Ombudsman Services / The Ombudsman Association - "All or Nothing" The Small Faces. (675)

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary / Chair of Ombudsman Services / CEO and Chief Ombudsman, Ombudsman Services and Chair of The Ombudsman Association.

For Clarity - Attempt - 675.

675. Ombudsman Services / The Ombudsman Association - "All or Nothing" The Small Faces.

Dear Mr Clark, Lord Tim Clement Jones and The Rev Shand Smith,

At the Conservative Party Conference the British Prime Minister spoke about, "sweeping away injustice." Injustices being the barrier, "that mean for some (she didn't say how many) the British Dream is increasingly out of reach." That everyone should, "have the chance to be all they want to be." And that, "working people up and down the land ....must be our only focus."

It appears Grant Schapps has a different priority and is busily working behind the scenes with a band of loyal conspirators focussed on sweeping away his CEO, the Prime Minister. It's a dirty business but someone has to do it - we suppose.

This would seem to have more to do with power and a need for revenge than with justice although the Prime Minister was careful to avoid defining what it she meant by, "justice." She didn't mention, "civil justice" once. Thus doing neither of them justice.

At the heavy-power end of the spectrum a lot decisions about what, "civil justice" can or cannot be, go on behind the scenes and a world-away from the working people upon whom it will be imposed whether they like it or not. An all or nothing, take it or leave it attitude which is to become part of our shared British Dream.

Q. Mr Clark, isn't having an Ombudsman Services Ombudsman arriving at decisions in an illogical manner, an injustice? Why hasn't the government done anything about it?

The Prime Minister told us,

"That is why I have always taken on vested interests when they are working against the interests of the people."

According to the OFT, the RICS have a vested interest in permitting their Members and (Un)Regulated Firms to develop practices that do not work in their customer's interests. This abuse of power successfully manages to combine the creation of a dysfunctional market with an institutionalised injustice against the people and is a British Nightmare.

We have been trying to tell Theresa May that the RICS market in surveying and private redress is no longer fit for purpose but it has so far made no difference and she has stubbornly refused to help those who couldn't be heard.

Q. Mr Clark, we were asked to be, "more specific" about our complaint about the RICS and its creature, Ombudsman Services:Property so we tired asking Vince Cable, Jo Swinson and Sajid Javid over 500 times if they would care to look into it. That failed and we've now had 675 attempts at clarifying the matter. Why are BIS ministers creating such a barrier to justice and thereby putting the British Dream out of our - and others' - reach?

Q. Mr Clark, why haven't you taken on the vested interests of the RICS or are you leaving that for the Prime Minister to do?

In her speech the Prime Minister went on to say,

"We will always take on monopolies and vested interests when they are holding people back."

The former Chair of Ombudsman Services, Professor Dame Janet Finch, has said she not only believed Ombudsmen should define what is, "fair" and, "just" but that Ombudsman Services should have a monopoly when it comes to Alternative Dispute Resolution or ADR.

ADR which has involved; the maladaministration of consumers' complaints, arriving at decisions in an illogical manner, reducing financial awards from £1.511.75p to 50 quid and failing to ask property complainants what the thought of their customer journey.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, your organisation has set out its vision to create a monopoly in the market for ADR. Doesn't this directly challenge the Prime Minister's very own vision of the British Dream and won't it continue to hold the people back?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, doesn't handing Ombudsmen a monopoly in determining what is, "fair" and, "just" contradict the Prime Minister's vision of the British Dream?

Apparently, the Prime Minister is a real trooper. Putting herself through it, the long hours, the pressure etc. etc. She confided that she does it to, "root out injustice and to give everyone in (our) country a voice."

Q. The Rev Smith, none of your workforce or Ombudsman Association affiliated members schemes' workers have the right to freedom of expression a right which is enshrined in Article 10 of the Human Rights Act. This is an injustice. It denies your workers a voice. Shouldn't the Prime Minister be rooting you out?

The con from the Conservative Prime Minister this time is that whilst she's in favour of free markets she will always take action to fix them when they're broken. Someone needs to break it to her gently, given her fragile state, that they're designed that way - broken. They're more profitable that way.

How can she possibly not know this by now?

Perhaps, "May's Nut Gone Flake."

