Saturday, August 29, 2009

Graham Crane's petition (Last few days)

There are only a few days left in which to sign the petition to scrap the LGO. Please consider signing the petition before the 5th September 2009.

If Graham manages to get over 200 signatures the Government will have to provide a response. One of their earlier responses to a petition provided evidence that the LGO misled the Government over their true compliance rates. Every successful petition, irrespective of the Government's response, is another nail in the LGO coffin.

Don't forget that every family member can sign as long as they have a unique email address. Same goes for your friends and wider family.

It only takes a few seconds to sign and could help put a stop to the injustice and misery the LGO are guilty of perpetrating. Click here to sign

Last day to sign is the 5th September 2009


Footnote: At about 9pm on Sunday the 30th August 2009 the 200th person signed Graham's petition. However, please continue to sign because we are aware that the government often remove names from petitions without warning.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

The truth is out (Update 1)

Further to my earlier post the truth is out

I submitted a follow up Freedom of information request to the LGO in order to obtain an unredacted copy of the email that Nigel Karney (LGO) sent to Stephen McAllister (DCLG) about the LGO's compliance rates. I also asked the Department of Communities and Local Government for a copy just in case the LGO tried to block my request. I have now received a response from the LGO and the email is copied below. I also received a response from the DCLG on the very same day.

Stephen

The compliance rate in 2007/08 was also 100%. But it is important to appreciate that this reflects our relationship with bodies in jurisdiction that has matured to high levels of respect over a 30 year history. The rate of compliance was very different in the early years of our scheme

We feel very strongly that your petition response should be specific to complaints under our current jurisdiction covering local government and similar public bodies. Your current wording reads as a statement that would cover all circumstances.

As you are aware, the Ombudsmen are in discussion with the government about the possibility of binding recommendations being appropriate for `self funders'. This is on the basis that this sector does not have a mature relationship with an ombudsman type organisation. Furthermore, the private sector may be less likely to be persuaded by the sanction of a published response to a further report and, in many cases, publicity will not be in the best interests of the complainant.

Regards

Nigel


I will comment on the content of the email in my next post.

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Humorous quotes about the LGO

Local Government Ombudsmen,
  • would get a rebate if the Government taxed justice.
  • are a Government experiment in Artificial Stupidity.
  • have delusions of adequacy.
  • would be out of their depth in a puddle.
  • are diagonally parked in a parallel universe.
  • bring a lot of joy when they leave a room.
  • are so dense light bends around them.
  • are gross incompetents - that's 144 times more incompetent that other Ombudsmen.
  • have flippers further apart in the pinball game of justice.
  • have an intellect rivalled only by garden tools.
  • all froth and no beer.
  • proof that evolution can go in reverse.
  • work well when cornered like a rat in a trap.
  • are depriving other public sector organisations of an idiot.
  • have a photographic memory but with the lens cap on.
  • will give you change if you give them a penny for their thoughts.
  • can't find their ass with two hands and a mirror.

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Number 10 Petition Website not to be trusted.

Following a freedom if information request to identify the following

How many names/signatures your office has removed from approved petitions, the reasons for their removal, the url of the petitions that names/signatures have been removed from.

I have identified that Number 10 do not keep accessible records of how many signatures have been removed, the reason for their removal or the petition they were removed from.

Although they stated that they have the right to remove a name that consists of more than just a name this is obviously discretionary because many petitions have entries that consist of more than just a name, Here is an example. Ironically they have left my name on this petition whilst removing it from others.

Unfortunately, the way Number 10 currently run the petition website leaves it open to serious abuse because anyone with access can remove as many names as they wish from any petition without having to account for their actions.

As a result, from today I am recommending that people use an alternative petition website because the Number 10 clearly cannot be trusted. Here are a number of others for people to consider.

Lobbyingforum ipetitions care2 petitionOnline petition.co.uk

I for one will never sign another Number 10 petition until this abuse is stopped.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Recruitment of a replacement Local Government Ombudsman (Update 3)

Further to my previous posts

Recruitment of a replacement Local Government Ombudsman,
Recruitment of a replacement Local Government Ombudsman(Update 1)
and Recruitment of a replacement Local Government Ombudsman (Update 2)

I have now had a response to a freedom of information request to the LGO

'I would like to know when Tony Redmond, the Chair of the Commission for Local administration, was first made aware that Jerry White, a Local Government Ombudsmen, was leaving the commission.'

Although Mrs Pook doesn't think it appropriate I ask the question she ignores the fact that the delay, in Mr White's resignation becoming known to the CLAE and DCLG was used as an excuse to seek a post-appointment rather than pre-appointment hearing against the wishes of the Government. As usual something stinks in the world of the LGO but at least the Minister concerned has refused an application to hold a post appointment hearing.

Unfortunately for the LGO they will now be an Ombudsman down until the proper procedure is followed. This would appear to mean that Redmond and Seex will have to split White's workload until a replacement had been recruited. If only they had followed the correct procedure in the first place!

Out of interest the Department of Communities and Local Government were notified by White of his intention to resign on the 23rd September 2008. However, they failed to advertise for a replacement for a further 6 months.

Saturday, August 08, 2009

The LGO always believe the council. Update 2.

Further to my initial post The LGO always believe the council and the update The LGO always believe the council. Update 1 I am now close to completing my research. Only a few Freedom of Information requests still to come in but with the majority now in I thought it was time to publish the outcome of my research to date. With close to 400 hundred Council responses to collate it has produced a large document. As a result I decided to publish my finding on the Ombudsman Watchers website and link to it here. The results are exactly what I expected. Up to now the Local Government Ombudsman has not brought one incident of a Council Officer misleading or lying to them to the attention of a Council over the last 5 years following which the Council Officer concerned has faced any proper disciplinary consequences. Whilst this could be explained away by arguing that no council officer has ever lied to or misled the Ombudsman, it would be an answer that most people would consider a statistical impossibility. In any event I have also provided evidence of a council officer lying to the LGO during 2002 which the LGO subsequently ignored. In addition, this was not an isolated incidence as readers will see when I publish my full response to the Ombudsman's final report.

If any reader has evidence similar to mine please send it to me so I can add it to the final part of my research on this subject.