In an act of breath taking hypocrisy the CEO of PAVO (Powys Association of Voluntary Organisations) Bishop Carl Cooper in speaking to the BBC critisised the decision by Powys County Council to make a 15% cut in its grant to voluntary organisations before rolling over. Referring to him as Mr instead of his title Bishop the BBC quoted him as saying.

“We were told that the £150,000 in the 2009/10 budget had to be found. That wasn’t negotiable, that wasn’t up for discussion.”

“So what we tried to do on behalf of the (voluntary) sector was to make sure the principles that decisions were made on were principles such as transparency, equitability and fairness.” Read more..

Anyone like myself who has had dealings with Carl Cooper will know that the last thing you will get from him is guess what; transparency, equitability and fairness. Apart from looking after No1 what does he know about principle? His response to any complaint is to dismiss it as being such wild allegations, and as far as negotiation or discussion is concerned you are banging your head against a brick wall, moreover, this man is a serial liar, his word cannot be taken seriously.

Powys County Council is a regular reader of the Lamp Post

Therefore, they know that the day is approaching when Bishop Carl Cooper faces a number of serious allegations under the Charity Act 2006, concerning the misuse of charity funds and false accounting. Morever, if Carl Cooper were a council employee he would have been sacked long ago.

Where is the Protest? - Has Carl Cooper sold out, bottled out, or both?

The BBC broadcast the story on Wales Today, the reporter did a far better job than he did in explaining the catastrophic effect this is going to have on voluntary organisations in Powys and he did it with empathy and conviction.

Carl Cooper should have been screaming from the roof tops over these cuts instead of a pathetic mummy’s boy making a token gesture while rolling over. It seems that every voluntary organisation in Powys has paid the price for ignoring our warning that the appointment of this man was a scandal waiting to happen. 

Clash of Cultures

County Councils are accountable to the electorate and if such a decision is unpopular then they can always vote for a new council with new policies. On the other hand getting rid of a bishop who acts as if they are Lord God Almighty is a bit more difficult but it can be done.

What Bishop Carl Cooper also needs to realise is that unlike the Church, County Councils are run on very strict rules and guidelines especially when it comes to finance. If they acted improperly there is always the right to complain to the Ombudsman. Carl Cooper on the other hand abused his power as a bishop to prevent the ordinary person from being able to complain at all, and especially about himself in the knowledge that there is no right of appeal.

Powys County Council sends out a clear message.

It seems as if the ordinary person in need of help is going to get a raw deal from Carl Cooper in more ways than one. As far as being a man of god is concerned we should consider the comment made by Napoleon that it is the job of the church to stop the poor from killing the rich. Putting that into a modern context, we doubt if there are going to be any real objections to such a devastating blow as the church is in effect a corrupt agent of social control.

We have no reason to question the motives or the way in which Powys County Council made their decision. However, what we do know is that Carl Cooper’s reputation would leave PAVO weakened in making any ‘robust’ response, and that he should have been the last person on earth to complain about the process by which they did it.

In our opinion Powys County Council has sent PAVO a clear message that Carl Cooper is not a man they can negotiate with, therefore they should get rid of him. There is more to voluntary work than inviting the Hoy Paloy round to the palace for tea and publicly slamming anybody criticising the church or the establishment. In the real world whereby he is required to make a stand on behalf of the underprivileged, he is hopelessly out of his depth.

He knows its only a matter of time before his role in the deliberate pervertion and obstruction of student complaints procedures is fully exposed. He also knows that if a claim is made against the University based upon his corrupt conduct then they will in turn make a claim against him, and that he may also face criminal charges.

While most staff will rejoice at his leaving there are others who know that their invovlement in this scandal will soon be brought to light amid public and professional humiliation. As far as stitching up students with false allegations of plagiarism is concerned it will soon be game over!

The University is in dire financial trouble needing to save around £300,000 by making six staff redundant a move that has angered the trade unions. Now that nobody is in charge, the situation inside the University has also deteriorated with staff complaining that working conditions are awful and that bullying is out of control. Students are leaving to go to other universities because they find the atmosphere makes studying extremely difficult.

The Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW) is conducting an inquiry into the future of the University. Having initially ruled out closure they are looking at a merger, but that may prove difficult given the adverse publicity concerning failing standards and growing student dissatisfaction.

Whoever takes over is going to face a test of public service to settle long running disputes that have plagued the University for some years. If the campus is going to survive there needs to be some kind of transparent inquiry so that long standing grievances can be resolved allowing a fresh start to be made with the slogan under new management.

To: The Office of Fair Trading

Thursday, 29 May 2008

Complaint against Eversheds (Solicitors) LLP

In my opinion Eversheds LLP has abused its dominant market position of having around100 UK universities as clients acts against the interests of students as vulnerable consumers and universities as public bodies.

Introduction

1. I am a 57 years old with a varied life experience including 16 years experience in social work management and possess two professional qualifications. I am a former student at the University of Wales Lampeter where I attended in 2002 and was subsequently forced to give up my studies because I was victimised for complaining. I have since campaigned for a University Commissioner or Ombudsman.

The Student as a Vulnerable Consumer

1. When a student attends university, they enter into a contract for their education and therefore they should have the same consumer rights as everyone else.
2. Students are vulnerable in that a large loan is necessary for tuition fees, accommodation and living expenses etc. If the student is forced to out of the university their future is not only destroyed but are also left with large debts to pay off.
3. Because of then above situation there is a serious inequality open to abuse of power and exploitation of students, in more ways than one.
4. The introduction of tuition fees has broken down the social class barriers of university entry; however, the high drop out rate of around 20% suggests that students from disadvantaged backgrounds are being weeded out using other methods of gate keeping.
5. A working party on students suicide rates concluded that it was average for the general population. What they failed to do which is essential in any health and safety issue is to assess the risk from which they then measure the outcome. Common sense tells us two things about universities, firstly they are a social institution and secondly they provide a purpose in life both of which are indicators of a low risk environment. Therefore, if the suicide rate is about average per head of population it indicates it is too high.
6. The student complaints scheme set up under the Higher Education Act 2004 is run by a company that is 4/5ths owned by the Universities and operates as the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education known as the OIA. This arrangement does not meet the criteria of independence for other regulatory bodies.
7. It is well known that the major sociological cause of suicide and deviant behaviour in institutions is caused by the breakdown of the rules and regulations by those in authority. What compounds the problem is the realisation that there is no regulation of the conduct of universities towards its students. This creates a situation of total and complete hopelessness for anyone on the receiving end of an injustice.
8. I have raised these matters with the financial regulator the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales known as HEFCW who despite claims on their website say they have no jurisdiction to intervene. Their subsidiary the Quality Assurance Agency known as the QAA who makes academic assessments on their behalf and has a website that states its mission is to reassure the public on standards in Welsh Higher Education. Has stated it has no locus in these matters and does not allow complaints from the public and God forbid students.
9. The Welsh Assembly Government also claims that it has no jurisdiction of these matters and its all part of the tradition of these institutions being autonomous. They omitted to mention that they also passed the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004, which bans the taxpaying public from being able to make any complaint concerning financial matters and took away the power of the Auditor General for Wales to intervene.
10. The Charity Act 2006 will require universities to register and for an appointed regulator to monitor their charitable activities. I have been lobbying the Charity Commission to highlight the fact that nobody regulates on behalf of the student as a consumer. The universities must pass the ‘public benefit tests’ of charitable purpose and in the case of the University of Wales Lampeter I have a mountain of evidence to suggest because of the institutionalised abuse and discrimination against students they are going to fail.

Complaints Procedures and the Student Complaints Scheme under the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA)

1. Universities give students every encouragement to use the student complaints scheme, as it is so open to abuse and corruption that it is being used to weed out students who complain. I have hard evidence that ‘statements of completion’ to say that complaints procedures have been fully complained with have been contradicted by senior managers. Serious allegations are concocted and documents are fabricated and destroyed as necessary for the student to stand no chance of redress either by using the complaints scheme or in law.
2. Complaints to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA) take so long the student looses the right to a Judicial Revue.
3. So many students are cynical of this process that increasing numbers are resorting to law.
4. However, the chances of winning are so small a student is going to end up with an order for costs against them for which the university will apply for bankruptcy proceedings to or send in the bailiffs reclaim the costs. This after having destroyed his or her life prospects just to make sure nobody else complains, and advised to do so by Eversheds.
5. There has been a 27% rise in complaints to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education this year.
6. The findings of the OIA are unenforceable, which means a student can go through a psychological destructive complaints process just to have it ignored.

