Tuesday, 30 July 2019


With all my documents re my complaint about the GLD refusing to answer simple questions about Appointed Persons are with the Ombudsman around the middle of May, but by the end of June I'd received no answer. Typical, so I send in an email reminding them that they'd said they would be replying 'shortly', so I would now a month later like to have that reply.

A Kevin Weager sent me a reply on the 1st July telling me he was dealing with it and he asked me to answer some questions, like how was I affected by the non action reply by the GLD. Typical of our obsessed box ticking civil servants of today. I replied and asked him how would he feel if his life had been trashed by actions of a government department.

Amazingly the next day he sent me another email telling he wasn't going to take this matter further....
His list of reasons were a travesty as all that I had put in my complaint letter re the GLD had been twisted out of context and misread.....ALL DELIBERATE-AS THIS IS WHAT THEY ALWAYS DO.
So I quickly reply outlining every lie and mistake re the 'FACTS'? he'd made, that was never replied to. In his letter knocking back my complaint, he included a form to fill in if I disagreed to his reasons. TOO DAMN RIGHT I DISAGREED. So that got filled in and I listed all the reasons and asked him to read those along with my last email he'd ignored and it all went in on the 20th July 2019.

One of the excuses the GLD gave for not investigating Hobbs QC was that they had nothing to do with Appointed Persons like Hobbs who was at that bogus meeting. This is an outright lie as they supply them to the IPO in order that hearings can allegedly be heard by AN INDEPENDENT PERSON. All bullshit of course because most if not all the work Hobbs gets is from the IPO-meaning in real life he'd be on first name terms with everyone in the law section of the IPO. So I went into research as to exactly who employs A/P's and therefore must be responsible for them and their actions and behaviour.

The GLD had told me in answer to questions I'd asked them, that A/P's are the Judicial Appointments Commission responsibility. So I contacted them but found that all they do is run a selection course to find those good enough to become A/P's. They told me I should ask the Judicial Office who are an arm of the Her Majesty's Tribunal and Courts Service. They also tell me that and A/P's are employees of them + the MoJ. NOW HERE STRAIGHT AWAY REMEMBER THE MOJ DENIED ANYTHING TO DO WITH A/P's.

I now ask the HMCTS in a letter of the 6th July a few more questions (see copy below) They said CONTRARY to what the JAC had said re A/P's-that they ARE NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE HMTCS. This is what you get with these thoroughly corrupt, devious and  incompetent government departments. They are buck passing and pissing you about and this is DELIBERATE, in order to muddy the waters and then you never get to know who is responsible for anything let alone who is responsible for Hobbs. They tell me that A/P's are under the remit of the IPO. Now if that is meant to say they are employed AND paid by the IPO, then they are responsible for what went on at that bogus hearing....which of course they denied way back in 2007/8. You see what lies I've been fed by all these civil service liars and assholes.

So I ask the IPO 'who is responsible for the employment of A/P's'? and that arch lair, one Raoul Colombo in the Law Office of the IPO replied. He tells me that they are appointed by and are responsible to the Lord Chancellor which is at odds with what others have told me. IS IT EVER POSSIBLE TO GET FROM ANYONE OF THESE DEPARTMENTS IN THE UK JUDICIAL

So I still don't know who is responsible for employing Hobbs let alone who bears any responsibility for his criminal actions.......SO NOW IT IS GOING TO MY MP in an effort to see what he will be able to do re getting honest answers and how I can get HOBBs investigated.


1st July 2019

Dear Mr Cook,
I am the caseworker who will be considering your complaint about the Government Legal Department (the GLD). I have looked at all the papers you sent us including your complaint letters and email to the GLD, its responses to you, and I have read about the background to your complaint.
It appears that you complain to us about the GLD’s handling of your complaint. You complain it has lied to you about its remit and that it did not appoint Mr Hobbs QC to a case involving the Intellectual Property Office (the IPO) in 2008, it has not answered your questions in your complaint letters, and it has not addressed the poor conduct of its employees in answering your complaint. As an outcome you want the GLD to acknowledge failings.
On your complaint form you say that your intellectual property rights were taken from you which also ruined your business. Can you please tell me specifically how the GLD’s complaint handling has affected you?
Please let me know if my understanding of your complaint is correct, and if you have any questions.

