Decision review requests

The request was successful.

phsothefacts Pressure Group

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

From your annual report 2021/22 you state that:

In 2021-22, we carried out 455 review requests of decisions (decision review requests) and upheld 37 of them.

https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/sites/defau... p36.

Can you provide the following information?

1. What was the total number of decision review requests made in 2021/22?

2. Of the 37 upheld requests how many received a new investigation?

Yours faithfully,

Della Reynolds

phsothefacts Pressure Group

InformationRights, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Thank you for contacting the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s
(PHSO) Freedom of Information and Data Protection Team. This is to confirm
we have received your request. If you have made a request for information
under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or Environment Information
Regulations 2004, we aim to respond to your request within 20 working days
in accordance with the statutory time frames set out in both Acts. If you
have made a request for personal information held by the PHSO, your
request will be processed as a Subject Access Request under the provisions
of the Data Protection Act 2018 and we aim to respond within one calendar
month in accordance with the statutory time frame set out in the Act. We
may contact you before this time if we require further clarification or if
we need to extend the time required to complete your request.

Please note that we are currently experiencing a high demand, and might
not be able to comply with the statutory deadline for your request. Any
late responses can be referred to the Information Commissioner’s Office:

https://ico.org.uk/

For Subject Access Requests, we will send any personal information via
secure email, unless you instruct us differently. To access the
information on the email we send, you will need to sign up to our secure
email service. Details can be found on our website using the link below:
https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/co...
If you require us to post your personal information to you instead you
will need to inform us of this and confirm your current address as soon as
possible. Angharad Jackson Data Protection Officer & Assistant Director
Information Assurance Office of the Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman PHSO CityGate 47-51 Mosley Street Manchester M2 3HQ
[email address]

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

24/04/2023

Dear Della Reynolds,

PHSO Reference 00000903

Acknowledgement of your request for information

Thank you for your correspondence of .

Your correspondence will be handled as a request under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. We aim to issue a full response by 23 May 2023.

If we require further information or cannot meet this deadline, we will
let you know.

You may find the information you are looking for on our website as part of
our  [1]Publication Scheme or [2]Casework.

To find out more about how we handle your personal data and information
requests, please see our [3]Privacy Policy.

Yours sincerely

Freedom of Information/Data Protection Team

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

References

Visible links
1. https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/co...
2. https://decisions.ombudsman.org.uk/
3. https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/co...

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear Della Reynolds,

PHSO Case Details 00000903

Your request for information

Thank you for your correspondence of 21 April 2023 in which you requested
information from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).
For reference, your request was for:

“From your annual report 2021/22 you state that:

In 2021-22, we carried out 455 review requests of decisions (decision
review requests) and upheld 37 of them.

[1]https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/sites/defau...
526_Annual_Report_and_Accounts_2021_2022.pdf p36.

Can you provide the following information?

1. What was the total number of decision review requests made in 2021/22?

2. Of the 37 upheld requests how many received a new investigation?”

PHSO’s response

We can confirm that the information requested is held.

 1. PHSO received 280 decision review requests in 2021/22.

2. Of the 37 upheld requests 21 received a new investigation.

Right of appeal

If you believe we have made an error in the way we have processed your
information request, it is open to you to request an internal review. You
can do this by writing to us by post or by email to
[PHSO request email]. You will need to specify what the
nature of the issue is and we can consider the matter further. Beyond
that, it is open to you to complain to the Information Commissioner’s
Office (<a href="http://www.ico.org.uk).
" class="redactor-autoparser-object">www.ico.org.uk).

Should you have any further enquiries about your information rights
request, please reply to this message or contact the Information Rights
Team at [2][PHSO request email].

