My Response to The Property Ombudsman (on Trustpilot as their website isn't working)

Re TPO21844.  I tried to submit the same data a third time on reading your latest pusillanimous emails but your tedious website will not let me.  But then you don't actually read my emails.  I did not ask you to turn anyone into the police. I suggested you ask PPM to turn themselves into the police.  

You say you cannot take on the role of the police but the police are the public and the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence or so was Sir Robert Peel's original concept of Policing by Consent.  

Your concept of it seems to be that on perceiving criminal corruption and conspiracies you just let them go by as they are not part of your purview.  I would remind you that hiding evidence to protect a suspect can lead to a charge of perverting the course of justice or assisting an offender but of course that can't happen to you and I am "unprofessional" for mentioning it ... even though I was not on wages to start with.  So anyway if you could sort out your form so I can go through the tedious process of re-entering all the same data for a fourth time... because your terms of reference are so narrow even paper doll man couldn't get through them...

They replied...

Hi Anthony, we're sorry about this - we're experiencing a technical issue with our online complaint form that we are working to resolve. If you visit our homepage www.tpos.co.uk, there is a link to our offline complaints form, which is a PDF you can fill out and then email to admin@tpos.co.uk.

We hope this helps. Thank you

Well, not really.  I did get the slightly more helpful if still pusillanimous correspondence from LEASE today though in which they tie themselves in knots trying to find a reason why removing a "historical surplus" wouldn't basically be just embezzlement...

Client Number: 1030561

Enquiry Number: 1110038

Dear Mr  Miller,

Thank you for your email. I appreciate why you are concerned, particularly given the information provided by the managing agent and the apparent reduction in the reserve fund balance.

From the information you have provided, I am unable to say whether the managing agent has acted correctly or whether the adjustment is permitted. Much will depend on the wording of your lease, as this governs how service charge accounts should be prepared, how any year-end surplus or deficit should be dealt with, and the purposes for which the reserve fund may be used.

Many leases set out what should happen at the end of each accounting year. Where there is a service charge deficit, it is common for the landlord to recover any balancing amount from leaseholders in accordance with the lease, usually by issuing a balancing charge or adjusting future service charge demands. Equally, if there is a surplus, the lease may require it to be credited to leaseholders, carried forward, or transferred to a reserve fund. The correct approach will depend entirely on the lease provisions.

Reserve funds are generally established for specific purposes, most commonly to build up money for anticipated future expenditure, such as major works or significant repairs. Whether a reserve fund can also be used to absorb a historic service charge deficit is not something that can be answered in the abstract and will depend on what your lease permits. If the lease does not authorise the reserve fund to be used in this way, there may be scope to argue that the fund has been used for a purpose outside that contemplated by the lease.

If, having reviewed the lease, it appears that the reserve fund has been applied for a purpose which is not authorised by its terms, this may potentially give rise to issues extending beyond whether a service charge is reasonable or payable. Depending on the circumstances, it could amount to a question of whether the landlord has complied with its contractual obligations under the lease. As this would involve interpreting and potentially enforcing contractual rights, it falls outside LEASE’s remit to advise on the merits of any legal claim, and you may wish to seek independent legal advice if you consider that to be the case.

In the meantime, you may wish to:

Review the lease carefully to establish:

the purpose for which the reserve fund was established;

whether the lease permits reserve funds to be used to offset historic deficits;

and what the lease requires to happen where there is a surplus or deficit at the end of each accounting year.

Exercise your statutory rights under sections 21 and 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to obtain a summary of the service charge accounts (if required) and inspect the supporting invoices, receipts and accounting records. This may assist in understanding how the historic deficit arose and how the adjustment to the reserve fund has been accounted for.

If, after reviewing the lease and supporting documentation, you remain concerned that the reserve fund has been used contrary to the lease, you may wish to obtain independent legal advice on your options and whether a court claim is appropriate - Using a solicitor | Lease advice

I hope my comments prove helpful. Please note that due to high demand, we restrict our clients to a maximum of three telephone or written enquiries per month, and a maximum of ten enquiries per year. This is so we can provide advice to as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. If you are close to, or have reached this limit, then we will let you know in a separate email.

Finally, you are invited to use the link - https://clients.lease-advice.org/#/Survey;type=email;id=FeM3k1mQQU3RFLYBP4tT-3-A-2--2- to complete a short survey regarding this response to your enquiry. Your answers help us maintain and improve the quality of our service. Please note that the questions are only about the most recent advice, not any other enquiry you might have had with LEASE previously.

