• The Pensions Ombudsman and Commutation Compound Interest on Overdue Payments;

• G.M.P.(Guaranteed Minimum Pension);

• Financial Conduct Authority and Pensions;

•  Your Vote and their Malfeasance.

Dear Reader,

In March, a year after the original ‘Determination’ by his predecessor King, Pensions Ombudsman A.Arter has released a further commentary on the Milne Case which it will be recalled was in principle a challenge of the government for its collective failure to update and pay the correct Commutation at the conclusion of Service for both Fire Service Veterans and retiring Police officers.

An error which led to its self-enrichment.

Unfortunately for the government, and now it seems for the PO A.Arter, this is another Ancient Mariner’s tale which simply will not go away with more major errors to come.  

A legacy for PO A.Arter left by King his legally unqualified predecessor, a good ‘company man’ who had no interest in the man in the street, namely Scheme Members.

But  who spent his period in office glad handing his chums in the pension ‘industry’  acting rather successfully as a court jester playing the clown to a point where he inevitably became an embarrassment to the government and thus he had to go. Though it was not put as indelicately as that.

King’s ‘legacy’ surrounding the Milne case severely damaged the credibility of the Pensions Ombudsman as an institution a legacy during which Mr.Milne described King and his government’s actions as… ‘they tried every dirty trick in the book to avoid payment…’.

Rebuilding after such a breach of credibility and trust  was the unenviable task which PO Arter took on last year and which he has been, in the main, slowly and successfully addressing since his appointment.

Public trust and credibility in any government organisation is a difficult and delicate flower to grow and just a few frosts of ill-conceived ‘Determinations’ or ‘announcements’ rapidly destroys these re-emerging green shoots of essential ‘customer’ faiths, particularly if this ‘independent’ gardener in the allotment of pensions, does not tread lightly…

In his latest rather rambling announcement PO A.Arter muses over events surrounding the ‘vexatious’ Milne case whilst making oblique references to the mess which King left him.

This announcement is both time consuming and, at times, a disturbing and contradictory muse to read. Go Here.

It seems that memories of the actual facts are already affected by amnesia in that no one involved seems to recall Mr.Milne et al’s collective Statutory rights in terms of Pension Scheme law to which its Members are entitled – it is not largesse by this or any other government.

Nor do they recall those old expressions ‘a fair days pay for a fair days work’ nor ‘the rate for the job’ for these former public servants and thus this particular Albatross will remains draped around their collective necks, and so it should, until it is fully resolved.

For the original Bugler coverage of the ‘vexatious’ Milne case, Go Here.

In PO A.Arter’s crystal ball gazing it matters little what these collective Fire and Police Veterans might have spent their income on had they have been paid the correct ‘rate for the job’ at the beginning of this debacle.

The fact is that the government collectively failed in self-enrichment to pay their bills correctly in the first place and now they must settle up – fully.

In his reference to the latest ‘theme’ as he puts it, a poor choice of word for a Complaint, namely overdue underpayments which require compound interest on the debt, PO A.Arter appears to suggest at first that this is something the Veterans have thought up for their own amusement, or greed.

This is of course nonsense, which far from being a ‘theme’, are simple legitimate claims and any attempt to dismiss Complaints as a ‘theme’ exhibits rather poor judgement about those who are very determined to pursue their rights in law.

This is not a casual matter of statistics.

It is clear, rightly, that these former public servants are not going to take no for an answer and will in all probability challenge any perceived further short changing through the Courts because as the Bugler has published(using an eminent barrister’s Opinion on the matter) is that there is a plethora of well-established case law, to the detriment of the government, the debtor, which requires it to pay the debt of the ‘ rate for the job’  with compound interest on these late Commutation repayments.

The Bugler has already published a comprehensive Opinion extracted from a main Opinion on the ‘ compound interest’ issue, Go Here.

These public servants well know, to their cost, that if the shoe was on the other foot and it was they who were the ‘debtors’ who owed the government money then the expectation would be that the government would recover their funds with interest to the very last penny.

PO A.Arter should ask himself how he might react if, at the end of his tenure as the PO, he found himself as a former civil servant short changed with his pension and paid less than his expectation of the ‘rate for the job’; then what might he do?

PO A.Arter well knows, or he ought to as a solicitor, the applicable law. The facts of the matter are once more unassailable.

