him that we should have known the person's name. That was it. Nothing more was forthcoming.
I'm thinking of learning Swedish.
Q. Mr Clark and Mr Hunt, are the two above examples, examples of acceptable standards of transparency and accountability in a modern 21st century democracy that has proudly just Take Back Control?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert
Thursday, 4 May 2017
Campaign For A Public Inquiry Into Ombudsman Services:Property. (584)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary.
For Clarity - Attempt 584.
584) Ensure.
Verb:
- make certain that (something) will occur or be the case.
"the client must ensure that accurate records are kept."
synonyms: make sure, make certain, see to it.
- make certain of obtaining or providing (something).
"legislation to ensure equal opportunities for all."
synonyms: safeguard, protect, guard, shield, shelter, fortify.
- make sure that (a problem )doesn't occur.
"only by researching stocks thoroughly can a client ensure against being misled."
Dear Mr Clark,
Jonathan May, Executive Director of the OFT, assured the taxpayer that the Ombudsman Services:Property scheme would ensure, "fairness" and "transparency."
He approved this scheme.
Q. Mr Clark, in doing so wasn't his client - Ombudsman Services:Property - supposed to ensure that accurate records were kept?
There have been no records since 2015. The only meaningful ones were amassed by DJS Research and they parted company with OS:Property in 2011. Six long years ago.
Q. Mr Clark, aren't consumers being misled on an industrial scale and isn't a public inquiry now long over-due so as to bring justice to victims of illogical final decisions and to safeguard and protect future complainants with complex property disputes?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
For Clarity - Attempt 584.
584) Ensure.
Verb:
- make certain that (something) will occur or be the case.
"the client must ensure that accurate records are kept."
synonyms: make sure, make certain, see to it.
- make certain of obtaining or providing (something).
"legislation to ensure equal opportunities for all."
synonyms: safeguard, protect, guard, shield, shelter, fortify.
- make sure that (a problem )doesn't occur.
"only by researching stocks thoroughly can a client ensure against being misled."
Dear Mr Clark,
Jonathan May, Executive Director of the OFT, assured the taxpayer that the Ombudsman Services:Property scheme would ensure, "fairness" and "transparency."
He approved this scheme.
Q. Mr Clark, in doing so wasn't his client - Ombudsman Services:Property - supposed to ensure that accurate records were kept?
There have been no records since 2015. The only meaningful ones were amassed by DJS Research and they parted company with OS:Property in 2011. Six long years ago.
Q. Mr Clark, aren't consumers being misled on an industrial scale and isn't a public inquiry now long over-due so as to bring justice to victims of illogical final decisions and to safeguard and protect future complainants with complex property disputes?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
Campaign For A Public Inquiry Into Ombudsman Services. (583)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 583.
583) The Customer Is Always King/Queen - Except When They Arrive At Ombudsman Services.
Dear Mr Clark,
In August 2008, Jonathan May, Executive Director of the OFT told consumers that,
"Buying and selling a home is a significant and complex transaction, so it is good news that from October there will be access to free, easily accessible and speedy redress schemes that will ensure fairness and transparency."
Good news?
A top government civil servant has assured consumers that the scheme he has approved will be; free, fair, easily accessible, speedy and transparent. Crucially, the executives responsible for operating this scheme will ensure fairness and transparency.
Really?
Fast forward to 04/052017 and check Jonathan May's commitment to consumers by looking at the company's key performance indicators - the ones ensuring fairness and transparency when dealing with their customers' complaints.
The executives state,
"We regularly ask customers who use Ombudsman Services to let us know what they think of our service. Here are our latest customer satisfaction research results..."
Only there aren't any.
Instead the customer is left completely in the dark - "ombudsman-services-customer-satisfaction-results-2015.pptxmight have been removed or deleted."
So no transparency there which isn't fair and suggests that the executives are instead hiding something. Otherwise, wouldn't things be very different?
Q. Mr Clark, Ombudsman Services haven't asked their customers what they think of their service since 2015. Is this regular?
Q. Mr Clark, what are Ombudsman Services hiding from their customers and how is this in any way fair and transparent?
Q. Mr Clark, do you agree with Jonathan may when he says that when customers take their complex property complaints to Ombudsman Services, they will be treated with fairness and transparency and how would you know?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
For Clarity - Attempt 583.