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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

Ombudsman Services / The Ombudsman Association - www.whistleblowerprotection.eu (674)

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary / Chair of Ombudsman Services / CEO and Chief Ombudsman at Ombudsman Services and Chair of the Ombudsman Association.

For Clarity - Attempt 674.

674. Ombudsman Services / The Ombudsman Association - www.whistleblowerprotection.eu

Dear Mr Clark, Lord Tim Clement Jones and The Rev Shand Smith,

In her Lancaster Gate speech, 17th Jan 2017 the Prime Minister said,

"(7) Protect workers' rights,

And a fairer Britain is a country that protects and enhances the rights people have at work.....we will ensure that workers' rights are fully protected and maintained.

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, why haven't you ensured that workers at Ombudsman Services, and at schemes affiliated to the Ombudsman Association, have the right to freedom of expression as set out in Article 10 of the Human Rights Act?

The Prime Minister went on,

"Indeed, under my leadership, not only will the government protect the rights of workers set out in European legislation, we will build on them. Because under the Conservative Government, we will make sure legal protection for workers keeps pace with the changing labour market - and that the voices of workers are heard by the boards of publicly-listed companies for the first time."

Q. Mr Clark, why haven't you acknowledged European Legislation and given workers the protection of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, are the voices of your workers heard on your company's board?

It seems obvious to us that the Prime Minister's assurances made in her Lancaster House speech have not been carried into action.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

The Ombudsmans51percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com and www.facebook.com - Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent.

Ombudsman Services / The Ombudsman Association - www.whistleblowerprotection.eu (673)

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary / Chair of Ombudsman Services.

For Clarity - Attempt 673.

673. Dear Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones,

The Conservative Government says that it is,

"Building a country that works for everyone."

Q. Mr Clark, does that mean that all workers will have the right to whistleblow and be protected by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act?

If they don't have that right then it will simply remain a country that works for the few and for those who can afford to pay for ever more epensive justice.

David Isaac, Head of EHRC, has that, "Laws and rights mean nothing if you can't take action to protect them" and that we are in danger of moving from, "World Leader to world embarrassment" when it comes to justice.

(www.theguardian.com/equality-and-human-rights-commission)

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, isn't it an embarrassment to be Chair of an organisation that says it defines what is fair and reasonable and promotes justice yet denies its workers the basic human right to free expression?

The Conservative Party believe that building a country that works for everyone can only be achieved through an unquestioning belief in free market capitalism. There is no other way. A bit like the Catholic Church before Luther came along.

However, there is no collective cabinet agreement as to what free market capitalism actually is or what part regulation should play in it, if any. So, on one hand the Prime Minister believes, "That's why where markets are dysfunctional we should be prepared to intervene" thereby implicitly accepting the true nature of free markets - their lack of freedom, their lack fairness and their lack of justice.

On the other hand, the Chancellor sees it in more red in tooth and claw terms claiming that, "It is a wicked and cynical business offering specifically simple solutions to complex challenges." Moreover, any wicked dissent to the perceived orthodoxy is, "an existential challenge to our economic model free market economics." Or a modern day form of heresy.

His solution to the complex challenges of the dysfunctional housing market is to simply throw £10 billion at it in order to prop up the failed Right to Buy scheme.

Without explaining why and how the market economy works he goes on to say, "We have to explain why and how the market economy works and the role of competition as the consumer's friend."

(speech at Conservative Party Conference)

Competition is the consumer's friend.

To add to these surreal proceedings and pronouncements the Foreign Secretary can be seen charging around the place wearing just his underpants.

That competition is the consumer's friend will come as news to the former Chair of Ombudsman Services, Professor Dame Janet Finch. She doesn't believe for one minute that competition is the consumer's friend. For her, "Proposals for an independent Scotland include the creation of a single consumer ombudsman. We believe this should be the reality of the UK.It is Ombudsman Services' ambition to grow to cover sectors that do not currently provide redress and expand in areas that do, to offer great protection to both consumers and business."

(Ombudsman Services Annual Report 2013-2014)

No competition there.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, there was no published range of awards in 2013-2014 which contravened the OFT's criterion. How is that great consumer protection?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, in 2013-14 average financial awards fell to £100 from £1.511.75p three years earlier. How is that great consumer protection?

