text:
Next step in making a complaint to the SPSO
When making a complaint to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) it is important
that the complainant understands the role of the SPSO, the SPSO act 2002 and the provisions
made to protect the complainant from defamation, what constitutes "Maladministration" and how
to submit a complaint. Your complaint can be strengthened by using this knowledge. Follow the
link below to the steps to making a complaint to the Ombudsman
Link to
Step 1: T
he role of the SPSO
No Justice
Not Transparent
Not Accountable
Not Effective
Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) - Home Page - spso watch
Campaigning for a more accountable & effective Scottish Public Services Ombudsman
Double click on colour highlighted text to take the LINK to the document
Background to site
This site has been designed by a member of the public to assist new complainants to the Scottish Public Services
Ombudsman (spso) by giving easy access to information collated from diverse official sources and to highlight
how the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman
SPSO) have been protecting the authorities by rejecting valid and
irrefutable complaints of maladministration submitted by the public. This site also shows the public how they can
take action to publicise how they were treated by the spso and how they can work together to campaign to get a
more effective and accountable Scottish Ombudsman.
The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO), in February 2008, published their 2007 customer satisfaction survey
which supports everything this site has been saying
Use this link to download a copy of the
ORC International report titled "Scottish Public
Ombudsman Complaint
Satisfaction Survey 2007" dated February 2008 link.
This official SPSO report clearly demonstrates the failings of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman service and
the levels of DISSATISFACTION of the public who use this publicly funded service.
A total of 62% of the respondents felt the SPSO had not met their original expectations.
The most damming section in the report is where the respondents were asked to comment about "what areas
work well or need to be improved".
81% of the respondent's comments fell into the following categories and were highly critical of the service
provided by the SPSO.
Excessive time taken to deal with complaint
SPSO did not investigate properly
/ look into fully
Total disgrace
would never use again / complete waste of time / incompetent
Investigation was biased
public have no chance
/ never on complainants side
5. SPSO was no help / not interested / favoured the Council /
there to fool the public
6. Very poor service / service badly structured
7. Staff not knowledgeable / unqualified
Stop avoiding / ignoring complaints
/ questions / issues
9. Nothing happened / no outcome / still no explanation
Waste of public funding
SPSO did nothing
/ did not take on the case
12. Complaints not dealt with / unfairly dealt with
13. Very poor / weak reasons for not investigating /
dismissed without adequate explanation
SPSO afraid to deal with Council
/ will not take on Council /
Council always wins
15. Not helpful / unhelpful / no support given
16. Investigation poor / fragmented / spasmodic
Decision based on Council's say
SPSO exists only as a pretence
/ there is no complaint rights
The above comments were published by the SPSO and show how the public view their service.
It is hoped that eventually the public's complaints about the way the SPSO is protecting the authorities from valid
and irrefutable complaints of maladministration will increase to a level where they are recognised by the people
and organisations that have the responsibility for managing the SPSO (Presiding Officer, Scottish Parliamentary
Corporate body, Finance Committee, Public Petitions Committee ref PE1076) and action taken to improve
accountability and effectiveness of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.
With all the evidence that now exists to show how badly the public are being served by the Scottish Public
Services Ombudsman, it would now be an appropriate time for the Scottish Parliament to ask Audit Scotland to
perform an "economy, efficiency and effectiveness" audit of the SPSO to identify what has gone wrong with this
publicly funded body. This action was identified by Rhoda Grant MSP at the 4th December 2007 meeting to
consider public petition PE1076 but unfortunately was not followed up the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions
There are thousands of members of the public who have suffered a miscarriage of administrative justice at the
hands of the SPSO over the last five years of it's existence.
The way the SPSO is handling the public's complaints is a national disgrace and the public need to unite in the
campaign to push for change to get a more accountable and effective Ombudsman service.
This site shows you what is wrong with the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and how to take effective action
to make the SPSO more accountable.
As a past complainant to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (spso), I wish to make it easier for new
complainants to the Scottish Ombudsman to access information which will assist them to understand what
constitutes a valid complaint and to ensure that the complaint is dealt with properly. All information contained in
this web site is either a direct quote or taken from information supplied by the Scottish Public Services
Ombudsman (spso), Scottish Parliament, Acts of Parliament or the Scottish Executive.
When making a complaint to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (spso) it is important that the complainant
understands the role of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (spso), the Act of Parliament that governs the
spso and the provisions made to protect the complainant from defamation, what constitutes "Maladministration"
and how to submit a complaint. Your complaint can be strengthened by using the knowledge contained within this
web site.