If you are really happy with the service I've given, please consider nominating me for a WOW! Award using this link - https://www.lease-advice.org/about-us/the-wow-awards/

Yours sincerely,

Amani 

Legal Adviser

The Leasehold Advisory Service

Sadly I do not think Amani's advice is award winning but I do seem to be getting somewhere finally with the PoPo... Feast your eyes on this extremely rare phenomenon.  The sight of Fraud Report actually professing to doing something...

RE: RF26070349607C

Dear anthony miller

I am writing to update you on the current position of your report, which was summarised as follows:

A person has altered, destroyed or defaced any account; or presented accounts from an individual or an organisation which do not reflect the true value or the financial activities of the company.

We have reviewed the information you provided and have passed your report to Metropolitan Police Service for their consideration.

Please note Metropolitan Police Service is now responsible for deciding whether to commence an investigation and for providing you with further updates to your report. Metropolitan Police Service can be contacted by visiting their website at www.met.police.uk and following their ‘Contact Us’ instructions, or by calling 101. If you wish to make further updates to your report please contact the force direct.

When you contact Metropolitan Police Service please give them your reference number RF26070349607C. Importantly, because your report has now been sent to Metropolitan Police Service we can no longer accept further updates to your Report Fraud submission.

If you have any queries regarding this letter visit https://reportfraud.police.uk/faqs/ where you will find answers to most common questions. If you feel your query remains unanswered, you can submit your question to us via our online form. You can also register on our partner website https://reportfraudalert.co.uk to receive email alerts about new and emerging crime types.

Your feedback is vital to us in improving the service that we provide. Our feedback survey is voluntary, completely anonymous and should take no longer than 5 minutes to complete. If you would like to give us some feedback please click here: https://emea.dcv.ms/Q7ksSWBIoy.

Thank you again for taking the time to report this matter.

Report Fraud

Breaking news for racists...

 

Canterbury and the River Stour
are both still there...

...they haven't changed.
Not one jot.

Live at the Apollo cancelled in row over light bulbs

The BBC said today that it had to cancel "Live at the Apollo" for budgetary reasons.  Apart from requiring both a camera and a stage light the "Live At the Apollo" logo contained a dazzling number of electric lightbulbs which collectively had become simply too expensive to turn on.  Some of them, according to an internal report were as bright as 600 lumen each.  With twenty such bulbs deployed to illuminate just one "O" the BBC was paying thousands in electricity costs which were not justifyable when plumper stand-up stars like Gary Delaney could obscure as much as half a letter at a time.  Combined with the cost of living crisis and oil and electricity spikes created by Donald Trump's war in Iran and falling licence fee revenues something had to give.

"Look we're not Youtube," said a BBC spokesperson.  "We don't have just endless money with which to illuminate light bulbs.  You can't just point a camera at someone funny and expect the result to hilarity, mirth or amusement.  Producing comedy is much more complicated than that.  It requires at the very least the installation of a Smart Meter so the killawatt hours can be carefully budgeted for.

Sources say the BBC is working on a new format "Live at the Asclepius".  As befits the God of the art of medicine it will be filmed entirely on the Casualty set to save on lighting and production costs and merged with other cancelled shows such as Doctor Who, Blankety Blank and Celebrity Mastermind to produce something completely different.

More pusillanimous correspondence from The Property Ombudsman ...

....an Ombudsman with terms of reference so narrow that even paper doll man struggles to get through them.  The previous two complaints were rejected outright on the grounds that I hadn't exhausted PPM's infinitely long complaints procedure.

With a rejection rate of 90% you've only got a 10% chance 

of not being told to fuck off by the TPO.

However, in the interests of entertainment

I shall soldier on...

Dear Mr Anthony Miller

Thank you for sending us details of your complaint against Prime Property Management (PPM).  

The Property Ombudsman (TPO) cannot consider most aspects of your dispute because they fall outside our scheme rules.  I am writing to you to explain your options and to give information about the next steps.  

Please read the attached guide which sets out the issues we can consider. 

Who we are and how we can help 

TPO’s role as an alternative dispute resolution service is to consider whether the business has provided an appropriate standard of service. We may award redress (compensation) where we find that a business has caused avoidable aggravation, distress and/or inconvenience. However, TPO is not a regulator of the property industry, and there are limits to the types of complaint we can consider. 

There are significant limitations to the complaints that TPO can consider against block management agents from resident management companies, landlords and freeholders.

You say that it took PPM a very long time to return the budget surplus. You say that they have "repaid" the surplus by ‘stealing £3940 from the Reserve Fund’. You say that you have exhausted their many forms, yet managers have not provided any answers and have not provided bank statements.

