To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 459.
459) Nicky Morgan - A Modern Day, "Wrecker."
Dear Mr Javid,
Nicky Morgan should be given a small part in the next series of Poldark.
We picture her hooded figure, silhouetted atop a tall Cornish cliff, gale blowing as she holds a lamp outstretched luring those safely at sea onto the treacherous rocks below.
Mrs "Nanny" Morgan knows best - ignoramus, studious ignorer of the evidence, non-teacher who lectures teachers' unions on being, "positive," a woman with no reverse gear, driven solely by a fanatical ideology that reduces education to the role of compliant and unquestioning servant of, "business-like" rigged capitalism.
It would seem that neither Sir Andrew Dilnot, Chair of the Statistical Authority nor Simon Lebus, CE Cambridge Assessment, mark her performance very highly. "Could do better," "needs to start thinking for herself" and "easily led." The latter believing she is poorly advised and "trying to rig the race." The former suggesting she should reconsider her misreading of statistical evidence and subsequent misleading remarks to Parliament over Labour's record on education when in office.
"Trying to rig the race."
Quite clearly, time spent at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) has had a detrimental and corrosive effect on her moral and intellectual development.
When the statistical evidence totally contradicts your predetermined prejudices what does the Education Minister do? She ignores the evidence and carries on because she, "has no reverse gear." Not very intelligent for an expensively and privately educated Oxford graduate.
Q. Rigging the market and misleading Parliament - where have we heard that before?
A. The RICS and its failure to adequately regulate its members and (Un)regulated Firms and its lobbying of Vince Cable to "fix" the lettings market but leave the rigged surveying market well alone. And he did.
The lure this time?
The con this time according to Mrs Morgan is that education must be, "business-like." And to be business-like she doesn't want any troublesome parents poking their noses into places where parents' noses are most definitely not wanted - like questioning rigged statistics on performance for instance, thought leaders being tipped off about Ofsted inspections or whether there's a fair and transparent tendering process being operated by the academy their child is forced to attend.
In short, a "business-like" rigging of performance, inspections and the tendering process
In The Brave New World of academies there will be no transparency or accountability just chief executives lining their pockets. Thought leaders have decided that they are extremely expensive to employ and whilst they busily tear up national pay scales and conditions of employment, their staff will, as a result of their leaders' business-like acumen, become far cheaper to hire an far easier to fire.
Mrs Morgan would appear to be modelling this insanity on the so-called, "civil justice" being meted out by the maladministrators at Ombudsman Services. No doubt her bad habits were picked up loitering at the back of the BIS.
Ombudsman Services' executives like nothing more than talking the talk about just how business-like they are. It is the one thing they are genuinely world-class at. How they endlessly beaver away making sure they, "spend their Members money wisely" and, "add real value to their business practices."
Their lure to a public all at sea?
A government sanctioned promise to handle complaints, "fairly," "speedily" and "independently."
The Rev. Lewis Shand Smith, company CEO and Chief Ombudsman, extolls the virtues of his, "superb business model" where maladministered decisions have become, "our product." He apparently, even holds back slapping parties to celebrate just how clever he and his team are at maladministering the consumers' complaints they (mis)handle with seeming impunity.
This is, "business-like." It gets results - for the paymasters.
Just how ethical the business-like Rev Smith is should be the subject of a public inquiry and not simply left to The Rev and his Maker.
Just like academies of the future, no one knows what on earth is going on at this particular academy for civil justice because DJS Research lost the contract to conduct Customer Satisfaction Reports. What we do know - thanks to their diligence - is that in the past customers were very dissatisfied. Nowadays no-one has the faintest idea what consumers think of their customer journey because The Rev Smith no longer bothers to ask them. When the statistics say your company's performance is abysmal simply get rid of those responsible for gathering them.
That's very, "business-like" indeed.
"Superb" is not a word we would use to describe ombudsmen arriving at decisions in an illogical manner. "Shite" perhaps.
Ombudsman Services is a modern day example of piss-poor governance and a shocking indictment of "civil justice" left in the hands of unaccountable clerics like The Rev. Smith.
If Mrs Morgan gets her way no-one will ever know what goes on in academies either - its her vision-for-the-future. Overpaid executives will be able dispose of taxpayers' money as and how they please. Whatever statistical evidence gets gathered will not be made available for public scrutiny. Parents won't have the right to be involved in the running of the schools they're being forced to send their children to. Children will be taught not to ask questions.
Instead they will be taught to love business-like, "Big Society."
Q. Mr Javid, isn't the vehicle Mrs Morgan's driving un-roadworthy as it has no reverse gear? Shouldn't she now be breathalysed and banned from working at the Department of Education?
She could get a real job and try teaching as a next career - put her use of taxpayers' money where her mouth is. See how long she remains, "positive" - we'd give her to break-time on the first day.
Wouldn't be fair on the kids though.
Sunday, 27 March 2016
Tuesday, 15 March 2016
Ombudsman Services: Michael Gove The Brains Behind Cuckoo Conservatism. (455)
To The Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 455.
455) Mr Gove - The Brains Behind Cuckoo Conservatism.
