• Pensions White Paper March ~ 2018;

• Protecting Defined Benefit Pension Schemes;

• The Prime Minister and her Minister speak;

• What the Industry ‘thinks’;

• The Real World & TPR ‘Experiences’.

• Disabled FSV~RRB ‘Experience’;

• The Nolan ‘Principles;

• Disabled FSV~PPB ‘Experience’;

This how it is proposed with a new enacted  White Paper that the government will protect Defined Benefit Pension Schemes including Fire Service Schemes and what the actual reality is when TPR the principal ‘protector’ is put to a practical test on two occasions.

When envisaging new legislation Parliament follows, with a few exceptions, a standard procedure.

Initially in February 2017 a Green Paper entitled Security and Sustainability in Defined Benefit Pension Schemes  was produced at the formative stage outlining proposals for discussion which invited comment from interested representative groups and individuals which was followed by this White Paper in March 2018. 

The White Paper was issued by the Government as a statement of intended policy, setting out proposals for legislative changes, before the next stage, when a Bill or draft of the intended legislation, will then be introduced to the Committee stages in the Parliament where the minutiae of the Bill is discussed, line by line, and regularly amended by all represented Political Parties.

Then finally it is presented in the Chamber of the House where significant amendments by political discussions/proposals can be made before receiving the Royal Assent.

All this may well take the remaining life of this Parliament, or in the region of 3 years, unless of course it becomes (highly unlikely) emergency legislation when the time must be found in the House programme for its processing.

Thus we arrive at this White Paper which proposes as a government policy ‘Protecting Defined Benefit(DB) Pension Schemes’ which of course Fire Service Occupational  Pension Schemes are.

One might consider, cynically that this is all ‘knee jerk’ reaction to the news headline collapse of several major employers pensions schemes which currently rarely leave the headlines.

Because in spite of the continuous whining of the CEO of TPR , Regulator Titcomb, for more powers which the Select Committee(SelCom) have steadfastly refused to grant her she has now taken her case to the this government who unwisely appointed her and listened to her.

Indeed it might not be stretching the Readers’ credibility too far that Titcomb has assisted in the draft of this White Paper in defence of her own repeated and appalling failures.

Spectacular failures which have clearly driven SelCom to run out of pithy comments on her repeated disasters of running after the bolted horses but who have collectively also built  a head of frustration steam which Titcomb seems happy and unwisely to ignore.

As they say where there is no sense there is no feeling.

But as we all know come the next General Election, which might not be all that far off, she will undoubtedly and deservedly get the boot if only to remove the embarrassment she has become to all those she is supposed to give a public accounting to.

Next we have the government ‘gush’ of how wonderful this White Paper is going to be.

Note, not is.

Indeed one could be forgiven for concluding that the government have just discovered the existence of this failed government department?

Sickeningly once more described as ‘independent’ when ‘real people’ know it is staffed by indolent and incompetent civil servants who have a serious inclination towards personal and corporate laziness coupled with entrenched institutionalised tendencies of corruption in the service of their masters, the government.

In February the PM appointed Rt Hon Esther McVey as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on 8^th January 2018.

In her new position as the DWP ‘boss ‘ she has serving under her the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Pensions and Financial Inclusion – Mr.Guy Opperman MP otherwise known as the ‘Pensions Minister’.

Ms McVey is nothing, if not colourful, in a political career which has attracted comments in Parliament such as ‘a stain on humanity’ which is hardly allegorical  for someone who served as the Disabilities Minister which presupposes a certain humanity, ranging to ‘lynch the bitch’ in a series of political spats in Parliament reported to the world at large by among others John McDonnell MP the erstwhile Firefighters’ Champion.

Well, one supposes it is all some much better than being describes as weak as knat’s wee or having diffident genuflecting wobbly knees and raises the chuckle that clearly they are not all solid teak from the neck up as we had supposed up to now.

Of course compared to the Australian House in Canberra it is all pretty kinder garden stuff  but we shall see if this supposed virago coming like the Bugler from nationalist Ulster stock with a family demolition background in Liverpool can really get these crooks, who work for her and which we have to deal with in our Pension Schemes, by the wreckers balls.

