Gaslighting By British Gas

"It is better to content oneself with other more modest and less exiting truths, those one acquires painfully, little by little and without shortcuts, with study, discussion, and reasoning, those that can be verified and demonstrated." ― Primo Levi, If This Is a Man • The Truce Dear Mr Jamieson, Thank you for your most recent reply to my complaint with British Gas. You wrote: "23 February 2022 Complaint Reference: 8013254135 Dear Mr Stephen Gilbert HomeCare Reference: 910003910069 Thank you for your email on 04 February 2022 and for the communication received via your Local MP Luke Pollard with regards to the service you received from British Gas Services Limited. As a member of our Executive Office within Customer Relations, I was asked to respond. Please accept my apologies that the level of service you have experienced was not to the standard you were expecting. Your Complaint and Outcome You raised concerns that you waited for an engineer to attend on 09 December 2021 and were disappointed that no visit took place. You were further frustrated that a report on our system shows that an engineer did attend and carried out work. British Gas advisors had maintained that an engineer attended which caused frustration. In addition, you experienced further broken appointments. Having investigated this matter, I would like to apologise for the time spent and stress caused by this situation. 1) You appear to have omitted the most serious and worrying parts of my complaint. They are a) being gaslighted by British Gas employees and complaints handlers and b) British Gas Safeguarding issues. Given the 1000s of missed appointments by British Gas contractors these matters must be treated seriously. YOUR MOST RECENT RESPONSE: My Investigation "From our records, I can see that an appointment was raised on 01 October 2021 for 29 October 2021. This was moved in advance of the appointment on 22 October 2021 to 15 December 2021. I noted that the visit was brought forward on 01 November 2021 for 22 November 2021. I am sorry that the visit was rescheduled a second time on 19 November 2021 for 09 December 2021. Your dissatisfaction was recorded on our systems: reference 8012858302 on 29 October 2021, 8012862120 on 01 November 2021 and under 8012937819 on 19 November 2021. A £50 goodwill payment was issued as an apology on 23 November 2021. I am sorry that you were repeatedly let down." 2) Thank you for your apology for my repeatedly being let down by British Gas. However, Ofgem say that an automatic payment of £30 should be made with an additional £30 being paid if the money isn't paid within 10 days. Can I ask why this didn't happen and why I had to make a complaint? 3) Why wasn't this automatically paid into my account? 4) Are they really "goodwill" gestures? 5) I can't find anywhere on your website or in my account mention of this compensation scheme insisted upon by Ofgem. Have I been looking in the wrong place? "The work history on our system has logged an engineer report on 09 December 2021. The report outlines that an engineer attended 57 Somerset Place where boiler safety checks were completed and a fan replaced. On 09 December 2021 a complaint reference 801019081 was raised to log your dissatisfaction than no engineer had attended. A second complaint reference 8013020197 was raised on 09 December 2021 also. I am sorry that despite our records showing that an appointment took place, no engineer visited the property." 6) I asked British Gas on Thursday 9thDecember what had happened to it contractor but didn't receive a reply. Hence my complaint. Unfortunately, British Gas are still unable to say what caused this to be logged as a visit when on the same day I'd contacted British Gas to say this had not happened. This must surely raise serious concerns about British Gas's failure to safeguard their customers. I regret the delay in our contacting you to discuss your concerns. When a complaint is raised, we aim to respond as quickly as possible. However, our response time can depend on the volume of communications we receive where it can take time to work through these. 7) I still cannot understand why this was ever allowed to happen given I'd taken the time and trouble to alert you about these matters on the very same day and as you say, it was logged by British Gas - on the same day. "Online chat teams updated the complaint notes on 10 & 17 December 2021 as well as 26 January 2022. We have also received your resolver communications. The complaint record was issued to a Customer Manager who spoke with you on 31 January 2022. I have listened to the telephone call where our Customer Manager discussed concerns with the boiler being recently installed but not having its service completed in time. A previous visit on 03 November 2021 was discussed. You were also concerned about sludge being found in the system when you recently bled the system. The appointment had been moved a second time on 26 January 2022 where you waited in for an engineer, received appointment updates but no visit took place. However, the fact that no engineer attended the property on 09 December was the focus of the conversation." 8) 53 days after I had told British Gas that their contractor hadn't arrived for an appointment I was phoned out-of-the-blue and told by Chika Robert that an engineer had actually been in my home servicing a boiler and even carrying out a small repair to it. As you had logged the information I'd given to you on the very day your engineer didn't arrive why did Chika Robert phone me to tell me he had? This is gaslighting surely. 