here's my letter to the Ombudsman




Apparently all this below appears to be fair according to the Ombudsman.....


Dear Mr Donnelly,

 

Thank you for your letter dated 3rd Sept 2013, reference # 310809.

 

I disagree with the Board’s own findings, on their own impartiality, which is an oxy-moron of a sentence if nothing else. How can they ask themselves, the very people involved, if they are impartial and then issue their own findings on their own impartiality? It is nonsense.

 

It is of note they then went on to make my actual hearing even less impartial, all done with scant regard for these initial concerns that I openly tried to raise.

 

They have gone to great lengths to cover up and protect their cronies, their own reputations and the reputations of the organisations that they have invested so much of their time and effort in, sometimes investing a life time in.

 

I thank you Mr Donnelly for this opportunity to clarify.

 

In reply to your first question………

 

As you are aware, the “impartiality” hearing was held on the 22nd Feb 2011, it was held in the face of a motion to dismiss and personal statements by myself and by Wal Gordon and an objection made on the 3rd of Feb 2011. (Please see attachments 1 to 4).
 

A memo was sent by the investigator in response of this motion to dismiss. I find this memo a strange and confusing submission. Strange and confusing, because it was made by someone who I had already complained about, specifically about his impartiality and involvement. If a serious conflict of interest is present, as I believe it is, then this investigator’s memo is an attempt to sway the Board. To sway the Board in the investigator’s own favour, urging the Board to dismiss my complaints about his own impartiality, which apparently the Board listened to. Of note, Mr Hammond specifically opposes the Ombudsman’s office looking into this matter in this memo to the Board. (Please see attachment 5 i ).
 

I was told to allow three days for this hearing on the 22nd Feb, but it took just two hours. I was left stranded in Wellington for three days. I had booked flights and could not change them. (Please see attachment 5 ii for dates and attachment 6 for the hearing’s duration).
 

We were told, by the legal assessor for the Board, Mr Corkill QC, right at the beginning of the impartiality hearing that “we're not having oral evidence in the course of this hearing” this prevented any cross examination by me or my advocate Wal Gordon, we could not voice any opinions or disagreements. This can be found on page 8 line 21 of the attached transcript. (Please see attachment 6).
 

It is of note that this hearing was held to find whether the people involved were impartial, but several people were later replaced when it came to the actual hearing. One of these people included Mr Bickers. Whom I believe had an even greater potential conflict, which I will address below. Mr Bickers was then, and still is, the Chairman of the PGD Board.
 

I believe this replacement of people, people who had been by the Board deemed to be impartial; to then be replaced by others even less impartial makes this impartiality hearing null and void, redundant…. and a bit of a farce, as was my actual hearing.
 

There is a statement read out at the outset of this impartiality hearing by the Board that deserves some scrutiny.
 

The statement I refer to begins on page 5 line 5 of the transcript (Please see attachment 6). It addresses Mr Parkers “impartiality” and omits a lot of very relevant and pertinent facts. Of note Mr Parker was later made Chair of my actual hearing and had “the” leading influence of this later hearing. This all done in the face of my complaints and concerns.
 

This statement, made by the chair of this hearing, states that Mr Parker is a member of NZIGE and that he has no relationship with Mr Darnley, but is contradicted as he appears in at least two of the three photos with Mr Darnley at NZIGE seminars, the last photo isn’t quite clear. Ironically the photo taken in 2006 is the year my letter of concern/complaint was sent to the Board on my behalf by Nick Smith (please see attachment 7).
 

Other Board members and Mr Hammond appear in this 2006 photo and the 2 other photos, contradicting statements in Mr Hammond’s affidavit Doc 13 in attachments, (please see attachment 8 for photos).
 

It also states that Mr Parker’s relationship with Mr Hammond is only on a professional basis, when Mr Hammond was a “contractor” from “time to time” with the Gas Assoc, this is hugely misleading.
 

This statement fails to include that Mr Parker has conducted many presentations/seminars, together both representing several different gas groups as a duo with Mr Hammond, with Mr Hammond usually fulfilling a “technical advisor” role.
 

Both have run the “Kennedy trust” which appears to be closely involved with GANZ. Mr Hammond actually chairing the trust.
 

