AW & I Tanner: Internal Jargon, 20th November 2006

The Ombudsman's invention of 'porkies' when declaring that the word 'record' did not mean 'record' but was merely "Agency internal jargon". All this in an attempt to protect a miscreant civil servant and at the same time diminish our case that had been corruptly handled by the said VOA miscreant! She, Ann Abraham the Ombudsman, also turns a blind eye to the VOA's corrupt 'proper' inner investigation's attempt to exonerate the said miscreant with even more 'porkies' and misrepresentations!

It is from our experience that criticisms of the public sector complaints procedures are either dumbed-down or ignored. That public sector critics are browbeaten or undermined by Ombudsman protective spin and misuse of power! It is also known that when these so called government investigative agencies are 'caught out', they simply 'close down' the critics case and refuse to communicate any further. This just shows how powerful these undemocratic investigative agencies have become - it's like having to overcome the Spanish Inquisition before you can reach democracy?

Since the Parliamentary Ombudsman's attempts to sink our case with her fabricated "Agency internal jargon " nonsense, I have been searching through our 2003 correspondence with the VOA, because I knew her account did not square up with my recollections of the events as they actually happened. Here are just a few facts in relation to the word 'report' that the Ombudsman feels she can at, a whim, turn into a public sector deceitful translation. I have highlighting the word 'report' for emphasis.

We had made a banding appeal, the VOA civil servants had a duty to investigate our claims and give us a report. Because they failed to investigated, we again wrote asking for a report. From our chasing up one can see we were asking for a report. We were not interested in, nor asking for an Ombudsman's unsubtle cover-up interpretation of the word report.

(1) 10th April 2003 writing to Nigel Coleman, manager of the Southgate VOA, in the final paragraph I asked; "If you claim that the area has been visited by your officials maybe you would furnish me with a report...."

(2) 20th May 2003, (because the VOA had not replied) I again wrote to the VOA, in the first paragraph I wrote; "In my letter dated 10 April I wrote asking for your officials report regarding our deteriorating conditions ...."

(3) 4th June 2003 In answer to my letter (20th May) asking for a report, Mrs K wrote I quote: "I have read and noted your remarks, and a report has been raised in the office. The report has been allocated to Mrs Gupta. Once Mrs Gupta has finished her research on your property, she will write to you"!

One can see we were asking for a report in the true English sense of the word, something that we were asking this civil service office to supply, something we were entitled to. We were however treated to a fraudulent double VOA lie. Mrs K`s letter above describes how a Mrs Gupta had been allocated to do a report. Some 18 months later we found out that Mrs Gupta did not exist - and obviously neither did her report.

This has to be corruption of duty, especially when the VOA allowed us to continually ask for copies of the non-existent 'Gupta report' without 'letting on' it was all a VOA corrupt scheme to deceive us. When we learned that Mrs Gupta had not been involved in our case at all, we were humiliated to think we had written asking for copies of something that did not exist. These letters went unanswered for months on end - this is corruption of civil service duty - something the Ombudsman ignores!

Now one realises why the Ombudsman was intent on denying the word report as in Mrs K's letter 4th June 2003 and wanting to eradicate this corrupt act by deceitfully claiming it was merely 'Agency internal jargon'. This obvious public sector corruption was too much - she therefore tried to fabricate the evidence in her letter by inventing the 'inner jargon' nonsense in order to get her public sector colleagues 'off the hook'. She does however, shirk away from the 'Gupta deceit' - a question, a more honest investigator than the Ombudsman, would have loved to get their teeth into!

We have shown above how we were asking civil servants for a 'report' in the true English meaning of the word. We did not expect our honest request for a report to be vandalised by the Ombudsman's intricate cover-up intrigue statement (porkies) claiming that the word report was nothing other than 'Agency internal jargon'? You could not make it up!

We were chasing up this promised report in 2003/2004. No one at that time within the VOA declared it was all a terrible internal jargon mistake. Simply because the ridiculous excuse had not been invented at that stage.

It was the Ombudsman's Office who invented the "internal jargon nonsense" in 2006 as an alleviating factor to ease the 'Gupta' hole the VOA/Mrs Lai Kit had dug for themselves, considering Mrs Gupta was a myth!