Time as ever will tell.

Next to the golly ‘gush’ from the PM...

A new criminal offence of neglecting pension responsibilities will be announced in a pensions white paper this week, the Prime Minister has confirmed.

Reports in The Telegraph and The Observer said Theresa May has pledged that  tough new measures would safeguard staff from “irresponsible” executives who risk their workers’ future financial security without fear of the consequences.

How familiar is that?

Announcing the proposals, the PM said it was “absolutely vital” that people who worked hard and contributed to society throughout their career should have “confidence” that their pension would be secure in retirement.

“I am committed to making sure our economy works for everyone – backing businesses to create good jobs but stepping in to make sure they play by the rules,” she continued.

“That’s why my government is making sure The Pensions Regulator has the powers it needs to crack down on the minority of businesses who shirk their responsibilities.

“The action we are taking will ensure that the majority of responsible employees, employers and pension schemes will no longer have to bail out the irresponsible few.”

“Dodging or abusing pension responsibilities will be made a crime under the plans and the Regulator will be given powers to intervene earlier when problems are suspected.

The Insolvency Service will also be given extra powers to help protect employees and small suppliers from reckless company directors.”.

Echoing the Prime Minister’s comments, Work and Pensions Secretary of State Rt Hon Esther McVey MP said: “We will clamp down on and – where appropriate – punish directors who wilfully or recklessly put pension schemes at risk.”.

“It is right that those responsible face tougher sanctions and we need to make sure that the Pensions Regulator has the powers in place to act swiftly when action is needed.”

“As well as introducing criminal sanctions we’ll be looking to the forthcoming White Paper to strengthen and clarify the Pensions Regulator’s powers and to help more schemes take advantage of the opportunities of consolidation.”.

Now to the second golly gush from Secretary of State McVey…

The Pensions Regulator (TPR) will be given the power to fine company bosses who deliberately puts their defined benefit (DB) schemes at risk, the government has confirmed.

Also, company directors could be disqualified and criminally prosecuted where they have been found to have “committed wilful or grossly reckless behaviour in relation to a pension scheme”, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) confirmed today.

In its much-anticipated white paper, titled Protecting Defined Benefit Pension Schemes, the DWP said it would work to improve “the effectiveness and efficiency” of TPR’s existing anti-avoidance powers while ensuring they do not have “an adverse effect on legitimate business activity and the wider economy”.

This will include strengthening the watchdog’s information-gathering powers, “supported by penalties to drive co-operation”, such as requiring attendance at interviews,

civil sanctions for non-compliance with Section 72 notices – adding to existing criminal sanctions – and inspection powers, “harmonising powers” it already has for auto-enrolment and master trust schemes.

Contribution notice and financial support direction powers will also be strengthened, while the DWP will also consult on strengthening the existing corporate clearance framework.

Alongside this, the Notifiable events framework will be reviewed to ensure it covers all relevant transactions, and amended to ensure TPR is aware of potential events earlier in the process.

 TPR’s code on DB funding standards will also be revised, focusing on prudence when assessing liabilities, the appropriate factors for recovery plans, and ensuring a long-term view is considered when setting the funding objective.

DB trustees will also be required to appoint a chairman who will need to provide a chair’s statement to the Regulator alongside the scheme’s triennial valuation.

The government will also move to “encourage efficiencies and facilitate consolidation for the improvement of outcomes for members and employers” by consulting on a legislative framework and authorisation and accreditation regimes for new forms of consolidation vehicles.

The DWP will also work with TPR to raise the benefits of consolidation with trustees through the Trustee Knowledge and Understanding toolkit and associated guidance, while modifying guaranteed minimum pensions (GMP) conversion legislation to support benefit simplification, making consolidation easier.

It will also review the regulated apportionment arrangement framework, working with stakeholders to improve the process and increase “the potential for positive outcomes for businesses which might otherwise fail”.

