Parliamentary Health Services Ombudsman

oneye14

antrobus wrote: »

Ah well. It was worth trying I suppose.

Just to summarise for your benefit:-
1. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman is prepared to operate in secrecy / conspire with Gov't Departments she is supposed to be investigating.
2. The Speaker of the House (HOC) appears complicit in the above
3. A claim of damages has been made which if you are a taxpayer may be contributing to.
4. DOT has no remit to comment on the above, which I regard with disbelief.

antrobus

oneye14 wrote: »

Just to summarise for your benefit:-
1. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman is prepared to operate in secrecy / conspire with Gov't Departments she is supposed to be investigating.
2. The Speaker of the House (HOC) appears complicit in the above
3. A claim of damages has been made which if you are a taxpayer may be contributing to.
4. DOT has no remit to comment on the above, which I regard with disbelief.

And to summarise for everyone else's benefit, we have yet to be told exactly what complaint you submitted to the PHSO in the first place.:)

I can only say that I look forward with eager anticipation to the day that this "claim for damages" gets to court.:rotfl:

oneye14

To summarise just for you:
Registrar of Companies (Companies House)
1. Failing (on 3 occasions) to refer complaints to 'The Independent Adjudicators'
2. Being untruthful in Freedom of Information requests/answers
3. Falsifying Companies House records
Item 2 & 3 are still under investigation

BTW I understand this type of case rarely reaches the courts

oneye14

The normal route should be
•The Registrar of Companies own internal complaints procedure;
•The Independent Adjudicators for Companies House;
•reference to your MP;
•The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

However thread was based on the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman irrespective of originating source..

antrobus

oneye14 wrote: »

To summarise just for you:
....

Oh, it's not just for me.

whitelabel wrote: »

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

RuthnJasper wrote: »

....like the other posters, I'm struggling to see what precise point the OP is seeking to highlight.

agrinnall wrote: »

Your reluctance to provide any evidence in this or other threads is making you look like a paranoid conspiracy theorist. .....

Seakay wrote: »

....You make vague accusations and then tell us to sought it out ourselves. You haven't even told us what you want us to seek evidence of. I don't know how you expect DOT to provide you with information when no one who has read or commented on this thread knows what you are talking about. ....

antrobus

oneye14 wrote: »

....Registrar of Companies (Companies House) ...

Now we're getting somewhere. So, the original complaint releates to Companies House. Got some late filling penalties then?

oneye14

antrobus wrote: »

Got some late filling penalties then?

Er No ...

I understand there are several procedural issues plus:

2. Being untruthful in Freedom of Information requests/answers
3. Falsifying Companies House records

As stated this thread is about the Ombudsman - does it not bother you more that she works in secrecy than some minor Gov't Dept..
And the fact I have made some astounding remarks knowing there is no comeback because they are true.

antrobus

oneye14 wrote: »

Er No ...

Late filling penalties are pretty much the only thing that people complain about regarding CH. So what was it then?

oneye14 wrote: »

...I understand there are several procedural issues plus:...

I think it's what they rest of us "understand" that's more the issue here.

oneye14 wrote: »

... As stated this thread is about the Ombudsman - does it not bother you more that she works in secrecy than some minor Gov't Dept..

Since we all remain in state of blissful ignorance as to what it is that is being kept a secret; no, not really.

oneye14 wrote: »

... And the fact I have made some astounding remarks knowing there is no comeback because they are true.

David Icke has made some pretty "astounding remarks" as well. Not much "comeback" there either. I'm not so sure that can be construed as evidence that we really are ruled by a bunch of alien reptiles.

agrinnall

antrobus wrote: »

Late filling penalties are pretty much the only thing that people complain about regarding CH. So what was it then?



I think it's what they rest of us "understand" that's more the issue here.


Since we all remain in state of blissful ignorance as to what it is that is being kept a secret; no, not really.


David Icke has made some pretty "astounding remarks" as well. Not much "comeback" there either. I'm not so sure that can be construed as evidence that we really are ruled by a bunch of alien reptiles.

I hope you have the stamina to keep going, because I'm enjoying this thread a lot more since you decided to get involved :j.

oneye14

antrobus wrote: »

Late filling penalties are pretty much the only thing that people complain about regarding CH. So what was it then?

Obviously not ...


Which bit of
Falsifying Companies House records
do you not understand....

You really are a Timewasting Troll.. and thanks for naming you buddies in post #36 above ..