Letter to the Committee on standards in Public Life, 7th February 2007
Dear Sir Alistair (Graham)
First of all we apologise for previously misspelling your name.
We have communicated with you previously regarding the corrupt actions of the Valuation Office Agency aided and abetted by the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
Since then our case has been closed down by both the Ombudsman and the Information Commissioners Office, we had in fact been disenfranchised by Parliamentary officials
We have written to the PM, Right Hon Gordon Brown, the Lord Chancellor, and other Parliamentary Committees and MP's. As victims of public sector corruption we seem to be treated with contempt by all and sundry. There seems to be a plague-like acquiescence - a parliamentary selective amnesia towards public sector fraud and corruption. We, as victims of such corruption make complaints, these are then shunted around from one parliamentary department to another - in what can only be described as an undemocratic Whitehall farce! (See our "Mother of Parliament" on the Internet)
We are appalled by the way parliamentarians have cold-shouldered our claims regarding public sector and ombudsman corruption. For instance it is difficult for us to understand how the STANDARDS IN PUBLIC LIFE COMMITTEE did not, on our behalf as citizens, show interest our case.
Yet it was able to put, without any open investigation taking place, the committees friendly spin on the fraudulent Ombudsman’s actions by claiming in a letter to us that
“WE ARE UNABLE TO OVERTURN THE OMBUDSMAN'S DECISION REGARDING YOUR CASE, AS THE OMBUDSMAN WILL HAVE JUDGED YOUR CASE ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED. ??? (our question marks)
We ask; Is this committee unaware that public sector complaints procedures can be corrupt, can be fraudulent and/or overtly self-protective and completely undemocratic?
We were shocked at the committees 'old pals' acquiescence in this matter of parliamentary corruption, this committee statement indicates that the Parliamentary Ombudsman's proceedings against us were democratic and conducted in a proper judicial manner.
This indicates that the Committee on Standards in Public Life naively believes the Ombudsman had acted in an honest manner when attending to our case?
We did not expect your committee to side with the Ombudsman's connivance without some sort of inquiry as to the facts. That's why we were shocked at your claim that the Ombudsman "will have judged your case on the evidence presented" We are aware that the Ombudsman has powerful friends, we did not however expect the Standards in Public Life Committee to give her such unwarranted protection!
There was no obvious transparency or recognition from your committee that the Parliamentary Ombudsman might have, or could have produced fabrications against us, or indeed that the office could be fraudulent? One must ask, is the Standards of Public Life Committee really unaware of Ombudsman fraudulence in general?
It occurs to us, that this friendly gesture to the Parliamentary Ombudsman is part/parcel of the 'old pals act', and that you are giving the impression that the Parliamentary Ombudsman is incapable of being corrupt. We ask this question because with the Parliamentary Ombudsman closing down our case, we have hit an injudicious parliamentary brick wall - a buffer - we can not proceed further?
Surely the democratic principle was never meant to be like this - surely the office of Parliamentary Ombudsman was not meant to have such omnipotence bestowed upon it? So much so that parliamentary bodies would give this wayward, powerful political office such blind obedience/protection without question?
It needs to be remembered that no one is above the law, and Westminster needs to remember this applies to civil servants also!
Because we have written to many parliamentarians and have had no democratic/transparent response, we have now been forced to make our own inquiry as to just how much protection this corrupt Parliamentary Ombudsman is receiving from within Westminster! Hence this letter to you.
It is fairly evident we have been swamped by a public sector cover-up culture and, because the Ombudsman seems to be untouchable within our Mother of Parliament, we have had to join the Internet in order to get our case some public recognition.
There are just too many fraudulent actions by ombudsman that are given the 'blind eye' by various bodies, such treatment is an affront to democratic government.
We are puzzled how the Committee on Standards in Public Life comes to its decisions as when confronted by charges of Ombudsman corruption? Is it always jaundiced? Its not as though charges relating to ombudsman fraudulence is a new phenomena - its not as though such disclosures would have come as a shock to your committee - it's a deep rooted abomination that has not been dealt with by Westminster in a proper judicious manner.
It would appear from our case and others that the fraudulent public sector's cover-up complaints industry is thriving - with much help from its friends! Amen?
Yours sincerely
AW & I Tanner