|
Re Valuation Office Agency
Re ICO`s Decision Notice July 07. We
are bewildered as to the government's extremely undemocratic
well-honed costly defence of a public sector VOA miscreant who
gave us much angst! Her long-term belligerent errors indicated she
was not a capable public servant - our interest was to keep her
from abusing other members of the British public. The VOA`s lack
of accountability, allowed her to become an aggressive 'loose
cannon' within the NEGLECTED and DYSFUNCTIONAL Southgate Office,
that had admitted' serious deficiencies'!
The ICO`s protective stance towards a
fellow government agency, the discredited VOA, destroys the ICO`s
credibility in this supposed transparent investigation.
We hoped for honest representation -
from our experiences dealing with public sector 'investigations'
-we should have known better!
We aim to disclose that the VOA were
neither 'open nor accountable'
Our criticisms were honest and valid;
our aim was to help publicise the blunders one sees within the
public sector caused by incompetent staff. Their protection by
costly lawyers against criticism/complaints does little to promote
honest endeavour within the public sector.
Our criticisms were not malicious as
the ICO want to indicate, but showed our concern as to the squalid
level of public service one has to endure, along with a powerful
cover-up culture that emerges when it is challenged.
The ICO falsely claimed the VOA as having 'Openness & Accountability'
The ICO`s defence of the VOA is
biased!
This was not an
up-front government transparent investigation! It has gone out of
its way with a spurious attempt to indicate that the corrupt VOA
was, at the time, an HONEST ACCOUNTABLE BODY. This goes against
all the evidence.
Such manipulation of
the facts by the ICO destroys the validity of this Decision Notice
that, while it falsely gives the VOA credibility, attempts to
besmirch our integrity with innuendo.
We became wary of
the ICO who once while investigating the VOA on our behalf,
produced an obvious untrustworthy 'old pals' gem. It claimed the
fraudulent VOA had made an'Honest Oversight'? 'Old pals act'
indeed.
In making deceitful reference to the
openness and accountability' of the VOA, the ICO are again
in denial of the facts! The indolent VOA Executive was ignorant
of the way we were being corruptly handled by its 'belligerent'
loose cannon! Our mutual exchanges at the time, (copies given to
the press and parliamentarians) show the VOA as deceitful,
dysfunctional and fraudulent in trying to cover up its errors once
they had been caught out!
For instance, having asked for months
for a report on our appeal, we were informed (June 2003) a Mrs
Gupta would be doing a report and would be in touch! We waited
and waited; we wrote and wrote over many months for copies of this
promised report. ALL OUR LETTERS WENT UNANSWERED! We saw no
evidence of Openness and Accountability at this time?
It took us 18 months to discover that
Mrs Gupta played no part in our appeal? It meant our appeal had
not been initiated - it had been throttled - almost at birth,
despite our continued request for a report of its whereabouts -
the VOA remained silent. This lack of government accountability
towards a complainant is fraudulent. The VOA was in denial of
serious maladministration?
In the 18 months we wrote and awaited copies of
the Gupta Report, no one at the VOA informed us it was all a big
lie. Only after we had assiduously pointed out and complained to
the VOA Executive, did they agree with us that the Southgate
Office had 'Serious Deficiencies'.
The VOA Executive had been remote,
with a serious lack of staff control!
OUR APPEAL HAD BEEN KILLED OFF BY LONG
DRAWN OUT NON-ATTENTION! Yet the ICO claim the VOA was'Open &
Accountable'?
The VOA feebly claimed that the
corrupt invention of Mrs Gupta`s Report was due to inner
misinterpretation of 'Agency Internal Jargon'? You could not make
it up? 'Open & Accountable indeed? Even the Parliamentary
Ombudsman attempted to give this ridiculous VOA cover-up excuse
some weight in order to get her public sector colleagues 'off
the hook'.