Dear Mr Javid,
Michael Gove, the Justice Minister and First Cuckoo in Spring has chirruped again. Only this time he's denying it. We, at The Campaign, have already said he couldn't possibly have been one of The Sun's, two, "impeccable sources" - and thus dissed Her Majesty (GBH) - as there's nothing about him that's remotely impeccable.
The Ministry of Justice's website announces to the public that;
"We work to protect the public and reduce re-offending."
Surely, you don't needs the brains of an archbishop to know that one way of protecting the public and reducing re-offending would have been for the Prime Minister to have put Mr Gove - a known serial repeat offender - elsewhere. The Scrubs perhaps? What a cuckoo idea of David Cameron's it was to let him nest at Justice Department. Yet another criminal error of judgement on his part. Seems he has cuckoo tendencies of his own.
Perhaps its contagious? Cuckoo flu?
Mr Gove is indeed like the cuckoo in the clock only instead of popping in out on the hour, he's in and out all the bloody time. His mechanism needs fixing. He's undoubtedly the First Among Cuckoos. The first cuckoo not only in spring but in summer, autumn and winter too. Busy ruffling the feathers of all around him. And worse. Cuckoos have a dark, destructive side. Bullying and attack dogs at, of all places, the Education Department. (www.independent.co.uk:
"Dump f***ing everyone - the inside story of how Mr Gove's vicious attack dogs are terrorising the DfE")
Come to think of it, Mr Gove, as the rising star of the cuckoo conservative right - The Cuckoo Ascending - should have had Big Ben specially adapted for him and he could have sprung out and chimed at regular intervals.
Foreign tourists would have loved him and he would have loved being seem regularly. He'd be famous and seen and heard every 15 minutes of every day!
But we suppose that would have involved an unacceptable degree of regulation and so another great opportunity to add something tangible and meaningful to the Big Society has once again been allowed to go begging.
Q. Mr Javid, as that other rising star of cuckoo conservatism, was it not a cuckoo idea to give a failed regulator, The RICS, total control over Ombudsman Services:Property - a private redress scheme criminally maladministers consumers' complaint in the name of, "civil justice?"
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 455.
455) Mr Gove - The Brains Behind Cuckoo Conservatism.
Dear Mr Javid,
Michael Gove, the Justice Minister and First Cuckoo in Spring has chirruped again. Only this time he's denying it. We, at The Campaign, have already said he couldn't possibly have been one of The Sun's, two, "impeccable sources" - and thus dissed Her Majesty (GBH) - as there's nothing about him that's remotely impeccable.
The Ministry of Justice's website announces to the public that;
"We work to protect the public and reduce re-offending."
Surely, you don't needs the brains of an archbishop to know that one way of protecting the public and reducing re-offending would have been for the Prime Minister to have put Mr Gove - a known serial repeat offender - elsewhere. The Scrubs perhaps? What a cuckoo idea of David Cameron's it was to let him nest at Justice Department. Yet another criminal error of judgement on his part. Seems he has cuckoo tendencies of his own.
Perhaps its contagious? Cuckoo flu?
Mr Gove is indeed like the cuckoo in the clock only instead of popping in out on the hour, he's in and out all the bloody time. His mechanism needs fixing. He's undoubtedly the First Among Cuckoos. The first cuckoo not only in spring but in summer, autumn and winter too. Busy ruffling the feathers of all around him. And worse. Cuckoos have a dark, destructive side. Bullying and attack dogs at, of all places, the Education Department. (www.independent.co.uk:
"Dump f***ing everyone - the inside story of how Mr Gove's vicious attack dogs are terrorising the DfE")
Come to think of it, Mr Gove, as the rising star of the cuckoo conservative right - The Cuckoo Ascending - should have had Big Ben specially adapted for him and he could have sprung out and chimed at regular intervals.
Foreign tourists would have loved him and he would have loved being seem regularly. He'd be famous and seen and heard every 15 minutes of every day!
But we suppose that would have involved an unacceptable degree of regulation and so another great opportunity to add something tangible and meaningful to the Big Society has once again been allowed to go begging.
Q. Mr Javid, as that other rising star of cuckoo conservatism, was it not a cuckoo idea to give a failed regulator, The RICS, total control over Ombudsman Services:Property - a private redress scheme criminally maladministers consumers' complaint in the name of, "civil justice?"
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Saturday, 12 March 2016
Ombudsman Services: "Impeccable Sources." (454)
To the Business Secretary Sajid Javid and Oliver Colvile MP Sutton and Devonport.
599 Clarity - Attempt 454
454) "Impeccable Sources."
Dear Mr Javid and Mr Colvile,
I'm sure you'd both agree with the Campaign that Hartlepool MP Ian Wright's conduct during the interview with the BBC over the Sports Direct issue was - impeccable.
The Sun's impeccable sources in their, The Queen Leads Brexit Campaign shock, horror story, less so. Is there really anything about Michael Gove that is in any way, "impeccable?"
