To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 467.
.
467) The Rev. Lewis Shand Smith. The Ombudsman Association. Maladministration.
Dear Mr Javid,
We sent the following letter to The Ombudsman Association:
Dear Director,
We did try writing to you earlier in our campaign to complain about the following:
Your Association - The British and Irish Ombudsman Association (BIOA) - clearly state in its Rules that to be an associate member each ombudsman scheme is required to have a Whistleblowing Policy.
This seemed fair and reasonable to us.
One member of your Board, The Rev. Lewis Shand Smith is CEO and Chief Ombudsman for Ombudsman Services. Ombudsman Services does not have a Whistleblowing Policy.
Q Why is The Rev. Lewis Shand Smith a Board Member when the scheme for which he is CEO does not have a Whistleblowing Policy?
Q. Why is Ombudsman Services permitted to remain a member of your organisation when it doesn't have a Whistleblowing Policy?
We were told by the BIOA Secretary that he, "was in the process of reconfirming the membership of all existing members."
In short, you did nothing about the Ombudsman Services deliberate breach of your rules.
It would seem that when a member - The Rev. Lewis Shand Smith's Ombudsman Services - break your rules of membership instead of expelling that member you simply amend the rules to accommodate them. And so it became no longer a requirement for members to have a Whistleblowing Policy.
The British and Irish Ombudsman Association - now rebranded as The Ombudsman Association state in their present day rules;
"The Association will only give recognition to Ombudsman's Offices whose primary role is to handle complaints by individuals about; maladministration, unfair treatment, poor service or other inequitable conduct of those subject to investigation."
(www.ombudsmanassociation.org/docs/ OA-Rules-Schedule1)
You will be shocked to learn that last year the Ombudsman Services Independent Assessor wrote the following;
"I was concerned by the scale and significance of the failings I identified in certain cases.
I was surprised to find such instances of maladministration in an ombudsman organisation."
(For The Good - annual report and accounts 2014-15)
The Independent Assessor was surprised at the scale and significance of maladministration at Ombudsman Services..
We weren't in the least bit surprised because we have had dealings with The Rev. Lewis Shand Smith in the past and so has our MP Oliver Colvile. The scale and significance of the maladministration comes as no surprise to us whatsoever.
However, if the BIOA (now rebranded as The Ombudsman Association) had acted on our earlier complaint a significant number of consumers might have been spared; the inadequate conduct, the poor service, the unfair treatment and the maladministration of their complaints by the Rev Lewis Shand Smith.
Q. What do you intend to do about these instances of maladministration by your Board Chairman? Cover them up - again?
Yours sincerely,
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign at www.logspot.com
Q. Mr Javid, you have a close and continuing relationship with Ombudsman Services. Is the reason why you haven't called for a public inquiry into the governance of this scheme because you have a close and continuing relationship with its maladministrators and are as guilt of maladministration as they are?
This is a fine example of early 21st century rigged market capitalism where executives and colluding politicians have captured the market in private redress at the expense of individual citizens who continue to seek justice in ever increasing numbers but who are being denied it in ever increasing numbers.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Thursday, 21 April 2016
Wednesday, 20 April 2016
Michael Gove Explains, "Cuckoo Conservatism" and "Janet and John Economics..." (466)
.To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 466
Michael Gove would have us believe that,
"For Britain, voting to leave will be a galvanizing, liberating, empowering moment of patriotic renewal...."
but our childlike attentions wandered when we found ourselves in the boot of Mr Gove's car being driven to the outermost regions of Mr Gove's weird, and some might say, slightly unhinged imagination. It's those glasses. They don't help.
Trump has his hair. Gove has his glasses. Hitler had his moustache.
To the Business Secretary.
For Clarity - Attempt 466,
466) Michael Gove Explains, "Cuckoo Conservatism" and "Janet and John Economics..."
In a nutshell, Mr Gove was saying, "trust me I'm a man with impressive black glasses - I'm wearing bifocals when the rest of the world has 20 20 vision."
Q. Mr Javid, the Justice Minister speaks of, "Patriotic Renewal" so where better to start than with a no grace no favours public inquiry into the RICS failure to regulate its Members and (Un)Regulated Firms and the shocking way its private redress company makes money out of maladministering consumers' complaints?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 466
Michael Gove would have us believe that,
"For Britain, voting to leave will be a galvanizing, liberating, empowering moment of patriotic renewal...."
but our childlike attentions wandered when we found ourselves in the boot of Mr Gove's car being driven to the outermost regions of Mr Gove's weird, and some might say, slightly unhinged imagination. It's those glasses. They don't help.