Yet, it stepped back from allowing an across-the-board indexation override – allowing schemes to swap from the Retail Prices Index (RPI) to the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) – stating a “lack of consensus on what constitutes fairness” when cutting the value of member benefits. While maintaining it would “monitor developments in the use of inflation”, the DWP said it was not “prepared to countenance a reduction in employer liabilities which might simply facilitate a transfer to shareholders of cash members are relying on to support them in retirement”.

The measures will be phased in, with the government taking “decisive action” on some areas and “further, considered work” with stakeholders including TPR and the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) on others. “More work is required to build a consensus about the best way to deliver our aims and to design the detail of our proposals”, the DWP said in the paper, confirming further consultations.

Some proposals will require primary legislation, which will be delivered once “the next phase of engagement and design has concluded” but “at the earliest opportunity”. Where primary legislation is required, this is unlikely to before the 2019/20 parliamentary session, however. 

In a statement to Parliament, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Esther McVey said with around £1.5trn invested in DB pensions, it was “crucially important that the system delivers the retirement income they have saved for over many years of hard work.”

“As we said when we published the green paper, DB schemes are an important pillar of the UK economy,” she said. “We know that the vast majority of employers with these schemes want to do the right thing by their employees,” she continued. “However, to help trustees and employers work even more effectively towards a long-term goal, we are introducing changes to scheme funding. Where employers want the best for their employees, we want to ensure that the system supports this.

“However, it is clear that not all employers want to act fairly. At the heart of the white paper is a strong message for employers tempted to act in a way that is detrimental to their pension scheme. We will not tolerate such behaviour, and will come down heavily on attempts by employers to avoid their responsibilities. We are supporting TPR to be a clearer, quicker and tougher organisation by giving it new and improved powers to gather information and require employer co-operation.”

She added TPR would intervene where there is “evidence of unscrupulous behaviour” through the new fines and criminal prosecution powers.

“Defined benefit pensions are a subject of great importance to many people, representing their hopes for the future. We are determined to ensure that these hopes are protected. This white paper is a key step towards a more secure future for members of these schemes,” McVey concluded.

So there you have the double ‘gush’.

It is noteworthy that neither used the words ‘incredible development’.

No doubt the likes of clerk Warren will be quivering in his boots though he has to be unlucky just once whilst we can we as ‘unlucky’ as often as we wish, all the while destroying what is left of his credibility…

One quote perhaps said it all … “Action against ‘unscrupulous’ company directors is a ‘gesture’ policy with little prospect of success”.

But there were other quotes…

“The powers, confirmed in a White paper published by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) today, could also see company directors disqualified, with the watchdog using strengthened anti-avoidance powers.

These will be introduced and used, while ensuring they do not have an “adverse effect on legitimate business activity and the wider economy”, the DWP said.

“Alongside this, the notifiable events framework will be reviewed to ensure it covers all relevant transactions, and amended to ensure TPR is aware of potential events earlier in the process”.

“The proposed additional TPR powers have expectedly been welcomed by TPR, whose chief executive Lesley Titcomb said the paper’s proposals would make it a clearer Regulator”.

Whatever this gibberish might mean ~ but there was to be more gibberish…

“Strengthening the notifiable events framework will improve our regulatory grip and will ensure we are sighted sooner on planned transactions that could pose a risk to scheme members,” she said. “We will now work closely with government to develop the white paper’s proposals, including fines and criminal sanctions, to ensure they are proportionate, act as an effective deterrent and work in practice.”.

But Royal London director of policy and former pensions minister Sir Steve Webb(nicely fixed up with a job and a Knighthood post ministerial appointment) said the… “ powers, in reality, will be used fairly rarely and, where they are, it could be difficult for TPR to win”, ( he knows who is paying the piper).

“Clamping down on employers who wilfully underfund their pension schemes will obviously be a popular measure,” he said. “But proving that someone has wilfully or recklessly failed to fund their company pension is likely to be extremely difficult, and company bosses are likely to have good lawyers. There is a risk that this is simply ‘gesture legislation’ which will never be used in practice.”

What follows are other random thoughts which simply confirms that the thrust of this White Paper will be to encourage the City to keep on milking the pension cow with little thought of protecting those who actually provide the ‘Golden Egg’ in the first place.