Quotes from members of the public who have used the site:
1. Agree, Agree, Agree. Just to let you know I concur with your views.
2. I have just come across your web site and I am delighted to learn that I am not alone in having grave concerns over the manner in
which the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman operates . The contacts you give for complaining about the Ombudsman are very much
appreciated and I shall certainly use them . Thanks for the interest you have shown in justice in our country by setting up your website.
3. I am currently drafting a complaint regarding the findings of the SPSO into a complaint I had. Despite the fact the council admitted the
allegation, the SPSO failed to uphold the complaint. Beggers belief!
4. This is to confirm that following a protracted but unsuccessful submission relating to XXX Council, I have expressed my dis-satisfaction
to the SPSO on their handling of the above noted complaint. I am now in the process of approaching the recommended parties as listed
on your website to further this matter. Should there be anything you require in order to progress this registration of my complaint,
please do not hesitate to contact me. In closing may I congratulate you on an excellent website.
5. And I thought I was the only one who had trouble with the Ombudsman! Thank you for enlightening me - it gives me a lot of hope
and I support you 100 per cent!
6. I have advanced breast cancer, which was misdiagnosed by four years. No amount of effort is going to get the SPSO to uphold my
case. Believe me, I've tried. The complaints system has failed me and by the sounds of it, many others. My report was not worth the
paper it was written on. How this situation has been allowed to go on for so long is beyond belief. Action is needed urgently.
Scottish Parliament can you help the Scottish people to get an independent, competent and fair complaints
system? We deserve it!
7. The SPSO writes to me: "
At this point it may be helpful to explain that the subjects to be investigated are decided by this
office rather than by complainants. This applies also to the evidence that is considered necessary for the investigation
and to the details that are included in the report
." The implications of this are obvious. Lives will continue to be at risk until MSPs
find the courage to tackle this dreadful outfit.
8. Re. courage of MSPs, what about the courage of the Press? Where are the investigative journalists who could have a field day.
9. Like many others I to have fallen victim of the Scottish Ombudsman. My own solicitor told me that I had a very good case for
maladministration against a local council. I submitted the evidence and you know the rest -
they failed to investigate
. The only
course of action I now have is to write to MSP John Swinney and other MSPs. I know nothing will be done but at least I will have the
satisfaction of letting them know how a local authority treats a disabled man in the 21st century in Scotland - and gets away with it!
not looking for sympathy, just fair play, which I simply did not get from the Scottish Ombudsman. The sooner they close
this down the better for Scotland.
10. The SPSO is any example of a public sector agency which masquerades as standing for justice and democracy but in reality are
there to protect their cronies in the public sector agencies they are supposed to be monitoring.
What the MSPs said about the SPSO on the 4th December 2007 - PE1076
MSPs voice concern regarding the service provided by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman during the Scottish Parliament Public
Petitions Committee debate on the petition 1076.
Mr Whittet's petition was
"Petition PE1076: Petition by D W R Whittet QPR calling for the Scottish Parliament to set up an Appeal Tribunal
to review final decisions by the Public Services Ombudsman where any complainer so requests."
and can be viewed on the web site at
The full text of
Petition PE1076
detailing the extensive problems with the spso can be downloaded using this
The petition was supported by 43 members of the public who had experienced similar problems with the spso.
Mr Whittet has the support of Mudro Fraser MSP
who presented the issues with the spso to the petitions committee.
The debate of the petition can be viewed on the
Scottish Parliament TV site LINK.
sp-archive.lbwa.verio.net/archive/petitions_041207.wmv). To view the debate about the petition move the slide bar until you are 1 hrs
12 minutes into the debate.
debate text can be viewed using this LINK.
This is what the MSPs said:
Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
Thank you for the invitation to the committee. Mr Whittet is indeed a constituent of
mine, and his petition relates to a proposed right of appeal against decisions that are made by the Scottish Public Services
Ombudsman. The substance of his complaint is not particularly relevant to the petition; his concerns are about the way in which his case
was handled by the SPSO, what he felt were administrative failures and a failure to address the basis of his complaint.
The practice of the SPSO is to issue a draft before its report is laid before Parliament, to allow comments to be made. In Mr Whittet's
case, he commented but, in his opinion, his comments were entirely ignored. The petitioner feels that a complainer has no right to
challenge a view that the ombudsman's office takes. Given what he feels are the failures in the handling of cases by the ombudsman's
office, that needs to be addressed.
From my experience, Mr Whittet's views are by no means unique.
I have been contacted by several other constituents who had similar concerns about the
way in which the ombudsman handles cases.
