Letter to the Information Commissioner, 13th November 2006
Re further fraudulent acts against our appeal & head in sand syndrome!s
Dear Rajat Jain
On the 16th November 2005, a year ago we had occasion to bemoan the fact that the ICO not only failed to answer our letters, but failed to acknowledge that the letters had indeed been received. This of course we viewed as sheer incompetence.
Now in November 2006 the same thing has happened again, we now of course view this second episode of negligence as pure contempt, bordering on pure fraudulence and corruption of public duty. We wonder why the ICO as an investigative body, liable to Parliamentary control, have closed our case down without informing us about it. The ICO has been appointed by parliament as investigators not as persecutors.
It may be you have ‘closed us down’ because our attitude has become hardened from years of collusive public sector evasions and deceits? That we should be more polite when disclosing the corrupt acts against us – that we should not get annoyed at the purposely long drawn-out government agency gobbledegook, designed to frustrate us into resigning our struggle, leaving our fate in the hands of fraudulent officials?
We are reminded that having reported to the ICO about the corrupt activities of the VOA, the ICO, despite being called in by us to investigate this somewhat despotic agency, falsely indicated to us, that the VOA had made an ‘honest oversight’. Anyone learning about the dishonesty within the VOA, will realise that instead of the ICO investigating them on our (the victims) behalf, the ICO pronounced in typical public sector cover-up style that this corrupt VOA regime had made an ‘HONEST OVERSIGHT’.
We berated the ICO by claiming amongst other things, that we had suffered from too many such VOA ‘OVERSIGHTS’ and the ICO were out of order in giving protection to our protagonist in what could be described as ombudsman style ‘acquiescent slap on wrist’ judgements towards their public sector colleagues?
We have to say that the evidence shows that the ICO are not an up-front transparent investigative organisation working towards the formation of an idealistic FOIA. It has shown itself in our case, to be no more than a mere member of the public sectors cover-up industry, that gives government agency critics a fraudulent rough ride. This uncivil service aggression against critics can also be seen operating within the VOA and the Ombudsman’s office.
All this corruptive collusion ( the old pals act) of course, is set out to diminish, wear out, and squash critics of the public sectors fraudulent complaints procedures.
We find it suspicious that the ICO are taking the same line as the parliamentary ombudsman, who once we had fingered her fabrications (or porkies), decided to close down our case. We feel that both the ICO and the PO are using the well tried public sector ‘heads in the sand’ strategy, hoping that somehow this will make the corruption handed out to us, go away - disappear into thin air.
Over the years some of the ICO’s instructions to us could so easily be seen as sharp practice. As when during your investigation of the said corrupt agency you made us go back into their fraudulent complaint procedures. This meant that not only were you investigating these miscreants as we asked, but you had us investigating them at the same time, where we, having been through its corrupt procedures previously, had suffered not only from the VOA’s withholding evidence from us, but also having been force-fed its corrupt investigative practices.
We have to say we feel the ICO is giving us this same perverse ‘hanging out to dry’ treatment as given to us by the VOA. We feel we are getting the same sort of insidious handling as given out to us by the Parliamentary Ombudsman, who seemed to become more annoyed, the more we continued with our complaints about the corrupt way our case had been handled.
You will appreciate that as a war pensioner I now, after nearly 4 years of official gobbledegook, find no sustenance in official niceties! The fact is, our case has been corruptly handled, and we ourselves have been corruptly handled, pushed around by public sector miscreants and their severely incompetent collusive agencies!
We send you a copy letter (11 November 2006) sent to the Lord Chancellor office regarding the ICO’s failure to answer our letters, his office sent it on to the Revenue & Customs, who in turn sent it on to the corrupt VOA. The mind boggles? Were they asking the fraudulent VOA to answer the initial question we first posed to the Lord Chancellors office i.e. ‘the ICO’s failure to answer our letters’?
Any honest answer from the ICO will help curb my angst at this time of Remembrance, where honest men fell, and many maimed for a supposedly good democratic cause. Only to find that later on, hard-nosed intransigent civil servants have eroded away our democracy and promoted for themselves a self- protective entrenched corrupt cover-up industry within our brave new world?
Yours exceptionally sincerely
AW & I Tanner.