Redington managing director of integrated actuarial Marian Elliot commented… “ the watchdog will always have a balanced approach in its sights”.

How does she know this?

“The new powers introduced for TPR are positive and should go some way in making it easier for them to intervene early when they suspect pension schemes are being mismanaged,” she said.

“How successful these new powers can be in supporting trustees will ultimately depend on how they are used. To be effective TPR will have to strike the right balance between proportionality and using a strong enough hand. But there is a potential concern around how well-resourced TPR is to use these effectively.”.

So we can expect Titcomb’s call for additional budgets and of course a whacking great self-serving addition to her salary, if she survives the next electoral coup.

“ In the Paper, the government confirmed it would seek to encourage and facilitate consolidation, by introducing a legislative framework and authorisation and accreditation regimes for commercial consolidation vehicles. The Paper often cited the Pensions and Lifetime Saving Association (PLSA) DB Taskforce’s proposed model, which would see companies able to pay a ‘superfund’ to offload their

liabilities for a price lower than buyout, although the DWP recognised other commercial models could also be developed.”. PLSA director of external affairs Graham Vidler said: “There is a growing body of evidence that consolidation in its many guises could provide the benefits of scale for those schemes that choose to consolidate.”.

Note benefits for them and their shareholders not the pensioners…

“We look forward to working with DWP on this issue going forward as we work to strengthen DB pensions and give more members a better chance of receiving full benefits.”.

Hargreaves Lansdown head of policy Tom McPhail said… “ all would benefit from greater consolidation, but noted this was not to deal with a problem in the system but to improve schemes and member outcomes.”.

“If we can end up with fewer, bigger, better-run schemes then all stakeholders including members, regulators and employers are likely to benefit,” he said. “The government has reiterated the view there is no systemic problem with the regulatory and legislative framework governing DB pensions; this is about improvement rather than root and branch reform.”.

Really where did they say that?

The white paper also confirmed that TPR’s code on DB funding standards will be revised, focusing on prudence when assessing liabilities, the appropriate factors for recovery plans, and ensuring a long-term view is considered when setting the funding objective. Meanwhile, DB trustees will also be required to appoint a chair, who will need to provide a chair’s statement to the regulator alongside the scheme’s triennial valuation.

PPF executive director and general counsel David Taylor welcomed these moves… “We welcome the white paper which marks an important contribution to managing risks in the DB pensions landscape.”

Yes indeed, their investment risks for their shareholders...

“We welcome the proposed measures to improve the scheme funding regime, the targeted strengthening of TPR’s anti-avoidance powers, and moves to establish an appropriate regime for scheme consolidation,” he added. “Developments in all these areas support the valuable safety net for members which we currently provide.”.

Surely we must add an ’industry’  smirk here?

“We continue to engage closely with DWP and TPR colleagues to translate the policy proposals into practice.”

Now there is the problem. TPR allows the industry to engage far too closely with them forgetting their obligations of impartiality and  protection of pensioners who are defrauded by their chums.

Mayer Brown partner and co-head of UK pensions Ian Wright said… “ overall the Paper was quite empty of substantial changes”.

“There is a lot of paper, for not a lot of change,” he said. “Leaving aside the criminal offence for reckless behaviour in relation to a pension scheme, which if TPR is doing its job properly should never apply, the white paper would make some minor tweaks to the existing regulatory and scheme funding system and sets out an aspiration to create an alternative to insured buyout.”

Absolutely correct, raising the question for the next generation why bother having any form of pension at all; take your money and put it somewhere else.under the bed perhaps in gold bars?

So there you have it  ~The White Paper ~  For a boring read on a gray day or for when you happen to be deliciously contemplating the slow demise of  someone you have grown to dislike.
If you really must this is the White Paper, Go Here.

The overall conclusion seems to be …in between yawns …what White Paper?

Earlier, many years ago in 2009, in the Bugler’s association with TPR he telephoned this organisation to find out the procedure to follow when bringing Pension Scheme maladministration, indeed malfeasance, in the matter of scheme management to its attention.

The initial impression received was that one had unpleasantly intruded into its sleepy hollow.

