Warning: The Parliamentary Commissioner

oneye14

I have news regarding ..

The Parliamentary Commissioner or to be more precise,
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Health Service.

Warning: The following is being published in the public interest in full knowledge of the Parliamentary Commissioner.
Reference: http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/

The Parliamentary Ombudsman claims: -

"Our role is to investigate complaints that individuals have been treated unfairly or have received poor service from government departments and other public organisations and the NHS in England."
The Parliamentary Commissioner also has a set of 3 consolidated principles which apparently outline how the Ombudsman's office operate, and are open and transparent when it comes handling your case.

However in one case and after several years gathering evidence, the salient points above are not worth the web pages written on:

1. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Health Service was asked to investigate a Government Dept. which at the moment remains unamed but location is revealed below.

2. Upon investigation, certain factors and facts revealed mandarins within this Government Dept. were being less than honest with the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Ombudsman's office being accordingly advised. As nothing was done to remedy the situation, the matter was refered to the South Wales Constabulary for the Government Dept. and the City of London Police for the Ombudsman. Understandably the 2 cases were combined into one for the Cardiff Division of the South Wales Constabulary to investigate.

3. In the interim, the Parliamentary Ombudsman was found to have a 'secret pact' with the said Government Dept. and appears to have every right to do so under Section 11 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.

4. Despite investigation by the police, and to date the Parliamentary Ombudsman's 'secret pact' remains intact.

5. The Parliamentary Ombudsman also attempted to block criminal investigations, and succeeded in doing so for several months last year.

There is more to come.

oneye14

It seems to me the Parliamentary Ombudsman is overly mis-represented by the Ombudsman's website... and what is the Ombudsman {in this case} doing now ?

oneye14

6. With respect to point 5, the Parliamentary Ombudsman's office contacted the South Wales Constabulary late summer last year. The Police confirmed this telephone conversation by email, indicating the Ombudsman's requirement for further information from the complainant.

It transpires this was untrue, and has declined to contact the complainant on this.

7. Prior to the Christmas break, the Speaker of the House the Rt Hon John Bercow was informed of the Parliamentary Ombudsman's position in this case. Days after, the Parliamentary Ombudsman's office contacted the complainant detailing the content of the above telephone conversation.

Mindful of the fact this call was now over 3 months old, the content did not (and still does not) tally with the content of the police email.

There is more to come.

oneye14

There has been an intentional 'pause' in publication to allow those involved to respond. It appears the 'fair comment' above remains unchallenged.

vuvuzela

So, for people reading this who have no idea of what it is obliquely referring to (like me), what does this actually mean and what has been done (or not done, as the case may be) ? Cheers.

pmduk

OP, you're coming across as rather obsessive, I'm afraid

whitelabel

!!!!!! are you on , on about ?

i hope there is no more to come

oneye14

Hey Don't shoot the messenger.

If you don't understand - ask

My understanding is the Parliamentary Ombudsman is the highest and most honoured investigator in the UK. So why the need for secrecy when the Ombudsman's website clearly states otherwise ?

Techhead_2

oneye14 wrote: »

Hey Don't shoot the messenger.

If you don't understand - ask

My understanding is the Parliamentary Ombudsman is the highest and most honoured investigator in the UK. So why the need for secrecy when the Ombudsman's website clearly states otherwise ?

With the greatest of respect, people have asked. Your posts are rather oblique and do not actually say what the issue is. Also, you use rather odd phrases like "highest and most honoured" where words are clearly being used incorrectly . Do you mean "highest and most revered" ; "highest and most honourable" or something else?

Is this a vent or a warning?

pmduk

oneye14 wrote: »

Hey Don't shoot the messenger.

If you don't understand - ask

If you want people to engage with you, it's up to you, as post creator, to make matters clear.

vuvuzela

oneye14 wrote: »

Hey Don't shoot the messenger.

If you don't understand - ask

My understanding is the Parliamentary Ombudsman is the highest and most honoured investigator in the UK. So why the need for secrecy when the Ombudsman's website clearly states otherwise ?

I did ask, but you ignored me. So I will ask again.

What does this mean, in plain English ?