This is Nick Harvey MP's response to my request for assistance regarding the decision of dishonest Patricia Coopey and her dishonest boss Local Government Ombudsman Jerry White.

My e-mailed response to Nick Harvey MP.

Dear Nick, thanks for your letter of 19th Nov 2008 ref:60391Y. I have considered it together with all the other information I have to hand and this is the way I see the situation.

The first point is that if there is no Minister appointed to oversee the Ombudsman then the responsibility rests with the Prime Minister Gordon Brown.  Would you be prepared to refer this to him if necessary?

The second point is that the Ombudsman, along with his investigators, is an employee and answerable to the taxpayers.  His office has condoned lying and the covering up of those lies by the North Devon District Council.  His investigators have assisted in this and have told lies themselves.

I am making a Freedom of Information request to Jerry White to find out how he and his office operates and to whom he is responsible.

In the meantime would you please write to him with the following questions:

Why did Patricia Coopey presume to tell me what I was complaining about fildena 120 mg?

Why did a Freedom of Information request to Mrs Coopey show that your office has no evidence to support your claim that the matter of lies and the cover up by the North Devon District Council had been dealt with?

How is it possible for you to have dealt with lies told after the return of my documents relating to the complaint about a planning issue on 17th March 2006?  (Your letter ref: 05/B13209/JB1/klb.)

Why has Mrs Coopey said she has not seen any evidence on the CD when there are 24 pages of evidence?

Why is Mrs Coopey talking about TPOs and trees in her letters and makes no mention of the lies and cover up which is what the complaint is about?

Why did Mrs Coopey not deal with the second part of my complaint:  "Don Pratt said the Councilís complaint procedure had dealt with lies and the cover up. This is not true as Ann Cowley closed the complaint about lies being told to the Ombudsman without answering a single allegation thus initiating the cover up. Copy of complaint and letters referring to the complaint enclosed."?

Mrs Coopey stated that "the matters on which you said the Council has lied are those on which your previous complaint was based".  As my previous complaint was based on a planning matter i.e. "That by approving the planning application No 40770 Hares Green has been changed from a sheltered retirement bungalow estate to a mixed housing estate thus arbitrarily and retrospectively changing the planning consents set out in application 4813 registered 05 May 1988 and decided 24 Feb 1989." how can this be so when my second complaint was about lies and cover up?

Mrs Coopey states in her final letter that Jerry White was aware of the fact that I had disputed the information provided by the Council in relation to the complaint about a planning matter but had decided that it was "not appropriate to pursue investigation".  How can my new complaint relating to lies and cover up have been "dealt with" if my concerns were not investigated?

Looking forward to your cooperation to bring this business to a satisfactory conclusion.

Best wishes, Gordon Bray.

This is Ombudsman White's reply:

Notice that White comments on "lies and cover up" as being part of the planning complaint his office dealt with some time ago.  This is a lie!  I have e-mailed Nick Harvey MP pointing this out and asking him what action he intends to take.  A Local Government Ombudsman lying to a Member of Parliament seems to me to be a very serious matter.

This is the e-mail sent to Nick Harvey MP on 9th March 2009:

Dear Nick, regarding the lie Jerry White told you in his letter of 2nd Feb. 2009 forwarded to me.  My e-mail of 25/02/2009 stated:
"Referring to the second paragraph White states that "Mr Bray's allegations of "lies and cover up"concern information provided to Members about a planning application for housing development near his home ..........which was discontinued on 4th Nov. 2006."
This is a lie!
Nowhere in the correspondence concerning this complaint did I accuse anyone of lying or covering up lies.  I have copies of all the correspondence and can supply these to you if required.  The complaint was about a planning decision and not about lies and cover up.  Lies and cover up are not mentioned anywhere and are not part of this complaint.
The Local Government Ombudsman lying to an MP is, in my opinion, a serious matter.  Please follow this up on my behalf as this is not acceptable behaviour from a public employee."
My question is - are you going to take any action or are you going to condone this dishonest statement by White?  Although I have requested that you follow this up on my behalf I expect you to do this on your own behalf as you now aware of dishonesty from the office of the LGO.
Sincerely, Gordon Bray.