The person being addressed could hardly stir themselves from their self-evident boredom of having to answer the telephone to answering the question of the procedure to be followed and as a consequence the  sum total of accomplishment was the usual standard stone walling by reflected question.

Had the Bugler tried calling this that the other organisation? The disinterest was simply overwhelmingly palpable and when pressed the responses became ever more disdainful.

So now we must ask in these intervening years up to 2015 in respect of TPR plus ca change? The simple answer is of course nothing.

In supporting disabled FSV~RRB case in respect of the LFRS unlawful deduction of his Retirement Allowance from his Injury Award once more on 30^th November 2015 the Bugler made an approach directly to Ms Lesley Titcomb who had been appointed Regulator in May of that year.

This direct approach ~ Reporting a Concern ~ amounted to whistle blowing to the Regulator in person and was made, via Mr. David Tannant her then PA, supported by means of a comprehensive 15 page letter from disabled FSV~RRB.

In this letter he presented comprehensive ‘Reportable’ evidence of maladministration/malfeasance within the Lancashire Firefighters Pension Scheme.
A Scheme which is managed by its delegated manager a clerk named  Warren who had deliberately failed his Statutory duty on behalf of the Scheme and the Lancashire Combined Fire Authority which was to notify the Regulator that since taking over the managership of this Scheme in 2002 he had overpaid 167+/- pensioners (Individually the largest £75k+/- and collectively amounting to £2.0mn+) and beneficiaries and in addition had underpaid approximately 40 other beneficiaries significant sums amounting in one individual  case to £40k +.

As we now well know the Statutory failure to report these massive maladministrative failures to TPR is a civil breach of the law but the accompanying malfeasance(the deliberate cover up)  amounted to nothing more or less than fraud by both the Authority and the Scheme manager and his staff.

In the event this whistle blowing report to TPR on the 4^th November 2015 was acknowledged by Ms. Christina Burton(Technical Advisor Customer Support) on behalf of Regulator Titcomb on 10^th November 2015 helpfully outlining other agencies, including the Serious Fraud Office, where in addition this report from disabled FSV~RRB should be circulated to which it was.

Whilst on the face of it this seemed very helpful with subsequent  experience of the operations of TPR it became clear later that it is, and remains, a carefully choreographed TPR policy of obfuscation intended to deflect a whistle blower’s ‘Report of a Concern’  into the long grass.

Indeed almost without exception every single ‘Report of a Concern’ receives a standard response note which is clearly an unpublished TPR policy which states the following…

“The regulator appreciates you bringing these concerns to our attention. As previously explained, we will consider the information you have provided in accordance with our internal policies and procedures. We may ask you to clarify the information you have already provided, but we do not encourage you to try to get any new information. If appropriate, the matter will be referred for further investigation. Please note that we are unable to supply any feedback to you about the outcome of any possible investigation.

You have raised concerns that the scheme has not informed Mr B whether they have reported his complaint to ourselves. We are unable to confirm or deny whether a pension scheme has reported to us as this would be considered “Restricted Information”, as defined in section 82 of the Pensions Act 2004 and as such cannot be disclosed without the consent of the parties involved.”. .

Once more this these statements are carefully crafted  and choreographed to deceive a ‘whistleblower’ who may well be putting their employment at hazard by reporting their pension concerns.

The intent is clear, other than raising false hopes, which is to dissuade any further communication from the ‘whistle

blower’  to TPR under the wilful guile of ‘protecting’ them from their employers.

Furthermore should the ‘whistle blower’ not be dissuaded by these statements the TPR ring fences this deceit by informing all concerned that they cannot by law report any of their ‘investigative’ activities because it is all so hush hush.

The problem TPR has had with all the subsequent communications from the Bugler was that all the criminal activities of the LFRS had already been published on ‘The Morning Bugler’ worldwide website.

The Bugler pointed out that if TPR cared to look at its own applicable legislation it was excused from using this deflecting ring fencing ploy if the ‘Reported Concern’ was already in the public domain.

A matter which clearly caught TPR on the back foot but which nevertheless TPR repeatedly and steadfastly refused to accept because it would have required TPR to provide feed back to the ‘whistle blower’ and thus the Public of what steps it had taken to actually investigate and prosecute these criminals at the LFRS.