Mr Hammond was very involved with GANZ, not just as a contractor, Mr Hammond actually serving as Mr Parker’s technical adviser at GANZ while both of them were on the secretariat, Mr Parker being the secretary and the Executive Director of GANZ.
 

In fact ironically in a PGDB newsletter on Page 2, (please see attachment 9 vi). In a Board member profile, “Stephen Parker, Executive Director of the Gas Association of New Zealand since 1998” (and I am guessing that someone just don’t walk into a position as important as a Executive Director and in all probability worked his way up to that position for many years). This official PGDB publication is, very ironically dated for March 2009, the month before the explosion.
 

And in ever increasing irony, in this same issue on page 8 Mr Hammond also appears, again in a technical advisory role, on the importance of certification, certification of all things the …..
 

“Extensions, additions and replacements to existing gas installations. Alterations that result in repositioning of pipework or changes to the operation of the installation”.

 

I now ask you to consider the fact that Mr Hammond and the Board ignored the “non registration” of the “pizza oven cert”, a non registration that still managed to find its way into the Board’s electronic cert register (how this occurred defies any reasonable scenario, other than the Board accepted an incomplete cert, that later blew up), with all known copies lacking the leak test results AT THE SITE OF AN EXPLOSION! ….with Mr Darnley apparently not even questioned about this nor charged over this non registration, the Board being aware 9 days after the explosion of this “non registration”, but decided to go after me.
 

Also the fact that the Board and Mr Hammond ignored that the hose that caused the explosion was a replacement, replaced a year after the initial installation, as proven by the invoicing by Allgas, for a third hose (this invoice actually part of the evidence at my later hearing). Of note this hose was sold to the chipshop owner long after I left Mr Darnley’s employment. This is the very hose that ruptured and caused the explosion, as told to me by the owner of the chipshop. The owner told me that he told Mr Hammond about this, but Mr Hammond was not interested. And Mr Darnley was never asked about it or accused of any connection, as far as I know.
 

This is the “pizza oven cert” mentioned in my initial complaint to your office. Please consider this non registration in light of this official Board release, above, by Mr Hammond. And I also ask you to wonder why this was never chased up by the Board or Mr Hammond? Why doesn’t Mr Hammond’s “tech note”, made in an official PGDB newsletter above, apply to Mr Darnley?
 

Attachment 9 vii is a NZIGE Newsletter dated 2005. It shows a presentation by Mr Hammond and Mr Parker representing GANZ. Ironically with Mr Darnley shown in the photo, all three being members of NZIGE, along with several Board members. What would a fair minded lay observer think of this and it’s potential for a huge conflict of interest? This all made available to the Board, but dismissed by the Board, with Mr Parker then appointed to chair my hearing in light of all this. (Please see attachments 9 i to 9 vii). 
 

In any case, by the Boards own statement in its own findings for this impartiality hearing that a professional relationship is a conflict, this is found on page 9 of the Board’s findings (please see attachment 10). This I believe would also apply to Mr Darnley being given his full craftsman ticket after just one oral exam, held by Mr Hammond.
 

 I have reason to believe that there are also connections with the NZ LPG Assoc, and this is where Mr Darnley may have potentially met Mr Hammond, as he was a gas salesman, running a business selling gas, i.e. Allgas, a company specialising in LPG gas supply at the time, there being no Natural Gas in the South Island.
 

Mr Hammond’s relationship with both Mr Parker and Mr Bickers is a “professional” relationship and has an “apparent” bias if the Board’s own findings and arguments/past presidents are used from this findings document by the Board.
 

This same document is actually based on perceived impartiality and makes frequent use of the term a “fair minded lay observer” and how they might reasonably apprehend that the decision maker would bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question. I have told many, many lay people my story and they are, without exception, of the same opinion as me about the blatant partiality of the people concerned.
 

Mr Hammond was a president of GANZ for a two year term in 1993 please see an excerpt from a “deregulation paper” below, which says that way back in 1994 he had already been involved in GANZ for 12 years.
 

I ask this, would Mr Parker who appears to have a long history of working along side Mr Hammond for many years within several gas groups, with Mr Hammond acting as a technical advisor to Mr Parker at GANZ…..well would Mr Parker put more weight in Mr Hammond’s opinion than that of anyone else? Did he put more weight in Mr Hammond’s opinion at my later hearing? I believe he did……What would a fair minded lay observer think?
 