583) The Customer Is Always King/Queen - Except When They Arrive At Ombudsman Services.
Dear Mr Clark,
In August 2008, Jonathan May, Executive Director of the OFT told consumers that,
"Buying and selling a home is a significant and complex transaction, so it is good news that from October there will be access to free, easily accessible and speedy redress schemes that will ensure fairness and transparency."
Good news?
A top government civil servant has assured consumers that the scheme he has approved will be; free, fair, easily accessible, speedy and transparent. Crucially, the executives responsible for operating this scheme will ensure fairness and transparency.
Really?
Fast forward to 04/052017 and check Jonathan May's commitment to consumers by looking at the company's key performance indicators - the ones ensuring fairness and transparency when dealing with their customers' complaints.
The executives state,
"We regularly ask customers who use Ombudsman Services to let us know what they think of our service. Here are our latest customer satisfaction research results..."
Only there aren't any.
Instead the customer is left completely in the dark - "ombudsman-services-customer-satisfaction-results-2015.pptxmight have been removed or deleted."
So no transparency there which isn't fair and suggests that the executives are instead hiding something. Otherwise, wouldn't things be very different?
Q. Mr Clark, Ombudsman Services haven't asked their customers what they think of their service since 2015. Is this regular?
Q. Mr Clark, what are Ombudsman Services hiding from their customers and how is this in any way fair and transparent?
Q. Mr Clark, do you agree with Jonathan may when he says that when customers take their complex property complaints to Ombudsman Services, they will be treated with fairness and transparency and how would you know?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
Tuesday, 2 May 2017
Campaign For A Public Inquiry Into Ombudsman Services And Livewell Southwest Ltd. (582)
To the Health Secretary.
For Clarity - Attempt 582.
582) Putting The "Con" Into Conservatism This Time 'Round - That Theresa May Is In Any Way A "Leader."
Dear Mr Hunt,
The idea that Theresa May is a leader is almost as laughable as the claim that a single sentence, unsubstantiated decision from Livewell Southwet Ltd's Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer, is in any way; fair, just and democratic.
Hugh James Nursing Care state,
"If an individual is in a nursing or care home because of physical or mental health needs, the cost of their care should be the responsibility of the NHS. However, around 40% of Britain's 440.000 care home residents are self-funding their care, meaning that thousands of families in England and Wales are incorrectly footing the bill."
Hugh James Nursing Care have so far recovered £100M for their clients.
That's just one firm of solicitors who have so far recovered over £100M for their "incorrectly" billed clients. The scale of this extortion racket - Wales and England-wide - must be stupendous. And yet Theresa May, who was herself anonymous during the Referendum Campaign, has still not yet; stepped-up, confronted NHS vested interests and righted the colossal wrong of thousands of NHS patients being incorrectly billed for the cost of their nursing care.
No leadership there.
Q. Mr Hunt, Anonymous Desk Top Reviewers seem to greatly benefit organisations such as Livewell Southwest Ltd as they incorrectly bill those to whom they supposedly owe a duty of care - isn't this an example of rigging the market in nursing care fees and when is this fraudulent practice going to stop?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
For Clarity - Attempt 582.
582) Putting The "Con" Into Conservatism This Time 'Round - That Theresa May Is In Any Way A "Leader."
Dear Mr Hunt,
The idea that Theresa May is a leader is almost as laughable as the claim that a single sentence, unsubstantiated decision from Livewell Southwet Ltd's Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer, is in any way; fair, just and democratic.
Hugh James Nursing Care state,
"If an individual is in a nursing or care home because of physical or mental health needs, the cost of their care should be the responsibility of the NHS. However, around 40% of Britain's 440.000 care home residents are self-funding their care, meaning that thousands of families in England and Wales are incorrectly footing the bill."
Hugh James Nursing Care have so far recovered £100M for their clients.
That's just one firm of solicitors who have so far recovered over £100M for their "incorrectly" billed clients. The scale of this extortion racket - Wales and England-wide - must be stupendous. And yet Theresa May, who was herself anonymous during the Referendum Campaign, has still not yet; stepped-up, confronted NHS vested interests and righted the colossal wrong of thousands of NHS patients being incorrectly billed for the cost of their nursing care.
No leadership there.