This is an organisation, embodied by these statements, which clearly has not the slightest intentions of protecting individuals’ pension nor taking action against those who with impunity break Statutory pension laws.

So why does it actually exist?

The Parliamentary W&P Select Committee could delude themselves, if for a moment, they concluded that the DWP’s TPR actually operates a vigilant robust policing policy to protect pension holders and could in further disillusionment  conclude that TPR is currently in excellent shape when in reality and in the light of the facts emerging of TPR massive failure upon failure neither CEO Titcomb nor the TPR are fit for the purpose they were created for.

A fact which all Members of the Parliamentary W&P Select Committee are more than uncomfortably aware of.

Needless to say in spite of vigorously pursuing point after point with Ms.Burton on disabled FSV~RRB behalf, all retained in the Bugler’s archives, and after climbing the ‘monkey tree’ back to the top to Regulator Titcomb where all this had commenced,  the stock and deliberately misleading impression given was that although the TPR was legally barred from responding, which of course was simply yet another corporate falsehood, nevertheless they were in secret continuing their ‘investigations’ to bring these criminal at the LFRS Firefighters Pension Scheme to book.

This is a carefully constructed modus operandii which is a complete sham from beginning to end, which must be set against TPR’s Public claim that in ‘improving’ …

“We are already quicker and bolder in the use of our powers…”

which is of course utter bunkum.

Disabled FSV~RRB’s TPR saga ended on the 18th March 2016 after having deliberately and knowingly  wasted 5.5 months with the following dismissive letter from the Head of Complaints and Information Disclosure Ms. Teena Tyrrell, after having guilefully and willfully raised and dashed hopes by this government agency. Go Here.

An agency which has not the slightest intention of protecting either pension schemes or individual pensioners. An ‘organisation’ which we the Taxpayers pay to employ over 500 civil servants and costs the Taxpayers a wasted annual expenditure of £75.0 mn whose annual report is likely to be considered in the Booker Prize section as a winning fictional work of art where without the slightest embarrassment it reports ‘success’ after ‘success’.

Perhaps the Select Committee is not actually dealing with TPR?

So why bother to subscribe to any pension scheme or save towards a pension for tomorrow if the very government agency set up to protect both the Schemes and more importantly the individual pension/saver/investor has not the slightest intention of providing the critical ‘policing’protection?

Now least the avid Reader might reasonably consider that disabled FSV~RRB experience was an aberration from which all efficient agencies suffer from time we must next look at the Bugler’s direct experience in conjunction with and in the purview of the Parliamentary Select Committee for Works & Pensions in 2017. A further scandalous ‘experience’ which simply confirms that disabled FSV~RRB experience was not an aberration but was the implementation of a policy of TPR with is to dismiss each and every ‘whistle blower’s ‘Report of a Concern’

We should repeat the question…What purpose does TPR actually serve?

As we have just seen, and shall continue to see repeatedly, the last bastion of defence of a failed UK government,  which has our Democracy placed with it in trust,  are the permissible misuse its civil servants.

Civil Servants who are not as they ought to be, Servants of the Citizens, but co-conspirators in shielding the UK government of the day from any challenges to its complete inefficacy by those Citizens seeking a modicum of Justice and Fair Play.

It is doubtful if the rank and file of the civil service actually know who Nolan was, or is , nor what his Principles for their ethical conduct in Public office  were in 1995; a conduct which also required a coupling  of their personal public morality, an overarching duty  which continues to the present day.

So here is a reminder of Nolan from the 2018 Home Office…

“The 7 principles of public life apply to anyone who works as a public office-holder. This includes people who are elected or appointed to public office, nationally and locally, and all people appointed to work in:

• the civil service

• local government

• the police

• the courts and probation services

• non-departmental public bodies

• health, education, social and care services

The principles also apply to all those in other sectors that deliver public services.”.