Trump has his hair. Gove has his glasses. Hitler had his moustache.
To the Business Secretary.
For Clarity - Attempt 466,
466) Michael Gove Explains, "Cuckoo Conservatism" and "Janet and John Economics..."
In a nutshell, Mr Gove was saying, "trust me I'm a man with impressive black glasses - I'm wearing bifocals when the rest of the world has 20 20 vision."
Q. Mr Javid, the Justice Minister speaks of, "Patriotic Renewal" so where better to start than with a no grace no favours public inquiry into the RICS failure to regulate its Members and (Un)Regulated Firms and the shocking way its private redress company makes money out of maladministering consumers' complaints?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Friday, 15 April 2016
The Free Press. Regulation. And The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors or RICS. (463)
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 463.
463) The British Free Press. Regulation. And The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors or RICS.
Dear Mr Javid,
When it comes to the subject of regulation - and not just press regulation - large sections of the British Free Press are at their least objective, least reasoned and most partisan. Articles are conspicuous by their absence.
Mere mention of the word, "regulation" and far too many professional journalists morph into hacks.
In an instant they become acutely aware of their mortgage repayments, the tax arrangements of their tax-avoiding absentee employers and their employers' dictum that they didn't get where they are today without breaking a few rules along the way. They write accordingly.
This goes someway in explaining why so much of what is written on the subject of regulation lacks reason, depth or balance and why there is a dearth of critical insight from the press and media into the machinations of The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS).
We assume that the press avoid drawing attention that organisation's serious shortcomings for fear of drawing attention to their own. And so we have a free press that imprisons itself in self censorship when it comes to the subject of regulation..
The RICS state,
"The Royal Charter requires us to promote the usefulness of the profession to the advantage of the UK public."
Their usefulness, professionalism and subsequent advantage to the public are a requirement. Their ability to deliver on this requirement is supposedly monitored by the Privy Council who are put there to act on our behalf and not that of feuding RICS executives.
The Privy Council, on behalf of the UK taxpayer, is required to regulate the RICS who in turn are required to regulate their surveyors but in reality little, if any, of this actually happens with the result that,
"Sometimes an entire market has developed practices that are not working in the consumer's interests. The market in regulating surveyors and estate agents is a case in point. We believe this problem has its origins in The RICS apparent inability to adequately regulate its Members or Regulated Firms." (Consumer Focus)
That entire market just happens to be the rigged housing market.
So, according to one former branch of government (Consumer Focus), the RICS, supposedly monitored by the Privy Council, is unable to regulate its surveyors. Given that the housing market is never out of the news you would think that the fact that RICS can't or won't regulate its surveyors is a matter of huge economic significance and worthy of front page news..
So why isn't it? If you search the internet for;
- articles critical of the RICS,
- academic articles critical of the RICS,
- newspaper articles of the RICS,
- media articles critical of the RICS,
- critiques of the RICS,
you will somewhat amazingly (given their appalling regulatory failings) find virtually nothing.
Here is what we managed to unearth:
1) "The civil war at the RICS is in its fifth year"
"Morrell's speech to the RICS governing council on Monday afternoon was a public dressing down. In a blunt and straightforward fashion - not at all the usual style of conducting internal debate at the RICS - Morrell laid into the institution for its lack of respect for construction and its self-obsession. His description of the institution's Byzantine structure and lack of accountability will ring true with its 30.000 QSs. ..."
Morrell stated that the RICS needed to become,
"more transparent, accountable and representative."
(www.building.co.uk/the-rics-must-come0to-terms.)
What we know so far then is that thanks to the RICS, an entire market is not working in the customer's interests, that they are apparently unable to adequately regulate their surveyors, are Byzantine, self-obsessive and lack transparency and accountability.
Q. Mr Javid, we're told by Government that the RICS were required to promote the usefulness of their profession for the public advantage. How is any of the above "professional" and what advantage does it bring to the public?
2). "Surveying the crisis. How the failure of RICS to regulate surveyors is threatening the sustainable development of our cities." (by George Turner Feb 2016)
In this article Gorge Turner asks why is the planning system failing and how RICS surveyors have captured the system for their clients and why their regulator the RICS must act to restore the public interest.
The RICS has captured one market ie rigged it and allowed/encouraged the development of practices that do not work in the customer's interests.