I have raised the concerns in the Parliament, at Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body question time and when the current ombudsman
was reappointed earlier in the year. I know that other members have similar concerns. Since the petition was lodged, Mr Whittet and I
have been contacted by several members of the public expressing similar concerns.
Rhoda Grant MSP:
If people are unhappy with the way in which the system works,
the office of the ombudsman
should be reconsidered to find out where those concerns are coming from.
Nigel Don MSP:
I am with Rhoda Grant—
if something is wrong, it is in the ombudsman's office; that is
the bit we should fix instead of looking for a further appeal mechanism.
Murdo Fraser MSP:
I have detected fairly widespread concerns about the manner in which the ombudsman's office operates in
relation to the investigation of complaints. The committee might be minded to pursue that matter further with the ombudsman's office
and with the corporate body, which would be the appropriate level of government to deal with such matters.
Rhoda Grant MSP:
Does Audit Scotland have a role to play?
Could Audit Scotland examine the workings of
the ombudsman's office
It might be worth writing to it to ask.
The MSPs recognised that the problem might lie with the people running the spso and not actually the legislation
that governs them. They also recognised that Audit Scotland could examine effectiveness of the spso. The
Convenor agreed to explore this suggestion to ask Audit Scotland what they could do to investigate the
problems with the spso.
The petitions committee called for written evidence to be gathered by the 8th January 2008 to allow further consideration of
the petition on the 19th February 2008.
Twenty five members of the public sent in written submissions to the
petitions committee recording all of the problems they had experienced with the spso and their suggestions for
improvements to the spso service.
Mr Whittett submitted a
supplementary document to the petitions committee LINK.
Mr Whittet submitted another
letter to the petitions committee dated 20th January 2008 LINK
in which he summaries what he
thinks of the SPSO.
Irrefutable evidence was provided to the SPSO, but it was ignored and a flawed and misleading report
subsequently produced and published.
I have never read such a biased report.
I consider the dismissal of my complaints wholly unjust and mockery of the principles of justice.
Maladministration did occur, including maladministration on the behalf of the Ombudsman and her staff.
I have never encountered such incompetence, maladministration and dismissive treatment as that perpetrated by
the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.
The abject failure not to include one single comment made by me on her Draft Report in the Final Report, was
particularly reprehensible. As a principle of justice my comments, as complainer, should have been included in
full and acknowledged.
The adoption of such tactics concealed the true facts of the case and created bias in favour of
senior officials of Perth & Kinross Council. She (Professor Brown) has proved to be beyond reproach and answerable to no
one. The "laying" of Reports before the Scottish Parliament is but a "paper exercise". These reports are simply placed in the
library where they are seen by no one. They are certainly not debated.
Mr Whittet ended his letter with the following paragraph
"I served in tayside Police for almost 35 years, 12 years at senior supervisory level.
In all my experience dealing with
innumerable crimes, minor and major, complaint etc., I never encountered such incompetence, maladministration
and dismissive treatment as that perpetrated by senior officials of Perth & Kinross Council and the Scottish
Public Services Ombudsman. I rest my case."
What the MSPs said about the SPSO on the 3rd October 2007
MSPs voice concern regarding the service provided by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman during the Scottish Parliament debate
on the Crerar report.
I would like to thank these MSPs for voicing their concerns about the SPSO.
This is what some of the
MSPs said:
Derek Brownlee (South of Scotland) (Con):
In relation to the recommendations on complaints, and on the role of the Scottish Public
Sector Ombudsman in particular, a note of caution has to be struck. There is a certain logic in some of the Crerar recommendations,
it is not obvious whether the Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman, as currently constituted, is handling its existing
remit to the satisfaction of the public.
Unless and until we can be clear that the SPSO is handling its current tasks appropriately, we
should be wary of extending its role.
Tavish Scott (Shetland) (LD):
I cannot be the only constituency member
who is a bit concerned about the SPSO's delivery
Keith Brown (Ochil) (SNP):
the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman—I share the concerns of Tavish Scott and others about it—can
only consider maladministration, but the public does not realise that and thinks that the body has a far wider remit, which is why people
can become frustrated.
The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman
started off fairly well with the good intention of drawing in more
areas, such as health, but it
has lost its way.
I have worked with the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman's office for the past 10 years
it is not operating as people envisaged it would
Stuart McMillan (West of Scotland) (SNP):
Those two recommendations would greatly assist the public in their quest for improved public services and a reliable and robust
complaints system, and would improve belief in our public services. The quid pro quo, however, is that even greater powers would be
given to the SPSO. I am sure that many members, both past and present, have taken up cases on behalf of constituents—
there is a
great deal of uncertainty among the public about the SPSO and its effectiveness.