For absolute clarity the 7 Nolan ‘principles’ of public life first published on  31^st May 1995 are currently re-published by the Parliamentary Committee of Standards in Public Life …

The 7 principles of public life are :

1. Selflessness:
Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.

2. Integrity:
Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or

organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work.
They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.
They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

3. Objectivity:
Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.

4. Accountability:
Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.

5. Openness:
Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner.
Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.

6. Honesty:
Holders of public office should be truthful.

7. Leadership:
Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour.
They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and be willing to challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.

There really are only two obvious questions for any Citizen to rhetorically ask after being exposed to the machinations of this and prior UK governments and their departments and/or agencies set against the accumulating evidence which has been repeatedly presented against public office holders and their civil service staff by the Morning Bugler.

Does anyone in public office actually believe that these noble aspirations, in a self-evidently failed UK ‘democracy’, are actually practiced today, or were they in fact ever practiced?

It is an historical fact that all Imperial powers eventually collapse into corruption.

Just like the cracks in buildings which we would routinely monitor for our own operational safety, who is actually monitoring the collapse of the UK edifice of Democracy?

As part of a continuing exposé, which is to publicise and demonstrate how ineffectual this and recent former UK governments have been and how easily Democracy can be circumvented by their complete lack of leadership and control.

A Democracy which  has simply collapsed around them into the puerile state it is in today.

The the Bugler wrote to the Minister of State Mr.Sajid Javed M.P (Picture) for the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG)on the 3^rd April 2017 just a year ago calling for a Ministerial Enquiry.

This is the third time, no less,  in the history of this Pension saga that such a request has been penned. This third letter again comprehensively presented all the cumulative evidence of political,  pension maladministration, and malfeasance which the Morning Bugler has repeatedly exposed to by all relevant politicians and local and national  agencies it has had the misfortune to deal with. Go Here.

The response when it finally came on the 16^th November 2017 over 7 months later, indeed a surprise that a response had actually been received, rather than as usual ignored; a response which actually came  from the same 3 civil servants at the DCLG(now the Home Office) who had repeatedly failed to do their Statutory duty which was to investigate and, in parallel, report all these Firefighters Pension Scheme criminal activities to the Pension Regulator.

This reply simply personifies the imperious attitude and impunity of civil servants to those politician’s who might have the temerity to direct their activities let alone account to the the Citizen.

A snooty and dismissive attitude which reads(and is meant to be read as) regardless of who the Minister of State might be and regardless of the Party in power in Parliament  ‘we’ will decide how this matter is dealt with and because they are perpetually lazy almost inevitably the whole matter is tossed into the wastepaper bin. Go Here.

So how compatible are these ‘out of control and non-accountability’ actions when set against the  Nolan principles?

These civil servants know, as the Citizen knows, and remarkably as Parliament and its Members know well, that they can act with such unaccountable impunity because they have acted so during their entire so called ‘working’ lives.

How many civil servants have ever been disciplined and publicly named, shamed, and censured? Answer NONE.

Occasionally in the post WWII years attempts were made to make the civil service ‘toe the line’ but all have foundered in sand. There lies the root cause of all governmental failure when this united ‘fifth column’ regularly sets out to frustrate the will of the People never mind the will of Parliament, a frustration for which they have such an impeccable record.

Unless and until this firth column is brought in line UK Democracy will continue to founder before its Citizens very eyes.

Yet is was at this very time that the Prime Minister Rt Hon Theresa May M.P.called for a “modern, compassionate Britain” and “knowing that I made a difference – helped those who cannot be heard” was expressing her own philosophical beliefs because as we all well know it bears little in resemblance to reality.

Now the Bugler must continue presenting the evidence of yet another example of the civil service malevolently at work within TPR in either its principal self-interest, laziness, or in a symbiotic relationship with the government of the day which serves the same eventual purpose, non responsive non-accountable government , but certainly never the interests of the Citizen.

Following preliminary correspondence with the Chair of the Parliamentary Select Committee(SelCom) on Work and Pensions Rt.Hon. Mr Frank Field MP the Bugler was invited to supply ‘information’ to the Committee on the state of the national UK Fire Service Pension Schemes  for an inaugural Committee meeting of the ‘new ’ government’s committee on the 11^th October 2017 which, after much pounding of the keys and collation of all the evidence this Report was presented to the Committee. Go Here. or  Go Here. 