Eversheds LLP – Abuse of Dominant Market Position against the interests of students as consumers and universities as public bodies.

1. Eversheds LLP has around 100 UK universities on their books including the University of Wales Lampeter. Various listings on the internet for higher education solicitors state that Eversheds has the higher education market ‘sewn up’. I think ‘stitched up’ would be a better description.
2. Eversheds were instrumental in setting up the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA) for which it provided legal advice. The OIA state there is no conflict of interest on this issue. However, it does not meet the standard of impartiality in other regulatory bodies nor in the mind of Joe Public.
3. In my opinion the above factors have created a position whereby universities such as the University of Wales Lampeter, can pervert and obstruct complaints procedures with impunity in the knowledge that Eversheds will resort to bully boy tactics the give the complaining student a psychological kicking. Furthermore, they can then pervert the students complaint scheme in the knowledge that the OIA being 4/5ths owned by the universities is not going to rock the boat.
4. This dominant position has ultimately acted against the interests of the University of Wales Lampeter as a public body as Eversheds have been forced to concede that the University Council has no idea that its officers are placing the university in jeopardy.
5. I have stated the opinion that the conduct of Eversheds in concealing the corruption of officers and from the University Council has put the University at risk of losing its charitable status under the Charity Act 2006.
6. This situation is evidence that the dominant market position of Eversheds not only acts against the interests of students as vulnerable consumers but those of the taxpaying public and society as a whole.
7. For publishing these facts to the internet, I have been threatened with legal action and a high court injunction by Eversheds on behalf of the University of Wales Lampeter. Such threats were without foundation and simply made to conceal the conduct of officers and staff.
8. Eversheds have recently made further threats and resorted to personal abuse to prevent the University Council from being named on my website, which is the only way they can find out what is going on. In my opinion, Eversheds have done this to conceal their own conduct from being made public which has placed their client at risk of losing charitable status. They are desperate to maintain their dominant market position and prevent their other 100 clients from finding alternative legal representation.

Addendum

I wish to add the following points for your consideration of this matter under this aspect of the OFT’s powers.

The Office of Fair Trading can also investigate markets that do not appear to be working well for consumers

1. Universities are a highly competitive market that depends on reputation, which is preserved by the concealment and repression of any wrongdoing. Students and the public are banned from complaining to what regulation exists which acts in the interests of academia and not students.
2. Students are consumers and my local Trading Standards Office has confirmed they have consumer rights on theses issues and they have suggested avenues of complaint. However, the system for complaints regarding breach of contract etc do not work they are just ignored.
3. This is because of the dominant market position of Eversheds advising both the universities and the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education known as the OIA which is 4/5ths owned by the universities.
4. It explains why the student complaints scheme, which includes consumer issues, is unenforceable and any findings are kept confidential.
5. When established the Head of the OIA Dame Judith Deech said in was in growing response to consumerism. You must be aware that public knowledge brings about changes in the law to protect consumers and without that knowledge nothing changes.
6. The dominant market position of Eversheds has acted to threaten students as consumers in order to protect their clients’ reputation. Such threats include High Court claims for defamation and injunctions contrary to Article 10 of the Human Rights Act and include a requirement to sign a written undertaking not to tell the truth again.
7. This is not a personal issue, this is happening to students in growing numbers. I cannot resolve my personal complaint against the University of Wales Lampeter for the above reasons.
8. If a major high street retailer had a similar scam going on to threaten consumers who complain, then you would act. The same applies to students and universities.

As a consumer I do have one avenue left open, under the Higher Education Act 2004 I can complain to the OIA about the Federal University of Wales for failing to implement its procedure under the Public Disclosure Act 1998 which would address the issues I have raised.

However, the Federal University does not have any procedures therefore I cannot use the system set up by Eversheds as I need what is known as a ‘letter of completion’ to state that all procedures have been properly complied with. I cannot get it because procedures do not exist!

I have complained to this effect and have again been threatened with legal action by the Senior Vice Chancellor Professor Anthony Chapman to conceal the gross misconduct of the General Secretary Dr Lynn Williams and his own failure to implement procedures on financial irregularity.

Because of the introduction of the OIA the Visitor HM the Queen no longer has jurisdiction but has written to the First Minister of the Welsh Assembly on the issue of no complaints procedures. She has been ignored because she said nothing new!

If the Queen is ignored, what chance do you think the average student has of having their complaints dealt with fairly?

I must repeat this situation applies to all students in growing numbers and the requirement for this ‘letter of completion’ means universities simply tell lies in the knowledge that Eversheds has the situation stitched up to prevent gross misconduct and corruption of its clients from becoming public knowledge.

I have given an interview to The Lawyer Magazine who are going to publish the story as they saw it as a public interest issue exactly as I have explained it and not a personal matter, I anticipate others will support my complaint in due course.

To support this complaint to the OFT.

Select text> copy> click on enquiries@oft.gov.ukemail > paste> use the Subject heading Complaint Against Eversheds (Solicitors)> add your name and address> send.

[email_link]

See Lampeter Closure

The erosion of our civil liberties to fend off a threat from religious extremists is a very dangerous path to tread. Our rights and civil liberties are cheapened by an obvious political game last played in the dying days of the former Conservative government to wrong foot the opposition.

What appears to go unnoticed is the misuse of such a threat to quell any form of dissent and the erosion of liberty in other areas of life. The recent complaint to the Office of Fair Trading concerning the abuse of the dominant market position of Eversheds (solicitors) having around 100 of the 130 or so universities in England and Wales as clients is an example. The resulting Student Complaints Scheme is blatantly obstructed and perverted, it takes away the right to a judicial revue, is unenforceable, and the findings kept confidential. Whoever thought that one up was not acting in the interests of students. Moreover, it is more repressive than the old Visitor system it replaced so that universities can maintain their ‘reputation’. No wonder students are given every encouragement to use it; its the best way to get rid of them.

This abuse of power by UK universities concerning complaints procedures that is just what extremists want to recruit others to carry out acts of terrorism and in that respect we have clearly learned nothing from our experience of the home-grown variety. What drives the ordinary people to commit atrocities is abuse of power by those in authority who then abuse the system to stitch people up to make them and the problem go away. 42 days detention without trial is going to be seen as a stitch up and an abuse of powers under the Prevention of Terrorism Act we have seen with the arrest of 82-year-old ‘political’ protesters. They have already banged up students for researching their thesis, when are they going to start banging them up for making a legitimate complaint?

There is a part of English culture that includes a fear of being caught and the inevitable inquiry and public humiliation. In Wales, there is no such fear for being caught, as it carries no consequences whatsoever. The Welsh Assembly Government has stated this is ‘all part of the tradition’ and so they have not only colluded with fraudsters but also banned the taxpaying public from being able to complain about it. What are they going to ban next? Complaints about schools and hospitals presumably! A change of government would make no difference as all political parties collude to keep such things from the public for fear of the Welsh Assembly being seen to be powerless in tackling such issues.

Trevor Mayes who edits the site which is campaigning for a University Commissioner or Ombudsman has taken the step to help defend himself from any further unlawful intimidation. He explained that the law is such that it leaves students very little chance of redress for their complaints. Moreover, this is not about defamation but being able to speak out about the unaccountable power of the English Crown, which is held by politicians for their own political ends. In his opinion Eversheds are acting like bully boys to keep students quiet to protect their clients reputation.

Some observers say the Eversheds who have around 100 UK universities on their books has the higher education market sewn up; Trevor Mayes says that stitched up would be a far better description.

In a newspaper article, Eversheds heralded the onset of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education or OIA as being a revolution for students being able to complain over the arcane system of a university Visitor. Trevor Mayes says that it was Eversheds that advised OIA which is run by a company that is 4/5th owned by the universities on setting up its procedures. In his opinion, the findings of the OIA remain confidential in order for Eversheds to protect the reputation of their100 clients and against the public interest.