We await a reply from Mr Harvey....   and wait - and wait....

At last a reply - here it is dated 14th July 2009:

And here is my reply by e-mail sent 16th July 2009:

Dear Nick, thanks for your belated reply to my e-mail of  9th March 2009 and my follow up e-mails to you of 6th April, 4th May and 13th May 2009.
The first thing I would like to ask you is - if you did not understand my e-mail why did you not ask me for clarification?
Having looked at the e-mail of 9th March 2009 it seems to me to be quite clear that Jerry White's reference to "lies and cover up" as being part of the complaint about a planning issue is an obvious lie as its intention is clearly to deceive.  The issue of council lies and the covering up of those lies was not part of the complaint made back in 2006.  All the information is available on my website including the wording of the complaint of 2006 and the final letter by White closing the investigation which shows that council lies and cover up were not part of this investigation.
The first time council lies and the cover up were mentioned was in my new complaint of September 2008 against Don Pratt.  What is there that you do not understand?
You should note that not one allegation included on my website has been refuted,challenged or even referred to by anyone.  Neither by the Council and it's several complaints procedures nor by the Ombudsman.  Why do you think this is?
As to your assertion that you are at a loss as to what further you can do to pursue my complaint this is what I am doing.  I am working towards referring the matter to the Home Secretary as I am told by the the Ombudsman's office that he was responsible for recommending Jerry White for the position as LGO who was then appointed by the Queen.  This being the case the Home Secretary would be responsible for the LGO's dismissal in the case of dishonesty.  I am sure that Her Majesty would not be pleased to hear that she had been wrongly advised and nothing had been done about it!
Your position seems to be that in spite of all the evidence of dishonesty you are prepared to throw up your hands and say there is nothing to be done about it.  The people who have lied and cheated are paid by, and are therefore responsible to, the taxpayer.  Is it your intention to condone dishonesty by doing nothing?  Are you going to overlook being lied to by Jerry White?
Sincerely, Gordon Bray

To try to encourage our MP to do the job we are paying him to do this e-mail was sent 5th August 2009:

Dear Nick, would it be asking too much to get answers to the questions raised in my e-mail of 16th July 2009?
Gordon Bray.

Is our MP stupid, dishonest, or both?

This is the e-mail charging our MP with the task of rooting out dishonesty within three government departments - we await his response.  (By clicking the blue links you can read the evidence - use the back button to return to this page.)

