Letter to Ministry of Justice, 9th November 2008
Dear Christine Edwards,
We think our case is relevant to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and not the Cabinet Office as you insist.
As members of the electorate we have made honest complaint about incompetent, fraudulent civil servants that corruptly handled our case.
We asked the MOJ for 'open courts' so victims might circumnavigate crooked public sector procedures. Not one reply on this particular matter. The Cabinet Office is not into open courts?
Just how serious can the MOJ be in referring us back to the Cabinet Office?
Members of the public, now suspicious of all politics, will immediately see we are being 'hung out to dry'. As you will know, the MOJ have been guilty of sending us unintelligible replies? We have become seriously interested in the workings of the 'old pals act' it's quite educational!
The electorate is now paying dearly for the public sectors age-old cover-up culture, where untold thousands are at fault; but no one is to blame!
Senior politicians are now openly stating that the civil service has never been so incompetent! What took them so long? We quote from Zenna Atkins statement that 'embarrassing information can be passed between 50 odd civil servants; all desperate to protect their superior from embarrassment!' - the old pals act in motion!
We wonder because of the 'inner squalor' just how many complaints are binned without ever reaching a Minister or senior management?
We have often complained about the quality of civil servants. This week there is more evidence that civil servants have stolen further millions (£4.2m) from government depts? This civil service skulduggery is calamitous, becoming plague-like and needs to be addressed by Ministers and parliament! Fraudulent bureaucracy has to stop. Any effort to 'keep the bastards honest' is worthwhile!
We knew that once we had exposed the Ombudsman's 'porkies', we could not escape the 'old pals act' revengeful toxicity from her complaint procedure colleagues. The blatant brotherhood manoeuvring within these procedures hid away the corrupt acts against us and carried on to demolish our case by deceit (biased Decision Notice & para 36)
Orwell understood this collusive 'inner squalor' so well. He knew that 'justice and liberty were only OK once the political nonsense had been stripped off! But he also knew that was not enough, that it was necessary to jettison the nonsense makers!' We have become aware that many civil servants have an incorrigible instinct to deceive - being amongst the nonsense makers!
One sees within the public sector that Ministers and civil service incompetence become destructive, creating many 'unfit for purpose' depts. See the appalling mess created by Ministers and civil servants within the Home Office, MOD, RPA, PFI, Treasury, HM Revenue, W&P etc. Also the creation of incompetent regulators such as FSA and NAO who often played second fiddle to accomplished fiddlers of facts. Such wobbling government structures appear glued to acquiescing unaccountability?
As an 80 years old war pensioner, I am becoming worn out by the continuous protection of corrupt civil servants; who when caught out are given gold plated protection by barristers, lawyers and the dodgy Ombudsman system etc. We hope our case can be studied by honest academics, not party hacks!
Our case is being pushed from one department to another in an attempt to close down our efforts to get 'open courts' etc for victims of corrupt complaint procedures, we are astonished that the MOJ suggests we approach the Civil Service Constitution again?
We have been corruptly handled by civil servants right through our 5 years of struggle. We complained that the Parliamentary Ombudsman had manufactured 'porkies' against us, we asked her to resign! She retaliated with even more deceit!
We then endured some 2 years going through an 'old pals act' procedure that saw us getting a biased Decision Notice. It was like being in the clutches of the inquisition!
We then went through a Tribunal where I faced barristers and lawyers.
It is significant that during the Tribunal, the HM Revenue legal team made comment about our remarks re the P. Ombudsman indicating the Ombudsman was 'above board', an innocent bystander, when she was not! She was active in the Revenues favour!
Even the Tribunal report makes a 'smoothing over' of P. Ombudsman's deceits, in para 20 it claims; ... 'Mr Tanner seeks redress against what he sees as the corrupt practices of the public authority to whom he issued his information request and also against the other public bodies who have been involved in his grievances such as the P. Ombudsman. Having run out of other avenues of complaint he now seeks that redress through the Commissioner and the Tribunal'. No mention of the corrupt acts against us? Another instance where the public sectors complaint procedures shows its incorrigible instinct to deceive. There was also reference given to closing down our case that had 'no prospect of success'? Well, when the HM Revenue lawyers and their complaint procedure cohorts are in their comfort zone of abusing their power; then 'no prospect of success' becomes a despotic reality when a victim of governmental deceit is underrepresented within a Tribunal run by civil service lawyers? A public sector injustice where all complaint procedure actors can abuse the 'the rule of law' without turning a hair! Such 'old pals' Tribunals need investigating?
Like Orwell, we know, one has to strip away the political nonsense from this subversive form of entrenched 'old pals' self-protective injustice!
Yours sincerely
AW & I Tanner
cc PM MPs Committees Media Universities; all interest in public sector corruption against the electorate etc.