It remains all too easy for true believers to assert  commitment to free markets and great consumer protection but the reality is very very different. It is time for a public inquiry into the RICS and its, "appointed" company Ombudsman Services:Property.

Ombudsman Services / The Ombudsman Association - www.whistleblowerprotection.eu (672)

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary / Chair of Ombudsman Services / CEO and Chief Ombudsman Ombudsman Services and Chair The Ombudsman Association.

For Clarity - Attempt 672.

672) Ombudsman Services / The Ombudsman Association - www.whistleblowerprotection.eu

Dear Mr Clark, Lord Tim Clement Jones and The Rev Shand Smith,

It's almost a year since the Prime Minister told Conservative Party Conference,

"..that's why where markets are dysfunctional we should be prepared to intervene."

The dysfunctional market in property complaint redress is one such example.

Its dysfunctionality arises due to the RICS's conflict of interest in both regulating surveyors and determining what the effective outcome of a complaint should be once their inadequately regulated members pass their bewildered clients to an ombudsman, who is himself a member of RICS, for justice.

Q. Mr Clark, this market is dysfunctional. It is rigged in favour of the RICS member. Why haven't you intervened on behalf of the consumer?

The Prime Minister went on to state

"I want to set out my plan for a Britain where everyone plays by the same rules and everyone has the opportunity to be all they want to be."

We are in complete agreement with the Prime Minister - we also believe that everyone should play by the rules and be all they want to be - including being a whistleblower.

Q. Rev Lewis Shand Smith, why have you prevented everyone from playing by the same rules by denying all workers in ombudsman schemes the protection of a whistleblowing policy?

Mrs May went on to say,

"A plan that will mean government stepping up. Righting wrongs. Challenging vested interests. Taking big decisions. Doing what we believe to be right. Getting the job done." 

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, the RICS clearly have a vested interest in the way property complaints are handled otherwise they would have instructed their inadequately regulated members to have resolved complaints before they escalated to having their ombudsman resolve them on their behalf. As a Liberal Democrat do you believe that to be right?

Mrs May believed it was time,

"To stand up for the weak and stand up to the strong."

Q. Rev Shand Smith, why do you stand up for the strong and stand up to the weak by denying the weak their Human Right to free expression?"

Although Mrs May thinks that government cannot not stand aside when it sees social injustice and unfairness she wants to somehow achieve such justice and fairness by abolishing the Human Rights Act.

She put the whistle to her lips but lacked the courage of her convictions and has failed to blow it. And so blew her credibility instead.

Having heard the hysterical Sir Oliver Letwin on Radio 4's pm programme this morning we would like to assure everyone that we are not agents of the Venezuelan government and neither are we Bolsheviks.

 

   We are merely campaigners campaigning for a public inquiry into the RICS and its creation - Ombudsman Services:Property and for the right of all workers to freedom of expression as set out in the Human Rights Act. 

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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

Ombudsman Services / The Ombudsman Association - www.whistleblowerprotection.eu. (671)

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary / Chair of Ombudsman Services / Chair of the Ombudsman Association.

For Clarity - Attempt 671.

671. Ombudsman Services / The Ombudsman Association - www.whistleblowerprotection.eu

Dear Mr Clark, Lord Tim Clement Jones and the Rev Shand Smith,

Have you taken that great stride yet and signed the petition to give protection to whistleblowers both in the public the private sectors?

It is a simple matter of Trust, Freedom and Democracy.

Mr Clark, Lord Tim Clement Jones and Rev Shand Smith, do you not agree with the European Ombudsman, Emily O'Reilly, when she said,

"The public needs to know that the EU institutions (we are all Europeans whether we like it or not as are our institutions) welcome whistleblowers and protect whistleblowers." 

Q. Rev Shand Smith, your organisation, Ombudsman Services, was a member of the British and Irish Ombudsman Association, at a time when you were expected to have a whistleblowing policy but didn't. How was this possible?

Q. Rev Shand Smith, you are Chair of the Ombudsman Association which once had as a requirement for membership that all ombudsman schemes have a whistleblowing policy. Why is that no longer the case?

Q. Rev Shand Smith, why have you removed the right of all those working in ombudsman schemes to the protection a whistleblowing policy?