It is not within TPO’s remit to audit, verify, or carry out a detailed analysis of the service/estate charge accounts to determine whether the figures are correct or whether charges have been taken from the appropriate account. We do not consider disputes in the same way as the courts, and we are not accountants or auditors.  As such, it is likely that TPO will not be able to resolve your complaint in the way in which you're seeking.

Other options 

While complaints about an agent’s communication and fair treatment in relation to the disputed charges do fall within our remit, we will not be able to make a decision on most of the issues you have raised. 

On this basis, we cannot investigate their accounting, we cannot ‘turn them into the police’ as per your request within your completed TPO Complaints Form and we cannot direct PPM to provide you with any particular responses, explanation or bank statements.

You may wish to seek independent advice for your options in pursuing PPM outside of TPO. We recommend you contact Citizens’ Advice https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/ or seek independent legal advice. 

If you choose for TPO to consider the limited aspects of your complaint (in relation to their complaint handling and communication with you) and we make an award of compensation, it is likely to be modest. If you accept an award we make, you will be doing so in full and final settlement of your complaint against the agent and agree that all the complaints that TPO have considered against the agent have been resolved.  

Next steps 

If you would like us to consider your dispute with PPM in line with the restrictions I have outlined, you will need to resubmit a new complaint form on our website www.tpos.co.uk.  

It is important that you only include issues on your complaint form which fall within TPO’s remit (see attached leaflet for more information).  If you include other complaints which do not fall within our jurisdiction, there is a risk your case will not be accepted.  

No action will be taken on your complaint until you resubmit your form.  

Contacting us 

We will not take further action on your complaint. 

This is a no reply mailbox which is not monitored. Please do not respond to this email. We will not reply to any emails which are sent to this email mailbox.  

If you have any queries, you can contact us here: https://www.tpos.co.uk/about-us/contact-us/ or look at the FAQs on our website. 

Alternatively, you can call us on 01722 333306. 

In the Mirror Universe that is social media...

Patrick Stewart is older than William Shatner.

Whinge whinge whinge whinge whinge whinge whinge whinge whinge whinge whinge whinge whinge whinge whinge

You'd think the Jewish Chronicle whose articles for no apparent reason wander across my feeds would be just a little bit pleased that a Jewish person had made it to one of the great three offices of state.  I mean, there haven't been many.  But no it's whinge whinge whinge whinge whinge whinge whinge whinge whinge whinge whinge whinge whinge whinge whinge ....

Actually I think Dominic Raab had a Jewish father and of course there was David Miliband .... but anyway they've attempted a proper hatchet job on Ed instead... he apparently is the most destructive politician of our lifetime... His crime?  Not bombing Syria.

"Miliband’s time as Labour leader coincided with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad using Sarin gas to butcher 1,400 people – thus crossing the supposed “red line” which President Obama had set against the use of chemical weapons. In response, Obama planned a military strike with the UK and France. The then PM, David Cameron, promised that the Commons would be able to vote on such operations – and Miliband, in the single most shameful decision taken by any mainstream politician of my lifetime, whipped Labour MPs to oppose action against Assad’s chemical weapons. With some Conservative and Lib Dem MPs also voting against, the motion was defeated and action was vetoed. That in turn led Obama to take fright, lest he suffer a similar fate in Congress."

So apparently despite being Leader of the Opposition with only 258 seats Ed is single handedly responsible for us not bombing Syria which probably wouldn't have helped anyone much as was the argument in Congress at the time which, again, Ed would have had limited involvement with.  Now to be fair there is an argument for intervention where WMD are deployed but Congress wasn't in a rush to get bogged down in another war in the middle east.  And didn't the Assad regime collapse anyway?

Anyway not content with blaming Ed for Assad's continuing use of Chemical weapons he's apparently responsible for the invasion of Crimea as well...

"A clear message was sent to Assad that he was free to carry on using chemical weapons, which he did. A similar message of Western pusillanimity was also heard by Vladimir Putin, who invaded the Crimea the following year."

Other appauling crimes Ed committed were opening up the Labour Party leadership election to non-members on payment of £3 which resulted in Jeremy Corybn becoming leader... ah the good old days when they asked the members who should be leader... and his ideologically-driven pursuit of Net Zero.

"We are now to be represented globally by the man who gave Assad the green light to murder his own people with chemical weapons."

Chinny rub

"Even before becoming PM, last week Andy Burnham singled out Israel for special, extra opprobrium." 

Well, actually he was talking about the Labour Party's reaction to Gaza without using the "g" word... so hardly very hurty words...