By its collective error the government has enriched itself at the expense of its retired public servants and now it seems at a superficial glance, unfortunately supported by its civil servant  PO A.Arter, who collectively do not wish to pay the bills either.

PO A.Arter certainly knows that when a government enriches itself by its error in law(Limitations Act 1980) and it is called to account the interest on that account is at commercial rates, namely compound interest at the very least at 6%+.

The use of sweet words like ‘proportionality’, whatever that might mean, will not suffice in attempting to make the delivery of a bitter pill, sweet.

In plain man’s speak  Fire & Police Veterans were owed money by the government through its self-enriching incompetence but now it appears that their spokesman PO A.Arter is suggesting in a questionable statement that all is well and that these Veterans should be grateful for the small mercies of ‘proportionality’.

One is sure that this impression was not his intent but that is how it badly reads…

A bill is a bill… including compound interest…

Which part of this statement does the government not understand?

This has nothing whatsoever to do with Veterans being ‘out of pocket’ it is to do with justice, and dare we mention it in dealing with any government department, fair play?

To fail even to investigate the issue of interest would be not only a failure of PO A.Arter’s Statutory duty but it would be seen to pay obeisance to his employer the government which given the early point in his tenure would be both disappointing and professionally damaging to the credibility of his office.

What is particularly disappointing is that he then goes on to state the government’s position for non investigation and its ‘considerations’ in justification which we well know is penury where former Public Servants are concerned.

How does that stand against so called impartiality and ‘independence’ and what legal authority does he quote and use for  his decision not to investigate?

Please let us all know…

No man can yet serve two masters. It has all been tried before as his boss Baroness Almann CBE is currently finding out to her  detriment . When  one  becomes  a

gamekeeper surely there cannot be the naive expectation that the ‘rules’ in the undergrowth will remain the same?

Unfortunately, at this point, PO A.Arter suggests to us that he and  his  organisation  are  truly  independent  which  is  of course just so much ‘smoke and mirrors’ because as we well know this is certainly not the case.

The Pensions Ombudsman was created by Parliament(us) to which it reports and of course, unless they are a collective charity registered with the Charity Commissioners which is unlikely, its employees(our employees) are all civil servants paid for by us the ever enduring Taxpayers.

PO A.Arter would be well advised to cease to chant this particular mantra of ‘independence’ because we know where his salary comes from choosing alternatively and wisely to chant the mantras of impartiality, fair play, and transparency regardless of the government in office which is a difficult task.

Now those aspirations will undoubtedly have the support of the man on the Clapham omnibus and the Fire and Police Veterans…

Once more in two paragraphs the PO muses at length about how the payments are viewed and used by the underpaid Veterans. Frankly this is no one’s concern least of all PO A.Arter’s.

It is their money and they can spend or moan about it to their heart’s content but what those emotions cannot be used for is an excuse for not paying the bill in full with compound interest in the first place. This all unfortunately rather smacks of is … ‘just let them eat cake’…

PO A.Arter makes an obscure point that , if we read this right, that  Veterans ought not to continue to litigate  for their just desserts to obtain what is rightly theirs because it might ‘adversely affect others’,  without giving any explanation of what this actually means in practice? Is this in someway meant to intimidate?

In justification for not accepting further Complaints at this point in his musings PO A.Arter implies that he does not have the resources to deal with future Complaints, an example of which the Editor will return in due course at the end of this Editorial.

If there is a resource problem then manage it out.

With the expansion in the numbers of pension holders driven by his boss the Pension Minister then it is statistically inevitable that more Complaints will be brought forward for him to deal with and thus an anticipated justifiable expansion of budget by good forward thinking management is called for which would indeed be ‘proportionate’.

Nevertheless PO Arter ends his announcement musings on an optimistic volte facia when he completely reverses himself in contradiction of his earlier musings it now seems he and the government can find the time, the energy, the resources(the money) and the optimism to change his mind and invite further Complaints on all these issues.

Hopefully PO A.Arter will this time unlike King start at the right end?

Would it not just be simpler to ask the representative bodies and interested parties, or as they seem to be known these days ‘stakeholders’ to support an informal joint class action test case on this second tranche of Complaints taking that as a working model for all the remaining Complainats?