Yours sincerely

Angharad Jackson

Data Protection Officer

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

PHSO CityGate

47-51 Mosley Street

Manchester

M2 3HQ

E: [3][email address]

W: [4]www.ombudsman.org.uk

For information rights enquiries, please contact
[5][PHSO request email]

Want to know more about your informatio

References

Visible links
1. https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/sites/defau...
2. mailto:[PHSO request email]
3. mailto:[email address]
4. http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
5. mailto:[PHSO request email]

phsothefacts Pressure Group

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

thank you for the response to my FOI with regard to decision reviews. Could you please clarify some of the data for me?

You state that in 2020/21 you received 280 decision review requests yet you carried out 455 decision reviews that year.

1. How many decision reviews were carried over from the previous year?

2. The way the data is presented it looks as though you review every request made but from previous experience, I know this not to be the case. Is the 280 figure the total number of decision review requests you received in 2020/21 or is it the number of decision review requests where you actually carried out a review?

3. If the 280 figure does not represent the total number of decision review requests received can you supply that figure?

Yours faithfully,

Della Reynolds

phsothefacts Pressure Group

phsothefacts Pressure Group

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman's handling of my FOI request 'Decision review requests'.

I believe that I have not been given the correct information. I have requested to know the total number of review requests for 2020/21 and the number provided is considerably lower than the number of reviews undertaken. This response suggests that all review requests are met with a review and this is not the case. I would like a full explanation.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d...

Yours faithfully,

Della Reynolds
phsothefacts Pressure Group

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

01/06/2023

Dear Della Reynolds,

PHSO Reference 00001012

Thank you for your correspondence of 01 June 2023 in which you requested
an internal Review under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Please note the internal review has been allocated a new case reference
number this will be different from the original reference number allocated
to your initial request.

We aim to issue a full response by 29 June 2023.

If we require further information or cannot meet this deadline, we will
let you know.

Yours sincerely

Freedom of Information/Data Protection Team

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

PHSO CityGate

47-51 Mosley Street

Manchester

M2 3HQ

E: [1][PHSO request email]

W: [2]www.ombudsman.org.uk

Want to know more about your information rights? Read our privacy notice

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[PHSO request email]
2. http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear Della Reynolds,
Thank you for your request for information from the Parliamentary and
Health Service Ombudsman. Your request has been handled in accordance with
the Freedom of Information Act 2000. about :

thank you for the response to my FOI with regard to decision reviews.
Could you please clarify some of the data for me?

Our Response:

In the previous FOI request you asked about figures relating to 2021/22
and not 2020/21, therefore, we will attempt to clarify figures relating to
2021/22.

1) 204 decision review requests were carried over from the previous year
to 2021/22.

2) As stated in our previous response, in 2021/22 PHSO received 280
decision review requests. Of the 455 decision review requests (mentioned
in the annual report), 382 decision review requests were declined, and 73
were concluded.

Right of appeal

If you believe we have made an error in the way we have processed your
information request, it is open to you to request an internal review. You
can do this by writing to us by post or by email to
[PHSO request email]. You will need to specify what the
nature of the issue is and we can consider the matter further. Beyond
that, it is open to you to complain to the Information Commissioner’s
Office (www.ico.org.uk).

Should you have any further enquiries about your information rights
request, please reply to this message or contact the Information Rights
Team at [1][PHSO request email].

Yours sincerely

Angharad Jackson

Data Protection Officer

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

PHSO CityGate

47-51 Mosley Street

Manchester

M2 3HQ

E: [2][email address]

W: [3]www.ombudsman.org.uk

For information rights enquiries, please contact
[4][PHSO request email]

Want to know more about your information.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[PHSO request email]
2. mailto:[email address]
3. http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
4. mailto:[PHSO request email]

phsothefacts Pressure Group

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

Just to clarify for people following this FOI. 204 decision review requests were carried over to 20/21 and 280 new decision review requests were made that year. That makes a total of 484 people asking for the decision on their case to be reviewed and presumably overturned.

