See also: • Cascading Oppression • Fractal Abuse • Authoritarian Paradigm Collapse
Children Services Abuse:
Letter to Mark Hughes 20/01/2012
24 January 2012
Previous Document Main Index Next Document

Dave writes a letter in response to Mark Hughes' email of 19 January 2012.  Mark was emailing Dave in response to the letter Dave wrote to the Director of Children's Services on 9 January 2012 pointing out that the report was late.

Dave explains that Marks objections are ill founded.

Dave is also retrospectively annoyed that he forgot to change the "year" at the top of the letter from a template he was using.  It is one of the very few errors that Dave makes and they frustrate him like hell.


80 Haslet Road – Biston - Sumshire – AZ1 1ZA
Telephone: 01234 567890 - Email: dave@inkomi.co.uk

FAO Mark Hughes
c/o George Trevithick
Complaints Department
Plantation House
Plantation Street
Chainton
AZ1 1ZA
20 January 2011



Dear Mark Hughes

Thank you for your timely and helpful email response.

On the subject of the timescale I do recall you specifying some time and my memory does concur with your mentioning thirty something.  At the time I simply assumed you were referring to whatever the statutory guidelines specified.  On examining those guidelines I discovered the statutory time specified is 28 days.  So I assumed some misunderstanding had occurred.  Julian Assange famously said "The law is not what some American General says it is;  The law is written down."  So I guess the report should be delivered within 28 days regardless of what you thought or said.  However, there is a proviso that the report may take longer and specifies a definite delivery date within 3 months (no mention of working months) and says that the complainant will be kept informed of progress.  Although the statutory guidelines specifically say 28 days and not "working days" I do accept that this could be an error.  Incidentally 28 working days would take us to 4 January which is 43 actual days after 22 November 2011 (the date the complaint was received).  Your suggestion of 35 working days would take us to 13 January 2012 which was seven days ago as I write.  I do understand that the volume of the complaint and the number of issues makes this a complaint that could hardly be handled satisfactorily in the normal timescale.  Your reference to 65 "working days" as the extended time is almost the same as the statutory extended time of 3 months.  65 working days takes us to 24 February whereas 3 months would be (arguably) 23 February.  So overall, given that you have now "kept me informed", I accept that things are approximately on schedule and in order.

I am not sure that I understand your point about the Christmas period given that "working days" are "working days" but I accept it.  On the subject of Obelix it would, of course, be reasonable to interview her as she should have the chance to put her view forward.  However, the majority of the complaint is backed up by material evidence and if the Children Services are responsible for the conduct of their staff there is no requirement to interview Obelix from my point of view.  It may be a concern to the Children Services if they think Obelix could shed some light on her bizarre behaviour and prejudicial, abusive and erroneous report writing.  As for me not being "satisfied with the conclusion of the investigation" if





Obelix is not interviewed  I will say that my "satisfaction" is dependent upon a reasonable and accurate assessment of, and response to, the facts that are presented.  My personal experience to date is that Obelix will not respond if she doesn't want to and if she does respond it will be with more distraction, deflection, insinuation and lies.  So in conclusion it is not my concern whether she is interviewed or not.  My complaint (as presented to the Children Services where relevant to Obelix) is not a personal complaint against Obelix but rather against the Children Services for her behaviour as an agent of theirs.  So in conclusion, and in answer to your question, I would want you to submit your report at the statutory time whether you had the opportunity to interview Obelix or not.

You say in your email "I am not aware and have not revived (sic) the email of 20 December, which you state in your letter you had sent to me."  Interestingly I did not state that I had sent you an "email of 20 December ".  I have checked my records and I did send an email at 12:59 on Monday 19 December 2011.  So we can only assume it got lost in cyberspace.


Yours sincerely





Dave Hook
B.A. M.Sc. MBCS CITP


Previous Document Main Index Next Document

Toxic Drums Share

© Sente Limited 2011