Kind regards,

Kevin Weager
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
T: 0300 061 4643
E: kevin.weager@ombudsman.org.uk

Your email today re my complaint.
From:   ken cook
To:        kevin.weager@ombudsman.org.uk
Date:    Monday,1  July 2019, 23:00 BST

H i,

Thank you for the overdue confirmation.

My first observation re your email is that either you don't fully understand what I am wanting done and are trying to go into areas that do not need to be gone into. In other words please keep this simple and keep to the point.

I will repeat simply, what needs to be done by you. As you can readily see because as you have said, you can easily see what I asked the GLD to confirm, in the questions I asked them which they refused to reply to. The history of my problems with the IPO and what they did does not come into what you should do re the GLD.

Put simply, this Hobbs QC bloke connived with a law officer of the IPO at an alleged appeal hearing which I was not allowed to attend, broke several rules/laws and that had the effect of going onto perverting the course of justice. (a criminal offence). Hobbs was, as are all 'Appointed Persons' are, provided by the GLD (then called the 'Treasury Solicitors). Since I found out when I got
the transcript of that hearing, what unlawful actions had taken place, I have been trying to get - JUSTICE ....WHICH I AM ENTITLED TO !!

I, over the timescale since then, have gone to EVERY avenue open to me to make complaints and AT EVERY ONE OF THEM,  all I have got is lies, obfuscations, buck passing and so on and all this in order to brush it under the carpet. I am well read on what all you people in the civil service get up to, including our corrupt Justice System. But I am not an idiot and I know what everyone has been up to, in trying to deny me my rights.

As I had tried all the many paths in the past, I reached the point where as far as I was concerned, the Ministry of Justice, one would have thought, would be the place to go to to get what happened ...INVESTIGATED. You will know EXACTLY where I got with that rabble, as I complained to
yourselves about their refusal to accept responsibility and with their lies. So I determined to now go back to the very department who dish out  these Appointed Persons, namely the GLD, and demand they investigate Hobbs actions. You can see how they are upto the usual jiggery-pokery in trying to

Any member of the Public is entitled to not be lied to and to have their questions ANSWERED, by ANY government department. You seem to fail to see why I have brought my complaint over their non actions and lies to you. This even though you have all the documents that show you what my complaint is about and HOW THEY HAVE BEHAVED!!  More like it, is that you are now engaging in typical civil service, playing 'silly buggers'  with me.....IT WILL NOT WORK.

Firstly I have NOT even mentioned that I am complaining about the GLD's 'remit'.....never mentioned that word. Then you go on to say what you think I want from the GLD this by saying that I want them to acknowledge their failings.......this, when I have said no such thing. For what use is it to me, even if it did admit ANY failings?? I am old enough and wise enough to have seen that when governmENt departments do own up to failings, they all seem to think that if they apologise that's good enough. No Sir, what I want is for them to answer fully, the questions I posed re A/P's. IE that they do supply them to the IPO and that Hobbs was supplied to the IPO in this case, that Hobbs was an employee of theirs when he officiated at that bogus appeal hearing. If he wasn't an employee as they would have it.....who employed him and who was responsible for his behaviour? Then the most
important question I want answered is: As he broke the law on several counts who is responible for investigating his actions? (AND I DON'T WANT TO HEAR SOMEONE TELLING ME TO GO TO THE POLICE !!) For I've already been there and as as is usual with that rabble......they do not investigate anything these days. They refused to do anything and intimated I was wasting their time etc, etc, As far as I am concerned, as this Hobbs bloke works for the British Justice System his employers should instigate an investigation or order the Police to do it.