He points out that regarding development, 10 year plans, "are supposed to ensure a good quality built environment for the public." The emphasis being on the public. However, the reality is somewhat different - it always is when property is involved.
For George Turner the stumbling block facing landowners and their developers is affordable housing. Developers can't afford tenants as they selfishly get in the way of developers' profits. He tells us that, "this requirement (affordable housing) is currently being dismantled by the present Conservative Government" which of course is enabling developers to make, "more money by not providing affordable housing."
The already rich have devised a way of becoming even richer at the expense of those struggling to satisfy a basic human need - providing a roof over their family's head. What's more because of, "Development Vulnerability Testing" the developer's need to achieve a certain profit trumps the housing needs of the general public.
Here is where RICS surveyors come in.
Development Vulnerability Testing rests upon a developer employing, "a surveyor to estimate the cost of building and any future revenue the developer will achieve. The entire system relies on the estimates made by the surveyors, who are paid by the developer."
Furthermore, "councils conduct the process in secret."
This is the perfect recipe for corrupt wealth creation on a massive scale and he cites as an example; the Shell Centre. This involved Knight Frank and Savills, Lambeth Council and their consultant BNP Paribas. Here, "with a single stroke of a pen, the surveyors had increased the value of the building by £323M. Of course none of this was disclosed to the Council or the public."
Panama City comes to the City of London with RICS surveyors capturing the system for their wealthy clients. Yet again the well-heeled walk all-over the down at heel.
Finally, George Turner, in his excellent article asks, "So where is the RICS on this issue? The simple answer is nowhere." He wonders as do all those at the wrong end of the housing crisis if any of this, "is in the public interest?"
Public tenants or private investors. Private investors every time.
Q. Mr Javid, the RICS are nowhere. Is this in the public interest?
3) SNP Accused of "Class War" over land reform.
(Tom Freeman 26th Feb 2015)
The accuser was Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson who sprang to the defence of absentee estate landowners and RICS Scotland. It was her class duty. Firing the first warning shots she said,
"We know the SNP is trying to hide behind shooting estates to turn this in to class war."
It's interesting that the reform of land/property should be seen by Conservatives as "class war" but when it comes to their "reform" of education, "reform" becomes an entirely different matter and seen by them as being "aspirational."
Tom Freeman wrote that, "land reform proposals designed to revitalise Scotland's tenant farming sector have been criticised by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) saying they could, 'trigger unintended consequences.'"
Imagine that. The RICS standing in the way of reform.
What of those on the other side in this Davidsonian "class war" the Scottish tenant farmers? Tom Freeman continued, "however, the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association called the RICS response, 'entirely unrealistic ' and would, 'cut no ice' with the Scottish Government. Chairman Christopher Nicholson said, 'such damning criticism of the Agricultural Holdings Legislation Review Group's Final Report is irresponsible and out of kilter with the wider industry recognition of the need for change. Furthermore it is of great worry for the tenanted sector to see RICS Scotland take this defensive position given that their membership primarily represent landlord interests."
To summarise: in the class war between those who own land and property and those who don't, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) represent the class interests of the former.
Q. Mr Javid, the RICS represent the class interests of the landlords, how is this commensurate with their requirement to benefit the public interest?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The ombudsmans61percent Campaign
For Clarity - Attempt 463.
463) The British Free Press. Regulation. And The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors or RICS.
Dear Mr Javid,
When it comes to the subject of regulation - and not just press regulation - large sections of the British Free Press are at their least objective, least reasoned and most partisan. Articles are conspicuous by their absence.
Mere mention of the word, "regulation" and far too many professional journalists morph into hacks.
In an instant they become acutely aware of their mortgage repayments, the tax arrangements of their tax-avoiding absentee employers and their employers' dictum that they didn't get where they are today without breaking a few rules along the way. They write accordingly.
This goes someway in explaining why so much of what is written on the subject of regulation lacks reason, depth or balance and why there is a dearth of critical insight from the press and media into the machinations of The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS).
We assume that the press avoid drawing attention that organisation's serious shortcomings for fear of drawing attention to their own. And so we have a free press that imprisons itself in self censorship when it comes to the subject of regulation..
The RICS state,
"The Royal Charter requires us to promote the usefulness of the profession to the advantage of the UK public."
Their usefulness, professionalism and subsequent advantage to the public are a requirement. Their ability to deliver on this requirement is supposedly monitored by the Privy Council who are put there to act on our behalf and not that of feuding RICS executives.