 

What has the BBC done to patronise me?

The new "what has the BBC ever done for me?" ad is awful. The original was a pub packed with stars and the joke was how much talent in one room - contrasting the everyday setting with the extraordinary customers.  In this one Romesh (nice but a b lister like most of their on screen talent) runs about all over the place and the best he can find is a couple of Daleks who've been made redundant from Doctor Who and the dancers who do the indents and the lady who does Traitors (an imported format they didn't come up with).  Can't ask the Doctor - we don't even know who that is anymore.  The depressing EastEnders set is there because they overspent so much money on it they created a National Audit office investigation - shame no one watches anymore ... The top ten rated shows are usually mostly Coronation Street.  It just reminds you the anemic offering the BBC now makes for the same money they charge you.... Sitcoms or even sketch shows are now as rare as rocking horse shit with all the comedians bundled onto panel shows.  They may as well shut down TV and become a wireless program.  It's also hard to take Romesh seriously as the voice of financial sense and value for money when he's just lost £400,000 in Coughlan's bakery in a minority share sting so simple it was like something Sid James might cook up in Hancock's Half Hour... The BBC was always slightly smug and pompous but it's like everything good has melted away only to leave the pomposity and the increasingly desperate threatening demands for money.  Ava Alexis hasn't had a TV since 1985 and nothing makes her continue to not want one more than the continuous ludicrous threats of prosecution.  You used to just have to fill in a form once every 5 years.  Now they send red letters monthly with the threatened fines on the outside of the envelopes.  I'm tired of telling her not to open the door to your thugs. 

 

Britian's glorious healthcare service before the NHS

It's hard to keep up with all the whoppers promoted on X but I particularly enjoyed this one on that the NHS had a "thriving healthcare sector before the NHS built on private practice, mutual aid and charity".

I mean, for a start charity isn't what I would call thriving industry.  It certainly wasn't thriving when my mother needed a mastoidectomy in 1940 as they had to go round the village begging for money.  But of course my mother is a primary source so must be wrong.  Instead we must trust Professor Barry Doyle Professor of Health History at the University of Huddersfield who promotes what he must know to be a lie that "the National Insurance Act of 1911 changed that. It provided access to general practitioners (GPs) for manual labourers and lower paid non-manual workers earning under a certain income, together with tuberculosis care".  

Well, as the Master used to say, for a lie to work it must be shrouded in truth...  

What the Asquith government offered was nothing like the modern GP serivce ... it was that the very sick could be eligible for what was called "treatment by a panel doctor" which is a very different thing to having a General Practitioner.  There was no organised system of everyone having their own doctor or of a proper organised system for collecting medical notes.  You also had to have a job that was recognised as a job in order to be covered.  Casual labourers like my grandmother and children such as my mother were outside the system.  Even if they were covered no one told them much... It's fun as well how someone managed to write an article on pre-war social and healthcare provision without mentioning the word "Workhouse".  Mayday Hospital (or Croydon University Hospital as it now calls itself) was actually the old workhouse which is why many of its buildings are so hideously depressing - to discourage anyone from going there by choice...

It's hard to get a picture of what the panel doctor system was like other than by talking to people like my 86 year old mother but I did find this...

Services under the National Health Insurance Act Anne Digby, The Evolution of British General Practice 1850–1948 (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 318–22.

"Class assumptions shaped the perceptions of bureaucrats as well as of doctors. English Insurance Committees were circulated on whether panel patients received as good a service as private patients, and the omissions and face-saving phraseology in their replies pointed to a divided system of medical care. An obvious indication of the two-tier nature of practice could be readily observed in the differentiated physical accommodation and reception of patients. Panel patients frequently queued at a back door to enter a cramped, barely furnished surgery, there to wait their turn for the doctor during fixed surgery hours. In contrast, their middle-class counterparts chose personally convenient times for appointments, were greeted by a maid at the front door, and waited in a comfortable room in the doctor’s house for more extended medical interviews. Indeed, there was neither incentive for the panel doctor to improve accommodation, nor any effective coercion to do so, since although the rare insurance committee(such as Birmingham) inspected the surgery accommodation of insurance doctors several times, others (like London or Devonshire), did so only rarely or unsystematically."

It continues...

"Insurance doctors had to give all proper and necessary medical services except those requiring special skill. This meant inter alia7 that treatment of fractures or dislocation was expected but not an operationfor piles or an operation on tubercular glands. More serious cases were referred for treatment in the outpatients departments of hospitals"

In other words if you needed an operation you could go away.  One of the most common operations post the introduction of the NHS was for female prolapses.  Pre-NHS people just lived with them - for years.  The lucky had access to hospital care through mutual societies.  Aneurin Bevan based the NHS model on the Tredegar Medical Aid Society in Wales.  He saw it seemed to be working and simply scaled the principles up.  What the NHS gave people that was missing before was free access not just to see a doctor but to actual hospital care...

