Children Services Abuse
Email from Mark Hughes 19/01/2012
22 January 2012
Dave emailed Mark Hughes on 19 December 2011 informing him of his statutory obligations and had not heard from him since. So, fed up with the behaviour of these morons, Dave wrote directly to the Director of Children Services asking him to see that the statutory guidelines were followed. Obviously this letter reached the complaints officer (Mark Hughes) who consequently wrote this email to Dave.
From: Mark Hughes <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Dave Hook <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Our meeting of 2 November 2011
Hello Mr Hook
George Trevithick, Complaints Manager, has shared with me your recent letter to the Director of Children Services. I was somewhat surprised by the contents, but that is not a major issues. You refer to the time taken to investigate your complaint and not being kept informed. You will recall and Lucille LeSueur has confirmed, that when we met you asked about the timescale. I pointed out that the initial timescale is 35 working days, from the date that the Authority receives the signed record of complaint. I also explained, because of the volume of paperwork and the issues to cover, that we will not be able to complete the investigation within the 35 days, but will be working to the extended 65 working days.
I also pointed, as we were heading up to the Christmas period, that it might be difficult to get interviews with staff and this has been the case. There has been an added complication in that Obelix has now left the Department. I have pointed out to Mr Trevithick and Obelix's former managers that it was vital that we got the opportunity to interview her. I understand that attempts have been made to contact Obelix, to ask if she will be willing to see us as part of our investigation. At the time of writing I have not received a response from Obelix.
I could complete the investigation, without seeing Obelix, but I feel that it would not be a complete investigation and you, I assume will not be satisfied with the conclusion of the investigation, given that the majority of your concerns relates to the action of Obelix.
Interviews with the relevant managers and staff are set for the 26th January and I will be in a position to submit my report a few days after. Can you confirm that you would want me to submit my report at that stage, whether I had the opportunity to interview Obelix or not.
I am not aware and have not revived the email of 20 December, which you state in your letter you had sent to me. I have received all other email so cannot explain why that one was not received.
His last sentence is interesting. He says "I am not aware and have not revived the email of 20 December, which you state in your letter you had sent to me. I have received all other email so cannot explain why that one was not received. I am not aware and have not revived the email of 20 December, which you state in your letter you had sent to me. I have received all other email so cannot explain why that one was not received."
There is an interesting Freudian typo where he says he has not "revived" the email and he goes on to make one of those bizarre claims that illustrates the person cannot think logically. He says he has "received all other email". Is that a Freudian typo too? I think it is just a missing 's'. He could not possibly know that he has received all the other emails if he is assuming this one did not arrive. But there lies another one of those revealing pieces of psychology. He doesn't declare that Dave is lying but rather alludes to it whilst suggesting that it has possibly gone astray in cyberspace. If his mind was really thinking of an email that 'got lost' he could not say that he received "all other emails" because his mind would recognise that he got 'some other emails'. So his mind has not accepted or even formed the idea that emails get lost in cyberspace and the next sentence illustrates that. My
own logical psychological analysis of the statement indicates that he definitely received the email and is lying about it. I say that because had he not received it it would be too obvious that it were 'lost' but his mind finds it too obvious that someone would lie about it because... precisely because... he would and is doing.
Also, he claims that he received all the emails, and yet he only replied to the first 1 of 5. That was in spite of the fact that the email of 14 November 2011 specifically required his reply to confirm that the alterations were okay and he was asked to reply as soon as possible. So his slight pomposity and vague insinuation is entirely unjustified because he has no etiquette to speak of himself. He's rude and a little uncouth under a veil of social correctness. Perhaps he thinks morality and respect are simply things to judge others by.