Then there's our impeccable source who once worked at Ombudsman Services who wrote,
"Hi Steve,
I used to work for Ombudsman Services. 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 on 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 OS has introduced. Up until maybe 2011 the ombudsman reviewed all final decisions. This was very time consuming hence massive delays. The regulators - RICS for surveyors, Ofcom for communications, Ofgem for energy basically told OS 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 office salary is about a third of an ombudsman so they're making a tidy saving as well!
Before I left they even had a celebrating 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."
(Terry Orange - visitor - 2013 - 06 - 22@15.43:35)
Now there's a story for the Sun or does Murdoch consider the lives of ordinary people to be eclipsed by tittle-tattle about The Great and The Not So Great and The Good and The Not So Good?
Q. Mr Javid and Mr Colvile, why, in this day and age, are these matters not the subject of a thorough no-grace-no-favours independent investigation? We Must Know!
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
599 Clarity - Attempt 454
454) "Impeccable Sources."
Dear Mr Javid and Mr Colvile,
I'm sure you'd both agree with the Campaign that Hartlepool MP Ian Wright's conduct during the interview with the BBC over the Sports Direct issue was - impeccable.
The Sun's impeccable sources in their, The Queen Leads Brexit Campaign shock, horror story, less so. Is there really anything about Michael Gove that is in any way, "impeccable?"
Then there's our impeccable source who once worked at Ombudsman Services who wrote,
"Hi Steve,
I used to work for Ombudsman Services. 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 on 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 OS has introduced. Up until maybe 2011 the ombudsman reviewed all final decisions. This was very time consuming hence massive delays. The regulators - RICS for surveyors, Ofcom for communications, Ofgem for energy basically told OS 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 office salary is about a third of an ombudsman so they're making a tidy saving as well!
Before I left they even had a celebrating 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."
(Terry Orange - visitor - 2013 - 06 - 22@15.43:35)
Now there's a story for the Sun or does Murdoch consider the lives of ordinary people to be eclipsed by tittle-tattle about The Great and The Not So Great and The Good and The Not So Good?
Q. Mr Javid and Mr Colvile, why, in this day and age, are these matters not the subject of a thorough no-grace-no-favours independent investigation? We Must Know!
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Saturday, 20 February 2016
Philip Zimbardo: The Stanford Prison Experiment. (449)
The Ombudsmans61percent campaign at www.blogspot.com
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 449.
449) Philip Zimbado: The Stanford Prison Experiment.
Dear Mr Javid,
Have you ever stopped to wonder what it takes to turn an average, decent, fun-loving Louise or Michael from Dr Jekyll into Mr Hyde? Or how that lovely person at the queue in Lidl's who thought that the rain must surely stop one day, can then turn up at the Decision Support Tool Assessment for NHS Continuing Healthcare Funding for your parent and proceed to tell you a pack of lies? Or, when it comes to Ombudsman Services, can completely ignore your case's well documented photographic evidence in favour of the scribblings of their fee-paying RICS surveyor, when handling you their unforgiveable and unforgettable illogical Final Decision?
The 1973 Stanford Prison Experiment might be as good a place as any to start.
The first time I came across it back in the seventies I thought, "that can't be true...that's insane... they've made it all up." Now, after being the recipient of Ombudsman Services shocking brand of justice and being stonewalled by Plymouth City Council Adult Social Services, it's Finance Department, Plymouth Community Care, Wellbeing Ltd., and Devon NEW CCG, it's all become crystal clear - Stanford pointed to the future.
Philip Zimbado wanted to know: was the brutality reported among prison guards in American prisons down to the inherent sadism of the guards - ie it was, "dispositional" or had it more to do with the prison environment - ie was it, "situational?"
Both the, "guards" and the, "prisoners" were male student volunteers, most were white, middle class and (at the start) deemed to be psychologically stable and healthy. They were paid 15 dollars a day. The programme was scheduled to last a fortnight. It was terminated on the sixth day.
The results were dramatic and disturbing. Within a very short time some guards began to harass prisoners. They behaved in a brutal and sadistic manner, apparently enjoying it.
The prisoners were taunted, insulted and given pointless and boring tasks to accomplish. They were generally dehumanised. As the guards' contempt for prisoners grew the prisoners became more submissive. The guards appeared to have lost their sense of identity and personal responsibility.
One guard said, "I was surprised at myself. I made them call each other names and clean the toliets out with their bare hands."
Another guard said, "Acting authoritatively can be fun. Power can be a great pleasure."
Christina Maslach, a Stanford Ph.D brought in to conduct interviews with the guards and prisoners, strongly objected when she saw the prisoners abused by the guards. Filled with outrage she said, "It's terrible what you are doing to these boys." Out of 50 or more outsiders who had been to the, "prison" she was the only one who questioned its morality.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign has enormous respect for people like Christina Maslach (Ph.D).
Not all the guards were sadistic but experimenters reported that approximately one-third exhibited genuine sadistic tendencies. Clearly, the experiment dramatically demonstrated just how quickly, "disorientation," "depersonalisation" and "deindividualisation" took hold, with the "good" guards unable to prevent the "sadistic" guards from being sadistic.
The pleasure of power combined with a disposition towards sadism seems a toxic combination - from student prison guards through NHS assessors and their collaborating social work colleagues to investigating officers impersonating ombudsman.