The Privy Council, on behalf of the UK taxpayer, is required to regulate the RICS who in turn are required to regulate their surveyors but in reality little, if any, of this actually happens with the result that,
"Sometimes an entire market has developed practices that are not working in the consumer's interests. The market in regulating surveyors and estate agents is a case in point. We believe this problem has its origins in The RICS apparent inability to adequately regulate its Members or Regulated Firms." (Consumer Focus)
That entire market just happens to be the rigged housing market.
So, according to one former branch of government (Consumer Focus), the RICS, supposedly monitored by the Privy Council, is unable to regulate its surveyors. Given that the housing market is never out of the news you would think that the fact that RICS can't or won't regulate its surveyors is a matter of huge economic significance and worthy of front page news..
So why isn't it? If you search the internet for;
- articles critical of the RICS,
- academic articles critical of the RICS,
- newspaper articles of the RICS,
- media articles critical of the RICS,
- critiques of the RICS,
you will somewhat amazingly (given their appalling regulatory failings) find virtually nothing.
Here is what we managed to unearth:
1) "The civil war at the RICS is in its fifth year"
"Morrell's speech to the RICS governing council on Monday afternoon was a public dressing down. In a blunt and straightforward fashion - not at all the usual style of conducting internal debate at the RICS - Morrell laid into the institution for its lack of respect for construction and its self-obsession. His description of the institution's Byzantine structure and lack of accountability will ring true with its 30.000 QSs. ..."
Morrell stated that the RICS needed to become,
"more transparent, accountable and representative."
(www.building.co.uk/the-rics-must-come0to-terms.)
What we know so far then is that thanks to the RICS, an entire market is not working in the customer's interests, that they are apparently unable to adequately regulate their surveyors, are Byzantine, self-obsessive and lack transparency and accountability.
Q. Mr Javid, we're told by Government that the RICS were required to promote the usefulness of their profession for the public advantage. How is any of the above "professional" and what advantage does it bring to the public?
2). "Surveying the crisis. How the failure of RICS to regulate surveyors is threatening the sustainable development of our cities." (by George Turner Feb 2016)
In this article Gorge Turner asks why is the planning system failing and how RICS surveyors have captured the system for their clients and why their regulator the RICS must act to restore the public interest.
The RICS has captured one market ie rigged it and allowed/encouraged the development of practices that do not work in the customer's interests.
He points out that regarding development, 10 year plans, "are supposed to ensure a good quality built environment for the public." The emphasis being on the public. However, the reality is somewhat different - it always is when property is involved.
For George Turner the stumbling block facing landowners and their developers is affordable housing. Developers can't afford tenants as they selfishly get in the way of developers' profits. He tells us that, "this requirement (affordable housing) is currently being dismantled by the present Conservative Government" which of course is enabling developers to make, "more money by not providing affordable housing."
The already rich have devised a way of becoming even richer at the expense of those struggling to satisfy a basic human need - providing a roof over their family's head. What's more because of, "Development Vulnerability Testing" the developer's need to achieve a certain profit trumps the housing needs of the general public.
Here is where RICS surveyors come in.
Development Vulnerability Testing rests upon a developer employing, "a surveyor to estimate the cost of building and any future revenue the developer will achieve. The entire system relies on the estimates made by the surveyors, who are paid by the developer."
Furthermore, "councils conduct the process in secret."
This is the perfect recipe for corrupt wealth creation on a massive scale and he cites as an example; the Shell Centre. This involved Knight Frank and Savills, Lambeth Council and their consultant BNP Paribas. Here, "with a single stroke of a pen, the surveyors had increased the value of the building by £323M. Of course none of this was disclosed to the Council or the public."
Panama City comes to the City of London with RICS surveyors capturing the system for their wealthy clients. Yet again the well-heeled walk all-over the down at heel.
Finally, George Turner, in his excellent article asks, "So where is the RICS on this issue? The simple answer is nowhere." He wonders as do all those at the wrong end of the housing crisis if any of this, "is in the public interest?"
Public tenants or private investors. Private investors every time.
Q. Mr Javid, the RICS are nowhere. Is this in the public interest?
3) SNP Accused of "Class War" over land reform.
(Tom Freeman 26th Feb 2015)
The accuser was Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson who sprang to the defence of absentee estate landowners and RICS Scotland. It was her class duty. Firing the first warning shots she said,
"We know the SNP is trying to hide behind shooting estates to turn this in to class war."