PHSO reduce that figure to 455 decision review requests handled that year. Presumably, the others are carried over. Of the 455 request 382 are denied (83.9%). 73 reviews are undertaken (16%) and 37 are upheld (8.1%). 21 of the upheld cases received a new investigation (4.6%). So you have just under a 5% chance of achieving a new investigation if you make an appeal to PHSO regarding the decision on your case. Not good odds.

Yours faithfully,
Della Reynolds

phsothefacts Pressure Group

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

29/06/2023

Dear Della Reynolds,

PHSO Reference 00001012

Internal review of your request for information

Thank you for your email of 1 June 2022. You requested an internal review
regarding our handling of your Freedom of Information (FOI) request made
on 21 April 2023.

21 April 2023 – We received your original request which was allocated
reference 00000903.

“From your annual report 2021/22 you state that:

In 2021-22, we carried out 455 review requests of decisions (decision
review requests) and upheld 37 of them.

[1]https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/sites/defau...
526_Annual_Report_and_Accounts_2021_2022.pdf p36.

PHSO Response to your request.

We can confirm that the information requested is held.

 1. PHSO received 280 decision review requests in 2021/22.
 2. Of the 37 upheld requests 21 received a new investigation.

25 May 2023 – You submitted a second request made allocated Reference
00000996.

“thank you for the response to my FOI with regard to decision reviews.
Could you please clarify some of the data for me?

You state that in 2020/21 you received 280 decision review requests yet
you carried out 455 decision reviews that year.

1. How many decision reviews were carried over from the previous year?

2. The way the data is presented it looks as though you review every
request made but from previous experience, I know this not to be the case.
Is the 280 figure the total number of decision review requests you
received in 2020/21 or is it the number of decision review requests where
you actually carried out a review?

3. If the 280 figure does not represent the total number of decision
review requests received can you supply that figure?”

1 June 2023 - Prior to our response to the above request you submitted a
request for an internal review.

“Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information
reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Parliamentary and Health
Service Ombudsman's handling of my FOI request 'Decision review requests'.

I believe that I have not been given the correct information. I have
requested to know the total number of review requests for 2020/21 and the
number provided is considerably lower than the number of reviews
undertaken. This response suggests that all review requests are met with a
review and this is not the case. I would like a full explanation.”

22 June – PHSO response to your second request 00000996.

In the previous FOI request you asked about figures relating to 2021/22
and not 2020/21, therefore, we will attempt to clarify figures relating to
2021/22.

1) 204 decision review requests were carried over from the previous year
to 2021/22.

2) As stated in our previous response, in 2021/22 PHSO received 280
decision review requests. Of the 455 decision review requests (mentioned
in the annual report), 382 decision review requests were declined, and 73
were concluded.

28 June – Your response.

Just to clarify for people following this FOI. 204 decision review
requests were carried over to 20/21 and 280 new decision review requests
were made that year. That makes a total of 484 people asking for the
decision on their case to be reviewed and presumably overturned.

PHSO reduce that figure to 455 decision review requests handled that year.
Presumably, the others are carried over. Of the 455 request 382 are denied
(83.9%). 73 reviews are undertaken (16%) and 37 are upheld (8.1%). 21 of
the upheld cases received a new investigation (4.6%). So you have just
under a 5% chance of achieving a new investigation if you make an appeal
to PHSO regarding the decision on your case. Not good odds.

Time for response:

PHSO responded within the 20-working day limit established under Section
10 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Review of your request.

Your first request received 21 April was specific and asked for the number
of review requests received in 2021 -22 and of those upheld how many
received a new investigation.

We responded providing the information requested the total number of
complaints received and the numbers relating to new investigations. These
figures are correct as you state in your request the number of review
requests on the annual report is the number carried out, this is a
different figure from the number of review requests received.

Therefore, we believe we have fully addressed the specific questions
asked.