Also a question of what a fair minded lay observer might think of a potential professional, perhaps even personal relationship is between Mr Bickers and Mr Hammond. I think this is very relevant.
 

What would a fair minded lay observer think of Mr Bickers being a president of IPENZ in 1991 and Mr Hammond being president of NZIGE in 1991? These two organisations “collaborating”, with IPENZ providing NZIGE its admin services and NZIGE being a technical arm of IPENZ (please see attachment 11). Both organisations even sharing the same PO Box number……. Is it fair to think that Mr Hammond and Mr Bickers would know each other? Seeming able to put an “apparent” bias and conflict before the integrity of the hearing. What would a fair minded lay observer think?
 

Perhaps a better question would be….. How could they not know each other and not have a relationship, both personal and professional?
 

Also Mr Bickers served on the standards council between 1993 and 1997, please see below. Mr Hammond claims to have worked on Standards in NZ for 12 years the 1994 deregulation paper please see excerpt below and attached.
 

Mr Hammond making this statement in 1994, a definite one year over lap with Mr Bickers, with potentially a 4 year relationship overlap as Mr Hammond continued on to be heavily involved with NZ Standards, right up to the present day.
 

Mr Hammond actually, amongst many other NZ Standards, co-authoring and actually Chairing the Standards Committee for NZ5261 (yet another conflict of interest as he would not want this to be shown wanting, which I believe the standard NZ 5261 is, as it is contradictory, particularly the table 16 which is the very table so strictly adhered to by Mr Hammond and the Board in substantiating my remaining 2 charges out of the initial 44 charges).
 

Incidentally Mr Hammond received an award for his work done on NZ Standards from, amazingly and quite ironically IPENZ (please see attachment 12).
 

What would a fair minded lay observer think about the potential relationship between Mr Bickers and Mr Hammond?
 

 

Public Statements attributable to Mr Bickers below, please bear in mind that the usual Modus Operandi for both these institutions (IPENZ and NZIGE) is for the previous years President to be involved with the meetings and AGMs -
 

Mr Alan Bickers (chairperson)
Mr Bickers is currently a Director of Catalyst Management Services offering management consultation services to public and private sector clients. He holds a Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) and is a Chartered Professional Engineer. He is an Associate of the Arbitrators and Mediators Institute NZ and a Justice of the Peace.
Mr Bickers has worked for four local authorities with the last position as Chief Executive of Tauranga City/District Council (1987-1995). Mr Bickers has served on the Standards Council of NZ (1993-1997), Bay of Plenty Health Board and on the board of Transit NZ (1997-2004) with the last three and a half years as Chair. He has spent the last two decades involved with the Institution of Professional Engineers NZ (including President 1991-1992) and is current chair of their Disciplinary Committee. Mr Bickers has been appointed for a three-year term.

 

 

Alan Bickers

Professional Commitment Award 1997

Alan Bickers was President of IPENZ in 1991 choosing The Engineer in the Community as the theme for his year as President. Alan was indeed beginning the process of encouraging the Institution to be more outward looking. Alan left the position of chief executive of the Tauranga District Council during 1995 and his newly established consultancy in management services is now experiencing strong demand. Alan is Chair of the Disciplinary Committee and in this role he provided valuable guidance in a recent significant revision of the Disciplinary Regulations. The Waikato Bay of Plenty Branch had no difficulty in convincing the Awards Committee that Alan Bickers is a most worthy recipient for the IPENZ Professional Commitment Award in 1997.

 

36.   From Mr Hammond’s affidavit, (please see attachment 13).

 



 

1.       From a deregulation paper actually lobbying for deregulation and the gas self certification system on behalf of GANZ, written by Mr Hammond in 1994, (please see attachment 14).

 



 

37.   How would a person who lobbied for deregulation look if the self certification system failed, resulting in an explosion? Mr Hammond for this reason alone is not impartial. How would a fair minded lay observer view this? Please can I urge you to read fully both attachments 13 and 14.

 

In this “deregulation” document Mr Hammond talks of the importance of training in the gas industry, and yet issues Mr Darnley his full craftsman licence after just one oral exam, why did he do this. Mr Darnley being one of only ten people he granted licenses to in this way, this is as per Mr Hammond’s own affidavit.
 