Many people might wonder whether it is worth bothering to complain, bearing in mind the percentage of complaints that are upheld: 1.16
per cent in 2003-04; 0.58 per cent in 2004-05; 3.13 per cent in 2005-06; and 8 per cent in 2006-07.
I for one do not believe that those figures represent a true account of legitimate complaints throughout Scotland; neither do I believe
that 100 per cent of complaints are valid. However, the poor figures to date beg the question whether it would be wise to give the SPSO
even more powers and responsibility.
Many and varied complaints were sent to Inverclyde Council and the SPSO,
yet the SPSO refused to meet the complainants or to
respond to aspects of the final report, which backed up Inverclyde Council.
I have spoken to members from different parts of the country and discovered that there is a significant lack of public
confidence in the SPSO,
so giving the SPSO more powers is not the correct way forward. Before there is any increase in the powers
of the SPSO, fundamental questions that I would like to be answered include: whether the SPSO should accept undated documents;
whether it should meet complainants;
why so many people are deeply unhappy with the way in which the SPSO has
investigated complaints
; and whether the SPSO should consider best value when considering complaints about public services. I
welcome the Crerar review, which is a useful starting point for further consultation and for improving the complaints procedure in
Scotland. However, I caution against giving the SPSO more powers.
It is imperative not only that we consider the problems that might lie ahead if we gave the SPSO greater powers, but that we ask who
would keep watch on it. If the SPSO is to be empowered in this way,
we must have assurances that the organisation will be
changed and improved and that we will not have the same problems that so many people have experienced.
Indeed, Andy
Kerr and Derek Brownlee have already alluded to that.
The Minister for Parliamentary Business (Bruce Crawford):
He makes an important point about the effectiveness of the SPSO. A
number of members, such as Christine Grahame and Stuart McMillan, raised the issue, but approached it from a different perspective. It
is clear that, whatever one's perspective,
the role of the ombudsman will require to be revisited.
The full text of the debate can be found at the Scottish Parliament web site or downloaded using this link:
Scottish Parliament
eview the Crerar report.
There was also a public debate on the Herald newspaper web site from Scottish Ombudsman Watch supporters after the Scottish
Parliament debated the Crerar report. The debate is still open so if you feel strongly about the SPSO, then you can still post your
comments (The last comment was posted on the 20th October) .
Follow this link to the H
's web site (link)
download the
What the MSPs said about the SPSO on the 28th March 2007
MSPs voice concern regarding the service provided by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman during the Scottish Parliament debate
to re-appoint Professor Brown. This is what some of the MSPs said:
Jeremy Purvis
(Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD): Is the member aware that one deficiency of the reports that are presented to
the Parliament is the lack of clarity about the internal workings of the ombudsman's office,
particularly the length of time the
ombudsman can take to deal with cases?
Murdo Fraser (
Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con): Mr Scott is aware that I have raised with him and the corporate body several concerns
about the ombudsman's office's handling of complaints.
I have expressed concerns about undue delays in the preparation of
cases, to which Mr Purvis referred, and weaknesses in the quality of investigations and reports.
What assurances have
been sought from the ombudsman that procedures will be altered, on her reappointment, to ensure that such failings will be prevented
in the future?
John Scott
(Ayr) (Con):
We have received 20 complaints about the ombudsman,
which have primarily been about the time it has
taken to handle complaints
and the quality of the complaint handling.
We thought that it was appropriate to raise those issues with
her at interview. In response, she assured us that there will be improvements. The SPCB will also regularly monitor performance against
agreed targets. I would be more than happy to lodge the resulting reports before the Parliament as we receive them.
Mr John Swinney
(North Tayside) (SNP):The second and more significant issue is the ethos of the Scottish public services
ombudsman's organisation.
I would be much more comfortable with the work of the ombudsman's office if it focused on
delivering a much more rigorous and robust critique of the operation of public services.
MSPs must be absolutely confident
that the Scottish public services ombudsman service will be robust with public organisations.
I am very uneasy about the situation at
I hear the reassurances John Scott gave us, and I look forward with enthusiasm to ensuring that the ombudsman addresses
the issue in her second term of office. I have the feeling that she has not taken that approach in her first term of office.
She must take
a much more robust approach towards public organisations in order to guarantee that the public interest is fully and
adequately served.
Alex Neil
(Central Scotland) (SNP):
There are currently four problems with the ombudsman's office.