The problem with that is that King misused this time wasting ploy before in the process abusing goodwill and trust which is all gone.

A far simply solution surely is just pay the overdue monies with compound interest and the restless natives will all go home.

It is not their concern where the money comes from. The government is in credit with the ‘sweat of their brows’, now just pay the overdue bills with compound interest.

This commentary by PO Arter is unsettling when viewed from several angles.

It is disappointing to see the drift in PO Arter’s ‘independent’ professional stance in this instance whilst wresting with, as he sees it, an intractable problem particularly at a time this government is trumpeting the necessity for all to have pensions which we, formerly in the Public Service, all did.

Whilst this is all well and good look what happens when it all goes wrong and when there is the raised expectation that these guardians of our pensions will act swiftly, impartially, and transparently in fair play ‘to put matters right’ when, as now, they are put to their first major test of credibility?

We do not expect these Scheme minding-‘police’- to turn tail and run to the government when we go to them for help and P.O.A.Arter is not alone in this stance. His colleague Ms.Titcombe over at The Pensions Regulator seems to be suffering from this contagious panic at the moment as well.

This is not encouraging on either front.

PO A.Arter and Ms.Titcombe have an unenviable task which as the Bugler sees it to steer an impartial course between the rocks and the shoals of government but then that is what they chose to do and what they get paid for.

It is clear that PO A.Arter has heard Mandarin Whispers directed at him reminding him who his political ‘boss’ is and thus the Mandarins hope is that as a risen Canute he will stem this rising tide of protests by disgruntled short changed former Public Service Pension Scheme Members. It is a vain hope…

This vain hope is not ‘encouragement’ he should follow because as he knows it will make his position and the credibility of his organisation untenable with the pension holding taxpaying Public.

Look where that attitude got King?

One hopes in plotting his course  that PO A.Arter will continue to steer his ship back to the harbour of trust and credibility because if he does not do so he knows well his is never the final adjudication but he can manage meantime at a stroke to undo the credibility and integrity of his office which he has, with assiduity and to his credit cultivated well during the period since his appointment last year.

So before leaving this topic the bottom line is that PO A.Arter has publicly invited Fire & Police Veterans to submit their Complaints to him concerning this repayments.

Certainly in preparing their Complaints in effect a bill there should be the assumption that these revised bills will include the element of compound interest on these long overdue repayments…

Recently PO A.Arter released two videos entitled ‘How can we help’ and ‘What you need to know’ which at the time of going to press cannot be found on his website. Perhaps in para phrasing these titles he might be minded to answer these questions?

How is that disabled FSV~RRB has a Complaint lying on file with him since January 2015 ?

How is it that Mr.Carl Monk an ‘assistant investigator’(read clerk) resolutely refuse to progress this routine Complaint in spite of receiving a daily email reminder to do so?

Does Mr.Carl Monk have an unhealthy professional relationship of joint obstruction and obfuscation with Mr. Warren at the LFRS to deliberately delay this Complaint?

A Mr. Warren who has an established and burgeoning reputation of stonewalling with the ICO which will inevitably lead to his individual and corporate prosecution by the ICO such is his accumulating record on non compliance with the applicable laws.

Has Mr.Carl Monk been given authority by the PO to throw away PO Arter’s ‘independence’, impartiality and duty of care to  disabled FSV RRB or is Mr. Mr.Carl Monk just an embarrassing gross incompetence for which, given this extended period of lost opportunity in time for disabled FSV~RRB he should be dismissed for gross misconduct?

What other explanation can there be for Mr.Carl Monk’s unsupervised juvenile ineptitude?

These are the questions and how PO A.Arter can help and this is what we need to know…impartially, transparently, and publicly…

Occasionally at sea ships pass in the night and even by day whilst part of the superstructure may be visible their passage raises little comment(This is not an ode to the French Footballer and his visions of seagulls!).

Such might be the uncommented upon passage of GMP into oblivion this April 2016 with the abolition of  GMP.

Many thousands of FSVs over the age of 65 years receive GMP and it is a headline note on their pay slips.

But given the distrust of this government’s machinations concerning pensions as exhibited and confirmed by the ‘vexatious’ Milne Case all FSVs and indeed retired Police officers would be wise to view this parliamentary passage with a yellow eye.