9) Why do British Gas phone their customers out-of-the-blue? 10) Why isn't an initial response put in writing and a time allocated with your customers/complainants to discuss the issues over the phone if necessary? 11) GASLIGHTING: Why have you not addressed this part of my complaint in full? 12) Do you not agree that when a complaints handler contacts a complainant in such a way and then attempts to close the complaint by telling the complainant there was someone in their home when there wasn't, that this is gaslighting especially when the complaint handler made information at her disposal? 13) If this isn't gaslighting by British Gas what is it? 14) How was Julie Olsen able to come to a totally different - and accurate - explanation for what had happened when the exact same information must have been available to her as it was to all your complaints handlers? The manager accepted that it was unclear if an engineer had attended on 09 December 2021. They apologised, confirmed the rescheduled service visit on 29 March 2022 and promised to add a repair for the engineer to look at sludge in the system. 15) Mr Jamieson, you haven't explained how Julie Olsen understood the complexity of the situation but her three other colleagues didn't. When a British Gas customer is repeatedly being told that there are contractors in their home when there aren't - multiple gaslighting - doesn't this indicate that an inquiry needs to be set-up to determine what really is going on at British Gas and the way it handles customers' complaints? 16) In her letter to me dated 31 January 2022 Chika Robert apologises for your poor service levels but not for telling me that a British Gas contractor was in my home carrying out a service and repairs when he wasn't. The key issue of my complaint - gaslighting by British Gas - was ignored by her in her response to my complaint. Was she under instructions to place greater trust in the contractor's version of events over mine? 17) After my conversation with Chicka Robert I checked diaries/emails/etc and contacted British Gas only to be told by two other complaints handlers that a British Gas contractor was in my home on the 9th December servicing my boiler and carrying out repairs. The exact same thing happened again. Were these complaints handlers under instructions to place greater trust in their contractor's version of events over mine? Is this not gaslighting by British Gas's complaint handlers? And if not why not? The Manager agreed that we had let you down on 09 December 2021 and promised to send an email/letter of apology and another confirming the information we hold for 09 December 2021. With these sent, the complaint record was closed with customer agreement. 18) I checked my diaries/emails/mobile phone photographs and re-opened the case the next day. This was because I believed I was being gaslighted by British Gas. As I said in 15) above why was Julie Olsen the only complaints handler not to gaslight me? 19) Are you able to say what percentage of your disputes are settled in the 8th week? And are all complainants cold-called? Wouldn't it be far better to send complainants an email or letter thus giving them the opportunity to sit down and think about the information in front of them? One of the emails sent was a confirmation of the appointment report from 09 December 2021. This was sent in good faith by the advisor, rather than as an attempt to convince you that an engineer had attended contrary to your complaint. While I am sorry for the upset this email caused, the manager you spoke with did not dispute that no engineer attended. 20) Given that I had phoned/CHATTED/emailed British Gas on Thursday 9th December 2021 to ask why their contractor had failed to keep and appointment and it had been logged, can you please explain why such a misleading email was still sent? Due to the nature of your concerns, I have discussed the matter with our engineers Customer Delivery Manager. The engineer in question is a trusted contractor. Due to the time that has passed, the engineer cannot recall the specific appointment. With our records updated to show an appointment being kept with a repair made, the only conclusion the engineer could reach is that he made an error when updating his appointment reports or a technical fault affected his submitting the report. 21) This is from my earlier email to you: When I complained to British Gas at 18.48 on the 9th December 2021 my email asked: "The 12.00 text message stated: 'Your engineer is on schedule and will contact you when you are next' And 'Your engineer is trying to get to you before 1pm but might be late. We will let you know if it changes' It then said how to track progress. I tried to do this but couldn't as my appointment had not been entered into my account. This just never happened. Why didn't you let me know that this had changed? If my engineer was on schedule, where was he/she?" I was clear on the day that the visit hadn't gone ahead because I phoned / CHATTED and emailed British Gas to say it hadn't. Why hadn't my appointment been entered into my account so that I would have been able to monitor his progress? What human error caused this to happen before your contractor failed to turn up for the scheduled appointment? This could be seen as British Gas covering-up for the still non-explained non-attendance of their contractor - something the report and closed appointment record will have shown. This is why I am requesting it through my Data Protection Act request. I respect that our customers prefer to have British Gas direct engineers attend. However, our terms and conditions note that we do can use contractors to help us be there for our customers. Please be assured that we have the same service expectations from all our employees. Based upon or Customer Delivery Managers working knowledge of the engineer who has been with us for several years, he does not believe that the appointment record was deliberately falsified. The situation has been discussed following our internal procedure for feedback. This is to ensure mistakes are learned from. Please be assured that this will not be repeated. No outcome of this feedback can be provided as this is privileged information. 22) I see from various websites including yours and Ofgem's that 1000s of British Gas appointments are being missed. British Gas also don't know for sure where their contractors are or what they are doing. You've also said in your reply to my complaint that the technology at their disposal can sometimes let them down. On top of that when your customers contact you in an attempt to sort out the chaos and their contributions are logged into the system, things still go wrong. Given this set of circumstances, how can you continue to guarantee your customers' safeguarding when your present systems are prone to go wrong? "To be clear, Based upon the information at hand and rather than dispute the situation: I agree that we did not attend on 09 December 2021 and that our records were not accurately updated due to an error. This was a mistake due to human and system error on our part. I respect the frustration this has caused and sincerely apologise for it." 23) Could you please clarify what you say here. What information do you have at hand that could possibly lead you to "dispute the situation?" To dispute the situation would seem to suggest that you think it was possible that your contractor was in my home after all. "I am further sorry that this experience has shaken your confidence in British Gas and that you doubt our commitment to customer safety. Please be assured that we take the safety and well-being of our customers extremely seriously. I agree that mistakes have been made with the broken appointments on 09 December 2021, 26 January 2022 and with a completed work report being submitted in error on 09 December 2021. However, I want to emphases that this does not equate to compromising our customer safety." 24) I am sorry but I disagree you over the matter of customer safety. In this day and age and with a CEO on a £1.1M bonus this shocking record of broken appointments simply shouldn't be happening. British Gas have a situation in which it doesn't know where its contractors are or what they are doing, contractors who are very forgetful, equipment that appears to breakdown at the critical time, reports that are inaccurate and a complaints handling system that waits to the last minute and gaslights customers out-of-the-blue. British Gas's current systems would seem to put customers' safety at a very great risk indeed. "You were disappointed that we could not advise where the engineer had been on 09 December 2022. While the engineer understandably cannot recall each and every appointment from some months ago; the engineer was working through his appointment schedule. As the engineer was a trusted contractor we do not have van tracking data for him. While a large number of engineers have GPS van tracking, we cannot promise this for every occasion a colleague attends an appointment. Having no tracker data does not constitute a safety risk. While an error with your report was made, this does not undermine the engineers actions with other customers or the integrity of our UK-wide staff. " 25) Mr Jamieson, because you still cannot advise me where your engineer was on 09 December 2021 doesn't this serve to underline just how unsafe your present systems are when it comes to guaranteeing the safety of British Gas's customers? 26) I believe these matters need a much wider airing and then consumers can come to their own conclusions about such important issues as; trust, safety and integrity. As I said to Julie Olsen this could all be the result of a series of errors. I further regret that you feel lied to about the appointment taking place on 09 December 2021 by web chat or telephone advisors. 27) I should like to make it very clear that I don't feel "lied" to. It's not a word I would ever use and so you have no need to feel regret. I'm surprised that having listened to my conversations with your complaints handlers, especially with Julie Olsen, you would choose to use such a word. It's also why I've always had my quote from Primo Levi with me since the 1980s. There seems to be no shortcut to finding the truth and in my experience calling people liars is never helpful. "Based upon our communications with you, I do not believe that colleagues have attempted to deliberately mislead you regarding this. When reviewing work history, our frontline colleagues can view appointment records on a customer’s account. In advising that we have a report from 09 December 2021, our colleagues have been outlining the information on our records with the best of intentions of being honest. Unfortunately, detailed investigation was required to appreciate that the report on 09 December 2021 was incorrect. I am sorry that you had to wait for this to be carried out" 28) As I have said above you haven't explained how Julie Olsen was able to see what her colleagues couldn't. It was the same information after all. 29) If this information was automatically uploaded onto your customers' accounts and kept there surely such misunderstandings would become a thing of the past? "I am mindful that when our Customer Relations Team spoke with you on 31 January 2021, the manager did not dispute your concern that the engineer did not attend. Additionally, a further advisor, Julie, spoke with you on 04 to 10 February 2022 and also did not dispute your concerns; nor have I. While I understand your disappointment with British Gas, I do not agree that the term gas lighting reflect the events. We have made honest mistakes which we have openly accepted and are attempting to correct them. Our staff have apologised multiple times. This is the very opposite of dishonesty." 30) Mr Jamieson, I assume you've never been the victim of gaslighting. When out-of-the-blue you're cold-called and told someone actually was in your home servicing your boiler and carrying out minor repairs to it when on the same day that you'd contacted British Gas to ask where their contractor had gotten to - you go into a state of shock. Your brain freezes and you're only half listening to what's being said. The other half of the time you're thinking, "did I let him in and then go and phone British Gas to ask where he was?" That is really unsettling and upsetting. That's gaslighting. 31) The day after being cold-called by Chika Robert and told there was someone in my home when there wasn't I spoke with two other complaints handlers who both said the same thing. There had been a British Gas contractor in my home when I had said there wasn't. This is gaslighting. They didn't preface their comments with "there seems to be some confusion" or "your account is very different to our contractor's." Both told me: there was someone in your home carrying out a service and a minor repair, when I knew that wasn't true. Transcripts/copies of those phone conversations would be most helpful. 32) On this point you still haven't been able to explain to me how Julie Olsen was able to hold a totally different conversation with me when she must have had exactly the same information in font of her as her colleagues. Could you please do so. "Our staff have apologised multiple times. This is the very opposite of dishonesty." 33) I had a written apology from Chika Robert but there was no mention of my complaint about gaslighting. Julie Olsen had no need to apologise for anything. The two other complaints handlers didn't apologise - but I need the transcripts to be sure. And you have apologised for your poor service standards but don't believe I have been gaslighted - which in itself could be construed as gaslighting. To get to the truth of this others would need to investigate what happened, discuss the issues and make reasoned decisions based on what can be verified and demonstrated. I don't think I've been apologised to multiple times. 34) In this response to my complaint you have introduced the words "lied" and "dishonesty." Which is unfortunate. I have contented myself with slowly trying to get to the truth of what went on based on the one hard fact I have - that there never was a British Gas contractor in my home on Thursday 9th December 2021 although a number of British Gas's employees say there was. I understand this to be - gaslighting. But you don't. My conversation with Julie Olsen, which I assume you've listened to, consisted of me saying there must have a series of misunderstandings of confusions and failures to accurately record events. And that these coincidences are all we have to go on. I said all the engineers who'd visited my home had been good and the one who came on the 3rd of November was excellent. And why couldn't all complaints handlers be like her? 35) It does mean however, that unmonitored British Gas contractors are submitting claims for work that hasn't been carried out. Could you please respond to that and explain how that safeguards British Gas's customers? Please be assured that this complaint has been logged on your account with a detailed case file attached. It has been discussed at senior levels and with the employees concerned. With this in mind, every effort to record an accurate investigation and log of events has been taken. Thank you for your feedback about our website, appointment updates on customers online account, customer access to web chat logs and communications with us. At present we are updating our appointment, telephone and online systems. This will provide a transformative service both for our staff and customers. I am confident that you will see a marked improvement when these changes are fully implemented." 36) I'm glad you fell my feed back has been so positive and that marked improvements and changes to your service are on the way. My Conclusion "We communicated by email from 19 February 2022. While a financial sum can rarely reflect the frustration caused, an apology for the impact of the two missed appointments and customer service received, I promised to issue a £150 goodwill payment. I am sorry that we were unable to reach agreement on this matter. Following our internal process for complaint review, I issued your concerns to my Senior Customer Manager Cassie to consider. Cassie agrees that our response is justified." 37) There remains a degree of confusion over what Ofgem say should happen in these circumstances and what you have called "goodwill" payments. If Ofgem's guidelines are right shouldn't I have automatically received two £30 payments for missed appointments plus another two £30 payments for them not being paid on time. That would make £120.00. 38) I will have to content myself with getting to this stage of my complaint but with some important questions still unanswered. Because, regrettably, I feel you have failed to adequately address my complaint about being Gaslighted by British Gas and the safeguarding issues raised by having contractors you have little control over, it would be wrong to accept your goodwill gesture of £150. "I respect that you have received contact from the Financial Ombudsman Service through the online complaints tool Resolver. However, as your products with us are not insurance products, we do not give permission for the Financial Ombudsman Service to investigate the situation. Details on the Utilities ADR are included below." 39) Throughout this complaint I did wonder how Martin Lewis's Resolver worked and now I know. Not very well. I will now be contacting him and seeking his help in this matter. I’d like to thank you for your patience and for allowing me the time to respond to your complaint. I will issue a cheque for £150 to you within 14 working days. While I appreciate that this is not the outcome you had hoped for, please consider this our final position on the matter. 40) Thank you for acknowledging my patience in this matter. My Primo Levi quote has helped guide me through some difficult stages of my customer journey through life. If I'm automatically entitled to Ofgem's £120 (as I understand it) that would be fine. As my complaint is now about to head elsewhere it would wholly wrong to accept your goodwill gesture. The £20,400 compensation claim will have to go on hold for the meantime. You can refer your complaint to the Utilities ADR. Utilities ADR contact details are as follows if you require them: Web address: www.utilitiesadr.co.uk Email: enquiries@cdrl.org.uk Telephone: 020 3540 8063 Post: Utilities ADR 12-14 Walker Avenue Stratford Office Village Wolverton Mill Milton Keynes MK12 5TW If there is anything further that you would like to bring to my attention that has not already been considered, or if anything mentioned above is incorrect, you can speak to me or a member of my team on 0333 202 3307 between 0900 and 1700 Monday to Friday. You can also email me at stuart.jamieson@britishgas.co.uk. Yours sincerely Stuart Jamieson Customer Manager Executive Office Stuart Jamieson|Executive Office Customer Manager|Executive Office Customer Relations| ( 0333 202 3307 |* stuart.jamieson@britishgas.co.uk|British Gas Services Best wishes. Steve Gilbert.

The Legal Ombudsman - Judge&Priestly

Dear Legal Ombudsman, I believe that your decision not to investigate Judge&Priestly is profoundly wrong. It is profoundly wrong for the following reasons: 1) It makes a mockery of the notion that under UK law all Her Majesty's subjects are innocent until they are proven guilty. 2) It gives a green light for firms such as Judge&Priestly to operate in the appalling way they do. 3) It allows firms such as Judge&Priestly to treat anyone who is not a client of theirs as little more than a common criminal. 4) In doing so it legitimises; bullying, intimidation, defamation and offence. 5) The decision not to investigate Judge&Priestly is profoundly undemocratic. 6) It encourages firms such as Judge&Priestly to use the law as a cudgel. 7) It also encourages Judge&Priestly's paymaster - British Gas - to behave in the way it does because ultimately, there are no sanctions. This isn't justice. But is does very effectively help rig the legal marketplace to favour the strong and powerful over the weak and powerless. Yours sincerely Steve Gilbert.

The EHRC Report Into Antisemitism in the Labour Party - A Reply by The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.

Dear Reader, "It is better to content oneself with other more modest and less exciting truths, those one acquires painfully, little by little and without shortcuts, with study, discussion and reasoning, those that can be verified and demonstrated." Primo Levi: The Truce. p 397. Those responsible for The EHRC report into antisemitism in the Labour Party would have done well to have had Primo Levi's sentence printed on its first page and followed his sage advice word for word. Under it the EHRC needed to have stated clearly what they understood antisemitism to be and how it applied that understanding consistently when reaching what should have been carefully reasoned decisions in each and every one of the 70 cases it claims to have investigated. The British public got neither. Being a report into antisemitism there needed to be a clear statement as to what the EHRC take that to be. However, the first time The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism is mentioned is on p 27. It is also described as being The IHRA Definition of Antisemitism something which it is not. It isn't discussed until Annex 3. And then in a limited way. In Annex 3 the EHRC say they, "explain: when the Labour Party is responsible for the conduct of its agents, and the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism and its impact on our investigation." The key word, "Working" has again been dropped. To restore lost confidence the EHRC need to explain why they use the two interchangeably and to acknowledge Prof Stephen Sedley's observation that it fails the first test of any definition in being indefinite. (1) The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism states, "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities." "A certain perception." One can see what Prof Sedley means. The EHRC continue with, "The IHRA also provides illustrative and contemporary examples of antisemitism. Some concerns have been raised about aspects of the IHRA approach." "Some concerns?" This is hardly an honest appraisal of the huge controversy surrounding the resurrection of the IHRA working definition from the dustbin of history. Kenneth Stern's reasoned criticism of it is a good place to start. After all he wrote it (2). Others expressing far more than just, "some" concerns are; Independent Jewish Voices Canada (3) and Anthony Lerman (4) Why has the EHRC chosen to gloss over/downplay the issue of the fierce controversy surrounding the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism? Perhaps Kenneth Stern provided the answer when he said, "Rightwing Jews are weaponising it." This is the Jewish author of the Working Definition expressing far more than just, "some concerns" as the EHRC would have us believe. But why is the EHRC taking such a shortcut? And how does it affect the EHRC report? The report's biggest failing is that it does not do what it demands of the Labour Party. On p5 they state, "we have not seen all of the evidence on which the conclusions in the leaked report were based." Yet when it comes to the vast majority of the 70 cases the EHRC "investigated" we too - the public - have not seen all of the evidence on which the EHRC investigators base their judgements. The truth of the matter is that we hardly see any evidence at all. Only three cases are discussed in any sort of detail. They are those of: Ken Livingstone, Pam Bromley and Chris Williamson. But in the latter's case it is unclear as what exactly he is supposed to have done wrong. His name is mentioned. Holocaust Denial is mentioned as is supporting un-named suspended members. But what the exact link between Chris Williamson and antisemitism is - is never clearly stated. This simply isn't good enough. On p7 of the report it says, "We found that the complaints process was not properly resourced and those responsible for it were not trained to the necessary standard." (7) On p10 the EHRC criticises Labour for, "unclear decision-making by the NEC and NCC." But where is the clear decision making in 67 of the cases they spent 18 months investigating? It is conspicuous by its absence. We don't know who said what. However we do know where it was said - 59 of the cases were about allegations of antisemitism on social media. We know absolutely nothing about these cases. Were the un-named individuals who wrote the IHRA report, "trained to the necessary standard?" Or was it a conscious decision by the EHRC to deliberately withhold the information? Or both? The EHRC could have followed its own advice and anonymised the data as it demanded the Labour Party do. It didn't. Given that we have been provided with NO information on the bulk of the cases determined or how decisions were arrived at, it is safe to say the EHRC were themselves were not trained to the necessary standard. Because a necessary standard according to them requires clear, reasoned, transparent and consistent decisions. Decisions that be verified and demonstrated. On p9 we're told there was, "a lack of a clear and fair process for respondents." But where was the EHRC's clear and fair process when arriving at its decisions? The 68 remaining cases should have been presented like those of Ken Livingstone and Pam Bromley. Why weren't they? P10 and the complaint here is that there was, "poor record-keeping: this was evident in 62 of the 70 files in our sample." Yet in the vast majority of its cases there are no records at all. Just invisible people who have allegedly done invisible things. No small truths here that have been reasoned, demonstrated and verified. Only 2 out of the EHRC's 70 cases meet their own exacting standards. Or 2.8%. P13 and the EHRC say, "Rebuilding trust and confidence in antisemitism complaint handling The Labour Party must rebuild trust and confidence that antisemitism complaints are handled independently, lawfully, efficiently and effectively." But has the EHRC itself handled all 70 cases, independently, lawfully, efficiently and effectively? Apart from the 2.6% we don't know. Where's the evidence? They appear to have effectively buried it. They expect Labour to have in place, "what will be considered an appropriate sanction for different types of proven antisemitic conduct" and yet offer no examples of what that might entail. Each case could have been provided with just such an example. It is a failing of this report that they weren't. We discuss trust in the EHRC later in our reply to the report. The similarity with how Ombudsman Services:Property, "investigated" complaints is remarkable. What confidence can the public have in the EHRC when it has failed to clearly demonstrate, "proven antisemitic conduct" in the bulk of the cases it investigated? Legally, the Labour Party will be expected to, "Collect, analyse, and publish quarterly data." Once again we should like to ask, where is the analysis of the data the EHRC collected when compiling its report? How many cases of antisemitism have there been in total since 2015 and how did the EHRC's investigators categorise them? Of the 70 cases "investigated" by the EHRC how many were of Holocaust Denial? How many were ones of calling Zionists - "Zios?" We don't know because they don't say. The media are adamant - antisemitism is everywhere in the Labour Party. Yet in the EHRC report it was found it in 2.86% of cases. They also say, "We also highlighted the range and volume of antisemitic conduct across the complaint sample". (p32) Range and volume? Where? We've read the report twice and we can't find that information. It isn't collated in one place. There is no Annex dedicated to a statistical breakdown and analysis of the range and volume of antisemitic conduct the EHRC discovered. This is not efficiency. It's as if what little evidence they have found has been scattered around the report in order to confuse the reader. Perhaps that's what they mean by efficiency? P28 and the EHRC is at pains to stress that, "Suggesting that complaints of antisemitism are fake or smears. Labour Party agents denied antisemitism in the Party and made comments dismissing complaints as ‘smears’ and ‘fake’. This conduct may target Jewish members as deliberately making up antisemitism complaints to undermine the Labour Party, and ignores legitimate and genuine complaints of antisemitism in the Party. These comments went beyond simply describing the agents’ own personal experience of antisemitism in the Party." We have every confidence that Primo Levi would have wanted to verify that claim by resorting to a careful study of the evidence. The only problem is - The EHRC don't provide it. They have provided little or no data on who made the bulk of the complaints. For example - did these complaints of antisemitism come from lots of individuals or a small group? Given the enormity of what is at stake such an omission is beyond careless. P30. The EHRC claim, "Some of the unwanted conduct took place on social media." But according to the EHRC's own figures 59 of the 70 cases, "took place on social media." That's 82.49%. By our calculation that isn't, "some." That's "most." Why are the few statistics that were made available by the EHRC for scrutiny being distorted in this way? They, too, are shortcuts. But not to the truth. The report is constructed around sentences like this one, "An effective complaints process must be fair, impartial and transparent. Decisions on complaints should be made through specified formal processes, based on a fair and objective assessment of the facts." (p42) But we have no real idea as to how the EHRC arrived at its decisions. Instead we are expected to take what they say on trust. Shortcuts can also take the form of shadowy figures offering their unsubstantiated insights eg, "one former GLU staff member described Thomas Gardiner as ..." (p48) And, "although we have seem some evidence ... does not appear ... as extensive, systematic.." (54) This is a report paid for by the taxpayer. We need to know: who is the person - what is the evidence? We felt tempted at this point to claim that, "an EHRC panel member has told us - off the record - that the EHRC report was..." but as we hold the memory of Primo Levi in such high esteem, we didn't. We believe there are currently 166 Panel Members of the EHRC. They're named in alphabetical order. Yet the EHRC report doesn't say who was responsible for writing what is in it. Why the secrecy? As a regulator funded by taxpayers' money surely the public have a right to know who it was who carried out the first investigation of a British political party by a regulator with a Commissioner, Pavita Cooper, who donated money to the Conservative Party. A Regulator who decided not to investigate Boris Johnson's blatant Islamophobia or that of his party. (5) Then there's the remarkable revelation on p93 concerning The Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism. The EHRC are highly critical of the Labour Party and its attempts to secure antisemitism training, "The Labour Party said it had been more complex and difficult for it to procure antisemitism training than sexual harassment training, and that discussions with the Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism (at Birkbeck) in spring 2018 ‘stalled later that year because of pressure applied on the Institute’. No further details were provided to us." What is extraordinary is that The Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism should cave-in to, "pressure" and that the EHRC should make no attempt whatsoever to ascertain who applied that pressure and why. This was supposed to be a consistent, effective and fair investigation into antisemitism not a cover-up Birkbeck University of London's susceptibility to, "pressure." One of the charity's quoted in the EHRC report was the CST. Its Head of Policy is Dave Rich who is also an Associate at The Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism and an author of a book on Jeremy Corbyn and left antisemitism. The EHRC could have asked him who applied the pressure and why Birkbeck's courses aren't up to much. We did but got no response. The course Birkbeck (University of London) did provide was described as being unsatisfactory. Not a good day for the values of academic freedom or Birkbeck's ability to get the job done. We would recommend Durham University every time. The EHRC, having not troubled to ask any difficult questions, came to the conclusion that the Labour Party had committed unlawful discrimination in not providing adequate training from courses that didn't exist. In his testimony to Congress and on the subject of the IHRA Working Definition, Kenneth Stern asked it to, "Imagine a definition designed for Palestinians. If “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist” is antisemitism, then shouldn’t “Denying the Palestinian people their right to self-determination, and denying Palestine the right to exist” be anti-Palestinianism? (6) With study, discussion and reasoning surely we should be able to arrive at a civilised conclusion? anti-Palestinianism - why not? anti-Leftism - why not? He also believed adoption of the IHRA Working Definition on Antisemitism would "chill" free speech. And he was right. Chillingly, the EHRC have now ruled that some speech is now unlawful harassment and therefore illegal. In truth, the EHRC report took too many shortcuts and did not demonstrate an ability to arrive at fair, reasoned decisions in the vast majority of the cases it investigated in its sub-standard report. A bit like the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman. Primo Levi would have been less-than impressed with both organisations. In Conclusion: At the start of the EHRC's investigation into antisemitism in the Labour Party we contacted all but 5 of the then EHRC panel members starting with Adam Wagner (Doughty Street Chambers / Visiting Professor of Law Goldsmiths University / CAA charity and presenter of the file to the EHRC) to ask them: * Do you believe in universal Human Rights? * Do you believe the Palestinian People have the same Human Rights as their Jewish brothers and sisters? * Do you believe the Palestinian People should have the same right of return as their Jewish brothers and sisters? A sort of Hippocratic oath for barristers. Not a single EHRC panel member was prepared to climb the barristers' barricade, wave the banner and proclaim the need for universal Human Rights. We also asked the EHRC to investigate the CAA charity for its petition stating that Jeremy Corbyn was an antisemite and unfit to hold any public office: was this charitable work? What about his human rights? What about the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? (Now that Sir Starmer has said Jeremy Corbyn isn't antisemitic we would expect him to now be asking the same questions). And the CST charity for its hate-speech. One blog claimed all new members of the Labour Party "slither" and some cause a "stench" and asked: wasn't this discriminatory? Harassment? And how did it promote community harmony? We did not get a reply. Trust the EHRC? As for the impartiality of the EHRC we believe that was compromised by its refusal to investigate Boris Johnson and the Conservative Party's truly shocking Islamophobia and by its failure to consistently, effectively and fairly account for the antisemitism it claimed it investigated in the Labour Party. Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. 1) Prof Stephen Sedley Defining Anti-Semitism London Review of Books 3 May 2017. 2) Kenneth Stern: I drafted the definition of antisemitism. Rightwing Jews are weaponising it." Fri 13. 2019 The Guardian. "Armed with a [legal] determination that effectively says campus anti-Zionism is antisemitism, these professors will correctly see themselves at risk when they ask their students to read and digest materials deemed anti-Zionist, whether the writings of leading 20th century Jewish thinkers who were skeptical of Zionism, such as Hannah Arendt and Martin Buber, or of contemporary Palestinians. […] My fear is, if we similarly enshrine this definition into law, outside groups will try and suppress — rather than answer — political speech they don’t like. The academy, Jewish students, and faculty teaching about Jewish issues, will all suffer." Testimony of Kenneth Stern, original author of the text adopted for the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism, given before the United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Hearing on Examining Anti-Semitism on College Campuses, November 7, 2017 3) Independent Jewish Voices Canada: How Not to Fight Antisemitism. A Critique of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Antisemitism. 4) Antony Lerman: Labour should ditch the IHRA Working Definition Altogether. Open Democracy. 5) Newsweek 15 June 2010. 6) See 2 above.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (73)

Sharper Teeth p8: The turnaround at OS:Property was mind-blowing. BMG reported, "strong levels of satisfaction with enquiry handling." Yet you report an 84% dissatisfaction rate. How do you explain this incredible difference? Your report doesn't say. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of truly; speedy, fair and independent ombudsmen schemes.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (72)

P8 Sharper Teeth: In return for govt. approval Ombudsman Services were required to produce an annual report for their Property scheme. This ceased for 2 yrs when DJS Research were replaced. When you, "fact-checked" this with the executives ruining the firm what did they say? The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of truly; speedy, fair and independent ombudsmen schemes.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (71)

Page 8 Sharper Teeth: BMG reported "strong levels of satisfaction and high levels of advocacy of OS." Yet the year before DJS Research said OS:P performance had worsened on all categories measured. How do you explain this sudden transformation? Your report makes no mention of it. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of truly; speedy, fair and independent ombudsmen schemes.

Martin Lewis, "Sharper Teeth: The Consumer Need For Ombudsman Reform." A Whitewash Report. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. Pt 6 - Martin Lewis (70)

Sharper Teeth p8: The new research firm at OS:P wrote, "verbatim comments showed largely positive findings." Yet the year before DJS had said satisfaction levels had fallen across all areas measured. How do you explain this too good to be true transformation Martin? The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is seeking: 1) A Public inquiry into Ombudsman Services:Property (a company formerly trading as The SOS before being rebranded) and the role of The RICS in its decision making. 2 ) Answers from: Monk and Partners, Gillian Fleming, The Rev Lewis Shand Smith, Walter Merricks, Steven Gould, Dame Janet Finch, Oliver Colvile, Vince Cable, Jo Swinson, Sajid Javid, The OS Independent Assessor, Jonathan May, the government monitors of this government approved scheme, Francis Maude, Andrea Leadsom, Luke Pollard, Yvonne Fovargue, Helena Kennedy. 3) Compensation for the victims of ombudsinjustice and ombudsabuse. 4) The setting up of truly; speedy, fair and independent ombudsmen schemes.