First, to be fair, the
resources required to do the job, to date, have not been made available to the ombudsman. We are going some way towards solving
that problem, but I suspect that we need to go further. Secondly, the turnaround times for cases are far too long. It has taken more than
a year for the ombudsman to decide whether to investigate a case that I am dealing with.
Thirdly, the variability of the quality of the
service is, frankly, not acceptable.
It depends too much on which particular investigator handles the case, rather than on overall
quality control in the office.
Mr Jeremy Purvis MSP opposed the re-appointment of Professor Brown as the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and
the following MSPs abstained: Alex Fergusson and Derek Brownlee.
The full text of the debate can be found at the Scottish Parliament web site or downloaded using this link:
to re-appoint Professor Brown
It should be noted that the number of complaints remaining open has increased from 280/year in 2003/2004 and 2004/2005 to 920/year
in 2005/2006 (more than half of all complaints submitted are still open after a year). This clearly demonstrates why the public feel so
much frustration with the delay in their complaints being investigated and this is being reflected in what the MSPs are saying in
Justice delayed is justice denied.
There was also a public debate in the Scotsman's web site after the Scottish Parliament re-appointed Professor Brown.
Follow this link to the
Scotsman's web site
download the debate here
What's new on the web site
See new web pages
"SPSO in denial"
for details of the SPSO claim that no one complains about their decisions and
"Simple guide to FOI"
which assists you in making a valid Freedom of Information request for information from the
Authorities and/or the SPSO.
2. See new web pages
"Who guards the Guards
" link
"Criagforth report"
for the independent research which shows
that 52% of NHS complainants were very dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint to the SPSO and only 15% showed
any satisfaction.
3. The Scottish Patients Association are also concerned about how the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman treats NHS
complaints. They are writing to the Health Minister regarding the issues their members have experienced when they
complained to the SPSO. If you have a medical complaint then it is recommended that you also contact the Scottish Patients
Association before submitting a complaint to the SPSO. The Scottish Patients Association can be contacted at the
Association web site link
The Scottish Patients Association have also issued a press release which details their
objectives and contact details.
The Scotland Patients Association press release can be downloaded here (link).
4. The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body have released an overview of the complaints made to them about the Scottish
Public Services Ombudsman
Use this link to download a copy of the overview of
complaints (link)
5. The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) had 919 outstanding complaints at the end of March 2007. So with the
increase in budget from the Parliament and increased number of investigators employed by the Scottish Public Services
Ombudsman, they spectacularly failed to reduce the number of outstanding complaints at year end. In fact it went up by 20
outstanding complaints from the 899 outstanding complaints they had at March 2006. Also 33% of the outstanding
complaints were submitted more than one year ago and one even dated back to October 2002.
complaints versus date
submitted at March 2007
6. The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Board (SPCB) recognise and acknowledge the existence of the Scottish
Ombudsman Watch web site when they were considering the re-appointment of Professor Brown. Follow this link to the
SPCB report
download the report here
7. In 2006/2007 the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) received 42 complaints about the service they provide,
an increase of 36% over the number of complaints they received in 2005/2006
My Experience of using the SPSO
Unfortunately my experience of complaining to the Scottish Ombudsman has been that they are there to protect the
authorities from all valid and irrefutable complaints of maladministration.
The spso refused to accept any evidence which proved maladministration.
The spso claimed they could not question anything the authorities did or said even if it completely contradicted
the laws and guidelines of this land.
The concept that the Ombudsman provides an independent, impartial and transparent quasi-judicial complaints service to
the public is right. The problem however is the way the current Ombudsman rejects valid and irrefutable complaints of
maladministration with impunity.
n my case the spso
gave the impression that they were investigating my complaint
, then after three years of
they rejected my complaint as they never "formally" accepted the complaint in the first place.
After 3 years, my complaint just became one of the many complaints that were deemed not valid.
Each year the spso determine that 80+% of complaints submitted are not valid. So if the SPSO have dealt with
your case the same way as the dealt with mine then you need to take actions now.
My complaint just became one of these statistics and
was never reported to Parliament
as it was not "formally
The most unjust aspect of my complaint was that after 3 years of complaining about how my complaint had been handled by
the spso, the Scottish Ombudsman forced the Council to take the enforcement action I had originally requested 4 years
earlier. The Scottish Ombudsman ruled that the Council's failure to take the correct enforcement action was not
Surely a 4 year delay qualifies as maladministration.......not if you are the current Ombudsman.
The spso act makes the Ombudsman's position completely independent and unaccountable to anyone including the
Ministers and MSPs. That is why the current Ombudsman is able to treat the public the way she has.