But what does all this mean at this early point and will it have an impact on the future receipt of the GMP element of pensions?

Indeed it will because at its most simplistic a GMP statement will not appear on payslips hence forward but before that happens much book balancing must occur…

When words like ‘discrepancies’; ‘mismatched data’; ‘more accurate actuarial valuations’; ‘reconciliation’; and most particularly ‘tolerance’ levels which to us means if the books do not balance what will be written off or what might be recovered from us then the alarm bells ought to be shrilling their little clappers off…

This once more smacks of a surreptitious government discovery that the GMP books do not balance and it is better just to abolish it but the Treasury will insist that even after abolition the books before closure must be balanced and to do that all Pension Scheme ‘managers’ must engage with the original data holder the HMRC(the government) to sort their latest pension scheme mess out?

Why have we not been made aware of this major change. Why indeed not, therein lies the rub?

But first what is GMP and will it affect me in particular? It is probable that this will affect the vast majority of 1992 Firefighters pension Scheme members at least those before April 1997.

It certainly affects the Editor, but will it have a financial impact either positively or negatively. That remains to be seen…

For the following synopsis the Bugler is indebted to a real expert in this obscure pension field who has attempted to present his knowledge to us as far as possible in plain English in defining what GMP is.

But there is no escaping the fact  this is a complicated matter further complicated by a mandatory government demanded book balancing exercise following the abolition of GMP this April which will involve all Pension Schemes in dialogue with HMRC.

The first question here of course is will every Pension Scheme ‘manager’, aka the LFRS, be honest with HMRC when it comes to their errors or will they attempt to defraud them as well. The latter is a criminals’ choice but the LFRS have never hesitated to use fraud before so why should it stop now?

What is a GMP?

A Guaranteed Minimum Pension (or GMP as it is commonly called) is the minimum benefit a UK occupational pension scheme must provide for a member if they were ‘contracted out’ of the State Earnings-Related Pension Scheme (SERPS).

What does ‘contracted out’ mean?

When launched in April 1978 the State Pension comprised two elements, the flat rate Basic Pension available to all who met the minimum National Insurance (NI) contribution requirements and a new separate variable element (known as SERPS) which was based on earnings and payable in addition to the Basic Pension.  Good quality pension schemes were given the opportunity to opt out (or ‘contract out’) of SERPS. 

Many pension schemes chose to contract out and this was popular with employers and employees alike because it meant a reduced rate of NI was payable to reflect the fact that the State would no longer be responsible for paying this additional SERPS pension.  

However, the ‘trade-off’ was that as a condition of contracting out schemes had to promise to provide a minimum level of benefit namely the GMP. 

The GMP was intended to be broadly equivalent to the additional SERPS benefit the member would have received, had he or she not been in contracted-out employment.  

When did it apply?

It applies for members of a ‘contracted out’ pension scheme between April 1978 and April 1997. 

N.B. Firefighters of this era contracted out.

What else do I need to know?

Although GMPs only applied for contracted out membership up to April 1997 they still form part of a member’s pension entitlement today.  Different rules apply for pension increases on the GMP in relation to periods of service before and after 6 April 1988 and entitlements are extended to surviving spouses or civil partners on the death of a member.

Although this is at a very early point and discussions continue concerning what is to be done if the books do not balance and what ‘tolerance’ there will be in repaying those underpaid and equally those who may have been overpaid it is not an ‘exercise’ that FSVs would be wise to ignore because looking on the bright side Pension Scheme ‘managers’ and government departments resolutely make ‘mistakes’ in their favour so the expression ‘self enrichment’ within the context of the Limitations Act 1980 surfaces once more and can be used against the HMRC to seek repayments and equally in defence of any ‘tolerance’ claim by the HMRC against an individual.

Once more in self education because trust has long departed FSVs would be wise to read up on this entire scenario, particularly the ‘Reconciliation’ element, using the Net.

A random search produces the following interesting insight, © acknowledged. Go Here.

The Bugler would be grateful of a reminder from time to time to revisit this evolving debacle if this Editor’s crystal ball proves to be correct…

“Lancashire/LPFA pool gets FCA approval”

This is yet another development which initially will affect FSVs in London and Lancashire but will with time have a direct impact on the Pension Funds from which all FSVs pensions are paid nationwide.