Not all the social workers we came into contact with were happy with what they were expected to do which suggested the, "situational" nature of their job. They weren't nasty people who took pleasure from being nasty.
Two of the three were clearly very unhappy - with one seeking to transfer to another area of social work. Of course the senior managers who orchestrated the operation ensured that they - the managers - remained shadowy figures and off the radar, that questions never reached them. It took a Freedom of Information Act request to discover who these shadowy people are. So much for local government democracy. Alarmingly, they are - and are allowed to be - non transparent and unaccountable in their dealings with local council taxpayers. It has very effectively been rigged that way. Otherwise it would be radically different.
They would be servants of the public. Not quasi jailors or prison mangers .
As for Ombudsman Services - we been told by a former inmate that things are far worse than we could ever imagine. The guards of, "civil justice" obediently cut and paste the Ombudsman's signature onto reports they have written and send them out to unsuspecting complainants. They even have parties to celebrate just how clever they've been in their maladministration of civil justice and how creatively they've cleared backlogs of complaints. Apparently.
There was a Christina Maslach-like figure at the company: the Independent Assessor. But unfortunately for the complainant, after her, "First and Last Report" she appears to have left rather than be further tainted by what she had witnessed in her brief time at the organisation.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign has a lot of time for the former Independent Assessor. It takes courage to be fair and independent.
That leaves the Rev. Lewis Shand Smith, CEO and Chief Ombudsman, who when describing complainants - each with their own complaint and story to tell - as a, "Stock of Work" succinctly encapsulated the, "dehumanising," "disorientating," "depersonalising" and "deindividualisating" nature of his organisations' particular brand of, "civil justice."
Q. Mr Javid, do you still assure taxpayers that when they take their complaints to this government approved and monitored redress scheme, that each and every complaint will be investigated, "fairly" and "independently?"
Q. Mr Javid, isn't it criminal how the relatives of the sick, the elderly and the dying have to battle with local councils and NHS CCGs to reclaim what once rightly belonged to their loved ones?
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 449.
449) Philip Zimbado: The Stanford Prison Experiment.
Dear Mr Javid,
Have you ever stopped to wonder what it takes to turn an average, decent, fun-loving Louise or Michael from Dr Jekyll into Mr Hyde? Or how that lovely person at the queue in Lidl's who thought that the rain must surely stop one day, can then turn up at the Decision Support Tool Assessment for NHS Continuing Healthcare Funding for your parent and proceed to tell you a pack of lies? Or, when it comes to Ombudsman Services, can completely ignore your case's well documented photographic evidence in favour of the scribblings of their fee-paying RICS surveyor, when handling you their unforgiveable and unforgettable illogical Final Decision?
The 1973 Stanford Prison Experiment might be as good a place as any to start.
The first time I came across it back in the seventies I thought, "that can't be true...that's insane... they've made it all up." Now, after being the recipient of Ombudsman Services shocking brand of justice and being stonewalled by Plymouth City Council Adult Social Services, it's Finance Department, Plymouth Community Care, Wellbeing Ltd., and Devon NEW CCG, it's all become crystal clear - Stanford pointed to the future.
Philip Zimbado wanted to know: was the brutality reported among prison guards in American prisons down to the inherent sadism of the guards - ie it was, "dispositional" or had it more to do with the prison environment - ie was it, "situational?"
Both the, "guards" and the, "prisoners" were male student volunteers, most were white, middle class and (at the start) deemed to be psychologically stable and healthy. They were paid 15 dollars a day. The programme was scheduled to last a fortnight. It was terminated on the sixth day.
The results were dramatic and disturbing. Within a very short time some guards began to harass prisoners. They behaved in a brutal and sadistic manner, apparently enjoying it.
The prisoners were taunted, insulted and given pointless and boring tasks to accomplish. They were generally dehumanised. As the guards' contempt for prisoners grew the prisoners became more submissive. The guards appeared to have lost their sense of identity and personal responsibility.
One guard said, "I was surprised at myself. I made them call each other names and clean the toliets out with their bare hands."
Another guard said, "Acting authoritatively can be fun. Power can be a great pleasure."
Christina Maslach, a Stanford Ph.D brought in to conduct interviews with the guards and prisoners, strongly objected when she saw the prisoners abused by the guards. Filled with outrage she said, "It's terrible what you are doing to these boys." Out of 50 or more outsiders who had been to the, "prison" she was the only one who questioned its morality.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign has enormous respect for people like Christina Maslach (Ph.D).
Not all the guards were sadistic but experimenters reported that approximately one-third exhibited genuine sadistic tendencies. Clearly, the experiment dramatically demonstrated just how quickly, "disorientation," "depersonalisation" and "deindividualisation" took hold, with the "good" guards unable to prevent the "sadistic" guards from being sadistic.
The pleasure of power combined with a disposition towards sadism seems a toxic combination - from student prison guards through NHS assessors and their collaborating social work colleagues to investigating officers impersonating ombudsman.
Not all the social workers we came into contact with were happy with what they were expected to do which suggested the, "situational" nature of their job. They weren't nasty people who took pleasure from being nasty.