As to the kind of medical record keeping that a modern GP does.  Well, pre the NHS... 

"Diagnoses were almost entirely for physical ailments, and few clinical measurements were recorded as having been made in reaching them. Panel doctors seem to have shown little or no appreciation of the value of the NHI clinical record for their patients. The financial committee of one Scottish panel even minuted that ‘the present medical record system is serving no useful purpose and in the interest of economy should be scrapped’. "

But apparently "public opinion data from the late 1930s and early 1940s suggest most people were broadly satisfied" (so says Professor Martin Gorsky to whom the formation of the NHS is a mystery).  So that's alright then.  Not sure how they polled my grandmother.  She didn't have a telephone until 1982.  Relying on statistical data when there is no obvious way to collect it is obvious nonsensical but I suppose if it wasn't there...  Perhaps some of these professors would do better to read other contemporaneous sources of public opinion such as Dr A. J. Cronin's controversial novel The Citadel in which "I have written in ....all I feel about the medical profession, its injustices, its hide-bound unscientific stubbornness, its humbug ... The horrors and inequities detailed in the story I have personally witnessed. This is not an attack against individuals, but against a system."  Or perhaps some lighter reading like Agathar Christe ... how many doctors are vilains handing out addicitive opiates to their private patients till they're hooked?  Why was cocaine addict Sherlock Holmes best friend Doctor Watson? etc...

I don't mind academics living in an ivory tower until they try to sell their rose tinted specales as serious political policies.  As to the twitter account with its cherry picked statistics it seems to be the work of a young Australian gentleman with a fondness for right wing thinktanks.  He and his minions have somehow transmutated all this into "Pre-1948 nationalisation of health care: there were 2 750 hospitals most built prior to 20th C; 480k hospital beds; fully staffed without immigrants; 400k on waiting list – 0.75% of pop 50 million.  NHS today: now only 1 600 hospitals (still most built before the 20thC; 145k hospital beds; staffed by immigrants; 7 million + on the waiting list –10% of pop 68 million."

Which is a level of nonsense I do not feel willing to do battle with... for a start it depends what you qualify as a hospital... this would have included workhouses which bridged social support and healthcare and lunatic asylums which have now been dismantled for care in the community.  Only a minority offered much in the way of useful clincial facilities as we would understand today...  Next week, Healthcare - why can't we leave it to the Monastic sector?

The "Lady Chief Justice" is not classed as a "Senior Judge"

I wrote to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Unit about the Palestine Action Proscription ruling and in particular Baroness Carr's ludicrous and offensive description of the Suffragettes as "a direct action civil disobedience protest group ... operating transparently in the open" when it was quite clearly a terrorist organisation that used firebombing tactics, horsewhipped Winston Churchill at at railway station and invented the letter bomb... 

Now this was a bit naughty as I know I cannot make a complaint about the Judgement itself so I thought instead I'd find an obscure ground to make a technical complaint on so chose sexist language and so ... I was expecting to get a response saying that this is not a relevant complaint.

However, not only did I get a response stating that the complaint was rejected I got the following bizarre reply stating that even if Baroness Carr had indeed been sexist - which assertion they rejected - she was in fact outside the remit of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Unit because the "Lady Chief Justice" is not classed as a "Senior Judge".  One might ask what she's doing sitting on the Court of Appeal then?  Or indeed why she's on the Privy Council?  Or why she's on £312,000 a year?  Or why she is is the Head of the Judiciary of England and Wales and the President of the Courts of England and Wales?  Was no one else available?

Apparently I can still complain to the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman which I may do about the historical ignorance of our Judges but I found it interesting that they rejected my complaint not just for being bollocks but because the Lady Chief Justice is not a Senior enough Judge.  

If you're wondering how senior you have to be to be called a senior Judge the mysterious answers are chronicled below in a communication that reads like something out of Jarndyce & Jarndyce...

Our ref: 52004/26

02 July 2026

Dear Anthony Miller,

Complaint Regarding the Lady Chief Justice

I refer to your complaint dated 17 June regarding the Lady Chief Justice.

I have now assessed your complaint. You are receiving this letter because your complaint is

outside the JCIO’s statutory remit.