Local councillors who have personal difficulty in managing current accounts at their local bank suddenly see themselves as all knowing all seeing entrepreneurs particularly when it is not their pension money in the first place.

This development which will lead  to more cooperatives right across the nation which will affect all our Pensions Schemes Funds because the government is determined to raid the family silver of the pension pots to present them to their chums in the City of London and elsewhere for financial exploitation.

This is not a novel idea. It has been tried and failed before with quite dire consequences in 2008.

Those with longer memories will recall the  2008 international collapse of financial institutions many of which had large pension funds invested with them including Lancashire where the Bank in the news again at the moment in Iceland walked off with their(our) £10mil investment.

But throwing caution to the wind the Lancashire and London Pensions Partnership have received regulatory approval from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to commence operations under its new name, the Local Pensions Partnership (LPP). 

This joint venture’s name was changed from the Lancashire and London Pensions Partnership to reflect this co-ops readiness to partner with other LGPS funds in the future.

A spokesman for the LPP said it is hoped the initiative “will serve as a model for the wider LGPS” reforms.

But before actual implementation the government must be consulted before 1^st July 2016. The government target fund for such amalgams is £25bn but at £11bn this LPP is failing to meet this target unless it get a government exemption.

One wonders when a foreign investor walks off with £25bn who will underwrite this catastrophe the government or should we read, us the Taxpayers? The effect of such a loss on the national economy can hardly be visualised.

Having received Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) accreditation, the asset and liability management body will see around £11bn of assets pooled but the funds will remain separate and independent. So why do it?

The two local pension funds have been working on the initiative for 18 months, and are ahead of the government’s timetable to pool the 89 funds in the LGPS.

So it can well be seen that this will impact on FSVs Pension Funds nationwide. Whether it is has a good end purpose is another matter?

LPP chairman Michael O’Higgins said: “The pool will lead to lower costs, both in administration and fund management. It is also intended to generate higher investment returns.”.

It is always, but always, about personal gain.

O’Higgins says: “To secure such an impressive and well qualified Board is a testament to our partnership and what we are trying to achieve, and we are confident we have a strong team in place as we move forward.

Our new name underlines the fact that we are open for business, and ready and able to work with other LGPS funds in developing this exciting proposition.”.

Yes, we have heard all this before in almost those exact ‘exciting’ words…

The LPP has appointed several non-executive directors including Labour County Councillor David Borrow as the Lancashire County Council representative whom we hope will be in a position to answer the embarrassing questions from of the FCA regarding the small matter of fraud in the Firefighters Pension Scheme in Lancashire as the Bugler continues to run exposé after exposé  on the pension ‘management’ staff at Lancashire CC and their counterparts’ at the LFRS blatant fraud all under his political responsibility  which he will share with Labour’s County Councillor F.DeMolfetta head of the Combined Fire Authority at the LFRS.

The LPP is searching for a chief risk officer, with the position being held on an interim basis by Dr Angela Smith who will no doubt be initially busy managing the extreme risk of bad PR when she awakens to the fact of this blatant fraud within  her embryonic LPP.

Mr.O’Higgins says that the FCA approval is the cornerstone of his drive for good governance in LGPS reform and an essential part of his formation. Really?

One hopes he keeps these words close to his heart given these future additional opportunities for the disabled FSVs in Lancashire to bring to his attention their vexatious complaints of  maladministration, malfeasance, and  fraud forward to his desk and to the investigative branch of the Financial Conduct Authority when this new over arcing pension watchdog joins the Pensions Minister; The Pensions Regulator; the Pensions Ombudsman; and the House of Commons Select Committee on Works and Pensions all  in their collective ‘policing’ duties.

Dear Reader,

On 5^th May 2016 local elections will take place across England to elect the lowest level of politicians(is there anything lower than a politician?) sometimes known as ‘ward councillors’.

Some authorities will have all their seats up for re-election others only one third.

Regardless, a large number of these new ward councillors will end up on committees which will include a duty of ‘watch dog’ for this or that public service function which it is required to deliver.

One wonders in the light  of events in Merseyside how they might be preparing themselves for this role?