You go on to asking me to explain how losing my legally registered Trade Mark ruined my life and business. If you cannot see how that could do this, then I am not going to waste my time trying to educate you. In any case, that is moving away from what I have complained about re the GLD and its non actions etc re my complaint to them. Then if that line of questioning isn't bad enough, you then ask me to explain 'specifically' how the GLD's complaint handling has affected me. Listen Sonny, if you had started a business that was highly successful and should have enabled you at the point when you could retire, to be able to do that with sufficient funds (due to the business) that would enable a confortable retirement. But instead your business is ruined by the criminal actions of a crook who is aided by the IPO and this Hobbs QC, at that crooked alleged Appeal Hearing at which Hobbs helped the crook to circumvent the decison that went against him. (to which he was trying to appeal) This by breaking every rule in the justice book and by giving him LEGAL ADVICE BY THE BUCKET LOAD. Had that happened to you, you wouldn't be asking that stupid question, as you would understand full well how such actions impact on anyone.

By following that advice and being helped by the IPO........all that put the finishing touches to the ruination of my once successful business....GET IT?? I THEN END UP RUINED AND IN PENURY, SUFFERED A MASSIVE HEART ATTACK THROUGH THE STRESS, WITH MY HOPEFULLY COMFORTABLE RETIREMENT IN TATTERS.  Is that clear enough for you???? All that has been exacerbated by the British Establishments covering all that up !!!!!! The GLD and their actions and non actions, because they are the very justice department that is responsible for the very bloke who cynically made possible, the loss of my T/M. AND YOU ASK ME TO EXPLAIN HOW THEIR HANDLING OF THEIR COMPLAINT SYSTEM HAS AFFECTED ME !!!! If you haven't the brains or will to understand EXACTLY how that has affected me or indeed would affect anyone, then YOU ARE NOT FIT FOR THE JOB YOU ARE IN.

That constant reminder and feeling is helped by the poor life and monetary sircumstances I have been put to, by all this corruption. Then every time I hear some arrogant Politician or legal person crowing about how lucky we Brits are to live in a country ruled by the rule of law, when that law system can and does carry out acts that drive a coach & horses right through the heart of that system, which is claimed to be the cleanest in the World !! Utter lies and bullshit I say, as do many others.

So there you have it and now you are fully in the picture and can go away and think about how you can invent excuses and make up lies to wiggle out of doing anything about the refusals of the GLD to do their duty. But let me tell you this ....if that happens my next step will be to get this out into the Public and you and the Establishment will not like what that step that will be.

Be warned that your emails and letters and all my emails and letters go onto my blog which has dealt with all this corruption since it started in 2008.


Ken Cook


In Confidence
Mr Kenneth Cook
By email only     our Reference:       C2086782
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

2 July 2019

Dear Mr Cook

Your complaint about the Government Legal Department (the GLD)

We have completed our consideration of your complaint about the GLD and  I am writing to tell you the outcome. To reach this decision we reviewed the information you have provided. Having done this, we have decided not to consider your complaint further;  this is because we have seen no evidence that anythi.ng went seriously wrong when the GLD addressed your complaint.
I  understand that our decision may be disappointing,  but I will explain the reasons for this and the factors we have considered in our assessment of your complaint.

Your complaint.

You complain that the GLD has not answered your questions or concerns about a barrister you say it provided during a case involving your business's trademark in 2007.  You also complain that the GLD has not Investigated the conduct of the barrister.

You say the actions of the GLD appointed barrister resulted in you losing your registered trademark and ruined your business, causing you financial detriment and a great deal of stress.

You want the GLD to respond to your questions and concerns,  and to investigate the barrister's conduct.

Reasons for our decision

The GLD's response to your complaint

You complained to the GLD on  12 February 2019 about the barrister you say it appointed in 2007 for an appeal hearing at the Intellectual Property Office (the IPO). The GLD responded to your complaint and follow up emails on 12 March,18 March, and 1 April 2019.