A spokesperson for the OIA has insisted there is no conflict of interest; however, Trevor Mayes says that the whole system does not meet acceptable standards of independence for complaints to other public regulatory bodies. He added that he has proof the system of complaint is so open to abuse by universities that no student is going to get a fair hearing, and the ultimate insult to justice is that the findings of the OIA are in any case unenforceable.

The OIA has seen a sudden 27% rise in the number of complaints this year and a growing number of students are turning to law as the system is inherently unfair and unjust. Moreover, it takes so long for the OIA to deal with a complaint that students loose the right to a Judicial Revue. Trevor Mayes believes the reason for the increase is the introduction of tuition fees broke down the social class barriers of university entry making it easier for those from disadvantaged groups. In response, the universities are actively discriminating against them in order to get rid of them which explains why there is such a high drop out rate.

Trevor Mayes went on to explain that because regulation only works in the interests of academia, the perception that universities are regulated amounts to a deception as issues that concern Joe Public are ignored. The financial regulator the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales despite claims on its website says it has no jurisdiction, the Quality Assurance Agency whose job it to ensure standards says it has no locus in these matters. The Welsh Assembly Government says it has no jurisdiction but has passed laws banning the taxpaying public from being able to make any kind of complaint, and took away the power of the Auditor General to intervene. A spokesperson for the Welsh Assembly Government says that the situation is all part of the tradition of these institutions being autonomous.

In other words, they are above the law and explains why Eversheds and the University of Wales Lampeter have attempted to override Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 - Freedom of Speech, which allows anyone to speak out against corruption in a public body such as a university provided they believe their comments to be true.

Eversheds are again making renewed threats of legal action against The Lamp Post for defamation concerning the publication of the names of the university council and their responsibility for the actions of officers and staff. Trevor Mayes says in his opinion the reasons are two fold, firstly defending the wrongdoing of officers and staff is probably going to cost the university is charitable status under the new Charity Act 2006. Secondly, Eversheds are desperate to conceal what is happening for fear of losing all of their 100 clients the same way.

The unintentional consequences of the Charity Act 2006 and the ‘Public Benefit Test’ is going to highlight the lack of regulation and institutionalised abuse of students in Welsh universities. The practise of discrimination towards students who complain, the disadvantaged, low-income groups and women is going to cost them their charitable status. In effect, the Charity Commission, which is free of any Ministerial control and has an independent complaints process, will regulate in the interests of students.

Trevor Mayes says he is going to stand his ground against the threats and bullying from Eversheds, as he has nothing to fear from telling the truth. The internet has a tradition for exposing the wrongdoing of big institutions and governments and asks others to support him on this point. The university has had the offer of talks and independent verification, which they have ignored and chosen to abuse their power in their own self-interest.

He intends to make a complaint against the University of Wales Lampeter and the Federal University of Wales under the Charity Act 2006 that will require independent verification of the wild claims and accusations made by the university. Something they have been desperate to avoid because they know it will lead to opening a ‘can of worms’ and a flood of lawsuits that will lead to their closure.

Re: Bishop Carl Cooper

Now that I have recovered from the initial shock that you actually appointed this man, I owe to those in society like me who believe in the good work of charities and voluntary organisations, as I have myself have set up a charity for disadvantaged young people.

I have also had responsibility for a local government budget for 16 years and like you and your members well aware that any employee taking 5p from the petty cash box could well cost them their job.

Unfortunately, until now that does not apply to schedule 2 or exempt charities such as universities and the Church in Wales both of whom ignore such standards as they only apply to other people. Similarly, any complaint on these issues is simply ignored, as until now there was nothing that the public could do about it.

Carl Cooper as the Bishop of St David’s was also Visitor to the University of Sleaze Lampeter whereby he abused his power to conceal his own conduct and bail out his cronies for acts of gross misconduct which included, stitching up students with false allegations of plagiarism, intimidation during examinations, serial abuser behaviour and sexual predation.

I would make the point that having spent 16years in social work management I am professionally qualified to make these comments. However, as far as Carl Cooper is concerned it counts for nothing in a world whereby he, the church and the university are above the law, until now.

Here is an extract of a letter to the Legal Dept of the Church in Wales

To quote the Office of the Third Sector.

“Exempt charities have benefited from their ‘exempt’ status since the Charities Act 1960, which first introduced the requirement for charities to register with the Charity Commission. The Charities Act 2006, once implemented, will introduce greater transparency and accountability for exempt charities, by ensuring that they are properly regulated in respect of their charity law obligations (either by a principal regulator or through registration with the Commission).”

It is my intention to make the following complaints to the designated regulator

That the former bishop of St. David’s the Rt. Revd. Carl Cooper used charity funds and equipment for his own personal benefit as Visitor to the University of Wales Lampeter. Moreover, he continued to do so having been warned that such an act was strictly speaking a criminal offence. In these days when yobs can end up with a criminal record for putting their feet of the seat of a train, the same applies to yobs that help themselves to charity funds.

 
There are other complaints including false accounting based upon the fact that the church knew of this and ignored it, and of course the church acting as a political pressure group.

I represent a group of people who to their cost have experienced the corruption at the University of Sleaze Lampeter, in that respect Carl Cooper has other allegations to answer concerning his expenses paid for by the university that he and respective solicitors are refusing to explain.

What you do about his is of course a matter for you, however, from my knowledge of any public service contract of employment you are duty bound to act upon information that an employee has committed a criminal offence. Given my experience of concealment by those who should set an example, I must put it to you that if you fail to do so and you continue to pay this mans salary when he should have been suspended and dismissed, on the assumption you are a registered charity I shall make a complaint to the Charity Commission accordingly.

In the case of Carl Cooper and the Church, there will be a complaint and an inquiry the results of which will be made public, the police will be informed and he may well be charged with a criminal offence. There will be a scandal and loss of public trust in the Church because they knew what was going on and thought they could get away with ignoring it. I am waiting for the appointment of a new Bishop worthy of the name so I can have the gross injustices this man has inflicted on a number of people ‘independently’ investigated.

I have sent a copy to Carl Cooper’s solicitors so I am more than happy for you to give him a copy of this letter. Moreover, you and he can dismiss my letters, as ‘such wild allegations’ if you choose too, however, just as night follows day the truth about this mans despicable behaviour will catch up with him and you.

This letter will be published to the internet at www.lamp-post.info as part of my campaign for a University Commissioner. Something that has recently been taken up by The Lawyer Magazine because of the University of Sleaze Lampeter issuing unfounded threats of legal action to students who complain in order to preserve its ‘reputation’.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am horrified to read in the Western Telegraph that Carl Cooper has been appointed CEO of PAVO, you should have listened to the clerics who complained about this man. I attach a letter to the Bishops Advisors concerning his total and arrogant disregard for procedures concerning the reporting of abuse and sexual predation which has been published to the internet.

Should any incident arise I will show this letter to the injured party which means that you are beyond a doubt liable and suggest you are therefore no longer insured. I suggest you take legal advice before you his probationary period of employment expires.

I will also send a copy of this letter to Carl Cooper and publish it to the internet for the people and voluntary organisations of Powys to read.

Complaint against Eversheds LLP

In my opinion Eversheds LLP has abused its dominant market position of having around100 UK universities as clients acts against the interests of students as vulnerable consumers and universities as public bodies.

Introduction

1. I am a 57 years old with a varied life experience including 16 years experience in social work management and possess two professional qualifications. I am a former student at the University of Wales Lampeter where I attended in 2002 and was subsequently forced to give up my studies because I was victimised for complaining. I have since campaigned for a University Commissioner or Ombudsman.