Two of the three were clearly very unhappy - with one seeking to transfer to another area of social work. Of course the senior managers who orchestrated the operation ensured that they - the managers - remained shadowy figures and off the radar, that questions never reached them. It took a Freedom of Information Act request to discover who these shadowy people are. So much for local government democracy. Alarmingly, they are - and are allowed to be - non transparent and unaccountable in their dealings with local council taxpayers. It has very effectively been rigged that way. Otherwise it would be radically different.
They would be servants of the public. Not quasi jailors or prison mangers .
As for Ombudsman Services - we been told by a former inmate that things are far worse than we could ever imagine. The guards of, "civil justice" obediently cut and paste the Ombudsman's signature onto reports they have written and send them out to unsuspecting complainants. They even have parties to celebrate just how clever they've been in their maladministration of civil justice and how creatively they've cleared backlogs of complaints. Apparently.
There was a Christina Maslach-like figure at the company: the Independent Assessor. But unfortunately for the complainant, after her, "First and Last Report" she appears to have left rather than be further tainted by what she had witnessed in her brief time at the organisation.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign has a lot of time for the former Independent Assessor. It takes courage to be fair and independent.
That leaves the Rev. Lewis Shand Smith, CEO and Chief Ombudsman, who when describing complainants - each with their own complaint and story to tell - as a, "Stock of Work" succinctly encapsulated the, "dehumanising," "disorientating," "depersonalising" and "deindividualisating" nature of his organisations' particular brand of, "civil justice."
Q. Mr Javid, do you still assure taxpayers that when they take their complaints to this government approved and monitored redress scheme, that each and every complaint will be investigated, "fairly" and "independently?"
Q. Mr Javid, isn't it criminal how the relatives of the sick, the elderly and the dying have to battle with local councils and NHS CCGs to reclaim what once rightly belonged to their loved ones?
Friday, 19 February 2016
A Genuine Respect For People. (448)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 448.
448) A Genuine Respect For People.
Dear Mr Javid,
The scandal of NHS Continuing Healthcare Funding and the scandal of the maladministration of consumers' complaints by Ombudsman Services have at least one thing in common - neither system nor the people abusing them, have much respect for people they interact with and so, according to the Oxford Dictionary's definition of justice, have little respect for justice either.
They have nothing but contempt for our justice and our democracy.
Each day they go to work to stonewall, misinform, lie to, cheat and rob us. An army of conmen and women who now have the upper hand, who will resort to any means - including maladministration - to achieve their end of calling all the shots, of domination, in what has become a quintessentially English, English Uncivil War. Trident is no deterrent to these people. They operate below the radar. The rules of the game no longer apply to them. Under cover of darkness, with great stealth and in contravention of the Geneva Convention they've succeeded in turning the level playing field into a minefield. Mercy and compassion are seen by them as signs of wimpish weakness.
"Bomber" Benn, it's time for another speech.
When it comes to the first scandal, that of CHC Funding, Dr Louise Irvine tells us,
"There is an area of healthcare that the general public in England does not know much about and our politicians would prefer to keep that way. It's only when you have a relative with a serious long term health condition that you discover the complex, unfair and inhumane system that you have to go through to get NHS funding for the care your loved one needs." (Dr Louise Irvine: Huffington Post)
Complex, unfair and inhumane.
That's exactly how it is. People - whose salaries are paid for by the taxpayer - refused to answer our questions, put us on the long finger, fed us the wrong information and then lied to us. It's still going on. Why should there be need of a, "Desk Top Review" for a dead person ? They are, after all, dead. Is it the final indignity for those who worked hard, loved their country, paid their taxes and who prided themselves on playing by the rules of the game?
It's all in a day's work to those shameless individuals tasked with fleecing them.
The second scandal - the maladministration of consumers' complaints by Ombudsman Services - is also unnecessarily complex, unfair and inhumane with the only difference being that those who refuse to answer your questions, who put consumers on the long finger and then give them decisions that have not been arrived at in a logical manner, have their salaries paid for by the very people consumers are complaining about.
Total conflicts of interest and totally rigged markets.
With, the "Continuing Healthcare Care Funding" scandal the state, disgracefully, seeks to pass the cost of care onto the people. When it comes to private redress schemes - scams - incompetent businesses pass the cost of their incompetence very competently onto their consumers.
We believe that both are criminal conspiracies against the people of England.
Q. Mr Javid, is it treating people with genuine respect to have a taxpayer make 448 attempts at raising the issue of the maladministration of consumers' complaints by Ombudsman Services, only for them to be totally ignored by you and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills?
Q. Mr Javid, does that mean that your department is collaborating with and covering up the maladministration of consumers' complaints by the executives at Ombudsman Services?
Q. Mr Javid, is it just good business to wrongly bill the elderly, the sick and the dying and then leave their closest relatives to attempt to claim back what was criminally taken, after they have died?
Q. Mr Javid, where is the justice in that? Is it in any meaningful way, "democratic?"
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 448.
448) A Genuine Respect For People.
Dear Mr Javid,
The scandal of NHS Continuing Healthcare Funding and the scandal of the maladministration of consumers' complaints by Ombudsman Services have at least one thing in common - neither system nor the people abusing them, have much respect for people they interact with and so, according to the Oxford Dictionary's definition of justice, have little respect for justice either.