In the GLD's responses it explains that ultimately you wish to complain about the conduct and decision made by the barrister, 1. and that its complaint procedure 2. does not apply in this case. It says the barrister is not an employee 3. or client of the GLD,  and an Appointed Person is appointed to the role by the Judicial Appointments Commission,  so any issues about the conduct of an Appointed Person should be raised with the Judicial Conduct lnvestigations Office  (JCIO).

You wrote back to the GLD to dispute this information and the GLD replied making it clear that it   never employed or appointed the barrister in this case. 4. and the appropriate body to which you  need to complain is the JCIO. The GLD then directs you to us.

The GLD responded to your concerns by explaining that the barrister is nothing to do with it, and you need to complain to a different organisation.  It is clear you believe otherwise and that the GLD has not answered your concerns or investigated the barrister.  However, investigating the conduct of a barrister is not the GLD's role,  and this is ultimately what your complaint is about.  Our view is that the GLD has responded to your concerns and given you advice on how to take them forward. 5.

We acknowledge that you are not happy with the GLD's response,  but we cannot see an indication of a failing here.

It is important to also acknowledge that the substantive issues in your complaint are about the conduct and decision made by a barrister. 6. While you have complained to us that the GLD is failing to adequately respond to your complaint,  It all stems from the conduct of a barrister during a legal process which would be outside of our remit. 7.

In summary, we have decided we will not take further action on your complaint.  I  hope I  have explained the thorough consideration we have given to our decision and clearly outlined the reasons for it.

If you have any feedback about our service or decision then please let me know within one month of the date of this letter.

MY COMMENTS - on specific points that the Ombudsman stated which were untrue and at odds with the real facts:-

Statement 1- Weaver states that Hobbs made a decision......when I made it clear that no hearing took place and in any case it was dropped! (And there is clear documentary evidence of this)

Statement 2.- They say I used the GLD Complaints Procedure. Untrue as I made a Formal Complaint about the cations of Hobbs and asked them to INVESTIGATE that! This is entiretly different from using a government department laid down procedures about how that department has failed. I was complaining about the criminal actions of someone that was put forward by them to officiate in a Tribunal Hearing-which never took place.

Statement 3 -They state that the GLD said that Hobbs was not an employee. Yet it is striking that they utterly failed to say exactly what he was and who did he work for, as I asked, seeing as they were washing their hands of him...."NOTHING TO DO WIV US GOV" - Syndrome.

Statement 4 - They point out that the GLD said Hobbswas never employed by them or that they
                      appointed Hobbs in this case. Yet they utterly fail to explain what their actual
                      connection was re A/P's.  Even I asked them to explain.

Statement 5 - They say the GLD gave me advice on how to take it forward. THIS IS AN
                       OUTRIGHT LIE as they never did.

Statement 6 - They say I should acknowledge that the issue re my complaint is about a 'decision by a
                       Barrister'- when once more they use this outright lie, as they know he never made any
                       decision-as I told them many times, that the case was dropped !!!!!

Statement 7 - They say that the conduct of Hobbs during a legal process, makes it outside their remit                       Yet another gross lie as they know that there was no appeal hearing therefor how can
                      there have been any 'legal process' ??? This is yet another vile trick and a lie they have
                      used to twist the facts to conveniently make it possible for them to make such claims
                      and get out of doing anything.




From   ken cook
To:        kevin.weager@ombudsman.org.uk
Date:    Thursday, 4 July 2019,11:03  BST
Mr Weager,
Your email knocking back my complaint about the GLD was entirely predictably and it followed a long line of similar knockbacks by various civil service departments to do with this subject. The corrupt practices you people in power come out with in order to protect yourselves against the complaints made by the public, always follow the same paths.  Namely denials of the 'Facts', ignoring the 'Facts', ignoring evidence given you, twisting the facts so they end up meaning something else, which ties in with what you want to achieve, lying through your back teeth, ignoring the lies of others even when evidence is given you that they lied and so on, ad infinitum.  It's quite sickening and I have been on the end of all this since 2002.  So you're latest bunch of liars etc and it's just another attempt to get rid of me and is yet another act against me, in the last 20 years over this lPO problem.