Q. Mr Hunt, Anonymous Desk Top Reviewers seem to greatly benefit organisations such as Livewell Southwest Ltd as they incorrectly bill those to whom they supposedly owe a duty of care - isn't this an example of rigging the market in nursing care fees and when is this fraudulent practice going to stop?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
Saturday, 22 April 2017
Jeremy Corbyn Is 100% Correct - The System Is Rigged - Just Look At How They've Rigged Paying For The Cost Of Nursing Care. (581)
To the Health Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 581.
581) Jeremy Corbyn Is 100% Correct - The System Is Rigged - Just Look At How They've Rigged Paying For The Cost Of Nursing Care.
Dear Mr Hunt,
Livewell Southwest's CEO, Professor Waite, told us that our late father's medical records suggested that his health suddenly deteriorated in the last two weeks of his life and that this was not predictable.
He didn't say what it was in our father's records that led his Anonymous Desktop Reviewer to this conclusion or why it was not predictable.
This is the rigged market in NHS funded nursing care in operation.
Q. Mr Hunt, hasn't Professor Waite given the game away and isn't this the fall back position for all those Anonymous Desktop Reviewers up and down the land - they simply tell the patients for whom they have a duty of care that: "His/her health suddenly deteriorated in the last two weeks of their life. This was not predictable. Here's the bill for the full cost of their nursing care minus the last two weeks of their life?"
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com.
For Clarity - Attempt 581.
581) Jeremy Corbyn Is 100% Correct - The System Is Rigged - Just Look At How They've Rigged Paying For The Cost Of Nursing Care.
Dear Mr Hunt,
Livewell Southwest's CEO, Professor Waite, told us that our late father's medical records suggested that his health suddenly deteriorated in the last two weeks of his life and that this was not predictable.
He didn't say what it was in our father's records that led his Anonymous Desktop Reviewer to this conclusion or why it was not predictable.
This is the rigged market in NHS funded nursing care in operation.
Q. Mr Hunt, hasn't Professor Waite given the game away and isn't this the fall back position for all those Anonymous Desktop Reviewers up and down the land - they simply tell the patients for whom they have a duty of care that: "His/her health suddenly deteriorated in the last two weeks of their life. This was not predictable. Here's the bill for the full cost of their nursing care minus the last two weeks of their life?"
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com.
Friday, 21 April 2017
Jeremy Corbyn is 100% Correct - The System Is Rigged - Just Look At How They've Rigged So-Called Civil Justice. (580)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary,
And
To the Health Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 580.
580) Jeremy Corbyn Is 100% Correct - The System Is Rigged - Just Look At How They've Rigged So-Called Civil Justice.
Dear Mr Clark and Mr Hunt, (both Magdalene College, Cambridge University)
Yesterday's BBC interviewers seemed completely nonplussed by the idea that the society their organisation's been reporting on since 1922 is rigged by a self-perpetuating elite which is still drawn predominately from Oxbridge graduates.
For instance, Tony Hall. Baron of Birkenhead, educated at Keble College, Oxford University and Director of the BBC, doesn't seem to have given Theresa May, St Hugh's College, Oxford University a particularly hard time of it since she totally capitulated to the Daily Mails, "Enemies of the People" rant. The Home secretary, Amber Rudd, Cheltenham Ladies College, also went AWOL as did the mouse-like Elizabeth truss, Merton College, Oxford University.
Obviously, the Daily Mail's proprietor, The 4th Viscount Rothermere, Gordonstoun, $1.3 billion (most of which is no0 doubt safely stashed somewhere off-shore) wields enormous power and the ability to wreck the lives and careers of others far less privileged than himself.
It seems that the flip-flopping Prime Minister believes this to be, "fair" otherwise she would have followed her own advice and; stepped up, challenged Rothermere's vested interests and righted the wrong of that sinister and deeply threatening headline.
But she didn't.
Clearly, today's Establishment is beset by internecine rivalries just like in medieval times.
Baron Ashcroft's, KCMG, PC, £865 million (most of which is no doubt safely stashed somewhere off-shore) thoughts on his then leader, David Cameron, Eton and then Brasenose College, Oxford University, being just one salacious example.
However, when it comes to answering our questions - or the questions of The Little People in general - The Establishment seamlessly comes together - with seven years of stonewalling silence.
Perhaps that's because the public school I went to was Plymouth Public Secondary School, perhaps it's because I don't have a title or maybe it's down to not having a million quid in the bank. The result remains the same - stonewalling silence.