Before considering how you might vote, if at all, these looming local elections which this year includes a vote on who is to continue or be rejected,  as Police and Crime Commissioner in your area there are some profound questions one might consider  before voting in the light of  contemplating the repetition of another 27 year Cruel Odyssey on Merseyside(or elsewhere) with the loss of its tragic 96 or more innocent victims in the future.

• Demonstrably the Police Service in determined malfeasance ‘failed’ the families of the 96, a service which continues to be less than honest, accountable, or transparent, and continues to be both unhealthily influenced and corruptly driven by the secret Lamplighters, our old friends, the Freemasons.

What ought to be done about this intolerable situation and by which Party or Independent and who will you adjudge is best suited to undertake this change?

•  Demonstrably the unaccountable Judiciary of the ‘establishment’ in deliberate malfeasance ‘failed’ the 96 also. A Judiciary which continues to live in  a ‘remote from reality’ cobweb ridden world of intimidating wigs, glad handing, and legal nuances, meant to overawe the weak or the illiterate.

A law unto themselves as we shall see in the case of Judge Butler who remains the exemplar of such incompetence, malfeasance, and arrogant disdain for actual Truth and Justice.

What ought to be done about this intolerable institution and by which Party or Independent and who will you adjudge is best suited to undertake this change?

• Demonstrably local authorities(who in deliberate obfuscative malfeasance ‘failed’ the 96) who are supposedly ‘watch dogged’ by their own politicians will be elected next Thursday to continue to give no account, or to provide no transparency, to anyone least of all to those who elected them, or even to their own peer group.

What ought to be done about this intolerable failure of democracy at local level and by which political Party or Independent Politician ?

Taken in the round these 3 Questions raise the most profound Question of all:

Has democracy as an intended model of Citizen representation, accountability, transparency, and thus intended protection of the Citizenry finally failed in this 21^st Century?

Given the factual circumstances on Merseyside and the appalling deliberately wasted and obstructive 27 years the answer must surely be yes, because every single element of democracy which had been placed in the hands of those paid to ensure Truth and Justice has  embarrassingly, completely, and  deliberately ‘failed’.

There can be no other conclusion.

Soon the apologist politicians will appear to chant their sick mantra that this was just a one off; an 27 year aberration with the unfortunate, unique, and coincidental confluence of corrupted political and judicial failures who all happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This is quite starkly more accomplished lies by more accomplished liars.

Next will come the right wing apologist racists who will point the finger at the historical ethnicity of  Merseysiders whilst tapping the side of their arrogant noses and winking their sly winks…”ah well what would you expect?”.

The plain facts of the matter are that, however these apologists and racist winkers  may disport themselves these blameless and  tragic 96 died because of the failure of democracy to protect them in the greatest breach of trust this nation is every likely to see for many generations to come.

These guiltless 96 who placed their trust in all those they elected and employed to protect them who deliberately  abandoned them to their fate whilst they were about their innocent enjoyable pursuits.

Not content with this they then set about blaming the victims, now that in Lancashire has a definite resonance about it.

It did not have to be this way.

Where were these politicians who had been set in office to protect them – the Watch Dogs?

The Police Service Watch Dogs; the Ambulance Service Watch Dogs; and the Local Authority Watch Dogs who issued the stadium licences and who were required and handsomely paid to check and monitor all these safety requirements?

But as we know at a cost of 96 ruined lives and families they ignominiously and lazily failed to do their jobs.

Some day soon the Committee of the 96 are going, rightly, to turn their scrutiny on these Watch Dogs. Who were they; what did they know; when they know it; and how and why did they malfeasantly cover it all up?

Right now these elected politician Watch Dogs with the feeblest of consciences ought to be swallowing the lumps in their guilty throats and writhing uncomfortably in their plush seats.

They it is, regardless of Party and their out of control unaccountable civil servants, who bear the ultimate responsibility for all of this catastrophe.

They it was who failed miserably to do their duty of interrogative supervision and they it is who are just as guilty as those who failed to fulfil their duty of  common humanity on that fateful day.

Of course in their self-comforting guilt , clutching at  their moral straws they it will be who will trumpet with great zealous forthrightness their certainty that this can never  be allowed to happen again if only to deflect well deserved scrutiny and personal criticism.

But have they learned anything over the past 27 years?

It appears not…

Many political Watch Dogs of today continue to lazily and disinterestedly  turn their backs when failure after failure of those matters they are directly responsible for are passed to them for investigation. This is the very OED definition of malfeasance.