So your email contains statements that are at odds with the truth and I will now show you what they are and some with backing evidence, as I never make claims I cannot back with evidence. You kick off on your very first line of page 2.You state"About a barrister you say it appointed' This implies that I am saying something that is not fact and only in my imagination and thus could make all I say, not fact or believable.

I note that in your email of the 1st July you asked me to answer several questions which I did by return.  Now as I have since 2002 much experience in how the civil service works .... I KNOW THAT REPLIES ALWAYS TAKE WEEKS.  In fact you took over SIX WEEKS to reply to my original request and only after I complained about breaking your promise to deal with it 'shortly' did I get a reply. Yet after I sent you my email with my answers to your questions, you reply with your predicted knockback email ..... THE VERY NEXT DAV !! Plus it is quite obvious you had that reply sitting there just waiting for me to reply to your box ticking email designed to show you were handling my complaint by your undoubted boxticking rule book and no doubt to your departments laid down practices for evasive replying.  It is also obvious that you have connived with the GLD over what you said in that knockback reply letter. For nowhere in my 9/4/19 letter of complaint re the GLD, to you, did I even mention that I complained to the GLD 'about the conduct in an appeal and a decision by the barrister'.   What I asked the GLD to do, WAS TO 'lNVESTIGATE' the unlawful and criminal actions of Hobbs QC.  In my letter to you of the 9th June I was at pains to tell you in CAPITALS (3rd paragraph) that there had been NO JUDICIAL HEARING EVER HELD, S0 NO DECISION COULD BE MADE.

This is telling me that you have connived with the GLD to formulate this reply and you have been fed this erroneous information by them .... FOR IT COULD ONLY HAVE COME FROM THEM !! YOU GO ON TO TELLING ME THE HISTORY OF WHAT WENT ON BETWEEN  ME AND THE GLD in your 2nd, third and fourth paragraphs. Which I obviously know all about, as do you, as I gave you copies of our correspondence. So you are peddling to me the GLD's slant on my request to them and not being INDEPENDENT.  This instead of asking why did the GLD say what they did, which was in one case an outright lie and other statements are of dubious value.You utterly failed to deal with the LIE,which they made about not providing Appointed Persons to the IPO, even though I gave you PROOF of that. WHY IS THAT??

One dubious statement is that Appointed Persons are appointed by JAC. This when who appoints them is IRRELEVANT, as it is who is responsible for their ACTIONS AND BEHAVOUR on a daily basis.  I asked them questions about this, which they ignored and YOU HAVE IN THIS KNOCKBACK LETTER -ALSO IGNORED !! I have pointed out to you in my letter of the 9th April, that I am entitled to know the answers to these questions, so why have you ignored that completely, thus siding with the GLD !! ln any case, according to evidence documents which I attach in this email, I had been given various statements about who appoints AIP's which ranged from the Lord Chancellor, the MOJ, and the Treasury Solicitors.  Now I have to add to that list, the JCIO and this is what we have to put up with,constant incompetence together with outright lies,so we never know who to deal with and much time is wasted. However back in 2009 I complained to OJC which is now JCIO and they flatly refused to deal with it at all and never said they were responsible for appointing A/P's.