The Student as a Vulnerable Consumer

1. When a student attends university, they enter into a contract for their education and therefore they should have the same consumer rights as everyone else.
2. Students are vulnerable in that a large loan is necessary for tuition fees, accommodation and living expenses etc. If the student is forced to out of the university their future is not only destroyed but are also left with large debts to pay off.
3. Because of then above situation there is a serious inequality open to abuse of power and exploitation of students, in more ways than one.
4. The introduction of tuition fees has broken down the social class barriers of university entry; however, the high drop out rate of around 20% suggests that students from disadvantaged backgrounds are being weeded out using other methods of gate keeping.
5. A working party on students suicide rates concluded that it was average for the general population. What they failed to do which is essential in any health and safety issue is to assess the risk from which they then measure the outcome. Common sense tells us two things about universities, firstly they are a social institution and secondly they provide a purpose in life both of which are indicators of a low risk environment. Therefore, if the suicide rate is about average per head of population it indicates it is too high.
6. The student complaints scheme set up under the Higher Education Act 2004 is run by a company that is 4/5ths owned by the Universities and operates as the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education known as the OIA. This arrangement does not meet the criteria of independence for other regulatory bodies.
7. It is well known that the major sociological cause of suicide and deviant behaviour in institutions is caused by the breakdown of the rules and regulations by those in authority. What compounds the problem is the realisation that there is no regulation of the conduct of universities towards its students. This creates a situation of total and complete hopelessness for anyone on the receiving end of an injustice.
8. I have raised these matters with the financial regulator the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales known as HEFCW who despite claims on their website say they have no jurisdiction to intervene. Their subsidiary the Quality Assurance Agency known as the QAA who makes academic assessments on their behalf and has a website that states its mission is to reassure the public on standards in Welsh Higher Education. Has stated it has no locus in these matters and does not allow complaints from the public and God forbid students.
9. The Welsh Assembly Government also claims that it has no jurisdiction of these matters and its all part of the tradition of these institutions being autonomous. They omitted to mention that they also passed the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004, which bans the taxpaying public from being able to make any complaint concerning financial matters and took away the power of the Auditor General for Wales to intervene.
10. The Charity Act 2006 will require universities to register and for an appointed regulator to monitor their charitable activities. I have been lobbying the Charity Commission to highlight the fact that nobody regulates on behalf of the student as a consumer. The universities must pass the ‘public benefit tests’ of charitable purpose and in the case of the University of Wales Lampeter I have a mountain of evidence to suggest because of the institutionalised abuse and discrimination against students they are going to fail.

Complaints Procedures and the Student Complaints Scheme under the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA)

1. Universities give students every encouragement to use the student complaints scheme, as it is so open to abuse and corruption that it is being used to weed out students who complain. I have hard evidence that ‘statements of completion’ to say that complaints procedures have been fully complained with have been contradicted by senior managers. Serious allegations are concocted and documents are fabricated and destroyed as necessary for the student to stand no chance of redress either by using the complaints scheme or in law.
2. Complaints to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA) take so long the student looses the right to a Judicial Revue.
3. So many students are cynical of this process that increasing numbers are resorting to law.
4. However, the chances of winning are so small a student is going to end up with an order for costs against them for which the university will apply for bankruptcy proceedings to or send in the bailiffs reclaim the costs. This after having destroyed his or her life prospects just to make sure nobody else complains, and advised to do so by Eversheds.
5. There has been a 27% rise in complaints to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education this year.
6. The findings of the OIA are unenforceable, which means a student can go through a psychological destructive complaints process just to have it ignored.

Eversheds LLP – Abuse of Dominant Market Position against the interests of students as consumers and universities as public bodies.

1. Eversheds LLP has around 100 UK universities on their books including the University of Wales Lampeter. Various listings on the internet for higher education solicitors state that Eversheds has the higher education market ‘sewn up’. I think ‘stitched up’ would be a better description.
2. Eversheds were instrumental in setting up the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA) for which it provided legal advice. The OIA state there is no conflict of interest on this issue. However, it does not meet the standard of impartiality in other regulatory bodies nor in the mind of Joe Public.
3. In my opinion the above factors have created a position whereby universities such as the University of Wales Lampeter, can pervert and obstruct complaints procedures with impunity in the knowledge that Eversheds will resort to bully boy tactics the give the complaining student a psychological kicking. Furthermore, they can then pervert the students complaint scheme in the knowledge that the OIA being 4/5ths owned by the universities is not going to rock the boat.
4. This dominant position has ultimately acted against the interests of the University of Wales Lampeter as a public body as Eversheds have been forced to concede that the University Council has no idea that its officers are placing the university in jeopardy.
5. I have stated the opinion that the conduct of Eversheds in concealing the corruption of officers and from the University Council has put the University at risk of losing its charitable status under the Charity Act 2006. 
6. This situation is evidence that the dominant market position of Eversheds not only acts against the interests of students as vulnerable consumers but those of the taxpaying public and society as a whole.
7. For publishing these facts to the internet, I have been threatened with legal action and a high court injunction by Eversheds on behalf of the University of Wales Lampeter. Such threats were without foundation and simply made to conceal the conduct of officers and staff. 
8. Eversheds have recently made further threats and resorted to personal abuse to prevent the University Council from being named on my website, which is the only way they can find out what is going on. In my opinion, Eversheds have done this to conceal their own conduct from being made public which has placed their client at risk of losing charitable status. They are desperate to maintain their dominant market position and prevent their other 100 clients from finding alternative legal representation.

Trevor Mayes who edits the site which is campaigning for a University Commissioner or Ombudsman has taken the step to help defend himself from any further unlawful intimidation. He explained that the law is such that it leaves students very little chance of redress for their complaints. Moreover, this is not about defamation but being able to speak out about the unaccountable power of the English Crown, which is held by politicians for their own political ends. In his opinion Eversheds are acting like bully boys to keep students quiet to protect their clients reputation.

Some observers say the Eversheds who have around 100 UK universities on their books has the higher education market sewn up; Trevor Mayes says that stitched up would be a far better description.

In a newspaper article, Eversheds heralded the onset of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education or OIA as being a revolution for students being able to complain over the arcane system of a university Visitor. Trevor Mayes says that it was Eversheds that advised OIA which is run by a company that is 4/5th owned by the universities on setting up its procedures. In his opinion, the findings of the OIA remain confidential in order for Eversheds to protect the reputation of their100 clients and against the public interest.

A spokesperson for the OIA has insisted there is no conflict of interest; however, Trevor Mayes says that the whole system does not meet acceptable standards of independence for complaints to other public regulatory bodies. He added that he has proof the system of complaint is so open to abuse by universities that no student is going to get a fair hearing, and the ultimate insult to justice is that the findings of the OIA are in any case unenforceable.

The OIA has seen a sudden 27% rise in the number of complaints this year and a growing number of students are turning to law as the system is inherently unfair and unjust. Moreover, it takes so long for the OIA to deal with a complaint that students loose the right to a Judicial Revue. Trevor Mayes believes the reason for the increase is the introduction of tuition fees broke down the social class barriers of university entry making it easier for those from disadvantaged groups. In response, the universities are actively discriminating against them in order to get rid of them which explains why there is such a high drop out rate.

Trevor Mayes went on to explain that because regulation only works in the interests of academia, the perception that universities are regulated amounts to a deception as issues that concern Joe Public are ignored. The financial regulator the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales despite claims on its website says it has no jurisdiction, the Quality Assurance Agency whose job it to ensure standards says it has no locus in these matters. The Welsh Assembly Government says it has no jurisdiction but has passed laws banning the taxpaying public from being able to make any kind of complaint, and took away the power of the Auditor General to intervene. A spokesperson for the Welsh Assembly Government says that the situation is all part of the tradition of these institutions being autonomous.

In other words, they are above the law and explains why Eversheds and the University of Wales Lampeter have attempted to override Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 - Freedom of Speech, which allows anyone to speak out against corruption in a public body such as a university provided they believe their comments to be true.

Eversheds are again making renewed threats of legal action against The Lamp Post for defamation concerning the publication of the names of the university council and their responsibility for the actions of officers and staff. Trevor Mayes says in his opinion the reasons are two fold, firstly defending the wrongdoing of officers and staff is probably going to cost the university is charitable status under the new Charity Act 2006. Secondly, Eversheds are desperate to conceal what is happening for fear of losing all of their 100 clients the same way.

The unintentional consequences of the Charity Act 2006 and the ‘Public Benefit Test’ is going to highlight the lack of regulation and institutionalised abuse of students in Welsh universities. The practise of discrimination towards students who complain, the disadvantaged, low-income groups and women is going to cost them their charitable status. In effect, the Charity Commission, which is free of any Ministerial control and has an independent complaints process, will regulate in the interests of students.