This web site was set
up purely due to the injustice of the way I had been treated by the Scottish Ombudsman and the belief that I was
probably not the only one who had been treated in this manner.
I was correct that I was not alone in my experiences of
the Ombudsman service. Since setting up the site
I have been contacted by a significant number of members of the
who have received similar treatment from the Scottish Ombudsman.
These members of the public have
contacted their MSPs and their level of dissatisfaction with the service being provided by the Ombudsman is
being raised in the Scottish Parliament.
My complaint pales into insignificance compared to how the Ombudsman has treated people who have complained about
poor medical care from the NHS. These people are the real victims of the current complaints handling system. The Patior
web site details their experiences with complaining to the Scottish Ombudsman and you can also get a flavour of the levels of
dissatisfaction with the Ombudsman from the comments posted on the Scotsman and Herald newspaper web sites (links to
Scotsman and Herald articles can be found on this web page at the end of the MSPs comments sections)
The spso are the Guardians of the complaints system in Scotland.
They tell everyone how to run a model complaints
One interesting fact about the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman is
they do not accept any complaints about their
own performance, do not formally investigate these complaints and do not report these complaints publicly or to
the Scottish Parliament.
How can an organisation tell someone how to run a model complaints system when they do not accept any
complaints or opportunities to improve themselves?
Why does the Scottish Parliament allow this situation to exist?
The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman has now been in operation for 5 years. In these 5 years the SPSO has only ever
been subjected to an annual financial audit from Audit Scotland. No other audits have ever been performed to determine if
the current Ombudsman is providing the service to the public that the Parliament envisaged or the quasi judicial service that
Professor Brown claims she is providing.
The Ministers and MSPs cannot question or hold the Scottish Ombudsman to account. The only action the Ministers and
MSPs can take i
s to ask Audit Scotland to perform an "economy, efficiency and effectiveness examination audit"
with particular focus on investigating all complaints about the service provided by the SPSO
including interviews
with the people who have submitted these complaints (The spso do not accept that anyone complains about their decisions
see web page "SPSO in denial"!).
There are thousands of members of the public who have suffered a miscarriage of administrative justice at the
hands of the SPSO over the last five years of it's existence. If you are one of them then join the campaign to get
the Scottish Parliament to change the way the current SPSO operates by following the steps detailed below:
The important message from this website is:
1. the public should continue to submit complaints about the authorities to the Scottish Public Services
Ombudsman (spso)
2. if the Ombudsman rejects a valid complaint, then the public should complain about how their complaint has
been handled, firstly to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. See web page "defamation" as regards to the
protection from defamation afforded by the Act of Parliament when complaining to the Scottish Ombudsman.
Once you have documented your complaint about the service provided by the Scottish Ombudsman and sent it
to the SPSO, you can simply copy this complaint to the MSPs and then refer to it.
3. complain to your constituency MSP, your seven regional MSPs (
use this link to find your
), John
Swinney MSP Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Mr Alex Ferguson MSP Presiding Officer for the Scottish
Parliament, and Mr Mike Pringle MSP who is responsible for the Ombudsman. When complaining to the MSPs
you should also ask the MSPs and Ministers to initiate an Audit Scotland examination audit into "economy,
efficiency and effectiveness" with particular focus on investigating all complaints about the service provided by
the SPSO, including interviews with the people who have submitted these complaints
4. Send Audit Scotland a copy of your complaint to the SPSO (from step 2.) and ask them to perform an audit into
"economy, efficiency and effectiveness" of the SPSO. Send you SPSO complaint letters to Mr Robert Black,
Auditor General, Audit Scotland, 110 George Street, Edinburgh, EH2 4LH
5. Lastly all dissatisfied members of the public should consider documenting the problems they have
experienced with the SPSO by submitting them to the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee in the form
of a petiton so that there is a permanent record of their complaint which cannot be ignored by the Scottish
Parliament. Mr Whittet submitted the first public petition
PE1076 Link
in late 2007 documenting the problems he
experienced when he complained to the SPSO. If the petitions committee get lots of petitions concerning the
operation of the SPSO then eventually the Scottish Parliament will not be able to ignore the miscarriages of
administrative justice that the public have suffered at the hands of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SP
{SO). Use this
Public Petitions Guidance
to go to the web site which gives information on how to submit a
public petition.