The framework for considering complaints about judicial conduct is set out in Chapter 3 of

Part 4 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (“the Act”), the Judicial Discipline (Prescribed

Procedures) Regulations 2014 (“the 2014 regulations”) and the supporting Judicial Conduct

Rules.

The statutory framework applies to judicial office holders. Judicial office, for the purposes of

discipline, is defined in section 109(4) of the Act as office as a senior judge or an office listed

in Schedule 14 to the Act. The office of senior judge is further defined in section 109(5) as any

of –

• The Master of the Rolls

• The President of the Queen’s Bench Division

• The President of the Family Division

• The Chancellor of the High Court

• A Lord Justice of Appeal

• A puisne judge of the High Court

The office of Lady (or Lord) Chief Justice does not appear in either Schedule 14 to the Act or

in the definition of senior judge as set out in section 109(5). It is for this reason that the

statutory framework does not apply to the office of the Lady Chief Justice. 

For the reasons explained above, the office of Lady Chief Justice is not a judicial office in the

context of the judicial discipline rules and regulations and nor is it any of the other types of

offices listed in that regulation.

It may assist you to know that even if the office of Lady Chief Justice had fallen within the

remit of the judicial discipline rules and regulations, your complaint would have been rejected

in any event. This is because, as part of their case management discretion, judges are entitled

to form and express opinions about issues related to a case they are presiding over. Expressing

that view in the language you have cited in the example provided would not constitute

misconduct. The language itself was not inappropriate, even though you personally found the

judge’s view to be offensive. The fact you have been offended would not, in itself, constitute

misconduct on the part of the judge.

Please note that we cannot respond to any further correspondence about your complaint that

does not contain relevant new information which might give rise to the need to reconsider

our decision.

Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman

You can complain to the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman, Douglas

Marshall, if you believe the JCIO have not handled your complaint properly. The

Ombudsman does not have the power to investigate the complaint itself, but he can

consider how the JCIO has handled it. You should make your complaint within 28 days of

receiving this letter. The Ombudsman is not required to consider complaints outside this

period. If you miss this deadline, the Ombudsman usually will not look at your complaint

unless there is a good reason for the delay.

To make a complaint, use the online form: https://jaco.form.service.justice.gov.uk

The Ombudsman will need your permission in order to consider your complaint. You will

need to provide your permission for his Office to disclose your complaint to the JCIO, and

for the JCIO to disclose our documents to them.

You will also need to provide your JCIO reference number. It is in the top right of this letter.

It will start with “Our Ref” and have seven numbers, for example, 12345/26.

The Ombudsman’s Office can also be contacted:

• In writing: 1.55, 1st Floor, The Tower, 102 Petty France, London, SW1H 9AJ

• By e-mail: headofoffice@judicialombudsman.gov.uk

You can find further information about the Ombudsman, as well as easy-read versions of

the complaint form and leaflet, at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/judicialappointments-and-conduct-ombudsman

Your personal data

You can find information about how the JCIO collects and processes personal data in our

Privacy Notice: www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/privacy-notice.

My Complaint

Summary: The Judge said : "It is not - as claimed - a direct action civil disobedience protest group like the suffragettes, operating transparently in the open," she added. "It is a covert organisation which operates with secret cells to avoid the detection and prosecution of those using violence to destroy property and cause injury." I wish to complain that this is sexist. The Women's Social and Political Union were in fact an extremely accomplished and successful terrorist organisation. They invented the letterbomb sending such devices to both David Lloyd George and Herbert Asquith. They horsewhipped Winston Churchill and Bristol Railway Station. Mabel Capper threw a hatchet at Asquith cutting Irish MP John Redmond on the ear and firebombed the Theatre Royal. When Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence and Frederick Pethick-Lawrence objected to these tactics they were expelled from the WSPU. Asquith was frequently assaulted whilst playing golf. They used not just petrol bombs but had their own production line for the manufacture of nitroglycerine. Destroyed buildings included The Nevill Ground Pavilion, Royal Tunbridge Wells. There was also a tube bombing campaign and multiple postmen were injured by phosphorus letterbomb devices. There was a large firebombing campaign aimed at private houses around London. Schools, prisons, churches and dockyards were all subject to attack. There was even a plan to kidnap the Home Secretary. As a result the counter-terrorist Special Branch of London's Metropolitan Police were brought in to infiltrate meetings resulting in secretive structures of the kind the Judge states did not exist. Given all this well known information which can easily be procured by a visit to wikipedia it is astounding that the Judge equates Palestine Action which the Suffragettes when the Suffragettes clearly deliberately targeted people and not just property. Therefore I wish to complain that the Judge's remarks are sexist in that they seek to portray women as "the gentler sex" and promote a fiction that Universal Suffrage for all was achieved by mere direct action civil disobedience when in fact it was achieved by brutal physical violence and terror. This perpetuates a view that women are not equal to men in their ability to run effective, violent terrorist campaigns. It seeks to portray the Suffragettes as a sterotype of demure, sensible ladies which is insulting to the femaile sex and to humanity as a whole. I therefore which to complain that the Judge's remarks represent using racist, sexist, or otherwise offensive language.

