This page will examine the role of two corrupt government-sponsored quangos in this atrocity. The Indolent Arse Examiner (Independent Case Examiner) is probably the most vile and obviously corrupt of all quangos in British society. It doesn’t even pretend to be anything other than what it is – a part of the organisation about which it pretends to examine disputed cases. It is literally a case of the criminals policing themselves, and one wonders whether any case ever gets a fair resolution.
In my own case, Joanna Wallace despicably did not even consider the most important evidence which was presented. The incident of late May 2013, when I was sent into a humiliating and degrading environment by someone totally untrained to deal with my case, wasn’t even mentioned in the final report. Wallace also deliberately falsified evidence by claiming that signs erected in May 2013 proved that I had been informed of the availability of travel refunds in November 2012.
The Parliamentary Ombudsscum (Parliamentary Ombudsman) is a different case. It is “the end of the line” for any dispute with a government department, so it has to make sure that cases are covered up and disposed of as brutally and effectively as possible. There are several nefarious techniques it uses to achieve this, including the MP filter, refusal to examine a case, selective examination of evidence, and of course the simple obnoxious position of “yes, they did everything wrong, but we don’t care.”
The MP filter acts as a deterrent to people taking their cases to the Ombudsman, although it is unlikely to deter anyone with a serious grievance.
Refusal to examine a case is entirely within the Ombudsscum’s legal remit, giving it the right to simply refuse to deal with any case which would need a substantial correction from a government body. This was the technique used initially to evade responsibility for dealing with the famous Balchin case against the Department of Transport.
Selective examination of evidence is also perfectly legal, giving the Ombudsscum a legal right to ignore anything which proves a complainant’s case, and only consider factors which can be whitewashed and then thrown out. This is what happened, to a degree, in my case.
The obnoxious position of “yes, they did everything wrong, but we don’t care” is, of course, the ultimate answer to any complaint which cannot be rejected on logical terms. The Ombudsscum used this repeatedly in my case.
The Role Of Quangos In Society
Why do these quangos exist? They exist for one purpose, and one purpose only – to divert people away from the legal system where they might have some chance of obtaining justice and a fair settlement. I am not saying for one minute that there are not serious problems with the legal system itself, but that is another story. The quangos are there to dissuade anyone from even attempting to obtain justice.
Litigation is expensive, but Ombudsman quangos can be accessed for nothing. They are the ‘path of least resistance’, but they are also the path that leads straight down a cul-de-sac. By the time you realise that you have been stiffed, scammed, conned, cheated, it is often too late to reverse out and go down the legal road which might actually lead somewhere.
Ombudsman quangos are paid for out of public funds, but have no public accountability. They serve corruption and corruption only. They provide no benefit whatsoever, in fact they provide a severe detriment, for the public who are forced to subsidise them. They could have no place in a just or fair society, and campaigns to have them abolished from ours must never cease until the day they finally achieve their objective.
Challenging Quangos Through The Legal System
In theory, the lawfulness of a quango’s actions can be challenged in the Administrative Court, through Judicial Review. In practice, the law gives them such a wide permissive orbit that virtually nothing they do is ever deemed unlawful. No-one has managed to win a Judicial Review case against the Parliamentary Ombudsscum in the last five years.
As the law gives them virtually unlimited permissive orbit, the verdict in Administrative Court cases is typically, “yes, what they did was completely wrong, irrational and unforgiveable, but it didn’t contravene any law so they win the case anyway.” Even when there are cases which do reach the standard of irrationality demanded by Lord Diplock’s “Wednesbury unreasonable” standard, somehow they still get brushed under the carpet.
Is there any other way of challenging Ombudsman quangos? Yes, there are other ways, and I will be expanding on that later. The most important fact to realise, though, if you are still in the early stages of a case against a government body or a body such as Ignoramus which carries out public functions, is that quangos are only there to make your situation even worse. You MUST get the case into a court before the limitation period expires to have any chance of restitution. Taking a case to court is no guarantee that you will win, but not taking it there is a guarantee that you will lose.