Letter to the Home Office, 28th September 2011
Hanging out public sector critics
to dry
Dear Your ref. T14769/11
I received your letter dated 22/9/11, unnamed, and with an indecipherable squiggle, conveniently obscuring the name of the sender. What is your name?
You thanked me for my letter dated 23 May 2011 - I DID NOT SEND YOU THIS LETTER – it was copied to you from No 10 for some relevant HO comment,
because there were issues within - that referred to public sector fraudulence, some were relevant to and critical of the Home Office.
You have however, deviously avoided No 10’s search for transparency, and claim that the matters raised are the responsibility of your Cabinet Office colleagues.
The points that the PMs office wanted the HO to acknowledge, was our claim that ‘Gross stupidity still plagues the dysfunctional Home Office. How a criminal, a conman with ‘much previous’ – and hardly any education that would warrant rapid promotion in an intelligent 'set up'; easily bluffed his way to become head of an Home Office investigative unit within the sub-standard UK Border Agency’. He was put in charge of untold millions re immigration housing projects?
We claimed ‘the Home Office had more than its fair share of Inspector Clouseaus – and how being ‘unfit for purpose’ is still a standard requirement within the dept.
Further bungling ineptitude by well-paid UKBA officials is seen, as they blew six chances to stop a terrorist suspect entering the country.
It cannot be denied that the Home Office is worryingly high on the list of shattering blunders in relation to safeguarding the state, it has purposefully published false figures re immigration and crime in the past to hide away its massive incompetence. There is general agreement by the nation, that within the HO there is moral malaise.
The secret world that covers up the HOs extreme incompetence is seemingly incurable, as its ‘Unfit for purpose’ headstone is set in granite.
There were other points made in the PMs letter that have a bearing on the Home Office’s insularity and contempt for ‘good governance’. We claimed that ‘the civil service needs to move away from its culture of self-interest, and adopt a mind-set whereby honest accountability to public service becomes its first priority. Without this change to transparency the nation remains throttled’.
The fact that No 10 sent our letter to the Home Office, and the indolent HO in turn sent the letter on to the Cabinet Office, highlights how we have suffered 8 years of bureaucratic ‘musical chairs’, that in essence protects civil servants who have acted corruptly against complaining citizens. We have evidence of such continuing bureaucratic foul play; we quote just a few incidents where we have been ‘hung out’ by the crooked government machine.
(1) In August 2007 we wrote to the MoJ, because it had transferred our letter 30 July 2007 to HM Treasury. There was never an answer!
(2) In Feb 2009 we wrote to the Cabinet Office re Public Sector Corruption – No answer?
(3) In a letter to the PM dated 22nd May 2010, we related how ‘we had often sent to the previous MoJ notice of our case, and for over a year our letters were pushed on to the Treasury, and at times to the Cabinet Office – there was never an answer!
(4) I had written to the Deputy PM 28th Jan 2011, pointing out ‘the usual abuse and deceit by mandarins and civil servants’. Following from this, a Mrs S. Silver was asked to forward my complaints and views to the Cabinet Office ‘so that they may respond’. There was never an answer
(5) On the 18th April 2011, I wrote to Mrs S. Silver, reminding her of how the Cabinet Office had ‘not responded’ to my criticisms re the fraud and theft of some £21b from the public purse, some of it taken by civil servants – a matter of national importance!
(6) I received your Home Office letter dated 22 Sep 2011, thanking me for a letter that I had never sent to you, a letter you sent to the Cabinet Office – musical chairs.
The Home Office has committed far more crimes against UK citizens than any other inept or fraudulent government department, all have helped to formulate our ‘Broken Society’ much more than could have ever been done by any revolutionary.
We have been ‘hung out to dry’ for 8 years, we learnt like many others that there is a need to cleanse public life. It would appear that the public is fighting a losing battle as they see, despite the necessity, that high-standards from our civil servants is never going to materialise without thorough cleansing.
We see no evidence of HO staff improvement after thousands went on an ‘extra training wheeze’ in a four star central London hotel. In fact Home Office ‘institutionalised inertia’ spent some £161m on temps, it has neither the will, nor the nous to work towards ‘good governance’.
The Home Office has well-honed purposeful complex chains of command that allows the hiding away from the electorate much public sector skulduggery.
Academics see Home Office bureaucracy as being in need of a cleansing prosecution programme re its blatant contempt re public concern, and its abuse of the public purse.
As an organisation it suffers combinations of, self - serving financial awards, self-aggrandisement, gross inefficiency, uncreative promotion of the inept - and a generalised failing to work towards ‘good government’.
Yours sincerely
AW & I Tanner cc PM, Ministers, media etc interested in governmental ‘hanging out’ routines.