Seven years of stonewalling silence - Jeremy Corbyn said yesterday;
"We will overturn the rigged system. The Conservatives will never do that. Seven years of broken promises show us that: on wages, the deficit, the NHS, our schools, our environment." And we would add - The Establishment's private civil justice schemes where The Little People pay the price for business' incompetence and inefficiency.
It's how society is rigged. Otherwise it would be very different.
Q. Mr Hunt, will you please ask Professor Waite, CEO of Livewell Southwest Ltd, for the name of his Anonymous Desktop Reviewer, the one who was responsible for the horrendous decision in our late father's case?
Q. Mr Hunt, is such a total lack of transparency and accountability in the NHS, Conservative party policy?
Q. Mr Clark, Ombudsman Services' maladministrators have produced no data on their woeful performance in mismanaging property complaints since 2015. Is this total lack of transparency and accountability in Government approved private redress schemes, Conservative Party policy?
Q. Mr Clark, so-called average financial awards have plummeted from £1.522.76p in 2009-10 to 50 quid in the maladministrators' last report. Is this fair? Or is not a fine example of rigged private redress in a rigged society?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
And
To the Health Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 580.
580) Jeremy Corbyn Is 100% Correct - The System Is Rigged - Just Look At How They've Rigged So-Called Civil Justice.
Dear Mr Clark and Mr Hunt, (both Magdalene College, Cambridge University)
Yesterday's BBC interviewers seemed completely nonplussed by the idea that the society their organisation's been reporting on since 1922 is rigged by a self-perpetuating elite which is still drawn predominately from Oxbridge graduates.
For instance, Tony Hall. Baron of Birkenhead, educated at Keble College, Oxford University and Director of the BBC, doesn't seem to have given Theresa May, St Hugh's College, Oxford University a particularly hard time of it since she totally capitulated to the Daily Mails, "Enemies of the People" rant. The Home secretary, Amber Rudd, Cheltenham Ladies College, also went AWOL as did the mouse-like Elizabeth truss, Merton College, Oxford University.
Obviously, the Daily Mail's proprietor, The 4th Viscount Rothermere, Gordonstoun, $1.3 billion (most of which is no0 doubt safely stashed somewhere off-shore) wields enormous power and the ability to wreck the lives and careers of others far less privileged than himself.
It seems that the flip-flopping Prime Minister believes this to be, "fair" otherwise she would have followed her own advice and; stepped up, challenged Rothermere's vested interests and righted the wrong of that sinister and deeply threatening headline.
But she didn't.
Clearly, today's Establishment is beset by internecine rivalries just like in medieval times.
Baron Ashcroft's, KCMG, PC, £865 million (most of which is no doubt safely stashed somewhere off-shore) thoughts on his then leader, David Cameron, Eton and then Brasenose College, Oxford University, being just one salacious example.
However, when it comes to answering our questions - or the questions of The Little People in general - The Establishment seamlessly comes together - with seven years of stonewalling silence.
Perhaps that's because the public school I went to was Plymouth Public Secondary School, perhaps it's because I don't have a title or maybe it's down to not having a million quid in the bank. The result remains the same - stonewalling silence.
Seven years of stonewalling silence - Jeremy Corbyn said yesterday;
"We will overturn the rigged system. The Conservatives will never do that. Seven years of broken promises show us that: on wages, the deficit, the NHS, our schools, our environment." And we would add - The Establishment's private civil justice schemes where The Little People pay the price for business' incompetence and inefficiency.
It's how society is rigged. Otherwise it would be very different.
Q. Mr Hunt, will you please ask Professor Waite, CEO of Livewell Southwest Ltd, for the name of his Anonymous Desktop Reviewer, the one who was responsible for the horrendous decision in our late father's case?
Q. Mr Hunt, is such a total lack of transparency and accountability in the NHS, Conservative party policy?
Q. Mr Clark, Ombudsman Services' maladministrators have produced no data on their woeful performance in mismanaging property complaints since 2015. Is this total lack of transparency and accountability in Government approved private redress schemes, Conservative Party policy?
Q. Mr Clark, so-called average financial awards have plummeted from £1.522.76p in 2009-10 to 50 quid in the maladministrators' last report. Is this fair? Or is not a fine example of rigged private redress in a rigged society?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)