Please think of it in the light of others who are made to jump through hoops and crawl over broken glass for this same licence. Why was Mr Darnley different from the hundreds, if not thousands, of people denied a craftsman licence? I have had to, as have many others (I have met them), endure rigorous retraining, sitting written exams and proving my practical ability. This took me many years, and I was a time served City and Guilds Gas Service Engineer.
 

Please see licence numbers for IPENZ, below.
 

17998
 Bickers, Alan Dist FIPENZ
 Waikato-Bay of Plenty - Tauranga
 
46920
 Hammond, Anthony MIPENZ
 Wellington
 

 

If IPENZ membership numbers run sequentially then Mr Hammond and Mr Bickers have been members of this same group of people for decades, well over 30 years, Mr Hammond claiming to have joined in 1977 with Mr Bickers number issued some considerable time before even that.
 

It appears they have been members sharing the same ranks and accolades of their closely related/collaborating respective institutions for over 3 decades, longer than my whole 25 year career.
 

 Mr Bickers recently stated at a meeting in Wellington that he did not know Mr Hammond as there were over 10 000 members, but I must ask of these 10 000 members, how many members would share all these facts, time and common ground, proof of which is readily available on the internet?
 

I believe Mr Bickers should have removed himself from the hearing as he was not deemed by the Board to be impartial at this initial impartial hearing, and then went on to ignore these conflicts, above, by attending my actual hearing.
 

Mr Bickers should be very informed and aware about all the protocol and procedure as he runs an up-skilling course on “the role of the professional witness” and chairs disciplinary panels.
 

Another bone of contention and a potential cause for apparent bias are the IPENZ rules, which can be taken as NZIGE rules also, that encourage members to protect other members reputations and that of IPENZ/NZIGE, (please see attachment 15). From the rules, Upholding the reputation of the Institution and its members, this rule would apply to all concerned.
 

So, I believe, we have an unfair and very partial situation, where a fair minded lay observer could be justified for having concerns about impartiality because Mr Hammond, who of note is also a past PGD Board Chairman to boot, and a co-author of NZ5261, and a lobbyer for deregulation and the failed self cert system, and a high ranking member of NZIGE, IPENZ, GASA, GANZ (past 2 year president of GANZ), and working extensively within the NZ standards committee and chairing the Kennedy trust, and also being the very person who empowered Mr Darnley (another NZIGE member) with a craftsman license, after just one oral exam and no formal training of an apprenticeship.
 

Would he have his reputation (and potentially any organisation’s reputation he was a member of) tarnished.
 

I believe his reputation would be tarnished, if his license granting to an untrained member of a gas engineers group came out after a gas explosion nearly killed someone, at a site where the self certing system (lobbied for by Mr Hammond) was found to be wanting and badly administered by the Board, so badly administered that it required a disclaimer on its electronic register, see below.
 

Disclaimer: The details as they appear here are not necessarily an accurate reflection of the details on the original hardcopy certificate. For this reason, should you wish to obtain a copy of this certificate, please complete the form on the previous page or email gascerts@pgdb.co.nz for more info.
 

 This self certification system lobbied for by Mr Hammond and Mr Hammond is the person who empowered Mr Darnley, who in all probability was responsible for the explosion, or knew who was responsible. Did Mr Hammond have a reason to protect Mr Darnley, to make me the scape goat…..I believe he did.
 

Both Mr Hammond and Mr Bickers have served as chair on the Standards Committee.
 

A fair minded lay observer could also be forgiven for thinking that Mr Hammond would be assisted in protecting his reputation and that of IPENZ and NZIGE by the Chair of the Board Mr Bickers, also high ranking member of IPENZ and on the Standards committee for 4 years. And assisted, even more so, by Mr Parker, the Chairman of my actual hearing and an IPENZ-via his NZIGE membership, GASA, GANZ, Kennedy trust member…..Could they be influenced by the IPENZ rules to protect another member’s reputation and that of the many institutions that they were all members of.  I believe they could. What would a fair minded lay observer think?
 

I have good reason to believe that these “gas” people, including Mr Darnley, are connected by yet further groups but lack the resources to confirm…… and this is why a proper investigation is required, preferably done on oath.
 

Mr Bickers publically slated me and my ability in my local paper, this was done before my appeal, and solely on the basis of the Board enforcing a non mandatory section of the NZ5261, in effect making it mandatory. This further undermining my credibility, both in the industry and in my area.
 