If the GLD wish to deny they have anything to do with A/P's, why did they not answer my questions as to who is responsible? Thus enabling me to take my concerns to them and away from the GLD?? And why have you sided with them by ignoring all the documentary evidence I sent you which proves them not wishing to investigate Hobbs. Part of that evidence is my email to a Kiernan Walker of the 16th March (DOC 3) in which I talk about the criminal Barristers opinion I sent him, which shows Hobbs unlawful behaviour. You have said nothing about that either and the ignoring of that by the GLD. You do seem to wish to ignore the fact that what I accuse Hobbs of;  IS CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR and that the GLD are ignoring that and refusing to investigate it.  By condoning that you are siding with the GLD. This is again shown by you when the GLD in Doc 4, a Stephen Brown states in his 2nd paragraph of his email of the 18th March, that the GLD do not employ A/P's, yet the documentary evidence I now show you, shows that the GLD Treasury Solicitors do play a big role in the role and employment of them and their work at officiating at 'Appeals' by the IPO. Someone is lying here and it's so obvious the GLD is trying to deny everything, contary to the evidence and you are by your denials and standing up for them and what they have said, are siding with them. What Brown says in that email in para 2 is that I am complaining about the conduct of an Appeal heard by Hobbs, when this is a gross misrepresentation of what the FACTS were and what I was asking. IE there was no appeal, so no decision and I asked for an investigation into his unlawiul actions committed at that meeting (not and appeal) which is the EXACT same position they would be in if Hobbs had assaulted somone at a meeting, or robbed them or some other criminal action`  lt would be their duty to investigate and if necessary involve the LAW and have the A/P charged.  (One would hope they would or maybe it would be yet another coverup !!)

The Facts are that the GLD are HEAVILY involved in supplying A/P's for appeals and I have first hand knowledge that that is the case as I made an appeal to the IPO and asked for it to be held by and AIP. The GLD supplied one-a Professor Annand and I had to correspond a number of times with the Treasury Solicitors (GLD) leading up to the Appeal Hearing. So once more they are LYING when they intimate that they have nothing to do with supplying AIP's and Appeals.

So your stating that the GLD has responded to my concerns is yet another gross misinterpretation of the FACTS and their so called advice to go the the JCIO is just another fob off, which years ago I tried and got nowhere. It is clear that either you have never read the 10 evidence documents or you choose to ignore all that I said and showed in them. You choose to ignore that I asked many questions of the GLD and THEY ANSWERED NONE OF THEM.  Is this behaviour by a Justice Department to be condoned by you, for that is the crux of my complaint to you. The GLD have lied, (and I proved this to you) they have ignored many questions and they took on a number of occassions, more time to respond than they should have.

Finally in your 6th paragraph you again show that you are deliberately misinterpreting what I have said, because you again will have it that there was a judicial hearing and a decision made, which I complained about. And you compound this by then showing again a gross failure of what the truth was about, re the meeting Hobbs had with my opponent. This by having it that Hobbs was CONDUCTING A 'LEGAL PROCESS'  and because it was a legal process, it is outside your remit.  I REPEAT THE FACT:-THERE WAS NO JUDICIAL PROCESS OR APPEAL HEARING,..IT WAS JUST HELD AS A MEETING  IN WHICH 46 PAGES OF LEGAL ADVICE WAS DOLED OUT AND OTHER UNLAWFUL ACTS WERE COMMITTED. (All seen in the copy of the transcript I sent you) Saying it was a legal process is a gross LIE and you do it to get out of bringing the GLD to task for the way they treated me when I asked them to INVESTIGATE CRIMINAL ACTIONS BY THE   BARRISTER THEY PUT FORWARD TO HEAR THIS BOGUS APPEAL, WHICH IN FACT NEVER TOOK PLACE AS IT WAS DROPPED.  I included documentary evidence to back up all that.  It is as clear as it can be: you are covering up for the GLD and no doubt coached to do so by them.  Let us face it that is their remit .... to give legal advice to government departments which is what you are.

