Ombudsman Services. 50 Quid. DWP. 55p (683)

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  683

683. Ombudsman Services. 50 Quid. DWP 55p.

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

The Prime Minister tells us that she is, "listening."

We need to talk about the Prime Minister and ask what on earth it was she was thinking when attempting to charge the poorest and most vulnerable in our Big Society 55p a minute to ask for help? Her dysfunctional government's policy towards the poor is almost beyond belief. But then so too are OS:Property's decisions and so-called financial, "awards."

Both Theresa May and David Gauke were educated at Oxford University so it can't be a lack of brainpower that led them to dream-up such an offensive, divisive and ludicrous plan. Perhaps it was incompetence? Callous indifference maybe? Or a Conservative Party policy decision to redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich whilst teaching us all the lesson that it doesn't pay to be poor, unemployed, in low paid jobs, failed by a failing system or then to ask for justice.

When you're reduced to screaming to be heard (but still aren't) it speaks volumes about the dire state of a democracy entrusted to departmental gang masters who believe, "listening" is both "wet and weak."

Some Conservative fantasists - the braying jackasses - are now quite incapable of listening having deafened themselves with the roar of their imaginary lions.

One Conservative, Heidi Allen, did have the courage and good sense to speak out against what is fast becoming the universally discredited, Universal Credit Flagship ((HMS Titanic) Rollout, saying,

"To pull ourselves out of debt we should not be forcing working families into it."

Appalling decisions by the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman similarly forced working families into debt and ill health.

Our reply to Paul Gurowich's letter was:

"Monday 8th April 2013: My Complaint About Ombudsman Services:Property (OS:P) - A Cover-Up;

"Dear Mr Gurowich,

Clearly, there is an urgent need for someone to take immediate firm and decisive action to protect consumers from an Ombudsman and Chair that are satisfied to see complainants handed hundreds of decisions that are, 'not arrived at in a logical manner.' (DJS Research Customer Satisfaction Report 2009 etc)

   Unfortunately, the consumer does not have a Sir Michael Wilshaw-like figure at the OFT. A person not satisfied with, "satisfactory" a person not prepared to tolerate mediocrity.

   It is our firm belief that the situation at the RICS' company Ombudsman Services:Property is far from satisfactory."

Q. The Rev Shand Smith, exactly how many property complainants have been handed decisions not arrived at in a logical manner by your Property Ombudsman?

Q. The Rev Smith, do you not agree with us that this is not satisfactory. So why do you describe this alternative redress scheme as being, "exemplary" when in reality it is not even, "satisfactory?"

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, does this not explain why some complainants  - you don't say how many - are dissatisfied with your, "best efforts?"

Q. Mr Clark, your department has a close and continuing relationship with the maladministrators of this private redress scheme. Is it your and RICS' policy to force complaining working families into debt by handing them decisions that are either not arrived at in a logical manner or not mutually agreed and therefore forced upon them?

We agree with the SNP MP, Mhairi Black when she said charging poor people 55p a minute to seek help was, "callous at worst arrogantly idiotic at best."

The same could be said of the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman's as yet unexplained compulsion to hand complainants illogical decisions, "callous at worst arrogantly idiotic at best."

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

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

Daphne Caruana Galizia / "Easy To Lose Hope" Eleanor McEvoy. (682)

Sisters. Brothers. Brothers. Sisters.

Shortly before she was callously murdered on 16th October, Daphne Carauna Galizia had written,

"There are crooks everywhere you look now, the situation is desperate."

It seems that the crooks who are responsible for the golden era of wilful ignorance and shameful complicity have every intention of prolonging it well into the distant future, whilst brazenly silencing those who dare to speak out against them and who are not afraid to stand in their way.

The free market in corruption is ever more lucrative - why work for a living when it has become so easy to be corrupt for a living?

On the 26th June 1996 Veronica Guerin was murdered by drugs barons in Dublin. Responding to that outrage, Eleanor McEvoy wrote - "Easy To Lose Hope."

Here are the song's lyrics;

""My home town is dear to me, it's always in my sight

(but) My city's shadows walk around in broad daylight

They'll even shoot a woman down for what she writes

So now you pay for civil liberty with life.

Chorus:

So hard its easy to lose hope for everyone

So bad it's easier never to take it on.

But we can't give up

And we can't lose hope

And we cannot hide away

We can overcome

But we must be strong

And we must not be afraid

ii)

You must never stop the search for peace within

Cause if you find it, there's no better prize to win

In losing peace of mind you're losing everything

Don't draw away from it whatever shape you're in

Chorus:

So it's easy to lose hope for everyone

So bad it's easier never to take it on

But we can't give up

And we can't lose hope

And we cannot hide away

We can overcome

But we must be strong

And we must not be afraid.

iii)

With all our songs and stories we have brushed aside

The very nature of the beast we tried to hide

With all ugliness this city has to fight

How could you leave it to a mother and a wife?

Veronica Guerin 1958 - 1996. Daphne Carauna Galizia 1964 - 2017.