They have nothing but contempt for our justice and our democracy.
Each day they go to work to stonewall, misinform, lie to, cheat and rob us. An army of conmen and women who now have the upper hand, who will resort to any means - including maladministration - to achieve their end of calling all the shots, of domination, in what has become a quintessentially English, English Uncivil War. Trident is no deterrent to these people. They operate below the radar. The rules of the game no longer apply to them. Under cover of darkness, with great stealth and in contravention of the Geneva Convention they've succeeded in turning the level playing field into a minefield. Mercy and compassion are seen by them as signs of wimpish weakness.
"Bomber" Benn, it's time for another speech.
When it comes to the first scandal, that of CHC Funding, Dr Louise Irvine tells us,
"There is an area of healthcare that the general public in England does not know much about and our politicians would prefer to keep that way. It's only when you have a relative with a serious long term health condition that you discover the complex, unfair and inhumane system that you have to go through to get NHS funding for the care your loved one needs." (Dr Louise Irvine: Huffington Post)
Complex, unfair and inhumane.
That's exactly how it is. People - whose salaries are paid for by the taxpayer - refused to answer our questions, put us on the long finger, fed us the wrong information and then lied to us. It's still going on. Why should there be need of a, "Desk Top Review" for a dead person ? They are, after all, dead. Is it the final indignity for those who worked hard, loved their country, paid their taxes and who prided themselves on playing by the rules of the game?
It's all in a day's work to those shameless individuals tasked with fleecing them.
The second scandal - the maladministration of consumers' complaints by Ombudsman Services - is also unnecessarily complex, unfair and inhumane with the only difference being that those who refuse to answer your questions, who put consumers on the long finger and then give them decisions that have not been arrived at in a logical manner, have their salaries paid for by the very people consumers are complaining about.
Total conflicts of interest and totally rigged markets.
With, the "Continuing Healthcare Care Funding" scandal the state, disgracefully, seeks to pass the cost of care onto the people. When it comes to private redress schemes - scams - incompetent businesses pass the cost of their incompetence very competently onto their consumers.
We believe that both are criminal conspiracies against the people of England.
Q. Mr Javid, is it treating people with genuine respect to have a taxpayer make 448 attempts at raising the issue of the maladministration of consumers' complaints by Ombudsman Services, only for them to be totally ignored by you and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills?
Q. Mr Javid, does that mean that your department is collaborating with and covering up the maladministration of consumers' complaints by the executives at Ombudsman Services?
Q. Mr Javid, is it just good business to wrongly bill the elderly, the sick and the dying and then leave their closest relatives to attempt to claim back what was criminally taken, after they have died?
Q. Mr Javid, where is the justice in that? Is it in any meaningful way, "democratic?"
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Wednesday, 17 February 2016
The English Uncivil War. (447)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 447.
447) The English Uncivil War.
Dear Mr Javid,
Every working day in this blue and unpleasant land there is an army of people - many with salaries paid for by the taxpayer - who go to work to deliberately; stonewall, misinform, lie to and cheat the rest of us.
This in the English Uncivil War.
There are social workers and NHS staff who daily collaborate to deny the sick, the elderly and the dying their right to state funded nursing care
Q. Mr Javid, don't these people have a duty of care to the elderly, the sick and the dying in England, so why are they collaborating to deny them what is, by right, already theirs?
Oxford dictionaries tell us that;
"Justice (is) - the fair treatment of people.
- the quality of being fair and reasonable.
- a concern for justice, peace and genuine respect for people."
(www.oxforddictionaries.com)
Q. Mr Javid, where is the justice, peace and respect the elderly, the sick and the dying deserve - why are they systematically being robbed of it?
Helen Suzman once said;
"I stand for simple justice, equal opportunity and Human Rights. The indispensable elements in a democratic society - all well worth working for." (www.hsf.org.uk)
Simple justice yet so very difficult to obtain - for the overwhelming majority of us especially as it is now being privatised.
It is being privatised by politicians and "politically influenced" civil servants with an ideological commitment to "free" markets and a misplaced messianic and fundamentalist belief in what these markets can never deliver: justice, equal opportunities and Human Rights. Such true believers, yourself included, see only what they want to see and not the chaos and injustice they invariably create - just the massive, risk-free profits for those rigging them.
A free-for-all housing market where on the one hand people are faced with eviction. Their crime? Being too poor to pay the bedroom tax whilst oligarchs, dictators, the sons of dictators, drug barons and terrorist organisations hoover up the London property market and further spend their laundered money on basement swimming pools, car parks and cinemas. Their crime? Who knows and who cares - they're rich aren't they?
A country were regulators seem incapable of doing their job of regulating and where the RICS have rigged the market in civil justice. Where, "in the age of the ombudsman" (The Rev. Lewis Shand Smith, Chief Ombudsman and CEO of Ombudsman Services) many of them lack the courage to make a stand for simple justice, equal opportunities and Human Rights.