Trevor Mayes says he is going to stand his ground against the threats and bullying from Eversheds, as he has nothing to fear from telling the truth. The internet has a tradition for exposing the wrongdoing of big institutions and governments and asks others to support him on this point. The university has had the offer of talks and independent verification, which they have ignored and chosen to abuse their power in their own self-interest.

He intends to make a complaint against the University of Wales Lampeter and the Federal University of Wales under the Charity Act 2006 that will require independent verification of the wild claims and accusations made by the university. Something they have been desperate to avoid because they know it will lead to opening a ‘can of worms’ and a flood of lawsuits that will lead to their closure.

I complained about the situation at Lampeter to Mike laugharne the head of the Welsh Quality Assurance Agency (a misnomer if ever there was one).

The correspondence was as follows

Dear Mr Mayes

I acknowledge receipt of your e-mail.

The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education has no locus in the matters to which you refer.

Mike laugharne

QAA Officer for Wales

——————————

Dear Mike,

Thank you for you reply,

For my records, please confirm that as I have been falsely and deliberately accused of plagiarism that despite my complaint and call for an investigation to ensure that no other students have been also falsely accused. (Which seems to have been ignored) and as such may have affected their final degrees, that the QAA has no concern in this matter.

——————————

Dear Mr Mayes

Please see my earlier response to you

M.Laugharne

QAA Officer for Wales

—————————–

Recent condemnation of Lampeter by the QAA has I believe come about by individual inspectors reading my website and not as a formal attempt to address these matters.

Hard Evidence University of Sleaze Lampeter No Longer A Charity
(As defined by the Charity Act 2006)

Failure to Pass ‘Public Benefit Test’

• Staff discrimination against disadvantaged supported by senior management.
• Complainers and disadvantaged face fabricated accusations of plagiarism.
• Deliberate sex discrinination against women.
• Solicitors (Eversheds) claim fabricated accusation of malicious harrassment justified.
• Solicitors (Eversheds) act like bully boys to threaten students who complain
• Higher Education Funding Council for Wales powerless to intervene.
• Quality Assurance Agency has no locus in the matters.
• Regulation of Welsh Universitites in the interests of students to be undertaken by the Charity Commission.

Fabricated Accusations of Plagiarsim Used to Weed Out the Disadvantaged
The Charity Commission has been informed that there is a mountain of hard evidence in support of the claim that the University of Wales Lampeter is actively discriminating against students who complain, or from disadvantaged backgrounds and circumstances by means of stitching them up with fabricated allegations of plagiarism.

Deliberate Sex Discrimination
In addition there is sex discrimination by setting of assignments with so little time to complete them that it deliberately discriminates against women in general and single mothers in particular. Students complaining about these issues have been ridiculed, and met with a tirade about being able to work 60 hours a week. The right to a family life, the impact on women as the mainstay in running a home, and the fact it exceeds the EU directive of a maximum 48 hour working week like every other complaint is ridiculed. This humiliating treatment is another tactic to get rid of disadvantaged low earners and the resulting 73% drop out rate for some courses is a scandalous waste of public money.

Complaints Procedures Deliberately Obstructed and Perverted
Complaints procedures are perverted and obstructed as a matter of routine, time limits for responses are deliberately ignored. documents are fabricated and destroyed as necessary to make sure no student is going to get a fair hearing. Forget about the Office of the Independant Adjudicator for Higher Education they are 4/5ths owned by the universities and their rulings are unenforceable.

Solicitors Claim False Accusation of Malicious Harrassment Justified
Solicitors Eversheds acting for Prof David Austin and in our opinion in a conflict of interest with the university, admitted his the accusation of malicious harrassment was totally without foundation but was justified for complaining that complaints procedures had not been complied with.

HEFCW Part of the Cover Up
HEFCW the Higher Education Funding Council For Wales in breach of its public duty, went to great lengths to prove it had no powers of intervention on issues of financial mismanagement or charity law in order to conceal the corruption against the disadvantaged that has gone on inside Lampeter.

Head of Welsh QAA Says They Have No Locus in These Matters
The Head of the Welsh QAA has stated that the QAA has no locus in these matters which means the Charity Commission will need to regulate and investigate university’s conduct as well as finance to ensure compliance with charity law.

Lampeter’s Solicitors Eversheds Confirm Closure
Times Higher Education quoted John Boardman head of the education sector group at commercial law firm Eversheds who also advise Lampeter, as saying. ‘Under the “public benefit test” introduced under the Charities Act 2006 in England and Wales, universities must show that people on low incomes benefit from their activities’. The chances of Lampeter doing that are nonexistent.

Lampeter and Charity a Contradiction in Terms
The University of Wales Lampeter and the Charity Act 2006 are clearly a contradiction in terms, as Lampeter only benefits corrupt officers and staff. The Charity Commission has stated they have the power to remove charitable status when institutions cease to become charitable.

Eversheds Act Like Bully Boys to Conceal Corruption
What makes things worse is the Cardiff branch of Eversheds who advise Lampeter have known about the problem for years. In our opinion they have failed to inform the University Council of the conduct of corrupt officers and staff, because they thought they could get away with behaving like bully boys threatening legal action and high court injunctions to make it go away.

Corrupt Vice Chancellor and Secretary and Academic Registrar
Eversheds have acted for Prof. David Austin issuing threats of legal action on his behalf with the unlawful use of charity funds to conceal his corruption, when they should have advised the University Council to sack him. However, the Vice Chancellor Prof Robert Pearce who also made threats of legal action and the Academic Registrar and Secretary Dr Thomas Roderick have colluded with Eversheds to conceal from the Council what was really going on. We call that a conflict of interest that is going to result in a serious loss to the university for which they are accountable under charity law.

If you are a student or member of staff past or present that has been the victim of an injustice by this corrupt institution, or would like to help those who have then please get in touch we will be pleased to hear from you.

However, we do not want to hear from immature, attention seeking, self important losers trying to make a name for themselves by taking the piss out of victims of injustice. The same goes for lecturers posing as students to discredit our campaign. Go and get off on something a bit more healthy and seek professional help.

Abusive emails including those already received will in due course be handed over to the police for appropriate action. If you are using cloaking software to conceal your IP address forget it. You can in any case be traced to within half a mile and the software company will readily hand over you real IP address to any police force.

The Telecommunications Act 1984

Section 43.– (1) A person who –

a) sends, by means of public telecommunication system, a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or

(b) sends by those means, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, a message that he knows to be false or persistently makes use for that purpose of a public telecommunications system shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.

I have reason to believe lecturer have posed as a student on Lampyland using the initials JP to discredit my complaint should this matter get into the student group, its the way abusers work; do not be fooled. Its only a matter of time before we know who JP really is!

Here is a case to introduce a licensing system for all UK residents who run discussion forums as these people run or ran a forum and thought it funny to take the piss out of victims of injustice. These two need to be kept away from impressionable and vulnerable teenagers.

Famous Last Words!

I asked Paul Hunt to remove sick postings to that effect the reply was

“what makes you think you are in a position to demand anything”

He now has the answer! 

Paul Hunt Has The Cheek To Complain

What makes him think he is in a position to demand anything!

After this site was accessed by the University of Wales Lampeter Paul Hunt wrote:

To whom it may concern,

Either you, or a reseller operating via your space is hosting a website containing exceptionally libelous information. Whilst I doubt you can do anything about this, the owner of this site has breached
copyright by using an image owned by me. I did not give permission for my image to be used on his site and demand that the file in question be removed as soon as is humanly possible. The file in question is a
photograph of myself and as such it would be very easy to prove I own the rights to it. If you would like this proof merely say so and I shall take a photograph of myself to demonstrate. The URL to the file is http://www.lamp-post.info/photo-1364.jpg

The Reply

The website in question is an activist newsletter and as such under UK law the use of a photograph for news or criticism and incidental inclusion is permitted without infringing the copyright. That’s why the UK press carry pictures of people whether they like it or not. Source

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law

With regard to the absurd suggestion that the information is libellous. Firstly, under UK law I can say what I like in reply to the libellous comments that this man has published about myself to his own site. Secondly, my comments have been published to the public domain well in excess of the 12 month time limit for him to take any action. Thirdly, it is fair comment with regard to his behaviour. Source

The UK Defamation Act 1956

Mr Hunt should in future consider others before he flames people on the internet as in this case it has come back to haunt him. It is the sign of a sick mind that he thinks such things funny; frankly, he deserves all he gets.

