|
Dear Prime
Minister
We have recently
written (24 March 2008) to the Ministry of Justice Rt. Hon. Jack Straw re
our concerns that our Decision Notice No FS 500082420 should be investigated
by a higher authority along with the recent Tribunal verdict. We have had no
answer - hence our letter to your office.
We claim that where a
member of the electorate having a complaint against a government dept like
the Inland Revenue, the complainant has a serious chance of becoming
entrapped by the fraudulent public sector complaints procedures, where the
original fraudulent acts, as in our case, are swept away purposely lost by
the regime.
I was due to face 2
barristers and 2 lawyers in the Tribunal; my crime, I was corruptly handled
by Revenue/VOA.
For instance the
corrupt acts against us from 2003 vanished - manoeuvred out of the way by
deceitful lawyers. These corrupt acts against us were not mentioned during
the Parliamentary Ombudsman investigation of our case. Neither were they
mentioned within the Commissioners Decision Notice, nor within the
Tribunal.
The Ombudsman went
out of her way to protect her public sector colleagues - claiming not to
have seen any fraud or corruption against us. We objected to her ridiculous
claim that an obvious Revenue deceit came about because of 'Agency internal
jargon'?
Within the Tribunal
hearing the HMRC lawyers seemed to be concerned re the Ombudsmans
involvement in our case. It would appear the HMRC lawyers are of the opinion
that the P/Ombudsman was an innocent bystander - that we had somehow wronged
her? Even the Tribunal Report makes an oblique reference to our dealings
with the Ombudsman as though we may have been somehow at fault?
It needs pointing out
to the Tribunals/HMRC Ombudsman Appreciative Society that the Ombudsman then
subjected us to malicious evening phone calls; we were targeted by an
Ombudsman's inspired 'spurious survey team' who would not take NO for an
answer. Who despite our protest rang us 3 evenings running? We had told the
Ombudsman we did not want to take part? Public sectors dirty tricks
department?
There is also concern
within the biased Decision Notice where the Commissioner claims, despite all
the evidence, that the authority and/or its staff are/were 'accountable' in
our case. We quote just one corrupt act by the authority; having told us a
lie re Mrs Gupta doing a report for us, we wrote for some 7 months asking
for a copy of the promised 'Gupta' report. The Revenue failed to answer any
of our letters.
It was intimated in
the D/Notice that our case was 'unsubstantiated or malicious' we objected to
this put down of our 5-year struggle. Once we had objected to this, the ICO
apologised - we refused this apology, because we saw it as a public sector
'get-out-of -jail apology. The Tribunal Report however, goes out of its way
in declaring that the Commissioners excuse/apology had been repeated on a
number of occasions.
One gets the feeling
from this Tribunal slant that we were 'unreasonable' or even 'out of
order' in not accepting, as what we see as a nasty ICO 'put down' of our
long 5 year struggle. Is it going to be a condition that an appellant has
to accept gross inept action by the Commissioner along with his resultant
cover-up apology?
We again make a plea
for transparent 'open courts' for people making complaints against
government departments, because as things stand there is an abuse of power.
One gets the sense of public sector
complaints procedure machinations where, as in our case, civil servants and
public sector lawyers have been in constant control of the proceedings for
over 5 years. This has to be a corruption of the democratic principle of
equality before the law? I was due to face 2 barristers and two lawyers,
who having got rid of the corrupt acts against us left us as sitting ducks,
overrun by deceitful legalities.
Having observed
from our 5-year struggle, the long-term protection of miscreants,
fraudsters and corrupters etc, given within the public sector cover-up
culture; reminds one of the Catholic churches long-term denial and cover-up
of the repugnant abuse by numerous priests world-wide.
Our governmental
public sector complaint procedures show the same quality of inner squalor,
denial, neglect and abuse of democracy and human rights! As a complaining
member of the electorate its like combating a secret society within
government - a 5th column eating away at democracy.
One is now more aware
than ever of the sordid realities of the continuing deceit and putrefying
cover up within governmental complaint procedures! Complainants are now
tested to distraction, where the perplexity of holding government
departments and quangos to account becomes quite intolerable.
George Orwell was a
genius; such foresight to predict the emergence of the Big Brother 'old
pals' collusive forces, where everyone is being watched except the political
manipulators.
Prime Minister we
ask, is there a chance of 'open courts' for members of the electorate who
have a complaint against a government department? It makes for good
transparent democracy.
Yours sincerely
AW&I Tanner
[Back to the top]
|