Ombudsman Services. The OFT Monitors. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. (679)

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

For Clarity- Attempt 679.

679. Ombudsman Services. The OFT Monitors. The Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman.

Dear Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones,

Investigate: Carry out a systematic or formal inquiry to discover and examine the facts of (an incident, allegation, etc) so as to establish the truth.

(www.en.oxforddictionaries.com)

We need to talk about Dame Julie Mellor. We need to establish the truth.

Paul Gurowich concluded his dismissal of our complaint by saying,

"If you remain dissatisfied with this response, you may refer your complaint through a MP to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (the Ombudsman) who has the power to investigate further."

The only possible response available to Paul Gurowich's response, was to remain dissatisfied. Deeply dissatisfied.

We contacted Dame Julie Mellor and were duly asked to submit further details of our complaint concerning Ombudsman Services:Property which we did. It took us the whole weekend.

Dame Julie Mellor's response to our further submission of information was that because our complaint was a property complaint and not an estate agents or lettings agent's complaint nothing could actually be done after all.

"Pick up a screwdriver? You're joking mate! That's an electricians job" seems to sum that up.

This is insane, but remarkably similar (according to DJS Research) to the experience of property complainants using OS:P who also submitted further evidence only to get nowhere too.

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, the OFT said you would be asking property complainants the same questions as DJS Research when they had the contract so why don't you?

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman wouldn't investigate our complaint about the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman because our complaint wasn't about estate agents or lettings issues.

It's hard to believe

Q. Mr Clark, does this mean that an Ombudsman who arrives at property decisions in an illogical manner doesn't when it comes to estate agents and lettings complaints?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, one of the OFT's criterion for approving the OS:Property redress scheme was that a range of awards must be published and made available to consumers. Why isn't?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, why have property financial awards been lumped in with estate agents and lettings agents' awards?

    Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, is it because the regulator RICS insist upon it and is    this not a direct interference in the notional independence of the Property Ombudsman?

Dame Julie Mellor knew our complaint was about a surveyor and was therefore a property complaint and yet when we submitted further evidence suddenly couldn't investigate it because it wasn't about estate agents or lettings agents.

When it walks like a cover-up, talks like a cover-up...

Q. Mr Clark, why have OFT monitors, successive Business Secretaries, and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, permitted consumers to take their property complaints to, first an Ombudsman who arrived at decisions in an illogical manner and then secondly, to an Ombudsman who the rules say cannot be a member of the profession he is investigating but is?

Q. Mr Clark, isn't this corrupt and if it isn't corrupt why isn't it corrupt?

Dame Julie Mellor went on to warn us that should we publish her findings we would be prosecuted.

We asked Dame Julie Mellor what would that involve. Incarceration in The Tower of London? Transportation? A fine and or imprisonment?

Dame Julie Mellor, less than helpfully, told us to ask our solicitor.

We pointed out her we couldn't afford one as the OS:Property Ombudsman had financially ruined us.

 

    We will be posting her judgement in: For Clarity - Attempt 1000.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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

Ombudsman Services:Property - The OFT's "Monitoring" Of This Government Approved Scheme. (678)

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

For Clarity - Attempt 678.

678. Ombudsman Services:Property - The OFT's, "Monitoring" Of  This Government Approved Scheme.

Dear Mr Clark, Lord Tim Clement Jones,

Monitor: A person who observes a process or activity to check that it is carried out fairly or correctly especially in an official capacity.

(www.en.oxforddictionaries.com)

A government that cannot monitor effectively surely cannot ensure economic

and social justice for all the people. It doesn't deserve title, "government."

This government, on behalf of the taxpayer, is expected to, "monitor" the Ombudsman Services:Property scheme. We believe that instead of monitoring this private scheme it colludes with it permitting the Ombudsman to hand consumers illogical Final Decisions and occasional 50 quid so-called financial awards.

Otherwise things would be different.

The Ombudsman would hand complainants fair and just decisions. Financial awards would mirror the losses complainants had incurred. Decisions would be logged and made available for public scrutiny and complainants would be asked to comment on the way their was handled.

Paul Gurowich sent us the following;

"...raising further issues by way of listing 100 questions about OS:P, and its Chief Executive Officer and its Ombudsman who dealt with your complaint."

We saw in Attempt 677 that The Independent had said that tellingly the fifth most common complaint from consumers was about the way in which complaints themselves are handled.

