Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Yet another anti LGO blog.

David Sneath has just started another blog about the LGO. Click here to visit or the permanent link in the sidebar.

Sunday, November 26, 2006

Premonition comes true?

A couple of weeks ago I had a meeting with an assistant ombudsman and an investigator to discuss my complaint. The problem was that they appeared more interested in resolving the underlying problem for the benefit of the council than investigating my 2002 complaint.

Ignoring blatant lies and glaring inconsistencies produced by the Councils over the last few years they concentrated instead on trying to deconstruct my complaint with irrelevant and fallacious arguments.

It looks like a premonition I made in one of my earlier postings ‘Happy 9th Anniversary’ is coming true.

'Only time will tell but it's not looking good so far. They appear more interested in resolving the problem for the County Council than investigating my complaint. Two months and they still haven't asked the Council for a formal response to the allegations I made during 2002.'

It's now more than 6 months since the Ombudsman promised to investigate my complaint (with some priority) and I still haven't seen the County Council's response to my 2002 complaint.

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

New cartoons available from psow.co.uk

Public Service Ombudsman Watchers have published a number of new cartoons to illustrate the problem with Ombudsmen. These cartoons are free to use as long as credit is given and a link back to their site. Have a ball and add a few images to your blog or website.

To view all 36 cartoons click here. There is sure to be one that fits your needs. If not email patrick@psow.co.uk and tell him what you are looking for.

Sunday, November 19, 2006

Are Ombudsmen an International problem?

More Argumentum Ridiculosis from the Ombudsman,
looks like Ombudsmen all over the word are just as bad as our lot when it comes to inventing ridiculous arguments to support their perverse decisions.

The Supreme Court found the COMELEC (Commission on Elections) did some things wrongly. The Ombudsman (including her staff) says otherwise. The Supreme Court wanted the Ombudsman to find who were responsible, the Ombudsman said nobody was.

The Ombudsman said let the facts speak for itself. What are the facts?

Take a look at what the SC said the Comelec did that were wrong:

1. Awarded the Contract to MPC (Mega Pacific Consortium) though it did not even participate in the bidding.

2. Allowed MPEI (Mega Pacific eSolutions Inc.) to participate in the bidding despite its failure to meet the mandatory eligibility requirements.

3. Issued its Resolution of April 15, 2003 awarding the Contract to MPC despite the issuance by the BAC of its Report, which formed the basis of the assailed Resolution, only on April 21, 2003.

4. Awarded the Contract, notwithstanding the fact that during the bidding process, there were violations of the mandatory requirements of RA 8436 as well as those set forth in Comelec's own Request for Proposal on the automated election system.

5. Refused to declare a failed bidding and to conduct a re-bidding despite the failure of the bidders to pass the technical tests conducted by the Department of Science and Technology.

6. Failed to follow strictly the provisions of RA 8436 in the conduct of the bidding for the automated counting machines.

With all of these, the Ombudsman didn't find anything wrong! And to support its conclusion, it came up with the OJ Simpson case type of ending. OJ was criminally not liable, but he was in the civil case liable and ought to pay the family of his murdered wife. In the Ombudsman's case it said that the Supreme Court's findings were for civil liability, while what the Ombudsman looked for was criminal liability! Ha. What a way to muddle things up. Leave it to lawyers to do that.

In their lawyer's minds, it might make sense because they have made a partition in their brains between civil and criminal. But to non-lawyers like me, it is like being assaulted by a Galil or a Kalashnikov rifle where you can't say anything or cannot protest the unfairness of things lest you be mowed down with a hail of bullets. In this instance though, what was assaulted was the basic common sense: something was terribly wrong and somebody must be held accountable then punished. Yet the Ombudsman said there was a crime but no criminals. I smoked but I didn't inhale. There was a rape but there was no rapist! The inq7.net editorial today aptly described Merceditas Gutierrez as blind. Everything is there in front of her like a giant elephant threatening to stomp on her, yet she can't see!

Ellen a Philippine blogger Says:
October 4th, 2006 at 11:32 pm

How Much More Abuse Can We Take?

Another terrible blow was dealt to justice today, this time courtesy of the Ombudsman. Like a bat-wielding banshee, the office of the Ombudsman declared that there was no one to blame for the Mega Pacific scam, absolving the COMELEC and the rumored to have filed for dissolution, eleven day old (at the time of bidding) company of any wrongdoing.