The VOA then held a deceitful 'investigation' that
purposefully exonerated the 'loose cannons' belligerence against
us; its fraudulent decision was that she had acted with the'Best
of Intentions'? A cover-up culture lacking in
Openness!.
Unethically the VOA
once asked us to Draw-a-Line under its corrupt acts against us,
they being intent in hiding their deceits?
Our case needs to be studied by
academics interested in cleaning up these public sector complaint
cesspits of denial?
The British public's loss of faith in
parliament grows day by day. Citizens are becoming aware of the
constant low integrity levels within government departments, many
of whom are almost capsizing because of the continued lawyer's
style protection of staff.
The ICO in a veiled attack on our
honesty, made detrimental quotes from a 'previous case'?
(para36) 'that a complaint made against an employee may lead to
assumptions being made about the employees competence? However the
complaint may be unsubstantiated or malicious?'
(Our question marks)
This is a dishonest denunciation and
interpretation of our struggle against the public sector cover-up
culture!
We ask as to the validity of these
quoted 'previous case' decisions? Because these 'old pals act'
decisions would not hold water in a proper court of law! We ask
just how valid are these public sector 'previous decisions' that
have been quoted to smear our case? Because of our experience
within the public sector cover-up routine, we feel strongly that
these 'quoted previous decisions' could well be tainted and biased
against most complainants!
WE DO NOT THINK THIS UNDERHANDED
PRACTISE OF QUOTING FROM PREVIOUS DODGY PUBLIC SECTOR DECISIONS
SHOULD BE ADMISSIBLE?
It smacks of biased lawyers pulling
'porkies' out of a hat in order to protect, at any cost, their
culpable government colleagues? Further to the ICO`s previous
'unsubstantiated or malicious' quote; we would like to investigate
its authenticity, its honesty? Could we have the evidence?
We feel the burden of facing powerful
iron grip forced-fed public sector chicanery, where lawyers are
producing even more unwarranted 'pork pies' in defence of
miscreants? Is the Mother of Parliament smelling the stench
coming from this public sector protection racket?
WE ARE CONCERNED BY THIS UNJUST ICO`s
ROBUST DEFENCE OF THE VOA AND ITS EMPLOYEES FRAUDULENCE, despite
her numerous errors we ask;
(1)
Is the ICO claiming
the deceitful 'employee' was competent?
(2)
Why is the ICO
deviously implying that our claims over many years against
the VOA, may be 'unsubstantiated and
malicious'? This is another attempted 'put down' of our case by
the ICO, who despite its claim to represent the FOI are behaving
more like the oppressive Spanish Inquisition against our case?
(3)
We have to suffer
this intended smearing, simply because we continue to reveal the
public-sectors corrupt acts? The ICO are in denial of all the
relevant correspondence! THE VOA WERE FRAUDULENT!
(4)
A
Tribunal, after our first 16 months of struggle against this
dysfunctional careless VOA, quashed the early VOA deceitful acts
against us. There was no evidence of VOA 'openness and
accountability' during this long 16 month session of severe VOA
negligence and fraud. There was of course plenty of devious VOA
manoeuvres against our case. However, there was no evidence of
the VOA's 'Accountability' as the ICO
deceitfully suggests?
(5)
The ICO has
belittled our cause by its gross abuse of its power in showing
unworthy protection of its public-sector colleague, a sort of
despotic public sector family nepotism that goes on and on
ad-infinitum?
To my wife and myself, it's all a bit
like being crushed by government self-serving bodies using illegal
undemocratic bulldozing tactics in order to protect the
retaliatory status quo!
To make matters
worse, and no doubt trying to kill off our resolve, we have been
invited by the ICO to appeal to another public sector
inspired'investigative body'. We feel we are approaching a
Machiavellian water torture epic? The ICO must be confident that
the public-sectors crooked 'cover-up' culture, with its
strangulation techniques against complainants is secure from
parliamentary gaze, thus escaping an honest Lord Nolan type
scrutiny!
AW & I Tanner
[Back to the top]
|