(Sam Dunn www.independent.co.uk/money/spend-save/mis-sold/)

Clearly, there is a tried and tested approach adopted by those in positions of power which deliberately avoids answering complaints made by members of the public. It is very effective.

Q. Mr Clark, both Paul Gurowich and The Rev Shand Smith stated we had asked 100 questions but then didn't answer any of them. That certainly is, "dealing" with a complaint but how does it satisfy the EU Directive and how does it instil consumer trust in private ADR?

Repeating to a complainant the question they've just been asked to answer has been allowed to become standard operating practice. It is rude, offensive, profoundly un-democratic and highly effective. We hope that when in power the Labour Party will put an end to it.

Paul Gurowich,"... You have engaged in detailed correspondence with the OFT since that date."

Q. Mr Clark, the reason we engaged in detailed correspondence with the OFT is because they avoided answering any of our questions. Are they not colluding with the company they are supposed to be monitoring?

 

   The complainant is not only castigated for having the cheek to complain - but to complain in a detailed way. How inconvenient.

Paul Gurowich,"....You also asked the OFT to re-open and/or review ombudsman decisions made by OS:P."

Q. Mr Clark, shouldn't any Ombudsman's decisions which have been arrived at in an illogical manner, of course be reviewed otherwise where is the justice?

The logic in not reviewing them, surely, is that the monitor is colluding with those whom they are supposed to be monitoring. Otherwise things would be different. But they aren't.

Paul Gurowich,".... I consider that it was reasonable for the OFT to take this approach, having regard to its duty to use resources properly, and its published Priorities Principles."

Q. Mr Clark, this appears to be saying that the OFT considered it reasonable not to investigate our complaint because it was so detailed and would not therefore be a proper use of resources. Where is the justice in that?

Paul Gurowich,"....I understand you have now received a response to that request (in a letter dated 18 Feb 2013) and an apology for the error in dealing with it."

Q. Mr Clark, our detailed complaint was passed backwards and forwards between your department and the OFT. Why is government so incompetent and is it any wonder that European negotiators are running rings around you ?

Paul Gurowich,

"In relation to your request for a public inquiry, as you have been previously been advised, the OFT's powers under the Estate Agent's Act in relation to such schemes are limited to approval and (where appropriate) withdrawal of approval."

Q. Mr Clark, why when an Ombudsman who arrives at decisions in an illogical manner, who on the concern of unnamed others reduces financial awards significantly and  who is then replaced by an Ombudsman who shouldn't be a member of the organisation he is investigating but is aren't these sufficient grounds for the withdrawal of government approval? 

Paul Gurowich,"Similarly, the OFT does not have the power to re-open or review the individual decisions made by the estate agency redress schemes it has approved."

We didn't ask Paul Gurowich to re-open or review an individual decision. We asked him to investigate all those complaints that had had decisions that had been arrived at in an illogical manner.

Q. Mr Clark, if the government doesn't monitor ombudsmen's decisions, what are the grounds for government withdrawing that approval? 

Paul Gurowich,

"On the basis of enquiries made by staff in this office, I am satisfied that the OFT is properly carrying out that monitoring role in relation to OS:P."

Q. Mr Clark, how can government monitors be satisfied when an Ombudsman who arrives at decisions in an illogical manner?

Paul Gurowich,

"The Estate Agents Act does not give the OFT power to state publicly whether it is minded to withdraw approval from a redress scheme."

This is British law that operates behind the scenes and is neither transparent nor accountable to the British people but just to a handful of politicians and civil servants. And this is British justice pre-Brexit.

Q. Mr Clark, why doesn't the British taxpayer have the right to know

whether government monitors no longer have confidence in redress schemes?

Paul Gurowich,

"This is a matter of administrative fairness and in order to avoid undermining the effectiveness of redress schemes."

What an extraordinary statement.

Q. Mr Clark, shouldn't fairness to the British taxpayer always come before administrative fairness?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, isn't the effectiveness of the OS:P redress scheme undermined by; an Ombudsman who arrives at decisions in an illogical manner, an Ombudsman who reduces financial awards significantly due to difficult financial conditions but who doesn't raise them when they are no longer, "difficult, an Ombudsman who shouldn't be a member of the professional body to which complaints are being made, but is, who no longer gathers or publishes data on the way complaints are handled and who no longer asks property complainants whether they are satisfied with the way in which their complaint was handled?