In your second request you refer to the 280 review requests that were
received in 2020 -21 this is clearly incorrect, and we believed a typing
error in relation to the year. You have not submitted a request for that
information your request was for 2021 -22. We believe this because you
refer to the numbers being lower than those in the annual report for 2021
- 22, a point which I have already addressed. We clarified that 204
requests were carried over from the previous year a total of 484, 382 were
declined and 73 were concluded. The 382 declined and 73 concluded accounts
for the 455 reviews carried out, we have previously informed you 37 were
upheld and 21 received a new investigation.

We can confirm that 29 review requests which were open at the end of the
reporting year (31 March 2022) were carried over into 2022/23. Whilst this
can be implied form the data provided it was not something you included in
any of your requests until 28 June.

In your request for an internal review, you have requested a full
explanation. Please bear in mind the legislation allows access to
information 'held' by us and not for the creation of new information or
opinion. Therefore, we may only be able to supply documents or data that
contain the information we hold in response to your request.

However, your first two requests did not ask for an explanation merely
figures. You were provided with the information as it was requested. You
may find the Service Model Policy and Guidance: Review and Feedback
Guidance useful. This is available on our website please see the attached
link. This deals with the Ombudsman Assurance Team and provides
information regarding review requests.

[2]Service Model Policy and Guidance: Review and feedback Guidance 11.0
(ombudsman.org.uk)

As this information is reasonably accessible to you it is exempt under
Section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which means we do not
have to send you a copy. However, please be aware no information has been
withheld from you.

We have fully responded to each specific question raised on every
occasion.

If you are not content with the outcome of your internal review, you may
apply directly to the Information Commissioner’s Office for a decision.
Generally, the Commissioner will not make a decision unless you have
exhausted the complaints procedure provided by the PHSO. The Information
Commissioner’s Office can be contacted at:

The Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Regards,

Angharad Jackson

Data Protection Officer

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman PHSO CityGate

47-51 Mosley Street

Manchester

M2 3HQ

E: [3][PHSO request email]

References

Visible links
1. https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/sites/defau...
2. https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/sites/defau...
3. mailto:[PHSO request email]

phsothefacts Pressure Group

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

Yes, you are quite right I meant 21/22. Thank you for your comprehensive response. I don’t suppose you are in a position to comment on the very low possibility of having a review upheld.

Yours faithfully,

Della Reynolds

phsothefacts Pressure Group

M Boyce (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

The 2022-23 PHSO Annual Report has just been published, and again they repeat the following contradictory nonsense:

'Our decisions are FINAL, but there are some circumstances in which we will look again at a decision.'

How can something be final if it is not final? The PHSO has peddled this conundrum for year after year after year.

The PHSO have no legal power to review any of their FINAL decisions. These reviews are not legal and therefore cannot be legally challenged.

Same old, same old PHSO.

https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/sites/defau...

phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()

Thanks for your comment Mark. Have you reached the end of your ICO process yet?

M Boyce (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Thanks Della.

No, far from it.

As you will know, the PHSO are only part of the problem, the other parts of the problem are the ICO and the First-tier Tribunal. I am still waiting for my current FTT decision about the ICO constantly behaving hypocritically with regard to section 14 FOIA vexatious.

It is a very sad indictment that we cannot trust the PHSO or the ICO or even the First-tier Tribunal.

I'll keep you informed when I receive an FTT decision - hopefully fairly soon.

phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()

Thanks Mark. I’d like to include your story in our next book. They simply delay when you have them in a corner.

M Boyce (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Please do.

Yes, delay is the bureaucrats trump card. The constant delays just cause most people to give up, and if they don't give up then they are labelled vexatious!

I wonder who will be taking over from Mr Behrens next year?

phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()

I’m not expecting it to be anyone better. They don’t want an effective Ombudsman service.

M Boyce (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

You are totally right on both points. Ombudsperson's (I wouldn't want to offend our woke readers) are employed on a revolving door policy of golden hello's in and diamond-plated au revoirs on their way to their next lucrative omby jaunt.

Ombudsperson's don't care about complainants - it's all just bureaucratic box-ticking and then off to spend their large bonuses.