Pardon?

Ruth Ellis took a gun from her bag and fired 5 shots at Blakely. The first missed. She pursued Blakely as he ran around a car, firing a second shot that caused him to collapse onto the pavement. She then stood over him and fired 3 more bullets. How much more premeditated could it be?  Yet David Lammy pardoned her. 

Of course she was in an abusive relationship and Blakely knocked her about causing her a miscarriage some months before but she absolutely said she intended to kill him & got the Smith & Weston and went to the Magdala Public House with the express intention of filling him full of lead which she absolutely did.  You got to give it to Ruth - not just double tap but quadruple.  The last thing she was having was that bastard surviving on her.  It was like something out of a Quintin Tarantino revenge movie.  Such was the notoriety of the case that the landlady of the pub tried to cash in by drilling fake bullet holes in the walls.... Lammy's pardon has a similar relationship with reality.  But really what is the point of this "pardon" - really a statement that her hanging should have been commuted ... It just sounds like total bollocks.  No contemporary Home Secretary would have not hung her because you can't have people going about shooting off handguns like that even at people who deserve it... so it's just terminally silly.

Elsewhere on his feed Lammy is still ranting about the lady who carried the placard calling him and Sewerella "coconuts" for enabling the genocide in Gaza even though the case fell apart when it went to court because the Judge said it was clearly satire.  Can't wait for him to abolish Jury Trials.  Perhaps he knows Burnham will sack him by the 17th or 19th and is trying to manufacture a positive story to go out on.  But like Ruth the blood won't wash off your hands mate...

 

 

HSBC - the Bank that likes to say No

Today I went to HSBC with the intention of paying £100 in cash in.  Loadsamoney!  Outside the remaining Croydon branch there is an intimidating security guard and inside there are three women one of whom has a laptop perched at bar hight tables with no uniform just casual clothing and an HSBC lanyard.  

There are four paying in machines.  I put my card in one.  Only a button for depositing cheques appeared on the screen.  I tried another and another and another with the same disappointing results.  

So I asked one of the three ladies which machines that said they took cash actually could take cash.  She said the first two and then looking at my card said "They won't take a first direct card though - it's to do with the switch from Visa to Mastercard [or was it the other way round?]."  I suppose that reveals something of what an empty shell this institution is, that it simply bows to the whims and caprices of the card providers...

In the absence of an automatic teller being able to count my money for me I asked if there was anyone at the manual teller desk all three of whose windows were closed.  "No," came the reply. 

Thinking that it was a bit farcical having a bank branch staffed by three ladies who were not allowed to take deposits... "Oh well," I said, "it's nice that you have the paying in counter there for ornamental effect."

The lady said they only had the staff to count money on weekdays.  So what do you do sitting at those tables on a Saturday Morning?  No one was buying any services off you so I presume it is a gossiping hub.  She proceeded to advise me that I could pay money in at the Post Office.  You know the place where the Horizon computer system didn't work, hundreds of thousands of pounds disappeared and the greatest miscarriage of justice in British legal history took place?  Yeah like I proper trust them with my wad.

You know how the Government could service the debt that it constantly says is crippling it?  Stop providing multi-million pound public subsidies to Post Office Limited to ensure it maintains a nationwide network of at least 11,500 branches within 3 miles of the population and get these lazy ladies and their parsimonious employer to put someone behind the paying in window on a Saturday Morning.  There's three of them - one for each paying in window?  

I mean what's the point of having a branch if it's like this?  What service are they offering?  Terminal smugness?  Nail filing?  Gossiping?  I'd compare them to Carol Beer but at least she looked at her computer before saying it said no.  These ladies are more like the old Churchill Insurance dog.  "Oh no no no no no no no..."

 

3=7 with Sir Keir Starmer

I notice in his Exit Interview Keir Starmer says there have only been 3 Labour Majority governments.

I count:

Attlee 1945

Wilson 1964 (increased in 1966 GE) and October 1974 (okay only by 3 but a win's a win)

Blair 1997 (&twice more after that)

That totals 7?

Liar or Nincompoop?