If everyone complains about the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (spso), then eventually the ground swell
of dissatisfaction will be heard by the MSPs and Audit Scotland will be required to audit the spso to confirm if
Professor Brown is providing the quasi-judicial service she claims she is. It is also hoped that the MSPs will
revisit and revise the Act that governs the Scottish Ombudsman. The Act should be changed so that it clearly
defines what maladministration is, makes the Ombudsman report to Parliament all complaints about the service
she provides, introduce an independent appeals process overseen by the Lord Advocate and give the MSPs the
power to question the Scottish Ombudsman about individual complaints. The Scottish Ombudsman must be
made more accountable to the Scottish Parliament and public.
I would like to thank all the members of the public who have taken the advice detailed above and complained to
the SPSO and then to the MSPs.
This strategy appears to be working. The MSPs have started to voice concerns about how the Ombudsman
operates and the rising level of dissatisfaction being expressed by members of the public. The MSPs first raised
concerns during the debate to re-appoint Professor Brown on the 28th March 2007 then again during the Crerar
report debate on the 3rd October 2007 and most recently at the Public Petitions Committee debate into PE1076
on the 4th December 2007 . The issues raised by the MSPs in Parliament are detailed below:
This site is no longer being maintained. I have left this site on the web to
document my experiences with the SPSO and how they completely failed
the public. I am hopeful that in the future the travesty of justice that is the
SPSO will be exposed and maybe this site will show how the Scottish
Parliament and Scottish Government ignored the warning signs. The
Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government do not want an effective
SPSO which provides justice for the public. It appears they want an
organisation which buries all injustices in a black hole where there is no
further avenue for appeal.
The site has useful info on planning complaints and how to make a
Freedom of Information request.
If you suffer injustice at the hands of the SPSO then I would recommend
that you write reviews on
Trustpilot (click link here)
and on Google
Feedback. That way the level of dissatisfaction with the spso will be
Google feedback can be found by Going to Google.com search page. Input
"spso" and click search. Scroll down until you see "Scottish Public
Services Ombudsman" reviews directly below map. Click "Scottish Public
Services Ombudsman" review which brings up another page. Scroll down
to the "Review Summary". Click on box to right which says "Write a
review". At August 2019 there were 30 reviews.
Some of the recent comments are similar to my experience over fifteen
years ago. Nothing appears to have changed, even with a new Ombudsman.
Update July 2013: J.W.H. McLean, a supporter of Scottish Ombudsman Watch, has submitted a public petition to the Scottish
Parliament Title
PE01489: Realignment of Parliamentary Governance on Scottish Public Services Ombudsman
supporting documents can be found on the
J. W. H. McLean
public petition web page (link).
Scottish Ombudsman Watch has made the following submission to the Local Government and Regeneration
Committee for the annual review of the spso on the 23rd January 2103.
"Since inception of the spso in 2003, the spso has deliberately withheld from the Scottish Parliament all details of
the level of complaints from the members of the public about their decisions. They have been able to do this by
having two categories of complaints. The first category is "service delivery" complaints relating to being treated
unfairly or rudely, failed to explain things clearly, or caused unreasonable delays which they are happy to report to
Parliament. The Second category is "decision complaints" which they have never reported to Parliament or
included in their annual reports as confirmed by the spso in their FOI response dated 27th April 2012.
The FOI response dated 27th April 2012 also shows that the level of complaints about the spso's decisions has
increased by a factor of 5+ times since Jim Martin took over as Ombudsman compared to the previous
Ombudsman Professor Brown (There was 120 decision complaints in the period 2004 to 2008 and 640 decision
complaints in the period 2009 to 2012).
640 complaints about the spso's decisions in the last 4 years is a significant indicator of the level of dissatisfaction
by members of the public regarding the supposed provision of administrative justice from the spso."
To view full submission and FOI response click on
Update March 2011:
I4S member Andrew Muir submitted the following petition
PE1405 link
November 2011.
Update March 2011: The Former Holyrood Presiding Officer Alex Fergusson MSP and Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body
ignored the public's "unsolicited" representations regarding the re-apppointment of Jim Martin to the post of Scottish
Ombudsman and recommended that he be given a further six years. I have obtained the public's "unsolicited"
representations to the re-appointment committee and would let you be the judge of the cavalier way the SPCB ignored the
public's concerns.
Submission 1 (link)
Submissions 3 (link)
Submissions 4 (link
Submissions 5 (link)
When it came to a vote on the re-appointment of Jim Martin, Alex Neil MSP forced a vote. The vote was For 98, Against 8,
Abstentions 9. I would like to thank the following MSPs for voting NO Angela Constance (Livingston) (SNP) Joe FitzPatrick
(Dundee West) (SNP), Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (SNP), Christopher Harvie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Michael Matheson (Falkirk West) (SNP), Stuart McMillan (West of Scotland) (SNP), Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP), Gil
Paterson (West of Scotland) (SNP). The previous Ombudsman had 1 MSP vote against her re-appointment so the campaign
to alert the MSPs to the problem with the spso is working as 8 voted no and 9 preferred not to vote for the motion.