It's interesting that the reform of land/property should be seen by Conservatives as "class war" but when it comes to their "reform" of education, "reform" becomes an entirely different matter and seen by them as being "aspirational."
Tom Freeman wrote that, "land reform proposals designed to revitalise Scotland's tenant farming sector have been criticised by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) saying they could, 'trigger unintended consequences.'"
Imagine that. The RICS standing in the way of reform.
What of those on the other side in this Davidsonian "class war" the Scottish tenant farmers? Tom Freeman continued, "however, the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association called the RICS response, 'entirely unrealistic ' and would, 'cut no ice' with the Scottish Government. Chairman Christopher Nicholson said, 'such damning criticism of the Agricultural Holdings Legislation Review Group's Final Report is irresponsible and out of kilter with the wider industry recognition of the need for change. Furthermore it is of great worry for the tenanted sector to see RICS Scotland take this defensive position given that their membership primarily represent landlord interests."
To summarise: in the class war between those who own land and property and those who don't, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) represent the class interests of the former.
Q. Mr Javid, the RICS represent the class interests of the landlords, how is this commensurate with their requirement to benefit the public interest?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The ombudsmans61percent Campaign
Tuesday, 12 April 2016
Flashman Jr. To Be Expelled From Big Society's Biggest Club House?! (460)
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign at: www.blogger.com
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 460
460) Flashman Jr. To Be Expelled From Big Society's Biggest Club House?!
Dear Mr Javid,
It seems wholly inappropriate that The Beast of Bolsover should be turfed out of the home of The Mother Of All Democracies for merely speaking what many take to be the truth - that Flashman Jr. is a dodgy geezer. Wouldn't it have been fairer if poor Dennis Skinner MP had remained in situ and The Speaker had instead insisted that Mr Cameron leave the Chamber to sit on the naughty step and reflect on his "team's" arrogant attempt to dismiss the P.M.'s tax affairs as merely being, "a private matter" when quite clearly they weren't?
No doubt conniving conservative conspirators are busily plotting his "Camexit" from No.10 as we write.
Transparency?
On the 3rd April 2013, Francis Maude announced to the world that;
"My Government is committed to transparency - it is at the heart of our reforming agenda in the UK."
The mere fact that this small and belated degree of transparency - from a party boasting that transparency would be at the heart of what it did - had to be dragged screaming out into the open in this way speaks volumes for the Big Closed Society we now live in and Francis Maude's ability to talk utter shite.
Unsurprisingly, Francis Maude hasn't stepped up to the mark and hasn't published his tax returns. So no; heart, guts, leadership or transparency there.
Q. Mr Javid, if the Prime Minister, Chancellor, Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Chancellor can all publish their tax returns in a New Golden Age of Transparency, why can't Ombudsman Services publish a full, open and transparent account of how they maladminister consumers' complaints?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
To the Business Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 460
460) Flashman Jr. To Be Expelled From Big Society's Biggest Club House?!
Dear Mr Javid,
It seems wholly inappropriate that The Beast of Bolsover should be turfed out of the home of The Mother Of All Democracies for merely speaking what many take to be the truth - that Flashman Jr. is a dodgy geezer. Wouldn't it have been fairer if poor Dennis Skinner MP had remained in situ and The Speaker had instead insisted that Mr Cameron leave the Chamber to sit on the naughty step and reflect on his "team's" arrogant attempt to dismiss the P.M.'s tax affairs as merely being, "a private matter" when quite clearly they weren't?
No doubt conniving conservative conspirators are busily plotting his "Camexit" from No.10 as we write.
Transparency?
On the 3rd April 2013, Francis Maude announced to the world that;
"My Government is committed to transparency - it is at the heart of our reforming agenda in the UK."
The mere fact that this small and belated degree of transparency - from a party boasting that transparency would be at the heart of what it did - had to be dragged screaming out into the open in this way speaks volumes for the Big Closed Society we now live in and Francis Maude's ability to talk utter shite.
Unsurprisingly, Francis Maude hasn't stepped up to the mark and hasn't published his tax returns. So no; heart, guts, leadership or transparency there.
Q. Mr Javid, if the Prime Minister, Chancellor, Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Chancellor can all publish their tax returns in a New Golden Age of Transparency, why can't Ombudsman Services publish a full, open and transparent account of how they maladminister consumers' complaints?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Sunday, 27 March 2016
Ombudsman Services: Nicky Morgan - A Modern Day, "Wrecker." (459)
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)