Mr Hunt has no legal right to demand the removal of anything from this site, which complies fully with acceptable standards, and has been accepted in over a thousand web directories.

Now Helen Watters Has The Cheek To Complain

I received a phone call from this lady at 8:42 am on Tuesday 14th October 2008 from telphone number 07751437996. She had the cheek to ask me to remove comments about her from the Lamp Post. I remined her that I made a similar request concerning the sick and twisted comments made about myself on Lampyland. She not only refused but went out of her way to be obstructive, devious and thought it was some kind of a joke.

The Reply

SOD OFF 

Helen Watters Lampeters’ Finest?

• Please leave your comments with the BBC or send them an email BBC News Desk
• Lampyland registration in dispute to put an end to exploitation of its users
• Helen Watters admits bad faith by hiding a false address to avoid liability.
• Lampyland Registration Taken Away From Her!
• The latest ruse; Lampyland changes its name to lampyland.org.uk. The reason:

“We thought it’d be a laugh, you know, confuse some people… go through all the hassle of finding every reference on the site to lampyland.co.uk and changing it to lampyland.org.uk.

We do have serious reasons but I’m afraid they’re not for public discussion, I’m afraid you’re going to have to trust us on that”

You seem happy to discuss other people why not discuss you? The answer is you are not going to like what is going to be said! Besides the only people stupid enough to trust you are Phil and Jeff and even they will change their minds once they have sobered up >>>

Join our campaign to clean up the internet. I need a picture of this lady who has gone through a lot of trouble to avoid telling me her name and address. But then who would want to be associated with this man and Lampyland Forum. I am still making enquiries but if you know anything about a lady that goes by the juvenile name of fluffy helen fluffyhelen@gmail.com please get in touch.

What on earth is this woman doing be associated with helping teenagers? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenhelp I have done that job for real and in my opinion she is the last person you want doing a job that requires total trust, integrity and professionalism. So you think running a website that ridicules victims of injustice and abuse is funny? How do you expect victims of abuse to come forward if they know they are going to be treated this way, it just helps perpetrators get away with it.

PAUL HUNT

The Owner/Administrator of the Lampyland forum Paul Hunt thinks that victims of injustice are legitimate targets for further abuse by members of his site as piece of light entertainment. In my opinion when you have someone this sick running the site, can he be trusted with your details and what sort of people is he going to attract?

Email paul_is_random@hotmail.com

Here is what some of you think about Paul Hunt

……’I wonder if Paul Hunt is the reason why I have been spammed out with a load of sick porno stuff?’…………

……..’People who run Discussion Forums should be vetted so that the likes of Paul Hunt are effectively banned because they lack any sort of maturity and responsibility towards the users of the site, people need to feel safe’………..

………’Paul Hunt is going to get the students at UWL a bad reputation, we are not all sick like him’……..

………’You were right to do this Paul Hunt should have removed those offensive posts, it seems a bit suspicious to me, good luck with the battle’……………..

……….’Flaming victims of injustice or abuse goes against accepted Netiquette, I dunno why he has not removed those offending posts unless of course he jerks off on that sort of thing, the guy is sick’…………

………’I think Paul Hunt is living out some kind of fantasy where he imagines that because he runs a discussion forum he thinks he is somebody important, how sad can you get?’………..

Message to Paul Hunt

There is a tradition on the internet for uncovering injustice and publicising the very thing that has gone on at UWL. Any debate should be on the issues involved, all you had to do was set an example and comply with the Netiquette that you do not flame the victims of injustice or abuse. However, it is obvious that there is some kind of sick game going on.

So take some more advice grow up and clean up your site.

Lampyland is a castle in the sky, Paul Hunt lives in it, and a psychiatrist will be along soon to collect the rent!

Lampyland Registration in Dispute

I have raised a dispute claim against the current registrant of Lampyland for the following reasons

The Domain Name in the hands of the Respondent is abusive because it is a discussion form but carries the co.uk tag which implies it is for business purposes such as selling off the email addresses of those who sign up and for that reason is no more than a con.

It registered with incorrect name and address details, which is independently proved by the juvenile name of fluffy helen with her address then hidden to avoid any legal liability for any commercial enterprise and the sick posts that people put on the site. What is even worse is that the address that is hidden is a false one!

Dear Helen 

LAMPYLAND.CO.UK

This letteris to inform you that Nominet’s Dispute Resolution Service has been invoked in respect of the domain name(s) lampyland.co.uk. 

The Policy and Procedure for Nominet’s Dispute Resolution Service form part of your contract of registration for the domain name(s). A copy of the Policy andProcedure are attached, and can be found on Nominet’s web site at http://www.nominet.org.uk/go/drs. An explanatory leaflet describing the Dispute Resolution Service is alsoattached. 

The complainant has alleged that the domain name(s), in your hands, is an Abusive Registration. Under Nominet’s Dispute Resolution Service Policy, Nominet has the power to transfer, suspend, cancel or otherwise amend a domain name registration which is found by an independent expert to be an Abusive Registration. 

A copy of the complaint is attached to this letter, which is deemed to have been receivedby you on 24 May 2006 (please refer to paragraphs 2(a) and 2(e) of theProcedure). 

In accordance with the Procedure, you have 15 working days, ie until 15 June 2006 to respond to the complaint. In order to be valid, your response must comply with the Procedure, and must be received by Nominet in both hard copy and electronic form.

Student Life at the University of Wales Lampeter!

“dear trevor

as you can probably tell from my address, i am a student at lampeter university.I don’t usually use the internet as a main form of communication but in passing conversation i was told about your satirical site and how funny it was to read so after a short investigation i found you, and thankfully they weren’t wrong.this site is hilarious, probably one of the best pieces of satire i have read in a long while can you give me your surname so i can truelly address you

thanks

PHil”

nd201@lamp.ac.uk

IP Address UCS05 194.80.177.131

Message-ID: <000601c67f66$2d9a8190$4b08a8c0@campus.local>

Dear Phil; did you think that one up with your own brain or are you running it in for a piss head jack ass?

It gets worse!

To Jeff Bond

Dear Jeff,

You really are a very sick and unstable young man

I you need help but I don’t work with disturbed kids anymore, besides, you need help from somebody far more qualified than me so suggest you go and see a head doctor.

Some Rules of Netiquette

Remember the human

The golden rule your parents and your kindergarten teacher taught you was pretty simple: Do unto others as you’d have others do unto you. Imagine how you’d feel if you were in the other person’s shoes. Stand up for yourself, but try not to hurt people’s feelings.

In cyberspace, we state this in an even more basic manner: Remember the human.

When you communicate electronically, all you see is a computer screen. You don’t have the opportunity to use facial expressions, gestures, and tone of voice to communicate your meaning; words –lonely written words — are all you’ve got. And that goes for your correspondents well.

When you’re holding a conversation online –whether it’s an email exchange or a response to a discussion group posting –it’s easy to misinterpret your correspondent’s meaning especially when you have no experience or knowledge of the issue in question. It’s frighteningly easy to be dismissive through your own ignorance and forget that your correspondent is a person with feelings more or less like your own. 

It’s ironic, really. Computer networks bring people together who’d otherwise never meet. But the impersonality of the medium changes that meeting to something less — well, less personal. Humans exchanging email often behave the way some people behind the wheel of a car or like cruel children in the playground mocking victims of abuse: They curse at other drivers, make obscene gestures, and generally behave like savages. Most of them would never act that way at work or at home. But the interposition of the machine seems to make it acceptable.

The message of Netiquette is that it’s not acceptable. Yes, use your network connections to express yourself freely the internet is a place for publicising injustice, explore strange new worlds, and boldly go where you’ve never gone before. But remember the Prime Directive of Netiquette: Those are real people out there dealing with real issues.