The Board also audited 2 jobs of most, if not all, gasfitters in my area at the time, telling them it was because of complaints I had made about the standard of gasfitting in my area. I had only ever complained about Mr Darnley. This action made me a pariah in my industry and in my area.
 

I believe a fair minded lay observer could be forgiven for thinking all the above was done to cover up a badly administered gas “safety” register of certs. With a site, with an incomplete gas certificate, EXPLODING!. Something that I had tried to warn about for 6 years previous to the explosion, i.e. dodgy certs covering dodgy work.
 

I was put through a procedure where both the “leading influences” i.e. Board Chair and Hearing Chair were potentially very conflicted and were prepared to ignore those potential conflicts, all done against my open concerns and complaints.
 

In light of all this I believe that the “test of egregious behaviour” mentioned on page 7, point 30 of the Board’s 3rd March findings, (please see attachment 20)….is now satisfied.
 

This is probably why the NZ Law Commission says that-
 

5.36, a difficulty arises here in that occupational regulatory and disciplinary bodies are often funded by the relevant industry, which may adversely affect perceptions of their independence. However, this funding is necessary. We suggest that it may be acceptable for these bodies to be funded through mechanisms such as licensing fees and industry levies provided that they are independent from industry associations and other purely industry groups, and that other mechanisms are in place to safeguard their independence. For example, in its recent review of the real estate agents act 1976, the Ministry of Justice suggested that the body responsible for licensing and disciplinary matters ought to be “independent from the industry,” meaning that the real estate institute of New Zealand should not be able to exercise control over it. This body would be constituted as a separate body that would be required to report annually to Parliament. Finally, it was seen as important for public perceptions of independence that the Minister of Justice should appoint members, rather than the industry appointing the members.337 We note that these recommendations arose in a context of public concern about the real estate industry. However, we suggest that the underlying principles reflect a wider trend towards greater independence for occupational bodies, and that the recommendations can be considered as an example of best practice in any event. (Please see attachment 16 for the full document).

 

As Board members Mr Bickers and Mr Parker are not time served tradesmen and fall in to the category of “lay persons” as Board members, the application of the “small community” argument (mentioned on page 10 of the Board’s 3rd March findings, please see attachment 20) shouldn’t be relevant because, in light of the NZ Law Commission recommendations they should not be there.
 

Their absence would allow their places to be filled with actual impartial lay people from the general population, all 5 million people that share these fair islands of New Zealand. It is an insult to each and every one of these kiwis, to think that within this large population, of over 5,000,000 people, there is no one capable to preside on this situation, other than these connected and entangled people.
 

Page 14 of the Board’s findings 3rd March 2011, please see attachment 20, state that the letters sent were not part of the “investigative/disciplinary process” (which begs the question, why were they sent and on what basis?) and that they would not prejudice a fair hearing. This is contrary to the findings of Helen Cull QC, and is also reflected in the apology from the Board signed by Mr Bickers that these letters “could have wrongly given your customers the impression that you were involved in unlawful behaviour in other parts of the country”.
 

What this “apology” does not include is that these were sent to all sites of the charges laid for my hearing, all sites other than the site of the explosion. (Please see attachment 17). This I believe was an attempt to prejudice all the sites of 6 other charges. To make people think that I was capable of being involved in unlawful behaviour in other parts of the country.
 

I apologise for having no legal representative/council (although a complete stranger (at the start of this fiasco) Wal Gordon has done an outstanding job for me for no monetary payment, for no other reason than his need to see fair play), but I have been left in a position of not being financially in a position to pay for a lawyer.
 

Of note the lawyer I did use at the beginning of this witch hunt (someone I paid well over $10,000.00 to) advised me just before I stopped using his services before the hearing, to plead guilty to all charges and pay a $50 000.00 dollar fine. This advice for the charges which I later proved at the hearing that I was innocent of any wrong doing on 95% of the 44 charges, and I believe 100% innocent of any wrong doing whatsoever, especially if the hearing was allowed to proceed. The Hearing being stopped by none other than Mr Parker.
 

These last charges 2 out of the 44 laid, that were “found to have substance” by the Board was an attempt, I believe, as a last ditch attempt to save some claim to credibility and justify the huge cost to persecute and frame me.
 