Following this it was recommended by SelCom  that the Report be sent to all the relevant authorities, which were listed in the correspondence, to see how they might deal with its contents with the caveat that SelCom did not have the Parliamentary remit to deal with individual cases rather

than to take and investigate an overview; individual cases being dealt with primarily by TPR and TPO.

So it was that the Report was sent directly to the PA’s of both Ms. Lesley Titcomb at TPR (and Mr.Anthony Arter at TPO) with appropriate acknowledgements received later thus neither could claim ignorance of the involvement of SelCom to whom they account nor indeed to the detailed contents of the Bugler’s Report

In the case of Mr. J.M. Copplestone Bruce personal  note to TPR~Ms.Titcomb and TPO~Mr.Arter copied to the Select Committee neither they nor the Committee had the common courtesy or decency to either acknowledge or reply to his personal letter which just about sums up the standard lack of couth in today’s politicians and  civil servant regardless of rank or appointment . Perhaps they just resent the word or inferences of ‘public servant ‘ though clearly they do not resent the taxpayers salaries. Go Here.

A remarkably short time later Ms Christina Burton in an unsolicited phone call re-introduced herself making it clear that TPR-Titcomb had received the Report and that they would be taking the necessary action to investigate the evidence I had provided.

She particularly requested that as the Report, of necessity, had ‘headlined’ the reported broad circumstances the Bugler wished to provide to SelCom that the Bugler provide detailed evidence to support each headline which over the following period he did copying each submission to the staff and individual SelCon MP members whilst reporting to the the Committee confirmation that TPR was going to investigate,  pursue, and prosecute, the reported criminality.

Naturally there was the usual ‘statement’ that this was not a dialogue but rather a monologue by the Bugler to TPR because of course TPR could not report any of its activities.

Of course, this was all immediately recognised by the Bugler as yet more accomplished deceit by TPR which would inevitably lead to Ms Burton and TPR ditching the whole Report but it would be interesting to see how this would be accomplished.

As time progressed and the evidentiary material was regularly passed to Ms. Burton, TPR, and SelCom it was interesting to note that Ms. Burton gradually withdrew behind the electronic automatic ‘customer’ response shield but of course there was a problem with this because due to the previous activities in which Ms. Burton had booted disabled FSV-RRB evidentiary correspondence on the same subject of criminality in to the long grass, the Bugler had retained her personal email address at TPR and thus continued to direct the supporting evidence supporting his Report directly to her.

Eventually it reached the point where Ms, Burton failed to acknowledge or respond(the cynical withering on the vine phase) until, clearly reaching the distressing point where she found herself in the spotlight and directly accountable to  SelCom for her and Ms. Titcomb’s complicit deceit she used the only excuse she could find to finally tacitly admit that in reality, as everyone knew, she and Ms. Titcomb had not the slightest intention of doing anything.

Failures to act which simply confirms the institutionalised contempt with which they treat the MP Members of the Select Committee, an attitude in which they are consistent, which is to treat all those they have the misfortune to correspond with them ,with contempt.

Even when engaged in this final falsehood neither of them could get it right.

Here is the final brushoff when it came neither senior civil servants having the personal courtesy and more importantly the personal courage to write the letter themselves.

They left it to a junior civil servant to do the dirty work for them with undoubtedly the usual promise of career advancement for that person…Go Here.

The Bugler’s final letter in response which was circulated to all individual MP members of the Select Committee who subsequently also failed to take issue on behalf of all those disabled Fire Service Veterans and their Beneficiaries to whom it seems the Select Committee do not see it as their role, duty, nor responsibility either to act on behalf of those who have died, have been disabled or left beneficiaries in their service but who still expect, as individuals, that if ever they have the misfortune to require the Fire & Rescue Services one assumes that they will have the highest expectations that those attending to them will have the commitment to them to either die or be disabled in that service?  

The definition of such a philosophy is epitomised by the words ‘self-serving and selfish’.

Finally, we ought to repeat the question…What purpose does TPR actually serve? Go Here.