Would you say it to the person’s face without fear of being punched?

Writer and Macintosh evangelist Guy Kawasaki tells a story about getting email from some fellow he’s never met. Online, this fellow tells Guy that he’s a bad writer with nothing interesting to say, worse still people lack the moral courage of their convictions and hide behind juvenile nicknames. Worse still people totally disguise their identity to inflame situations.

Unbelievably rude? Yes, but unfortunately, it happens all the time in cyberspace.

Maybe it’s the awesome power of being able to send mail directly to a well-known writer like Guy. Maybe it’s the fact that you can’t see his face crumple in misery as he reads your cruel words. Whatever the reason, it’s incredibly common.

Guy proposes a useful test for anything you’re about to post or mail: Ask yourself, “Would I say this to the person’s face?” If the answer is no, rewrite and reread. Repeat the process till you feel sure that you’d feel as comfortable saying these words to the live person as you do sending them through cyberspace.

Of course, it’s possible that you’d feel great about saying something extremely rude to the person’s face. In that case, Netiquette can’t help you. Go get a copy of Miss Manners’ Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behaviour, take a very good look at yourself and just consider what people think of you.

Another reason not to be offensive online

When you communicate through cyberspace — via email or on discussion groups — your words are written. And chances are they’re stored somewhere where you have no control over them. In other words, there’s a good chance they can come back to haunt you.

You don’t have to be engaged in criminal activity to want to be careful. Any message you send could be saved or forwarded by its recipient. You have no control over where it goes.

Help keep flame wars under control

“Flaming” is what people do when they express a strongly held opinion without holding back any emotion. It’s the kind of message that makes people respond, “Oh come on, tell us how you really feel. “Tact is not its objective.

Does Netiquette forbid flaming? Not at all. Flaming as a result of injustice is a long-standing network tradition (and Netiquette never messes with tradition). Flames can be therapeutic, both to write and to read as people are able to get things off their chest in a way not otherwise available to them. The recipients of flames sometimes deserve the heat but flaming victims of injustice or abuse is a sign of needing professional help and goes against the founding tradition of the internet as a place to expose injustice or wrongdoing.

But Netiquette does forbid the perpetuation of flame wars — series of angry letters, most of them from two or three people directed toward each other, that can dominate the tone and destroy the camaraderie of a discussion group. For an administrator to allow this action only encourages the worst of human nature and it’s unfair to the other members of the group who can end up with an undesirable reputation. While flame wars can initially be amusing, they get boring very quickly to people who aren’t involved in them and they’re an unfair monopolisation of bandwidth.

Don’t abuse your power

Some people in cyberspace have more power than others. There are wizards in MUDs (multi-user dungeons), experts in every office, and system administrators in every system.

Knowing more than others, or having more power than they do, does not give you the right to take advantage of them, unfortunately megalomania is an aphrodisiac and power does turn people on and a mixture of power and abuse really does it for some people. For example, system administrators should never read private email, administrators of discussion forums should not act like Lord God Almighty or ignore the advice of those more qualified than they are on specific issues.

System administrators must be intellectually capable of accepting they are wrong so that people realise that any reasonable request is going to be granted. Unfortunately there are a lot of sad people around who abuse their power to make up for what they lack in real life, such as the archetypical computer ‘nerd’ compensating for their own personal inadequacies.

Students and staff for whom the rules and regulations were for display purposes only.

We would like to say a big thank you to all who have shown their support!

‘Dear Trevor
Congrats on your website. I wish I was brave enough.
another bully victim of Lampeter amongst MANY OTHERS !’

Here are some more comments

‘it all seems surreal, doesn’t it? talk about opening a can of worms.’

‘Do you know how to get in touch with the brave mature student who is trying to shed some light in that dark place? I would like to telephone him and give him my support.’

‘Well what a depressing site; the similarity to X’s case is uncanny’

‘I have just had a look at this website, and can’t believe what I’m reading!
It’s a thoroughly disgusting state of affairs, has anyone thought of sending this lot to the
Prince of Wales?’ 

The Office of the Third Sector who is responsible for the implementation of the Charity Act 2006 has confirmed that the lack of accountability for the proper charitable purpose of university finance is coming to an end. They will be required to register with the Charity Commission in October 2008, which then makes them accountable to their regulator.

In a statement the Office of the Third Sector, Cabinet Office, 10 Downing Street said.

“Exempt charities have benefited from their ‘exempt’ status since the Charities Act 1960, which first introduced the requirement for charities to register with the Charity Commission. The Charities Act 2006, once implemented, will introduce greater transparency and accountability for exempt charities, by ensuring that they are properly regulated in respect of their charity law obligations (either by a principal regulator or through registration with the Commission).”

The Charity Commissioners have already stated they will regulate Welsh universities unlike English universities who will be regulated by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), which has recently demonstrated a zero tolerance towards any wrongdoing at English universities.

The Auditor General for Wales has confirmed that the Welsh Assembly Government under the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 has ensured the taxpaying public has no right to make any complaint concerning university financial mismanagement.

However, the Charity Commission will override the Welsh Assembly, to quote the Office of the Third Sector

“The Commission is a non-Ministerial Department, which means that it is an independent regulator. The Commission is a non-Ministerial Department, which means that it is an independent regulator. Ministers and officials from the Office for the Third Sector have no locus or influence in the Commission’s decisions or actions.

The implementation of the Charity Act 2006 requires the setting up of regulators for what are known as exempt charities.

Exempt charities have not previously been allowed to register with the Commission because it’s been assumed that they were adequately overseen by other public bodies, such as the Financial Services Authority or Housing Corporation. The Act now makes sure these charities are also monitored for their compliance to charity law.The Act puts previously exempt charities into two categories:

If no suitable regulator exists then a previously exempt charity will stop being exempt and will have to register with the Commission. To ease the transition, only these charities with an annual income of over £100k will have to register with us. All these charities will come under our jurisdiction – the £100k threshold for registration is an interim level and may be reduced in the future, but this won’t happen for at least 5 years when there will be a review of the Act.

The Office of the Third Sector are working with principal regulators to agree how the new arrangements will work and to make sure they have the powers they need for this role, and will take some time.”

The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) will regulate most English universities; however, the Charity Commissioners have stated that they will regulate Welsh universities themselves as no principle regulator has been identified for this task. Under the new Act, the regulator will have the power to remove the charitable status of any university breaching charity law.

The Archbishop of Wales the Most Reverend Barry Morgan is leader of the Tomorrow’s Wales political action group set up in response to the Richards Inquiry into Welsh Devolution to try to change the way we are governed. His involvement caused much controversy amongst the Church; some Bishops strongly opposed his actions claiming that the church should stay out of politics.

While the Church is a charity and as such must comply with charity law that clearly states its activities must be 100% charitable, however, it has exempt status under the Charity Act 1960. This means that any legal challenge to the charitable activities of the church could only be achieved by legal action through the Chancery Division of the High Court by an interested party. Under the Church in Wales Constitution, a person in receipt of communion can make a complaint to the Church in Wales Governing Body. However, both avenues of complaint are extremely complex and expensive with little chance of success.

Under the new Charity Act 2006, the exempt status will be removed; all Religious groups, Churches and Dioceses with an income in excess of £100,000 will be required to register with the Charity Commission. They will have their charitable activities regulated by an appointed regulator who has the power to remove charitable status whereby they have ceased to be a defined charity under the Act. With regard to cases of fraud, the charity would be required to take appropriate action to redress the matter and any criminal offences reported to the police.

The Church in Wales’s legal department was asked to comment on being served notice that a complaint from Trevor Mayes of the Lamp Post will be made under the Charity Act 2006. However, they declined to reply. The law clearly states that being involved in a political pressure group is a not a charitable purpose and therefore the Church has ceased to become a charity. Mr Mayes said “We are a secular country, if members of the clergy want to get involved in politics they should stand for election, that way if we do not like what they are doing we can always vote them out of office.”