Not for them to do their duty, much better just to slump back  with their frustrated victims and wait for the day when the next unspeakable horror repeats itself as these lazy good-for-nothing greedy politicians fill in their fraudulent expenses claims.

But of course there will be those politicians who re-assure themselves in their secret cabals that this cannot occur in their hinterland of this green and pleasant land, really?

They might be right, but only if they collectively and individually undertake after their election to commit themselves to fulfil the moral duties and high expectations that voters will place on them next Thursday as the future local Watch Dogs of this calamitously damaged democracy.

And what of the current ‘Watch Dogs’ who have self-evidently failed so cataclysmically in the greatest breach of Truth and Justice the UK has ever witnessed in public life in its history?

What will the UK’s worldwide critics of their democracy think of all these shameful hypocritical antics?

What in the heinous 27 years was the 96’s expectations of their governments and what, in paying them, did we all believe they ought to have received? Pro Tanto Quid Retribuamus  – for what we give what shall we receive?

Is it only in Westminister, South Yorkshire, and the West Midlands that the stench of the putrefaction of corruption pervades the elective chambers of these Watch Dogs, indeed it is not ?

We need not look further than Lancashire in the Combined Fire Authority where we have the very antithesis of democracy in a paradigm of living (we think) and breathing(sadly) democratic failure.

The Watch Dog of the Lancashire CFA.

Imagine that someone offers to give you a Watch Dog and when the wretched creature arrives, you find out that he is ankle-high, arthritic, blind, nearly deaf, and toothless.

Oh, and he cannot bark, either !

Wait, you say, but this dog will be unable to protect me against anything; for once you are indeed right.

One should not be so picky, responds your benefactor smugly.

That is what you the electorate sent to Lancashire council chambers in 2013 and furthermore his K9P associates thought he was so vigilant a Watch Dog that they all voted to make him their leader, in effect saying he is the best Watch Dog we have got, but all did not necessarily agree and have suggested as the months tick away towards the next County Council elections in May 2017 that  a review of his tenure of office should be surreptitiously commenced; a peer review.

And so this Watch Dog will and should go to peer review and thence the Electorate but to review what?

Some councillors would like us to consider this secret review as the opposing thumbs of scientific publishing; the key to which is differentiating between rigor mortis or just plain living apathy; as opposed to those councillors who think this Watch Dog is simply good for nothing, except perhaps walkies…

Other councillors will suggest a peer review is certainly not designed, for example, to detect this Watch Dog’s irresponsible practices including the paying off with 2 years of salary of a civilian employee for racist thuggery nor to the ignoring of the loss of £40,000.0 to the Lancashire treasury by another sacked civilian fraudster, and best of all, yet another fraud of £40,000.0 by the Lancashire Tory Whip and spokesperson on the CFA, CC O’Toole.

One should not expect these peer reviewing Councillors to figure out if the authors of these ‘misfortunes’ acted on their own or in concert with Councillor DeMolfetta and his corrupt cohorts Chief Fire Officer Kenny and his cronies.

Do not expect these peer reviewing Councillors to  detect Fraud either.

These CFA Councillors will tell us that any peer review is not designed to detect fraud – clever misinformation –   disinformation – simple barefaced lies will sail right through no matter how scrupulous the review and the reviewers may imagine they might be.

Do not expect these peer reviewing Councillors to pick up plagiarism even if they could spell it either.

Peer reviews are not  designed to pick up a fraudulent statement of accounts or plagiarised false public statements which profess transparency and honesty because in the built in lexicon which all CFA Councillors use they will be unable to recognise fraud or plagiarism unless of course it is blatantly egregious which even then just about embarrasses this bovine collective.

Neither is it the role of peer reviewing Councillors  to spot that unusual creature called Ethics.

As they see it, it is not the role of peer reviewing Councillors  to spot ethics issues in papers or Minutes submitted to them by their superbly manipulative ‘officers’ because they both know in their joint acquiescing corruption in this great game of public deceit that this would require them to react.