Of note, a concern about cost is mentioned in Mr Hammond’s initial memo to the Board, (please see attachment 4i).
 

The Board, on advice from the “impartial” investigator, basically enforced a non mandatory section of the NZ 5261, disallowing a valid alternative. The hearing being drawn to a close just as my advocate, Wal Gordon, was attempting to clarify if any wrong doing had actually occurred, we both still believe these last charges are bogus.
 

It is of note that at the hearing, presided over by Mr Parker, the “Impartial” investigator had just stated that if nothing was entering the building then no offence had occurred and that he did not know that any fumes had entered the building as he had not carried out any tests, the owner of this house previously stating that fumes were not a problem, it was at this point that the hearing was shut down by Mr Parker the chair of my hearing. (Please see the last pages of the hearing transcript already provided).
 

This cutting short our opportunity to answer the last of the charges, the only charges “found to have substance” by the Board. The rest of the charges answered so well that they were dismissed, including the charge for the exploding chip shop which was proven by, amongst other proof, photos that Mr Hammond with held for two years, and still goes with no one held accountable to this very day.
 

Also see the request to amend charges. Amended to make the charges better fit the statements. Done just two weeks out from the hearing after re-investigating the sites. Of note, these statements were either reneged on at the hearing or were refused signature by the “witnesses”. What would a fair minded lay person think of a witness (or the method applied to gather these witnesses’s statement) that he/she refuses to sign their own statements? (Please see attachment 18).
 

In reply to your second question…….

 

I have looked high and low for the transcript of the High Court appeal, but sadly can’t find it. I am happy for you to obtain a copy of the transcript, if that service is available to your office; it is case number CIV 2011- 485-2407. Of note, my right of appeal was opposed by the investigator’s lawyer.
 

I distinctly remember I was told by Justice Kos that I was to talk about the measurement of the distance of the window only, he was very clear about this, and that I was not to adduce any further evidence, preventing me from airing my concerns about impartiality.
 

I remember the investigator’s lawyer requesting to adduce that the Board should be given weight to their opinion as they were “professional”, I think this was allowed.
 

Justice Kos was in receipt of the statement that I was trying to adduce, including the British Standard that proved I had done nothing wrong, (please see attachment 19).
 

 

 

I have attached your letter and the Board’s findings of the 3rd of March for your convenience and clarity, (please see attachment 20).

 

 

I do have a few questions of my own……

 

In the Boards findings of 3rd March 2011 (please see attachment 20), point 36 states that Mr Darnley faced a charge in relation to only one of the seven charges that were laid against me, but on a different basis…..

 

Which charge was this? I believe this could only have been the site of the explosion.
 

On what basis was this charge laid?
 

What was the outcome of this charge?
 

Why didn’t it appear in his final charges?
 

 

I apologise for not being more prompt with my reply, but I have had to start afresh in my career path. I am now a trainee at 41 years old, and have committed to proving myself at my new job, a job outside of the plumbing and gas industry, an industry I had invested a quarter of a century in.

 

My business re-launch failed miserably and even though I am highly qualified in my field and was told I would be in the top 10% of gasfitters the Board’s own assessor had ever assessed,  I am finding it hard to find a job with in the plumbing and gas industry.

 

I was mortgage free with no debt whatsoever, but I have lost my home, my wife and sons, 5 and 7 at the time, spent 14 weeks of a winter in a caravan with no running drinking water and a chemical toilet, while I worked away. I lost also my business, reputation and two years out of my son’s young lives, and at times my sanity, all for a situation I had spent 6 years trying to warn about, warning about someone who was causing me great concern in his ability and attitude and its effects on the public’s safety, with my worst concerns proven, by actually happening. He acted as though he was untouchable, and apparently he was………Do you think this is fair? Who put the safety of the public first and foremost in their actions?

 

 

Thank you for your time. I understand you are a busy person, but may I respectively ask that you can confirm receipt of this email and its attachments, just for my piece of mind that it has come through ok.

 

I would welcome any further questions if it will assist your investigation.

 

 

I look forward to your reply.

 

Just some of the humour from my transcript in blue below, there are heaps,

this is the sort of crap we have to live with, but if they do anything its an oversight....is that reasonable.....