The ICO quango is exactly the same.

And then we get to the people that we perhaps should be able to trust: judges. Sadly, there is little chance of that. My experience amply shows that judges apply the law as and when it suits and they ignore it when they feel like it. I can prove every word of it and have done so on various threads on WDTK.

If you look for justice in this country, then it is time you woke (in both senses of the word) up and smelled the coffee.

Always fight for justice, but don't ever expect to get it, because the Establishment will make sure that you never do.

phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()

Agreed. It is all corrupt. From top to bottom. A total stitch up.

C Rock left an annotation ()

Comment: with regard to publication of PHSO case handling I would appreciate input to a book, Della. However, two thing would counter against my best communication and presentation of such:

(a) Revisiting the circumstances of my son's tragic and potentially avoidable death in 2008, and the trauma that resurrects,

(b) The further maladministration in PHSO opaque dealings in being yet unable to resolve the substantive complaint of NHS negligence and maladministration before my son's death

(c) The delays, pressures and stresses committed by the PHSO in ignorant and abusive response over 13 years to-date, imparting mental harm and life-affecting incapacities through my efforts, without recourse to any complaint system in matters of harm.

Thank you

JtOakley (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

M BOYCE and phsothefacts .

Vexation Tribunals can be won but its about a 1 in 10 chance.

I won my case due to
- the PHSO trying to give the evidence to the panel without telling me.... the Information Commissioner’s Office lawyer made the PHSO hand it over. So watch for what is missing.

- The lack of S16 help and assistance.

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/foi...

The panel's first question was' Where is it?

*The public expenditure from the PHSO not complying with this must have run into ££££££'s.

And most bizarrely...

- the PHSO attempted to include' membership of phsothefacts' as a point of vexation, before withdrawing it.

I had written a piece on making FOIA REQUESTS, being a bereaved person myself, to help phsothefacts members to make requests to the NHS and other organisations.

Presumably my article with personal opinion on the way organisations avoid answering requests was not 'compliant with the PHSO's values'.

*See other cases in the news for inadequate monitoring and the promotion of subsequent inaccurate information, leading to resignations.

It should not be monitoring you external opinions (especially inaccurately) and applying them as points of vexation towards your requests

MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL --DON'T LOSE YOU TEMPER

The panel commented on the PHSO's rather belligerent and personal attitude to me.... presumably pushing me towards losing my temper, in order to vex my request.

And complimented me on the way I'd kept it throughout.
It took around five minutes to decide in my favour.

Good luck!

M Boyce (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Thanks Jt Oakley. You make some good points.

I believe that chance plays a small part in whether an appeal to the FTT is upheld or not. It depends on who is looking at the case and which side of the bed they fell out of on the day.

You are quite right that losing your temper is generally counter-productive. Easier said than done when dealing with quango's like the PHSO and the ICO who would test the patience of the most saintly of saints.

When all said and done the Establishment never plays by the rules, so us little people can be as calm, as patient, as polite and as right till the cows come home, but it will much more often than not make no difference - it is a system that is designed to its core to protect vested interests and those in power, and the Establishment ignores the law and the norms of decent behaviour whenever it likes.

phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()

I absolutely agree Mark. You can spend many hours checking the law and proper procedures but they just ignore everything which doesn’t suit them. They create illogical arguments against you but there is little you can do when the whole system colludes to suppress the truth.

M Boyce (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Jt Oakley, could you please let me know what was the PHSO Decision Notice reference and the FTT reference in the case you refer to as I would be very interested to read both of these again.

By the way, whatever my firmly held beliefs on a collusive Establishment, I do congratulate you on winning your case - it is no mean achievement.

JtOakley (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

I don't go along with 'Establishment ' theory simply because the original. setting up of the UK ombudsman was a lazy c..ck up, rather than conspiracy.

It should have followed UK Adversarial legal set up , rather than adopting the Inquisitorial judge-led European.

Still should - to give complainants a better chance.