“This is a travesty of justice! This is like saying a rape was indeed perpetrated, but there was no rapist”, declared Enteng Romano, lead convenor of the Black & White Movement. “The Ombudsman has committed grave abuse of discretion, not even bothering to point us in the right direction. Who shall we hold accountable?”

“This sad act has made the Ombudsman seem to be as dirty as the COMELEC is perceived. If the COMELEC believes it has been vindicated, it is sadly mistaken. First, Cha-Cha, now this. We hope our people see just how much injustice is being done to us”, said Leah Navarro, Black & White spokesperson.

The Supreme Court was clear, and we quote – “Truly, the pith and soul of democracy – credible, orderly, and peaceful elections – have been put in jeopardy by the illegal and abusive acts of the COMELEC.” And what shall become of these “illegal and abusive acts”? Will these abuses be relegated to our nation’s dimming memory? We pray our nation will not stand idly by.

The Black & White Movement condemns in no uncertain terms this obvious whitewash. In making this decision, the Ombudsman has proven that the people no longer have any where to turn for succor or assistance. Along with a few others, this institution has gone from the heights of probity to the bowels of infamy.

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Another site identified!

Rottencouncil This is a very interesting website because it deals with Council corruption.

If one can do it!

I wonder how many more local authority staff are on the take?

Planner jailed over bribes

A former area planning officer with the London Borough of Enfield who took bribes to pay for his wife's cosmetic surgery and fertility treatment has been jailed for 18 months.

Andrew Bigby, aged 41, was sentenced at Southwark Crown Court after admitting two counts of misconduct in a public office and two of concealing the proceeds of criminal conduct. The court heard that Bigby changed planning records and pushed through controversial extensions during nearly three years of shady dealing.

He collected more than £58,000 in bribes which he split with his wife, who was also employed by the council but in a separate department. Bigby's defence lawyer said the couple were desperate to have a child and had used up all their savings on IVF treatment.

Once Bigby began taking bribes he found it impossible to stop, the court heard. Sentencing Bigby, Judge Stephen Robbins said the planner's action had undermined public confidence in the planning system.

Roger Milne
24 April 2006

Courtesy of the Government Planning Portal May2006

I'm not alone! update.

Kings Lynn & West Norfolk Council

The councils own councillors apparently became so sick and tired of council workers in the planning department ignoring them that they sent a formal complaint to the Secretary Of State asking for an investigation of the councils planners long term failure to correspond, consult and cooperate over planning issues.

And now the bullshit in the latest LGO annual letter to

Kings Lynn & West Norfolk Council.

Officers from your Council’s planning enforcement section have been particularly helpful in providing responses to informal enquiries and updating us on the follow-up action being taken on complaints which I have discontinued. I consider this to be good practice. It demonstrates your officers’ commitment to the Borough’s citizens.

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

I am not alone!

It's amazing what you turn up when you carry out a little research. I have now identified numerous other cases where residents in other areas have had similar problems to me. Many council officers are failing to protect residents by ignoring their statutory duty. In addition they are failing to take any enforcement action against local developers or even put matters right. Wonder why? Furthermore, they expect people on the site to get them out of their self created difficulties or carry on suffering.

In one case even a councillor can't get to the bottom of the problem because senior executives and other councillors continue to give him the run around. Why don't they just do their job in the first place? There is only one answer to that question and it's called a bung. (bribe, or "backhander", illicit payment made, usually to an official or person in influential position, in return for favour, information, or influence.) A developer can significantly increase their profits by persuading a council officer to play ball and not enforce planning obligations and conditions etc.

I wonder how many council staff/councillors have taken a bung from a developer then used their position to cover it up and just how big the problem really is?

What hope for the man in the street when he comes up against such a corrupt practice, particularly when we have such ineffective Local Government Ombudsmen?

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Yet another anti LGO website

The Government (English) are about to merge the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) into the Public Service Ombudsman (PSO) just like they have already done in Scotland and Wales.

Well here's proof that things won't improve after they do that.

OmbudsmanWatch in Scotland

Public Sector Ombudsman Watchers was set up in anticipation of things not improving after the merger and it look as though we have been proved right.

The merger is nothing more than window dressing to prolong the life of ineffective Ombudsmen.

Friday, November 03, 2006

Another nail in the LGO coffin!

Councils have been getting away with maladministration for years because of ineffective and biased Local Government Ombudsmen. Here's one council were the rot is now out of control thanks to the LGO's perverse policy of hiding rather than confronting maladministration.

A new website that exposes another rotten council.