Parliamentary Ombudsman
Dear Ombudsman
Further to our letter 4th October 2006 regarding your self-appointed severely aggressive contrived survey agency. We point out that after making it clear to you we wanted no part in your face saving survey, you nevertheless turned this Westminster inspired aggressive survey agency upon us.
We mentioned how they undemocratically pursued us to answer questions, That we wanted no part in the sham, and would not touch your 'survey' with a bargepole
I need to recap as to what happened on the 2nd and 3rd of October so that we can move nicely into their forceful intervention upon our privacy on 4th October. We described how, despite not wanting to be involved in this farce, we were phoned in the evening of the 2nd October by this Ombudsman inspired 'survey'. My wife gave a very positive refusal in not answering their questions with a firm 'No thank you'.
IN A CIVILISED SOCIETY THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE END OF THE MATTER. But no! Their transgression continues!
The evening of the 3rd of October your 'survey agency' rang again, realising who they were - my wife simply put the phone down. This we have already reported to you. The reason we touch this ground again is to emphasise what happened next!
On the 4th October, the day I wrote complaining about your 'perverse survey team', that very evening I was organising a bridge session at my home, when at 8.15 p.m I picked up the phone to discover, with some apprehension that it was your dreaded
'survey team' yet again. I asked the young lady to 'hang on' while I finalised the organising of the bridge pairings, The young lady started up about the 'survey'. I quickly interrupted by asking her to listen and declared 'We have made it quite clear to you that we do not want to discuss this matter'
Now after this second rebuff, one would have thought that a 'civilised survey team' would at this stage, politely disengage, apologise and put the phone down. But no, this pushy experienced young lady, instead of moving on to the next Ombudsman Satisfied Customer, continued to prattle on. Once more, quite firmly I asked her to stop and listen to what I had to say that 'we did not want to talk to them - that we did not want to take part.
Despite my plea the transgression continued, she even asked me if the 'Ombudsman was aware that we did not want to take part?' I answered 'Yes'.
I was desperate to close down this intrusive phone call, I found myself somewhat frustrated that she would not get off the phone,
What was driving her on - money? Hatred of citizens who complain about governmental fraud and corruption? Was she a friend of the Ombudsman?
I mentioned that my wife had said 'No thank you' to her questioning on the 2nd of October, why was she phoning yet again? The young lady sensing my annoyance asked if I would speak to her supervisor, she was not giving up. I nearly exploded at her uncompromising stubbornness in continuing to pester us, especially she, having been told we were not interested in taking part in her 'survey'. I found myself becoming even more frustrated and hot under the collar! I claimed that they were now harassing us! Looking back on the evening, we realised we had received, within our own home, what amounted to a severe belligerent intrusion by these Westminster/Ombudsman appointed aggressive like jackboots!
Surely there has to be some moral ethical code of conduct, this was a purely heavy-handed approach against Ombudsman victims who did not want to associate with this survey agency? An agency incidentally employed by the Ombudsman and paid for by the taxpayer. You must be proud of your continued attachment to such forceful fraudulent actions. Megalomania indeed!
One must ask why your 'survey team' was so persistent in chasing up victims of the Parliamentary Ombudsman's fraudulent behaviour? We are under the impression this severely aggressive team were acting more like political assassins, determined to give the Ombudsman her moneys worth - the irony being that this fraudulent 'attacking survey' is being financed by taxpayers money.
We are of the opinion that we have been given this ' run-around hounding' because of our honest criticisms of fraud and corruption found in the handling of our case? That we are being punished - brow-beaten because of our accusation of the Ombudsman's manufacturing of 'porkies' in defence of a miscreant civil service colleague. Brow-beaten because of our nearly 4 year protest against fraudulent/corrupt public sector complaint procedures.
This year standing in respect on Remembrance Day, will give me much needed strength to fight on against your corruption. Good men did not die so that we be ruled by hard-nosed deceitful parliamentary officials hiding within a public sector cover-up industry. I am polishing up my medals, were not quite dead yet!
Its essential here to make the point about the manner in which 'HONEST SURVEYS' are conducted. For instance, when I have been asked in the street if I would take part in a survey, and I refuse, the person asking me, politely steps aside allowing me to go on my way unhindered.
THEY DO NOT BADGER ME FROM ONE DAY TO THE NEXT FOR NOT TAKING PART! This is precisely what your appointed yobboes are at!
Because of your intransigence we have now become double-barrelled victims of both the Ombudsman's Office and your contrived belligerent survey agency.
What have you got lined up next for critics/victims like ourselves. We are determined to fight any public sector fraudulence, corruption or sleaze etc?
A contrived 'Customers Satisfaction Survey' indeed. You are suffering from the old Tammany Hall syndrome! One could not make it up!
Yours sincerely
AW & I Tanner
[Back to the top] |
|
|
|