Rayhana Sultan has said, "Honest journalism takes a lot of courage." The situation is desperate. Press Barons and politicians, once again - how can you leave it to a mother and a wife?

Never stop the search,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458

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

Ombudsman Services:Property - The era of wilful ignorance and shameful complicity just goes on an on. (681)

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

For Clarity - Attempt 681.

681. Ombudsman Services:Property - The era of wilful ignorance and shameful complicity just goes on and on.

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

Thirty years late and the Academy of Motion Pictures has finally woken up to the dysfunctional (rigged) market in sexual exploitation and abuse otherwise known as the Hollywood Film Industry.

It took a whistleblower to achieve what a lack of regulation, Fox News, political will or the US 7th Cavalry couldn't - the dismissal of Mr Weinstein from his own company - and a close and honest look at the multi billion dollar industry.

We received the following message from Terry (visitor) 2013-0622 @15.43:33 on our previous blog - Blog Forever - it of course didn't.

"Hi

I used to work for, "OS." The truth is worse than you imagine. For starters 90% of, 'the ombudsman's final decisions' are never actually seen by the ombudsman whose name is one the letter. They're not seen by the ombudsman at all. They are written by the VERY SAME 'investigating officer' who wrote the original report. The investigating officer just cuts and pastes the ombudsman's signature on the letter and sends it out. Only 10% of the final decisions are, 'checked' by the ombudsman for, 'quality purposes.'

This is a new process ombudsman services has introduced. Up until maybe 2011 the ombudsman received all final decisions. This was very time consuming hence massive delays. The regulators - RICS for surveyors, Ofcom for communications, Ofgen for energy basically told Ombudsman Services it had to buck its ideas up. It hired a new director of communications. Her idea was basically get the investigators writing final decisions and sending them out unchecked.

The executive team at Ombudsman Services are all slapping each others' backs as a result of the scheme. They have cut the backlog entirely (unsurprisingly!) plus the investigating officer salary is about a 3rd of an ombudsman so they're making a tidy saving as well!

Before I left they even had a celebratory meeting to brag about how well they'd done in cutting down the backlog and how the executives had all done an amazing job and RICS/Ofcom/Ofgem were really happy....doubt they know the truth."

And if they did know the truth they'd probably expect to be invited to the next celebratory meeting so as to join in the bragging and back slapping..

Q. The Rev Smith, is cutting and pasting the ombudsman's signature onto reports written by investigating officers part of your exemplary model of alternative dispute resolution?

Q. The Rev Smith, how does that satisfy the EU Directive/11/2013 requirements for; fairness, trust and integrity?

Q. The Rev Smith, isn't this a form of exploitation and abuse and if not, why not?

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, does this unscrupulous practice not explain why some - you don't say how many - of your complainants are so very dissatisfied with what you describe as your, "best efforts?"

Q. Mr Clark, your department has a close and continuing relationship with this government approved and monitored private redress scheme, we've been blowing the whistle for years so why haven't you or any or you predecessors done anything about it?

If left to the spineless, toadying sycophants who control and manipulate this market in private civil justice the era of wilful ignorance and shameful complicity will simply run and run unchecked leaving an ever growing number of victims in its wake.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

 

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

Ombudsman Services. Harvey Weinstein. The Regulation of Markets. Whistleblowing Policies. (680)

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

For Clarity - Attempt 680.

680. Ombudsman Services. Harvey Weinstein. The Regulation of Markets. Whistleblowing Policies.

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

Whistleblower, Rose McGowan, a woman of enormous courage, has shown what the un-regulated Hollywood film market is capable of - a stranglehold on fear and power by those at the top with its inevitable violent and criminal consequences on those they expect to be beneath them..

Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, why doesn't your illiberal and un-democratic company have a fully functioning whistleblower policy that protects your workforce and recognises their human right to freedom of expression?

Ross Langmead, has said,

"One of the best ways to love God is to defend the voiceless."

( Professor of Missiology, Whitely College, Parkville, Australia)

We believe you could quite easily substitute, "Humanity" for God without losing the message's power.

People in positions of power appear to have no compunction when taking the political decision to deny others their right to a voice.

Q. Rev Shand Smith, as Chair of The Ombudsman Association, why do you preside over an organisation that has removed the right of freedom of expression for all its workforce by scrapping the requirement for member schemes to have a Whistleblowing Policy?

This undemocratic and retrogressive step was taken by The Ombudsman Association's Board pre-Brexit. Heaven only knows what is in store for workers and consumers post-Brexit.

Q. Mr Clark, how can consumers trust private redress schemes that deny their workers the right to freedom of expression and what is it these schemes are so successfully sweeping under the carpet?

As Resaners, we believe a public inquiry into the RICS, its failure to regulate its Members and (Un)Regulated Firms, its appointed company, Ombudsman Services:Property, the role of Ombudsmen in determining what they call, "civil justice" and the plight of countless victims of illogical Final Decisions is now most urgently needed.

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 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.