Q. Mr Javid, you have a close and continuing relationship with Ombudsman Services, have you asked The Rev. Lewis Shand Smith why it is that his organisation maladministers consumers' complaints?
Q. Mr Javid, can The Rev. Lewis Shand Smith serve both God and mammon?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 447.
447) The English Uncivil War.
Dear Mr Javid,
Every working day in this blue and unpleasant land there is an army of people - many with salaries paid for by the taxpayer - who go to work to deliberately; stonewall, misinform, lie to and cheat the rest of us.
This in the English Uncivil War.
There are social workers and NHS staff who daily collaborate to deny the sick, the elderly and the dying their right to state funded nursing care
Q. Mr Javid, don't these people have a duty of care to the elderly, the sick and the dying in England, so why are they collaborating to deny them what is, by right, already theirs?
Oxford dictionaries tell us that;
"Justice (is) - the fair treatment of people.
- the quality of being fair and reasonable.
- a concern for justice, peace and genuine respect for people."
(www.oxforddictionaries.com)
Q. Mr Javid, where is the justice, peace and respect the elderly, the sick and the dying deserve - why are they systematically being robbed of it?
Helen Suzman once said;
"I stand for simple justice, equal opportunity and Human Rights. The indispensable elements in a democratic society - all well worth working for." (www.hsf.org.uk)
Simple justice yet so very difficult to obtain - for the overwhelming majority of us especially as it is now being privatised.
It is being privatised by politicians and "politically influenced" civil servants with an ideological commitment to "free" markets and a misplaced messianic and fundamentalist belief in what these markets can never deliver: justice, equal opportunities and Human Rights. Such true believers, yourself included, see only what they want to see and not the chaos and injustice they invariably create - just the massive, risk-free profits for those rigging them.
A free-for-all housing market where on the one hand people are faced with eviction. Their crime? Being too poor to pay the bedroom tax whilst oligarchs, dictators, the sons of dictators, drug barons and terrorist organisations hoover up the London property market and further spend their laundered money on basement swimming pools, car parks and cinemas. Their crime? Who knows and who cares - they're rich aren't they?
A country were regulators seem incapable of doing their job of regulating and where the RICS have rigged the market in civil justice. Where, "in the age of the ombudsman" (The Rev. Lewis Shand Smith, Chief Ombudsman and CEO of Ombudsman Services) many of them lack the courage to make a stand for simple justice, equal opportunities and Human Rights.
Q. Mr Javid, you have a close and continuing relationship with Ombudsman Services, have you asked The Rev. Lewis Shand Smith why it is that his organisation maladministers consumers' complaints?
Q. Mr Javid, can The Rev. Lewis Shand Smith serve both God and mammon?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Monday, 15 February 2016
Bias. (446)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 446.
446) Bias.
Dear Mr Javid,
It is beyond all reasonable doubt that the Ombudsman Services:Property redress scheme - "approved" and supposedly, "monitored" - by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) are regulated by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) does not "investigate" consumer complaints, "fairly," "speedily" or "independently."
The laws of probability indicate that dissatisfied clients of RICS regulated surveyors will:
1) Be victims of sub-standard surveys.
2) Pay for a service they do not receive.
3) Be victims of inadequate standards of professionalism.
4) Be the recipients of poor advice and service when making expensive purchasing decisions.
5) Not have their phone calls logged in their surveyor's Case File.
6) Not have visits logged in the surveyor's Case File.
7) Not have agreements confirmed in writing by their surveyor or recorded in their surveyor's Case File.
8) Fail to have their complaint resolved before it is escalated to the RICS surveyors' ombudsman.
9) Not be informed by their surveyor that the ombudsman they are being referred to is funded entirely by their case fees and subscriptions.
10) Have their case misrepresented by Ombudsman Services:Property.
11) Have the nature of their case misunderstood by Ombudsman Services:Property.
12) Have their surveyor's evidence withheld from them by Ombudsman Services:Property.
13) Have their surveyor's messages to the staff of Ombudsman Services:Property withheld from them.
14) Have their confidential information handed to their surveyor by Ombudsman Services:Property.
15) Not have their case mediated by Ombudsman Services:Property.
16) Not have their questions answered by Ombudsman Services:Property.
17) Experience delays in the handling of their complaint by Ombudsman Services:Property.
18) Not have their problem resolved by Ombudsman Services:Property.
19) Not have their case resolved through mediation by Ombudsman Services:Property.
20) Disagree with the recommendations suggested by Ombudsman Services:Property.
21) Disagree with the accuracy of their report's recommendations.
22) Discover errors in their Ombudsman Services:Property report.
23) Have their report written by an officer but have the ombudsman's signature cut and pasted to it implying it was investigated by the ombudsman, when it wasn't.
24) Be denied an independent re-survey by Ombudsman Services:Property.
25) Be denied their Human Right to a face to face meeting with the ombudsman by Ombudsman Services:Property.
26) Be denied their Human Right to a meeting held in public by Ombudsman Services:Property.
27) Be forced to gain access to information held on their case by Ombudsman Services:Property, through the Data Protection Act.
28) Be forced into making further representations due to the inaccuracy of Ombudsman Service:Property's reports.
29) Be unsuccessful with these further representations.