To: Chief Executive HEFCW 

Cc: Elin Jones AM
Mark Williams MP 

FORMAL COMPLAINT ACCORDING TO HEFCW PROCEDURES 

Dear Professor Gummet, 

My first point is that as the HEFCW external complaints procedures are not readily available or visible from your website I was of the opinion that no such procedure existed. The same is for you procedure for allegations against HEI’s. The pdf on staff conduct is corrupt and causes IE to crash and there is no HTML alternative.

Despite the obstruction from Mr Hall who could not have been more unhelpful in refusing to answer any question concerning complaints procedures. I now that I have this information and able to complain accordingly, however I must make the point that no procedures can over ride the laws of England and Wales and if they do then such are null and void. Please see the correspondence which is the basis of my complaint against the University of Wales Lampeter. 

As I have not received any reply from Mr Hall within the timescale I have raised this complaint against Mr Hall and UWL with you. The service under the FOI still stands. 

At the heart of this matter is the reality that the University of Wales is a corrupt institution and regrettably that also includes its Visitor the Bishop of St. David’s. Its professional advisers namely solicitors Eversheds and Auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers have chosen to ignore the issues raised an in my opinion are in breach of their lawful duty to report any wrong doing to the relevant authority. 

There are two main issues, firstly the retribution I received for complaining about a lecturer Zed Zorichak in that I was falsely and deliberate accused of plagiarism and intimidated during an examination by him sitting less than six feet aware staring me out for one and a hour hours. Following from this was the deliberate obstruction and pervertion of a public course of justice for students. 

The second issue is that the University has I believe failed to comply with guideline as laid down by the DTI which includes HEI’s on the Company Act 1985 as amended 2004. 

With regard to the first issue the University and Mr Hall have decreed that such gross misconduct is an academic matter which under the circumstances my opinion is that it is an abuse of academic independence and there loses such immunity from normal investigation. The students Complaints Scheme is wholly inappropriate for this type of complaint as it is a matter for the staff disciplinary code of conduct. 

With regard to the second issue I am a taxpayer and did not sign away my rights when I enrolled at UWL. I have every reason and right to make these allegations and with the assistance of the Information Commissioner will provide further evidence accordingly, however I must make the point that your procedures are an obstacle preventing any form of legitimate complaint to be made.

Further details can be obtained from lamp-post.info I would point out that the University has already been slammed by the Information Commissioner on two occasions for failing to comply with procedures as well as the Student complaints Scheme. There is an outstanding further complaint under the DPA 1998 which may result in court action. I will meet my MP again and AM in due course. Further court action against the Bishop of St. David’s is inevitable given his disgraceful conduct in this matter.

—————————————————

Thursday, 12 October 2006

To: Chief Executive HEFCW 

CLARIFICATION OF FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST MR DALE HALL 
(Clerk to the Council)

Dear Prof Gummet, 

I wish to clarify the complaint against Mr Hall because as with the corruption at the University of Wales Lampeter (UWL) it takes a while for the full implications of such gross misconduct to sink in.

I reiterate the general point that your complaints procedures are not available from a link on your website and require a search to find them, the same applies to complaints concerning financial mismanagement at HEI’s

Like me an ordinary member of the public would assume that such procedures do not exist despite the fact that you are required to make you such procedures public and in a position so they can be noticed and not hidden away. In keeping with Stalinist Russia all human rights are being kept from public knowledge to make sure people do not complain and those that do are fobbed off and labelled trouble makers. 

The points specifically concerning Mr Hall are as follows.

Mr Hall failed to correct my perception that as they we not in public view that no HEFCW complaints procedures existed in order to leave me with the impression that I could not take matters any further.

Mr Hall ignored repeatedly ignored specific requests for information concerning my right to complain about his own conduct and that of HEFCW, again to prevent any remedy to concerns about UWL according to my democratic rights.

In effect Mr Hall took it upon himself to deliberately deprive me of my rights under Administrative Law as laid down by the Second Nolan Committee and Common Law to conceal my complaint against the University of Wales Lampeter.

If Mr Hall has filed my information request without any action then I wish to complain about that too. I have complied with the requirements of the FOI Act 2000; if you now wish me to comply with your internal procedures I will gladly do so. You cannot dismiss my request if they do not comply with your procedures in the first instance as that would constitute you placing your own procedures over that of the laws of England and Wales. I am willing to raise this matter with the Information Commissioner by means of a formal complaint if you wish.

In making the definitive comment that “we remain of the view that there are no grounds for HEFCW to take this matter further with the UW Lampeter.” He is clearly stating that a corporate decision has been made, however, if corporate procedures have not been followed allowing him to make such a statement then he has exceeded his authority and impersonated HEFCW as a public company or corporation, which is a criminal offence under the Company Act 1985.

Mr Halls has shown a total disregard for my rights and HEFCW procedures and therefore I can only accept his actions and decisions in this matter as being totally biased against myself to totally obstruct any resolution to my complaint against UWL and himself. The reason for this is that he knows that my complaints do have merit and that he is simply trying to conceal them in his own interest to conceal his own actions in this matter and the failure of HEFCW as a regulator.

It is a well established principle that Mr Hall cannot act with regard to a complaint against himself, he should have referred the matter to his line manager instead of filing it away, which is a deliberate act of concealment and avoidance of responsibility, liability and accountability. As far as leadership is concerned it does set the tone by which UWL has followed and totally undermines HEFCW.

Mr Halls actions may be in direct collusion to conceal any wrong doing at UWL who have ignored their own internal complaints procedures, the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for which they have been heavily criticised by the Information Commissioner. It gives weight and substance to my complaint as this establishment just ignores whatever procedures are necessary to conceal corruption.

Therefore the judgement of Mr Hall and that of HEFCW that my complaints against UWL is in fact so flawed as to be meaningless, as any support of Mr Hall would in my opinion be a further concealment of not only corruption at UWL but also of the involvement of HEFCW. Whose impartiality has been compromised and can only resolve this matter with an independent element to any inquiry. Further examination of the law may well mean I also add further complaints on this issue.

Should this complaint be referred to solicitors then I wish to add to my information request the corporate decision by which any legal assistance is being offered to Mr Hall under the Company Act 1985 as amended 2004. UWL has obviously ignored the law on this issue and I was just wondering if you intend to do the same or that Mr Hall will fund his own legal advice for what is his personal liability.

I am awaiting the outcome of a request under the FOI from UWL and yourselves as it seems the only way to get any information from you people is to drag it out of you by the use of law as the use of stated procedures is a waste of time. You seem to have forgotten that you are public servants not our maters by the deliberate concealment of our right to complain.

Once I have received this information I may well be adding further complaints against UWL, Mr Hall and HEFCW. I trust that now I know what the procedures are and that you are accountable to the Ombudsman you will no do something remarkable for Welsh Higher Education and ‘play it by the rules’! If you wish to meet with me on this issue so I can put my complaints against UWL and Mr Hall to you in person then I will gladly do so. I am concerned at the political implications in concealing this whole saga concerning UWL.

Further to my email below the reason why I am unable to present any specific evidence is because the law prevents me from doing so as explained below. 

The University tells whatever lies are necessary to make any complaint go away in the knowledge that do not have to substantiate anything. If they do then evidence is fabricated.

I am in the process of extracting evidence under the Freedom of Information Act 200 to force the University to hand over documents in which do not exist! This is because they cannot substantiate the lies they have told my MP.

I have a letter from the Auditor General for Wales which states that under the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 that I am by law specifically prevented from making any inquiry or challenge as to how the University of Wales Spends its money. If I had the same rights as allowed with my local council then I would be able to provide all the information required for your intervention.

The auditors have refused to make any inquiry and again under the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 I have no rights to compel them to do so.

Under the circumstances it is impossible for anyone to make any complaint that fits your regulations, presumably that is why they are in place? The only way these matters can be brought to light is by an inquiry. 

I am appalled that you have failed to set up a system of public accountability as required under the Second Nolan Report 1996 again I presume that is to make sure no complaint goes anywhere. That you have failed to make any comment on the matter is in my opinion a tacit admission of guilt that HEFCW has failed to comply with the law on this issue. 

As Universities are ultimately regulated by the Privy Council I have raised this matter with my MP, however as HEFCW does come under the Welsh Assembly I will bring this matter to the attention of my Assembly Member.

I will send you a copy for your files!