He actually starts the interview by saying there have only been three Labour leaders who have won majority Labour governments (true) but later makes the slightly more broad claim that there have only been three majority Labour governments (untrue).  

I posted this on the Keir Starmer's Supporters Group on Facebook which is a living embodiment of the Kübler-Ross model.  They all got incredibly angry stating that I'm nitpicking, a Trojan Horse or a "Deformer" so I patiently explained that this is a mathematical concept called counting.  Reader, they blocked me ... I shall leave them to their mourning.  They clearly think I'm trolling them but I'm just a mathematics professional and numerical incongruities - even when created by innocuous mistakes - interest me.

The interview contains at least one other false claim - that the Labour Party was financially bankrupt when Keir took over - but you won't see anyone at the BBC pushing back against any of these...

Most chilling is Starmer talking about removing his predecessor's hands from all the levers of power given he called Jeremy Corbyn a "friend" whilst working under him.

I've won on the National Lottery!

 Congratulations Anthony,

We're pleased to tell you that you've won a small prize by matching two numbers in the Lotto draw on 01 July 2026.

To see your prize amount and check your full draw results, just sign in to your account. There, you can also view your recent tickets and keep track of upcoming draws.

Sign in

Thanks,

National Lottery Customer Care team

***

Dear National Lottery Customer Care team

£1.00

You we'ren't fucking joking about it being small.  So we don't get a free £2 draw entry for matching two balls anymore?  Just a measley £1?  Tight bastards.

Yours sincerely

Anthony Miller

No she cannot

 

I have had a very long talk with this lady in Boots and I have to say that she cannot as she claims advise diagnose & recommend treatment, check my blood pressure or help with my prescription because she is, as far as I can ascertain made entirely of carboard.

Being a two dimensional cardboard creation she is somewhat lacking in manual dexterity.  When I ask her if she could possibly fetch me some Optrex infected eye drops from the pharmacy fridge it does seem to take her a long time to get there.  She certainly falls down on this particular task but then again that's not all there is to working in retail.  She is very friendly and jolly which goes a long way to compensate for her poor service.

Whilst she is always cheerful it has to be said too however, that she seems to have a very limited emotional range - she only seems able to smile.  Still, at least she is polite if you disregard the fact that she never says "Good Morning" or "Hello".  And I am pleased generally that someone who has no legs has not become depressed by her many disabilities.  It is good to see that this lady who moves so little I suspect her to be quadriplegic has overcome her many disabilites to find useful employment in the field of advertising.  

I just feel it is a bit unfair of Boots to expect her to do much in the way of pharmaceutical dispensing when she clearly does not have all the necessary accoutrements like a wheelchair or prosthetic legs or internal organs.  It's also very difficult to check someone's blood pressure when you do not have your own circulatory system...

Witenagemot of the North

Baron Burnham of the North revealed his new policy today - a relaunch of the institution of the Witenagemot.  "Before the Norman invasion in 1066," said Baron Burnham, "the government's administrative and legislative hub (then called the Witenagemot or Witan) used to move about to every corner of our great nation as an organic manifestation of devolution but after the invasion by William the Conqueror due to the foreign policy failures of King Harold power became centralised in London as the Witenagemot was replaced by the Curia Regis with a corresponding deterioration in Suffrage.  Advances in Remote Working technology such as Zoom mean we can now attempt to do this again without risking another major administrative failure such as the appointment of Æthelred the Unready as Sovereign.  With the closure and restoration of the Palace of Westminster estimated to require £40bn and take 61 years (even though it only took Pugin & Barry 30 years to build most of the current poat-1800 structures) there's never been a better time to put Parliament on the road.  We know for a fact that Granada Studios has a standing set that is an exact replica of the House of Commons which hasn't been in regular use since Alan B'Stard MP passed on.  The opportunities for Parliament to move from physical reality into a world of pure fantasy have never been greater.  I would remind the people too of the words of Mr Liebermann who said that 'No man can make himself king, but the people has the choice to choose as king whom they please; but after he is consecrated as king, he then has dominion over the people, and they cannot shake his yoke off their necks' so you try sacking me when I'm on the road.  Won't be as easy to write angry letters to your MPs when you don't know their shifting postal addresses then, will it?  So it's time for a Number 10 of the North.  Not sure which road we can put this new Number 10 in but obviously we need somewhere that the public can't have too much access to because it's sealed off behind iron gates.  I was thinking of Coronation Street which situated on the Granada backlot would be ideal for close access to their House of Commons plywood set.  This is the new future of Britain.  A Prime Minister who's harder to sack because he's constantly on the move and lives in a fantasy world with other fictional characters."