Furthermore by stating in paragraph 6 what you do, you are trying to have it that my complaint to you is all about that bogus meeting and what went on at it, when CLEARLY my complaint is about the GLD and not about that at all, as I KNOW you will use this excuses you have,  not to do anything. IT IS CLEAR THAT MY COMPLAINT ABOUT THE OLD IS THE REFUSAL TO ANSWER MY QUESTIONS AND LYING TO ME. This behaviour by you again shows you are trying to PROTECT the GLD and NOT protecting a member of the Public from the excesses of a government department, which is what you are supposed to be there for. But then it is well known that you have no interest in protecting the Public and are more interested in protecting incompetent and law breaking government departments

I would appreciate your further lies and excuses as soon as possible so I can take this further.
Ken Cook.

The Judicial Office,
HM Courts and Tribunal Service,


Dear Sir,


I am in the process of appealing a decision made by a govemment department because the facts they outlined in their decision and which dealt with Appointed Persons who hear appeals at IPO Tribunals, was completely at odds with the true facts.
I was told that they did not have anything to do with appointing A/P's or that they employed them. I was told that they were appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission. So1wrote to them and  asked them if they would answer some questions.They wrote back telling me that they did not appoint A/P's but merely ran thes election process which picks out people who wish to become A/P's, when asked to do so by the HMCTS.
They went on to tell me that I should contact your office to have my questions answered.(See copy of their email telling me this).So here I am and as I have to put my evidence to the department 1 am dealing within 30 days. Actually1 need to get my evidence away to them before 30 days is up.
Here are the questions I need answers to:

'1/When say a Barrister decides they wish to become an Appointed Personin order to hear appeals held by the IPO, they have to put in an application which goes to JAC who run the selection process. I am told those that are successful then are controlled by yourselves in their job as an A/P and possibly by the HMCTS. Is this 100% correct and if not please describe that process correctly.

2/I need to know that when a Barrister becomes an A/P, who employs him/her? JAC state they become employees of the HMCTS and the MOJ. The HMCTS website states they are a section of the MOJ. (See copy email saying this.)

3/JAC also state that A/P's are fee paid judicial office holders.So1need to know who pays them these fees.It seems to me that as they are said to be`employees'of the HMTCS/MOJ,then it stands to reason that one of those entities pays them. IS THIS CORRECT ?

4/In normal life out in the real world, anyone who is employed by a company, is therefore an employee and paid by that company and is the responsibility of that company. Responsible for the work they do and the quality and behaviour, when doing that work. IS THIS CORRECT for A/P's?

Four fairly straight forward questions I believe you should be able to answer off the top of your head. I would be therefore obliged if you could get an answer off to me quite quickly and to help in that quickness and make it easier for you to do so, you could send the answer via email.

Many thanks,  K.Cook.


I got a reply to this request for answers TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, some 16 days later on the 22nd in a short email to be seen below


They obviously cannot be arsed to reply to the 4 questions I asked, plus of course they do not to put their heads on the block by doing so and that's if they ever replied honestly! So what they did was copy to me ALL the emails I'd sent them asking for answers, which were never replied to -fully.
Hence why I was forced to ask them the SPECIFIC QUESTIONS again and in the 6/7/19 letter as above.

This is how these civil service, devious arsholes behave because they know if they reply honestly, the answers may put them in a bad light. So they try and trick you with non answers like you see below which in actual fact is treating me with contempt. The emails I was sending -was me asking them questions of the same ilk as seen in the above letter of mine, dated the 6th July and which were not being answered FULLY, thus making me ask again and again- trying to get the evasive sods to give me the answer to my questions, instead of going all around the bushes in their evasiveness. Another sneaky thing they do is they do not put on their emails who in fact was replying-no name at end of email meassage so-ANON :-


From:  JO Pre Appointments (preappointments@judiciary.uk)
To:        sailerboy63@yahoo.co.uk
Date:    Monday, 22 July 2019,10:47 BST

Dear Mr Cook,

Thank you for your letter dated 6th July 2019 which I have attached to this email.

The queries within the letter is addressed in the email chain below and as such there is nothing further to add to this letter.

Kind regards



No comments: