AW & I Tanner: Letter to the Prime Minister, 18th April 2008
We have recently written (24 March 2008) to the Ministry of Justice Rt. Hon. Jack Straw re our concerns that our Decision Notice No FS 500082420 should be investigated by a higher authority along with the recent Tribunal verdict. We have had no answer - hence our letter to your office.
We claim that where a member of the electorate having a complaint against a government dept like the Inland Revenue, the complainant has a serious chance of becoming entrapped by the fraudulent public sector complaints procedures, where the original fraudulent acts, as in our case, are swept away purposely lost by the regime.
I was due to face 2 barristers and 2 lawyers in the Tribunal; my crime, I was corruptly handled by Revenue/VOA.
For instance the corrupt acts against us from 2003 vanished - manoeuvred out of the way by deceitful lawyers. These corrupt acts against us were not mentioned during the Parliamentary Ombudsman investigation of our case. Neither were they mentioned within the Commissioners Decision Notice, nor within the Tribunal.
The Ombudsman went out of her way to protect her public sector colleagues - claiming not to have seen any fraud or corruption against us. We objected to her ridiculous claim that an obvious Revenue deceit came about because of 'Agency internal jargon'?
Within the Tribunal hearing the HMRC lawyers seemed to be concerned re the Ombudsmans involvement in our case. It would appear the HMRC lawyers are of the opinion that the P/Ombudsman was an innocent bystander - that we had somehow wronged her? Even the Tribunal Report makes an oblique reference to our dealings with the Ombudsman as though we may have been somehow at fault?
It needs pointing out to the Tribunals/HMRC Ombudsman Appreciative Society that the Ombudsman then subjected us to malicious evening phone calls; we were targeted by an Ombudsman's inspired 'spurious survey team' who would not take NO for an answer. Who despite our protest rang us 3 evenings running? We had told the Ombudsman we did not want to take part? Public sectors dirty tricks department?
There is also concern within the biased Decision Notice where the Commissioner claims, despite all the evidence, that the authority and/or its staff are/were 'accountable' in our case. We quote just one corrupt act by the authority; having told us a lie re Mrs Gupta doing a report for us, we wrote for some 7 months asking for a copy of the promised 'Gupta' report. The Revenue failed to answer any of our letters.
It was intimated in the D/Notice that our case was 'unsubstantiated or malicious' we objected to this put down of our 5-year struggle. Once we had objected to this, the ICO apologised - we refused this apology, because we saw it as a public sector 'get-out-of -jail apology. The Tribunal Report however, goes out of its way in declaring that the Commissioners excuse/apology had been repeated on a number of occasions.
One gets the feeling from this Tribunal slant that we were 'unreasonable' or even 'out of order' in not accepting, as what we see as a nasty ICO 'put down' of our long 5 year struggle. Is it going to be a condition that an appellant has to accept gross inept action by the Commissioner along with his resultant cover-up apology?
We again make a plea for transparent 'open courts' for people making complaints against government departments, because as things stand there is an abuse of power.
One gets the sense of public sector complaints procedure machinations where, as in our case, civil servants and public sector lawyers have been in constant control of the proceedings for over 5 years. This has to be a corruption of the democratic principle of equality before the law? I was due to face 2 barristers and two lawyers, who having got rid of the corrupt acts against us left us as sitting ducks, overrun by deceitful legalities.
Having observed from our 5-year struggle, the long-term protection of miscreants, fraudsters and corrupters etc, given within the public sector cover-up culture; reminds one of the Catholic churches long-term denial and cover-up of the repugnant abuse by numerous priests world-wide.
Our governmental public sector complaint procedures show the same quality of inner squalor, denial, neglect and abuse of democracy and human rights! As a complaining member of the electorate its like combating a secret society within government - a 5th column eating away at democracy.
One is now more aware than ever of the sordid realities of the continuing deceit and putrefying cover up within governmental complaint procedures! Complainants are now tested to distraction, where the perplexity of holding government departments and quangos to account becomes quite intolerable.
George Orwell was a genius; such foresight to predict the emergence of the Big Brother 'old pals' collusive forces, where everyone is being watched except the political manipulators.
Prime Minister we ask, is there a chance of 'open courts' for members of the electorate who have a complaint against a government department? It makes for good transparent democracy.
Yours sincerely
AW&I Tanner