-----Original Message-----
From: IFA Defence Union [mailto:enquiriesifadu.co.uk]
Sent: 15 September 2005 14:58
To: 'John Tiner'; 'Reilly, Louise'
Cc: 'wider.implicationsfinancial-ombudsman.org.uk'; 'wider.implicationsfsa.gov.uk'; 'David Kenmir'; 'Callum McCarthy'; ministershm-treasury.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: Meeting
Dear Mr Tiner
I would ask you to note that:
1: a copy of this e-mail has been sent to other parties, all of whom are identified
2: for clarification I would explain that you should read the e-mail as addressed to you and to Walter Merricks jointly as the intended formal recipients, for the reasons outlined below. However, as I don't have Mr Merricks' email address I trust either you or Louise Reilly will pass this on because it is in his interests to be kept in the loop.
3: other parties have been copied in for information purposes.
I have adopted that approach with the content of CP05/4 very specifically in mind. This correspondence does not have a direct bearing on any proposed meeting, it is as listed in CP05/4 of wider significance.
I will shortly issue another item of correspondence to you, and again for information the correspondence will be issued to other parties, but with a wider circulation than those currently listed.
I attach a copy of my recent e-mail to you http://www.fs-du.co.uk/downloads/FSA-JohnTiner.pdf. It contains details of a proposed meeting, a meeting originally agreed to be held with David Kenmir, and where I have suggested that the meeting should be re-scheduled and held with you, a request I still maintain. I have today received an e-mail, which responds in respect of the meeting.
However, whilst the possibility and desirability of a meeting seems to be mutually agreed, I am very mindful that the details contained in this e-mail http://www.fs-du.co.uk/downloads/FSA_Kenmir.pdf have not been withdrawn.
This is also true in respect of this e-mail http://www.fs-du.co.uk/downloads/FOS_Reilly.pdf.
Before therefore issuing the second item of correspondence, I wish to have confirmation that it will be responded to, and not filed, the response received today notwithstanding.
In the alternative, I wish to have confirmation that the contents and strictures intimated in both items remain, and that correspondence from me on behalf of IFADU will not be responded to and will simply be filed.
You are fully aware, I believe, that IFADU is small, small both in numbers and in resource. The size of the agenda for the meeting also seems to demand that you quantify such matters in terms of size rather than importance.
I should make you aware that I believe it is a mistake to see the issues that I intend to raise either at the meeting or in the second letter as being best judged in terms of size as opposed to their potential significance.
To emphasise that aspect I should perhaps also make you aware that the detailed research carried out by IFADU into the application of the European Convention on Human Rights (the subject of the proposed meeting) is drawing attention from other interested parties. They will be amongst those to whom copies of the second item will be issued.
You will appreciate that I wish to advise them whether the FSA and/or the FOS will indeed reply to correspondence issued to them or will file it without response. That is the purpose of this letter.
However, in advance I would confirm that the second letter would relate to correspondence between David Kenmir and one of our members and is set against CP05/4. An extract of that correspondence is attached http://www.fs-du.co.uk/downloads/CP05-4.pdf.
You will be aware from the above items that we publish items of interest on our web sites. Indeed David Kenmir was specific in requesting that we did so, and we fulfilled his request.
However, although such items are posted into that domain and are therefore available to all who are members, as indeed was the above exchange of correspondence between David Kenmir and our member, it is not my intention in my further letter to identify either Mr Kenmir or the details of our member.
It is neither required nor desirable, and if you do decide to enter into correspondence, upon receipt of my second letter, I would respectfully request that you equally respect that decision.
I would normally end such correspondence, with a wish that I may look forward to a reply. For obvious reasons, I have not been so presumptuous on this occasion.
Evan Owen
The IFA Defence Union
www.ifadu.co.uk
If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law.
- Winston Churchill
PS:
Would you kindly note that I am unwilling to accept imposed conditions in respect of any decision on your part regarding future correspondence.
I am however appreciative of some of the concerns you may have, and equally those that the FOS may have. If therefore you wish to enumerate these, you have my assurance that I will pay very close attention to the points that are raised.