Talk:Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most of the original stuff on this page was typed by me, in preperation for my public law exams, although I didn't move it to here.--Will.S 13:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I amended the reference to Dyer, as my understanding of the case was slightly different from the original. A check of the case head note on LawTel confirmed my recollection. I deleted the reference to the House of Lords, as Dyer was only a High Court decision. I also added a comment on the current practice of the Office (for confirmation check the Ombudsman's website) to share decisions with both "sides" before formal completion. That practice removes one of the bones of contention in Dyer. --DJ Stock 07:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Ombudsman

There could be some interesting stuff that could be discussed at that point. However, I am not sure how one could reference it (doubtless, though, there are academic articles on the subject). One bone of contention in respect of any Ombudsman service will be the pool from which it recruits, or how it recruits. The Parliamentary Ombudsman historically took career civil servants on three year loans from departments and agencies. There was no effort to stop staff investigating departments/matters they had a previous involvement in. With such practices it is easy to see why people could dismiss the Ombudsman's work- whether or not such criticism was well-founded is a separate matter. --DJ Stock 07:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the section, awaiting more substantive addition. – Kaihsu 18:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)