Q. Rev Shand Smith, Evelyn Regner MEP has said that whistleblowing policies are, "a question of political will not a question of legal basis." Why did you take the political decision to remove that right from all those who work in British and Irish ombudsman schemes?Q. Rev Shand Smith, why have the organisations you manage taken a governance journey that is diametrically opposed to the one advocated by the European Ombudsman?

Q. Rev Shand Smith, why do you have so little faith in your workforce?

Caron Lindsay's article in LibDem Voice, "Rennie calls on Justice Secretary to end, 'chilling' Police whistleblower policy" is a timely intervention, alerting us to the direction one powerful and increasingly unaccountable hierarchy is attempting to take us.

She says,

"Scottish Liberal Democract leader, Willie Rennie, has called for the intervention of the Justice Secretary and Scottish Police Authority to ensure that the police hierarchy are not free to silence internal critics after it was revealed that new guidance has been issued within Police Scotland that will crack down on whistleblowers."

(www.libdemvoice.org-rennie-calls-on-justice-secretary-to-end-chilling-police-whistleblower-policy.)

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, that is indeed chilling and reminds us of East Germany's Stasi and Russia's FSB. Why are you chairing a regime that also cracks down on internal dissidents?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, why does the organisation you Chair more closely resemble that of Police Scotland's than of Emily O'Reilly's?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones. how can the British and Irish public have any trust in private redress that is policed in such a way?

The Prime Minister once promise to step up, challenge vested interests and right wrongs. However, saying she was committed to democratising business was one thing but delivering on it something entirely different.

She put the whistle to her lips but forgot to blow.

Mr Clark, in the Guardian article, "UK government defends apparent U-turn over workers on boards" (www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/29/government-defends-apparent-u-turn-over-workers-on-boards) you say,

"we're not going to make it happen."

Q. Mr Clark, if you're not going to make it happen then surely it's a U-turn because there would be workers' representatives sitting on boards but there aren't. Why the word, "apparent"?

You went on to say that instead you wanted a system that,

"included a non-executive director who has an explicit obligation to engage with the workforce."

Q. Mr Clark, doesn't this harken back to the days when the rich directors sat at their tables and the poor workers stood locked outside the gates? Is what you are proposing a shining example of a Brexit Britain where we have all taken back control ?

Company directors, the Police, private redress schemes and NHS managers are very successfully and very stealthily taking ever greater control and silencing the potential for criticism as they do so.

In response to your quite obvious U-turn Mr Clark, (otherwise things would be very different) Frances O'Grady stated,

"it is clear from the poll the TUC is publishing today, that the majority of people want the prime minister to keep her promise to have elected members on boards. That's not just because it's the right thing to do, it is better for business too."

Q. Mr Clark, why do politicians make promises they know they can't keep? Why was the prime minister unable to stand up, challenge vested interests and right the wrongs of those who, without consultation, remove workers' rights to freedom of expression and meaningful democratic representation on the boards of the companies they work for?

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign believes that a, "fair" "just" and "independent" system of alternative dispute resolution would have; workers on sitting on the company's board, consumers sitting on the company's board, a whistleblowing policy which everyone knew had an Emily O'Reilly-like legitimacy, published its minutes. asked every complainant to rate their customer journey, put every case on the internet for public scrutiny and gave complainants the right to challenge decisions - ie a system that the public could Trust.

It's still not too late to sign the petition. Yes You Can.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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

Ombudsman Services - www.whistleblowwerprotection.eu (670)

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary / Chair of Ombudsman Services.

For Clarity - Attempt 570.

670. Ombudsman Services - www.whistleblowerprotection.eu

Dear Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones,

Emily O'Reilly's position on whistleblowers could not be more different than that of the Ombudsman Services CEO and Chief Ombudsman's.

The European Ombudsman stated,

"The public needs to know that the EU institutions welcome and protect whistleblowers against retaliation to make sure that serious misconduct or wrongdoing in the EU administration are brought to light."

Ombudsman Services do not have a whistleblowing policy and its CEO and Chief Ombudsman who is also Chair of The Ombudsman Association presides over an organisation that once insisted that to become members, ombudsman schemes were required to have a whistleblowing policy but now they don't.