Sometimes an entire market in monitoring develops practices that do not work in the taxpayers' interests.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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

Ombudsman Services And The "Free" Market In Private Redress. (676)

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

For Clarity - Attempt 676.

676. Ombudsman Services And The "Free" Market" In Private Redress.

Dear Mr Clark and Lord Tim Clement Jones,

According to the Prime Minister we're now reduced to importing second hand dreams from the USA. They are to be repackaged and rebranded as the, "British Dream." They are already way past their sell-by date.

These dreams are to be based upon an unquestioning and uncritical belief in something that doesn't exist - free markets. Having been mis-sold PPI and with one market failure after another under their belt, its now time for the Conservatives to mis-sell us, "dreams."

The Prime Minister's British Dream came with a warning,

"So don't try and tell me that free markets are no longer fit for purpose."

thereby contradicting her earlier admission that many (un)free markets were in fact, "dysfunctional" and busily, purposefully and very efficiently, ripping people off. 

Q. Mr Clark, by the Prime Minister's very own admission, isn't a, "dysfunctional" market like the one in surveying, no longer fit for purpose?

Critiques US argues, 

"Free Market (for Libertarians) is a propaganda term by which Libertarians actually mean unregulated markets. Free markets cannot exist: they are an ideal model in economic theory. The vast majority of uses of, "free market" are actually about real, regulated, imperfect markets, which are very little like free market models. Truly free markets would include markets for anything, including murder, and require perfect information and perfect competition."

(www.critiques.us)

The British Dream is thus to be based upon an ideal economic model that doesn't exist in reality. It requires perfect information and perfect competition. To those true believers obsessed with what they take to be an exemplary model of economic organisation, such technicalities are an irrelevance. We believe that this raises serious issues concerning the exemplary model of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) being sold to consumers by the Ombudsman Services, CEO and Chief Ombudsman.

This is because what exists in reality needs to be measured against this model's requirement for a) perfect information and b) perfect competition.

Q. Mr Clark, the information Ombudsman Services:Property now make available to property complainants has all but vanished. Is this not highly dysfunctional and shouldn't the Prime Minister not now intervene?

Q. Mr Clark, how can consumers make an informed and rational decision as to whether to use this private redress scheme to resolve their dispute with surveyors (and at such a deeply emotional time for them) when there is such scant information upon which to make that judgement? 

Q. Mr Clark, we have seen how the previous Chair of Ombudsman Services has openly called for a monopoly in ADR. As a result Ombudsman Services would face no competition as there would be no other redress schemes in the market. Isn't this also highly dysfunctional and shouldn't the Prime Minister now intervene?

In her conference speech the Prime Minister stated,

"The free market - and the values of freedom, equality, rights, responsibilities, and the rule of law that lie at its heart - remains the greatest agent of collective human progress ever created."

Where to begin? Perhaps Al Franken's, "Lies. And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them?"

Q. Mr Clark, where was the rule of law when consumers were mis-sold PPI?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, where was the rule of law when consumers had their complaints maladministered?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, don't the executives of Ombudsman Services have a responsibility to their consumers to abide by company's the Terms of Reference?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, why is your workforce denied the protection of  whistleblowing policy and their right to freedom of expression as given in Article 10 of the Human Rights Act?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, in the UK courts individuals have the right to appeal decisions. Why isn't this right available to consumers who have received an illogical Final Decision from the Property Ombudsman?

As for, "freedom" it's clear that markets - including the private market in so-called, "civil justice" - are to all intents and purposes free to do as they please.

For example,

"Hundreds of thousands of people write to companies only to be fobbed off with cut letters that either dismiss their complaint or leave them trawling laboriously from one department to another. Tellingly, the BLSB's fifth most common complaint was about complaint handling itself....sadly, it's often only dogged persistence or the threat of legal action or exposure in newspapers such as this one that yields results."

(Sam Dunn www.independent.co.uk/money/spend-save/mis-sold)

The rigged market in complaint handling appears to directly contradict Mrs May's misplaced and out-dated faith in last century's model of (un)free markets - unlike the Model T Ford which at least got people to where they wanted to be. Most of the time.

Someone should try telling her that.

 

   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 - "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.