Update on previous post
House of Lords
London SW1A 0PW
Misuse of House of Lords Logo
Sir, thank you for your note of the 5th July 2010. I have to admit that I am at a total loss with regard to your reference to and your interpretation of Para 4 of the rules governing the use of House of Lords facilities in relation to my citing Para12 of the same.
“that a formal investigation would not be justified as any breach would, even if established, be considered as trivial”.
Ignorantia juris non excusat
Trade Marks Act 1994 Part IVV Miscellaneous and general provisions. Unauthorised use of Royal arms
May I draw your attention to the fact, that having accepted the role of chair of UEA Reassessment Group, Lord Oxburgh’s letters were never or could ever be deemed to be ‘personal correspondence’. The letters were clearly ‘business letters’ as he was communicating, whether he knew them personally or not, with a number of scientists nominated (grace and favour) by a third party.
If the rules published by the stationary office, are deemed to be trivial, then as Commissioner of Standards you are obliged to inform the house that the cost of publishing of such trivia is an inappropriate cost on the taxpayer.
As I am unhappy with your course of action, can you advise that my next step would be to contact The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration?
Enclosed a copy of a circular sent by Lord Oxburgh to UEA reassessment group