Clearly, the Emily O'Reilly, the European Ombudsman, places great trust in, and has the highest expectations of, her workforce. She went on to say,

"All employees working for the EU administration have a duty to speak up if they become aware of serious irregularities in the course of their work."

The European landscape could not be more different from that of the Ombudsman Association's.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, as a matter of trust, don't the public need to know that if in the course of their work your employees become aware of serious misconduct or wrongdoing at Ombudsman Services they will also be encouraged to speak up?

Speaking on the subject of whistleblowing, MEP Evelyn Regner said,

"It is a question of political will, not a question of legal basis."

Q. Mr Clark, if the political will exists in Europe to protect whistleblowers and the public they serve when the former warn the latter of serious misconduct or wrongdoing why is it so conspicuously absent here?

Not every one has the unimpeachable integrity or unbelievable courage to whistleblow but you could take a giant step in that direction by signing the whistleblowing petition - just go to: www.whistleblowerprotection,eu. You can do it.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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

Ombudsman Services - Trust. (669)

To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary / Chair of Ombudsman Services.

For Clarity - Attempt 669.

669. Ombudsman Services - Trust.

Dear Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones,

"While the UK attacks whistleblowers, the EU is defending them - that is until Brexit happens." Jean Lambert's view on whistleblowers' rights are shared by many both in the UK and the rest of Europe - they need defining and defending.

It is extraordinary that workers employed by ombudsman schemes within the British and Irish remit are not trusted by those running them and as a result are denied their right to the protection that a whistleblowing policy would give them.

None of the major political parties seem to have a clear policy on the human right of workers to freedom of expression.

Once we firmly take back control it looks very much like the book (and anything else that comes to hand) will be thrown at those individuals courageous enough to put their head above the parapet, climb out of the particular trench they happen to be working in and blow the whistle.

"Since 1 January 2014, EU institutions have been obliged to introduce internal whistleblowing rules concerning the protection of whistleblowers, the provision of information to them and the procedure for handling complaints made by whistleblowers concerning the way they are treated. To ensure that the EU administration is doing all in its power to encourage individuals who become aware of serious misconduct or wrongdoing to speak up, the Ombudsman opened an own-initiative inquiry .....responses show that much more needs to be done to demonstrate to the public and to potential whistleblowers that the EU institutions welcome whistleblowing and encourage whistleblowers to step forward, that whistleblowers will be protected against negative action by the institutions for which they work, and that reporting will lead to a proper investigation."

(www.ombudsan.europa.eu/cases/summary.faces/eu/59134)

At more or less the same time the European Ombudsman was encouraging whistleblowers,  the British and Irish Ombudsman Association (BIOA) - now rebranded The Ombudsman Association (OA) was adopting the example set by Ombudsman Services and discouraging its workforce from speaking up. It did this by removing the obligation for member ombudsman schemes to have a whistleblowing policy. 

Serious misconduct and wrongdoing was now free to continue unreported. It will now take an exceptional individual to challenge that.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, if ombudsman schemes such as yours do not trust its workforce why should consumers trust its executives?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, does this explain why some complainants - you don't say how many - believe that your best is simply not good enough?

Pam Bartlett Quintanilla is campaigning for,

"EU-wide legislation that would protect whistleblowers in all areas of EU competence. This is because we want citizens across Europe to be able to speak up about environmental crises, human rights violations and any other wrongdoing without fear of reprisal."

Q. Mr Clark, your department has a close and continuing relationship with Ombudsman Services, isn't an ombudsman arriving at decisions in an illogical manner not a form of, "wrongdoing?"

Q. Mr Clark, haven't those complainants who received a decision that was not arrived at in an illogical manner, had their human rights violated?

Q. Mr Clark, isn't the maladministration of consumers' complaints a violation of their right to a fair and independent investigation of their complaint and how are those responsible for such instances of maladministration able to act without fear of reprisal?

Pam Bartlett Quintanilla goes on to say,

"For us, whistleblowing is an issue that goes far beyond money or budgets, its a fundamental human right. Whistleblowers exercise their freedom of expression, and by doing so they guarantee the public's right to freedom of information. It's also a question of workers' rights, which cannot be reduced to monetary arguments."

(www.whistleblowerprotection.eu)

If like us, you believe in workers' rights, freedom and justice please go to Pam Bartlett Quintanilla's website and sign her petition.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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