'The Gupta Report' was a VOA invention! Another VOA lie. A corruption the Ombudsman chooses to ignore in her Parliamentary Ombudsman Report. The Ombudsman's dissembling was concealing the facts about her public sector colleagues' corruption!

As a war pensioner I did not deserve to be treated to this Ombudsman's fraudulent participation in covering-up these public sector deceits that caused us to be humiliated. This we felt was corruption that affected our human rights etc. The Ombudsman attempts to erase all VOA lie! She was so keen to get the 'Gupta report lie', out of the way - that she falsely claimed it was all "Agency internal jargon'.

We think the Ombudsman invented this new found 2006 'internal jargon lie' herself, whether the VOA was in league with her we do not know. What we do know is that something smells? It is highly suspicious that over the 3 years of our complaining to the VOA, no previous VOA investigator picked up on this dubious 'inner jargon wheeze'. The reason being the lie had not been invented in 2003/4.

This lie only came to life in 2006 when the Ombudsman tried to destroy our case by claiming the VOA letter (2003) agreeing to our request for a report, was only "INTERNAL JARGON". The frightening thing is, she can produce this Al Capon belligerence quite openly, knowing full well she is 'untouchable' within her capacity as a top civil servant within earshot of Parliament. It's painful!

The Ombudsman purposefully avoids the VOA's appalling lies that caused my wife and me much humiliation in this particular matter of often writing for information, only to find some 18 months later we were chasing up VOA lies.

This is the corruption that the Ombudsman is so contemptuous of. She says, SHE SAW NO EVIDENCE OF FRAUD OR CORRUPTION? The Ombudsman was defending her fraudulent public sector colleagues at our expense. The Ombudsman purposely failed to acknowledge the VOA's corruption of public duty. Where they, in order to hide the corrupt activities of Mrs K, decided on another civil service 'wheeze', they initiated a 'proper' internal VOA investigation? In the light of Mrs K's corrupt invention of the 'Mrs Gupta report' and her other fraudulent acts against us, the bewildering verdict from this 'proper' investigation was that, Mrs K had acted with 'Best of Intentions'?

This corrupt VOA verdict was indicative of the blatant contempt for the democratic process of accountability?

The Ombudsman's well-honed deceit, bye-passes this corrupt VOA act without a mention, she claims in as many words that she is satisfied that the (lying deceitful) VOA are "LOOKING INTO THE MATTER'?

What a cop-out by the Parliamentary Ombudsman, whose function is to protect the public interest in such fraudulent matters. The fraudulent VOA 'investigators' must be over the moon, what a let off by the Ombudsman, the VOA corrupters got away with murdering transparency and democracy - and not even getting the mandatory 'slap on wrist' judgement?

The Parliamentary Ombudsman avoids mentioning that this VOA 'internal enquiry' was corrupt! This VOA corruption did not concern the 'biased' Parliamentary Ombudsman at all. We now realise that corrupt acts by the public sector complaints procedures can all be swept under the Ombudsman's carpet. All this, as we have claimed before: "Within earshot of Westminster"?

We had asked the Ombudsman who was responsible for 'setting up' this corrupt VOA act of dishonest enquiry? She avoided the question with the blunt refusal to answer the question, somewhat like the Spanish Inquisition when they were occasionally caught on the hop!

She is in fact, as we have said before 'unfit for purpose'. She certainly works against public interest. I liken her role as more akin to a Judge Jeffrey's figure, destroying establishment critics, while gleefully adhering to the Old Pals Act.

This Ombudsman would have all this public sector corruption and the word "report" flushed away from the publics gaze with a queenly flourish of her witches' wand, as though nothing ever happened.

Ombudsman Megalomania comes to mind when we realise this senior civil servant is severely misusing her power. We are ashamed to think that she and her Ombudsman's office are a blight on democracy and all this within earshot of Parliament.

Whatever happened to Parliamentary scrutiny?

We repeat we have asked this Ombudsman to resign, we have also asked that the Ombudsman's Office be cleansed. One would hope a more honest; a more democratic system would take its place.

AW & I Tanner
 

[Back to the top]