The PHSO is therefore ' judge'- led.. but the problem is that the 'judges' are box-ticking call handlers and not lawyers with a wider view.

Having some training in the law, as the original Swedish ombudsman did , would help get more refined, and so more exact decisions.

It wouldn't be so bad having to put up with limited call handler decisions but the ombudsman automatically backs them, even if they've made a mistake.

Which is why complainants get so cross. They can see ...and recognise...mistakes and individual bias.

Infuriating. As they are then they are then supposed to keep their tempers.

Recent case: An Ombudsman -mentioning a call handler *-BY NAME - in a decision in a congratulatory manner, instead of sticking to the complaint issue. A real giveaway.

It may be great for internal Ombudsman staff relationships but not for the public. The ombudsman is supposedly above seeking attention from staff and handling cases in an entirely neutral manner.

*....Presumably it is to get better 'marks' from staff in the internal surveys.

However, it is not there to judge legal issues but maladministration.

So it wasn't until I got to the legal stages - lawyers who understood the complaint, that I made any headway at all.

So I would hope the UK would change its' system to the UK's where complainants have access to ALL case evidence and be able to see why decisions are made on it .

And not just the secretive:

'Take it or leave it.... We know best and don't dare to pick up on our mistakes' attitude that we've got at the moment.

Will post the tribunal Decision later.

JtOakley (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Phso vex ..

https:/informationrights.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i1460/Oakley,%20Janet%20Treharne%20EA.2014.0093%20(19.01.2015)%20.pdf

You should have heard what the panel said off-record about the lack of S16 help….

*Its such a waste of time and public money.

PHSO developed an in-built arrogance - through its employees - who assume they cannot be challenged, or corrected.. whatever they do, because, as above, the ombudsman always backs them.

The panel recognised the PHSO attitude was not one to administer the Information Commissioner’s Office guidance of S16 help and assistance

( First question ’Where it the S16 assistance?’)

But to drive me into an angry state ( which is why you must not take the bait) ….in order to vex the request..

And so stop allowing fair adjudication of the original complaint in which the case handlers had made a massive mistake.

- Ignoring the MPs letter on page 2 of it.

Part of the panel’s criticism of the PHSO:

[9] Having considered the evidence and on hearing the Appellant on what were clearly her genuine concerns we find that the backdrop of other correspondence and complaints only exacerbated her grounds for concern and the frustration she felt in all the circumstances of this case.
The Appellant clearly was not getting satisfaction nor the meaningful response she deserved.
This Tribunal reminds itself that there is duty on Public Authorities to assist mem bers of the public in formulating and processing their requests.

On hearing the Appellant on the facts in this case we are of the view that more could have been done to assist the proc- essing of this request.

That this was a request with a genuine purpose was acknowledged by the Respondent but this Tribunal add that the Appellant has satisfied us that the need for her persistence, in its various forms as it transpired on the facts, is justified by the failure of the public authority to respond more comprehensively, effectively, efficiently or adequately

M Boyce (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Thanks Jt Oakley. I've now read the DN; it's brief, but makes interesting reading.

The point you make about section 16 FOIA - the right to advice and assistance is very illuminating. The panel excoriated the PHSO's failure to provide advice and assistance as 'such a waste of time and public money.'

Section 16 is usually ignored by authorities, when it is such an important way of possibly preventing escalation of disputes.

You are correct that the PHSO believe they are largely unchallengeable and this feeds their hubris. Most of the time the ICO, the FTT and the UTT find in their favour. Section 14 FOIA allows for so much discretion, and the Establishment's (the ICO and the FTT and UTT) discretion always errs on the side of their Establishment friends.

You refute the idea of an Establishment 'conspiracy', but the evidence that the Establishment conspires together to protect vested interests and organisational reputations is everywhere to be seen: the police, the courts, banks, the church, politicians - need I go on?

Put simply, the rich and powerful look after the rich and powerful, and to hell with everybody else.