Now, I think there's just one thing we need to correct here, that in your statement it's stated that Mr Gee become registered in 1978, he would have only been five years old at the time, so I think -

A. 1998 I believe, yeah my apologies for that.

Q. I think that's the way it's recorded on the Board's website, that's possibly where it come from?

A. It obviously isn't correct, thank you.

The thing that isn't portrayed in this transcript is the emotion and frustration and the looks around the room, bit like a bunny in the headlights of Wal's questioning.

Wal was on fire and had this guy wrapped up in his own words, now bear in mind that this was the only and last charge to stay, we answered all the others, this is the one they had to hold on to, so they picked up their ball and went home, just before the last over was to be bowled, bit like the under arm bowl at the cricket.....is this reasonable?

Then and this is the best part ignored a califont that was fitted nearer than mine and had been complained about by the customers......is this reasonable?

127 photos were taken I got to see 17......from the transcript below in blue.....Mr Laurenson is the investigators lawyer, he wrote most if not all the statements for people to sign, after he "briefed" them, some refused to sign their own statements......hmm must have been something wrong with them?

Here Wal is questioning the forensic investigator for the police....some of these photos showed that the pipe had been moved there were holes in the wall that showed where I had originally fitted the pipe, before someone lowered it....I maintained this for the two years previous and only saw these photos at the hearing, I had told the investigator that the pipe was lowered right at the start of this fiasco......



How many photos did you take of the scene?

A. Hold on a second. I took 127 photographs of the scene.

Q. And who selected these 17 photos pertaining to this?
 
A. I was asked to give comment on those 17 photos by Mr Laurenson.

Q. So you didn't select them, Mr Laurenson selected the photos that we're looking at?

A. That's correct.

Another from the transcript, remember the pizza oven cert, the one missing the test result, the one that Darnley didn't register, but there was a copy on the Boards website, the one that they knew about days after the explosion.....

Well here is Wal cross examining the investigator....

So that would happen anywhere along that pipe line, for example, we know that a pizza oven was installed and they teed in a pipe line halfway along, would that gasfitter then take responsibility for the other aspects of the installation?

A. The person who carries out that work is required to ensure that the entire installation is sound in terms of test for gas leaks and carry out the installation tests to ensure that the installation is safe and then he signs for the work that he has done which covers insertion of the tee, the branch line to the pizza oven and the pizza oven itself.

Q. So whoever installed the pizza oven, they have taken over responsibility for the safety of that job as far as gas leaks and pipes being attached to walls and all those other sorts of things?

A. They should have carried out a pressure test to ensure that the entire installation was gas tight.




Now marry this statement to Max's excuse for not recording the test result and the fact that it wasn't until after the hearing that I asked for the original pink copy, see the email below from the Board's lawyer,

I think you could safely say that all this was known.....is this reasonable?

Do these people have any integrity or credibility?

And remember they are still to this day backing all this, not fixing any of this.....

With no one held to account for an explosion that nearly killed someone, is this reasonable?

Please do not open this if any sexual sickness offends, I have thought long and hard before posting this, but it is what my wife was exposed to just before she had to live in a caravan for a whole winter with my two young sons while I worked away, when we were financially forced to sell our home, I guess on this forum we are all adults and the major majority of us are men (though this do not make it any more palatable).

I think I can only ask you all how this has any bearing on a plumbers tribunal and reflects more on those that use this filth just to prove a point,


PLEASE DO NOT OPEN IF GRAPHIC SEXUAL DEVIANCEY OFFENDS.

The Board and its representatives have no problem with this whatsoever, but they sent it to my home unmarked of its content and my wife opened it, she had no idea of what it contained, I came home to find her hysterical and sobbing, it is mostly because of this that I will never let this go. If I could ask your opinion in any other way, or was able to "show" you with out "showing" you I would.....but I have shown MP'S TV shows and the Ombudsman, they don't seem to care, please let me know what you think, I apologise in advance.


But I truly do not believe until the public know all, warts and all....will they grasp the level of these people, and I use the term people very loosely. From memory they sent three different sets of case notes to prove a point on probabilities, all of a sexual deviant nature.


Please explain to me the relevance, and please if easily offended do not open the attachment, this is more warning that the Board provided my wife, I agree with the Feds it is getting harder and harder to abide by the law when they do as they please.