Dear Nick, referring to your letter of 14th July 2009, please tell me how you came to the conclusion that my claims are "self evidently nonsense" when the complaint referred to was clearly stated in my e-mail of 16/01/2009 as being that which was discontinued on 4th Nov. 2006 and was about a planning matter when lies and cover up were not part of the complaint.
It is the more recent complaint about lies and cover up dated 15/09/2008 about which I was asking your help.  Obviously this complaint is about lies and cover up by councillors and employees within the corrupt North Devon District Council.
My e-mail to you of 16/07/2009, in which I explained your error, remains unanswered as does my follow up e-mail of 10/08/2009.
As your response to my request was unhelpful I have been continuing my campaign against dishonesty in government departments and have found more dishonesty.
Included with the Local Government Ombudsman are the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Parliamentary Ombudsman.  As all three were set up by the Government it is the Government's responsibility to deal with this dishonesty.  As you are a member of the Government I am charging you with the task of dealing with those employees within these three departments who have acted dishonestly.
This is the sequence of events together with blue hyperlinks to all the relevant evidence none of which has been challenged by the guilty parties.
Back in 2006 I made a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman about a planning matter.  During the course of this complaint nobody was accused of telling lies and nobody was accused of covering up lies.  The evidence is provided in the wording of the complaint and Jerry White's letter closing the complaint procedure.  No mention of lies nor covering up lies!  This evidence is here.
I then went back to the North Devon District Council and found evidence of lying to the Ombudsman and covering up those lies.  This resulted in a new complaint to the Ombudsman concerning lies and covering up lies in September 2008.  The complaint and the initial response can be viewed here.  I then made a complaint about the employee, Patricia Coopey, who investigated the complaint and told a series of lies which are listed here, this resulted in the letter from White to me where he condones Coopey's lies - read it here - and a letter to yourself which includes the lie claiming that lies and cover up were part of the complaint of 2006..  Read White's letter to you here.  What right has an Ombudsman to tell a complainant what he is complaining about?  White seems to have thought he was untouchable and could do whatever he liked.  Not so!.
Next came a complaint about White made to the Chairman of the Commission for Local Administration in England Tony Redmond who was prepared to condone White's dishonesty - evidence here.
Next was a complaint about White's and Redmonds's dishonesty made to the Home Secretary's office which was passed to John Denham MP's. Department of Communities and Local Government.  This was closed by an employee named Steve McAllister whose opinion was that as the complaint was in in the course of an investigation his department could not intervene.  The only conclusion to be drawn from this remarkable statement is that an Ombudsman is permitted to lie and cheat the taxpayer and get away with it as long as it is in the course of an investigation.  John Denham was kept informed but did not respond to my e-mail although a read receipt was received.  Evidence here.
Next came a complaint about Mcallister's decision to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman investigated by an employee named Stuart Poole who sanctioned Mcallister's view that an Ombudsman is permitted to lie and cheat the taxpayer and get away with it as long as it is in the course of an investigation.  Evidence here. A complaint against Poole was dealt with by Carole Auchterlonie who went along with Poole's decision.  Evidence here.
Over to you now Nick, please make it your business that all the employees who have shown themselves to be dishonest and have cheated the taxpayer are dealt with.  The evidence I have provided must be accepted or challenged, this is the only honest way to deal with this matter.  

Your full cooperation is expected!

Sadly, all the complaint procedures I have used, and there are many, have shown that they exist to protect the guilty.  Evidence is not challenged and the puppets line up one behind the other to swindle the taxpayers who have no option but to pay these cheats their salaries and pensions.
I have asked for a read receipt, please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail.  Please report progress by e-mail as the continuing saga of dishonesty is being published on the North Devon Link website.
You can access the whole continuing saga of dishonesty here a briefer summary here and your own dedicated page containing this e-mail, your response and progress reports here 
If anything is not clear please ask for clarification.
Sincerely, Gordon Bray.
Above e-mail sent to and copied to on 3rd December 2010.

A follow up e-mail, yes one more , has been sent to our useless and possibly dishonest MP:

Dear Nick, as you have not responded to my e-mail of 3rd, Dec 2010 which charged you with the task of dealing with employees within three government departments who have acted dishonestly may I assume that you are prepared to condone this dishonesty?
Gordon Bray.

Above e-mail sent to and copied to on 15th January 2011.

Will he reply?

A further e-mail has been sent

Dear Nick Harvey,  the e-mail copied below was sent to you last December and acknowledged as having been received the same day.

My e-mail provides evidence of dishonesty within three government departments.  As you have not responded it must be assumed that you are willing to support and condone this dishonesty.
If you continue to ignore this issue you will have associated yourself with this dishonesty.  This is not acceptable.  Either do the job you are paid to do or resign.
Yours sincerely, Gordon Bray."

Above e-mail sent to and copied to on 13th June 2011.

This is the reply from our arrogant, self serving, useless MP:

And the reply sent 27th August 2011:

Dear Nick, referring to your letter of 28th July 2011.  Please confirm that, although you have been provided with documentary evidence of dishonesty within three government departments, you are prepared to condone this dishonesty.

What will our clown of an MP say to this e-mail?  Maybe NATO will be sent to bomb me,,,,  on humanitarian grounds of course!  Duck everybody...

Whoops!  I think an apology is in order  -  to clowns.  Clowns are generally hardworking, honest members of our society and I have insulted all of these good people by insinuating that Nick Harvey MP is a clown.  I take it back and propose that Nick Harvey MP is rather a puppet controlled by those whom he is willing to serve.  It is certainly not his constituents!  Harvey has sold his soul to the criminal element in government - and he knows it!