CFA ‘officers’ see it as their self-protective malfeasant ‘responsibility’ never to submit anything to these Watch Dogs which is remotely truthful or accurate or which might conflict with the unwritten rule of the ‘nodding donkey’ game which requires these Watch Dog Councillors to just keep on nodding regardless of what censored, shaped, spun, manipulated, and abridged material  placed before these sea of fixed and glazed eyes in the chamber.

My it is such fun for these ‘officers’ who know full well from accomplished malfeasant practice that these Councillors are such downright fools that their random aimless thoughts can quite easily be distracted to filling in their expenses forms.

Perhaps we ought to look at this a different way?

If a person steals a pair of shoes from a shop, is this the fault of the shop for not protecting their goods or the shoplifter for stealing them?

Of course, the fault lies with the shoplifter who carried out the crime in the first place, right!

But perversely if these Councillors’ ‘officers’ defraud or steal a  disabled FSV’s pension with impunity from a disabled FSV, his Widow, or Beneficiary before the very eyes of these Watch Dog Councillors this seems to be all right; right?

It is inconceivable that Watch Dog Councillors will spot their own Flaccidity.

So overpaid, fat, and ever lazy, Councillors do not really need to check the exactitude of anything submitted to them; to re-run the calculations of this or that; to examine for the truth, for the integrity, for the honesty, or even the accuracy of anything that which is placed before them?

They are unable to contemplate in their cosy world of mutual and tacitly agreed duplicity, corporate and malfeasant deceit which is built on the sands of perpetual  sedition by their own ‘officers’ a disloyalty  from ‘officers’ who the Councillors ‘just know’ are without doubt honest, transparent, and accountable so why should they not just sign off the reports and then move on to the all essential expenses claims?

Indeed in a bizarre and twisted alliance of covering up these Watch Dogs see it as their role to prevent at all costs this appalling vista of complicit corruption from seeing the Light of Day. Now there is indeed the rub.

This is a serious problem for this criminal collective because it matters little if an original thought crosses their collective minds (even though this is an oxymoron) and no matter how rigorous their attempted censorship might be; their sleights-of -hand; and their denials of Truth and Justice they cannot prevent this perpetual stream of putrefied machinations from seeping out from under their closed – public excluded – doors to journals  like The Morning Bugler which will continue to present the Truth and Justice based on the actual documentary evidence produced from their own hands.

Even when one  lowers one’s expectations of a Watch Dog, in fact to the point where one reaches the bottom of this whiffy barrel these malfeasant CFA Watch Dog Councillors still come up short.

But is a Watch Dog system worse than no barking dog at all?

In reality a Watch Dog system is supposed to be the quality assurance system for  the local  Taxpayers; a science to weed out the scientifically unreliable, the wheat from the chaff, the truth from the lies, the impossible from the implausible, to reassure the Taxpayer readers in its reports that they can trust what they are reading.

The actualite is however that these so called Watch Dogs are ineffective, largely a lazy day lottery, anti-innovation, slow to dim witted, expensive, extraordinarily wasteful of time and money, inefficient, easily abused and confused, prone to bias, unable to detect fraud, theft, or brass necked malfeasance even though it sits right in front of their glazed eyes.

So what is left to encourage anyone to waste more time and more effort in voting for more of the same?

Eventually in the recognition of the all pervasive corruption which grips this land with its paranoid secrecy in political chambers in the  avoidance of  responsibility for its errors we will need more Watch Dogs -not less – but with actual interrogative teeth underpinned by new laws which will find these Councillors personally guilty when they malfeasantly fail in their tasks.

Laws which will charge and then fine them regularly and if necessary put them in jail, where they belong, if only to spare the anguish of those they will, by these Councillors insouciance, at its most dramatic, have condemned to death.

Perhaps that that might cause them to bark rather than whimper in future ?

But as we have seen the day of accounting always comes…

This disastrous state of affairs is what Parliament has an urgent duty to correct and then perhaps we might not regularly face these catastrophically damaging tragedies or Gilbertesque consequential loss of confidence in a further diminished democracy both local and national.

So currently whilst the CFA Watch Dog of the Year may be no good for saving your life; those you hold dear; your house; or even your pension perhaps he is great to cuddle with on a pitch black night whilst wearing sunglasses but who is otherwise generally useless as a failed politician.

So is it worth your time effort and expense of voting and if so for whom?

Only you can decide and that is how it should be in a democracy, albeit,  a mortally wounded one…