30) Not receive a financial award. Or,
31) Receive a derisory financial award.
32) have their case maladministered by Ombudsman Services:Property.
33) Not serious or persistent breaches of the RICS Rules of Conduct reported to RICS by the Ombudsman.
34) Be confronted with an ombudsman who doesn't appear to know the company's Terms of Reference.
35) Who condones having their name cut and pasted onto reports written by others.
36) Who happens to believe this deception is an effective way of clearing a backlog of cases.
37) No longer have their dissatisfaction with their customer journey documented by Ombudsman Services:Property.
38) Be kept unaware of the RICS continuous monitoring of what they, the RICS, describe as, "the effective resolutions of complaints."
39) Be victims of a negligent disregard for the truth.
40) Be victims of the following:
"To be effective the (redress scheme) must be seen as an impartial arbitrator between parties - currently this does not seem to be the consensus of opinion." (DJS Research: Customer Satisfaction Report)
We asked the Chair of Maladministration at Ombudsman Services, Prof. Dame Janet Finch,
Q 100: Was this bias?
We didn't get an answer.
Q. Mr Javid, is the Ombudsman's apparent bias explained by the need to meet the RICS' Memorandum of Understanding with the company - for the Ombudsman to resolve complaints, "effectively" and that giving a complainant's case a forensic examination - is far from effective?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 446.
446) Bias.
Dear Mr Javid,
It is beyond all reasonable doubt that the Ombudsman Services:Property redress scheme - "approved" and supposedly, "monitored" - by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) are regulated by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) does not "investigate" consumer complaints, "fairly," "speedily" or "independently."
The laws of probability indicate that dissatisfied clients of RICS regulated surveyors will:
1) Be victims of sub-standard surveys.
2) Pay for a service they do not receive.
3) Be victims of inadequate standards of professionalism.
4) Be the recipients of poor advice and service when making expensive purchasing decisions.
5) Not have their phone calls logged in their surveyor's Case File.
6) Not have visits logged in the surveyor's Case File.
7) Not have agreements confirmed in writing by their surveyor or recorded in their surveyor's Case File.
8) Fail to have their complaint resolved before it is escalated to the RICS surveyors' ombudsman.
9) Not be informed by their surveyor that the ombudsman they are being referred to is funded entirely by their case fees and subscriptions.
10) Have their case misrepresented by Ombudsman Services:Property.
11) Have the nature of their case misunderstood by Ombudsman Services:Property.
12) Have their surveyor's evidence withheld from them by Ombudsman Services:Property.
13) Have their surveyor's messages to the staff of Ombudsman Services:Property withheld from them.
14) Have their confidential information handed to their surveyor by Ombudsman Services:Property.
15) Not have their case mediated by Ombudsman Services:Property.
16) Not have their questions answered by Ombudsman Services:Property.
17) Experience delays in the handling of their complaint by Ombudsman Services:Property.
18) Not have their problem resolved by Ombudsman Services:Property.
19) Not have their case resolved through mediation by Ombudsman Services:Property.
20) Disagree with the recommendations suggested by Ombudsman Services:Property.
21) Disagree with the accuracy of their report's recommendations.
22) Discover errors in their Ombudsman Services:Property report.
23) Have their report written by an officer but have the ombudsman's signature cut and pasted to it implying it was investigated by the ombudsman, when it wasn't.
24) Be denied an independent re-survey by Ombudsman Services:Property.
25) Be denied their Human Right to a face to face meeting with the ombudsman by Ombudsman Services:Property.
26) Be denied their Human Right to a meeting held in public by Ombudsman Services:Property.
27) Be forced to gain access to information held on their case by Ombudsman Services:Property, through the Data Protection Act.
28) Be forced into making further representations due to the inaccuracy of Ombudsman Service:Property's reports.
29) Be unsuccessful with these further representations.
30) Not receive a financial award. Or,
31) Receive a derisory financial award.
32) have their case maladministered by Ombudsman Services:Property.
33) Not serious or persistent breaches of the RICS Rules of Conduct reported to RICS by the Ombudsman.
34) Be confronted with an ombudsman who doesn't appear to know the company's Terms of Reference.
35) Who condones having their name cut and pasted onto reports written by others.
36) Who happens to believe this deception is an effective way of clearing a backlog of cases.
37) No longer have their dissatisfaction with their customer journey documented by Ombudsman Services:Property.
38) Be kept unaware of the RICS continuous monitoring of what they, the RICS, describe as, "the effective resolutions of complaints."
39) Be victims of a negligent disregard for the truth.
40) Be victims of the following:
"To be effective the (redress scheme) must be seen as an impartial arbitrator between parties - currently this does not seem to be the consensus of opinion." (DJS Research: Customer Satisfaction Report)
We asked the Chair of Maladministration at Ombudsman Services, Prof. Dame Janet Finch,
Q 100: Was this bias?
We didn't get an answer.
Q. Mr Javid, is the Ombudsman's apparent bias explained by the need to meet the RICS' Memorandum of Understanding with the company - for the Ombudsman to resolve complaints, "effectively" and that giving a complainant's case a forensic examination - is far from effective?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)