Update F
2011: The Local Government and Communities committee closed the eight public petitions against the
Scottish Public Services Ombudsman in under three minutes. See link to Peter Cherbi
"A diary of injustice in Scotland"
which gives all of the details of this disgraceful abuse of power to maintain an unjust complaints handling system in
Update December 2010: The nine public petitions were considered by the petitions committee on the 23rd November. Alex
Neil MSP supported the petitions by saying "There are two issues here. First, there has been an improvement in turnaround
times since the new ombudsman took office but, since the last time I appeared before this committee on this subject my
postbag has been inundated with complaints about the ombudsman, most of which are fairly recent, so it is clear that there
is still quite a bit of disquiet. Secondly, my observation is that there is a lack of investigative skills in the ombudsman's
office; that is the source of most of the complaints. There is also a lack of powers; the ombudsman can make
recommendations but he does not have much power. If the SPSO's role were benchmarked against that of the information
commissioner, I submit that the information commissioner's office would be found to be much more effective than the SPSO,
albeit it has a slightly different remit. Like Murdo Fraser, I think there is a need for an independent investigation into the
effectiveness, powers and remit of the SPSO. The performance issues, particularly in relation to investigative skills, should
be investigated. There is a need to talk to users. Although the Local Government and Communities Committee considers an
annual report from the ombudsman, it has never actually spoken to any of the users of the service. The ombudsman found
in favour of many of the petitioners, but they were still left with a great deal of frustration, either at the time that was taken
or because nothing happened thereafter. See link
Public Petitions Committee Official Report 23 November 2010
Col 3149
Update November 2010:
Jim Martin's response letter link
claims that the spso only received 21 "comeback complaints" in
2009/2010. What Jim Martin fails to tell the public petitions committee was that 226 members of the public also complained
about his decision regarding their spso cases. When the public complain about a decision made by the spso they call them
"comeback complaints" which are never mentioned to the Government committees or Petitions committee. The Scottish
Ombudsman Web site however tracks these "comeback complaints" and Jim Martin received 16 times more complaints
about his decisions that he actually investigated (only 14 investigations in 2009/10). The spso were forced to publish their
letters of response to these comeback complaints by the Scottish Information Commissioner but bury them inside their web
site so no one can find them ...that was until now. Use this link to see Jim Martin's response to these
"case work decision
response letters link".
Go to bottom of SPSO website page to see the response letters.
Mr Fergusson MSP and Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament is currently reviewing the re-appointment of Jim Martin
as Ombudsman for a period of six years. The Scottish Ombudsman Web site submitted the following evidence to the re-
appointment committee
SOW submission to re-appointment committee link
Murdo Fraser MSP letter to petitions committee link
FOI response # 1from spso detailing performance link
FOI response #
from spso detailing performance link
Update October 2010: Dr Rahman has submitted a
response letter link
to the replies the petitions committee received from
the spso and the Government departments and has also asked that people interested in her case visit her
blog link
Update September 2010: Nine petitions have been submitted to the Scottish parliament regarding problems with how the
SPSO is failing to provide a service to the public. Alex Neil MSP asked 7 of his constituents who have had bad experiences
complaining to the spso to submit 7 of these petitions. At the petitions committee meeting Alex Neil said "To quote one of
the petitioners, it ~(the spso) is not worth a farthing in terms of the quality of service that petitioners have received."
Please see Peter Cherbi
"Diary Of injustice web
site link"
for a full summary of the meeting including video clips of Alex Neil
at the petitions committee.
Update July 2010: A new epetition has been submitted by Dr Rahman. The e petition seeks to 1- Request from the Public
Audit Committee to inspect the ineffective and inefficient faulty SPSO operation. 2- Established a pathway for the public to
complain about the faulty management (decisions and times taken to do them) of their complaints at the SPSO. Please can
all members of the public, who wish to have fairer complaints handling system, sign the e petition to show how much the
public are dis-satisfied with the spso. Click on this link to take you to the e petition
spso e petition link
Latest News February 2010: Review of Jim Martin's Scottish Ombudsman performance in his first five months of office at the
SPSO shows that he is worse than Professor Brown who he replaced. A Freedom of Information request was made to the
SPSO and the performance information released can be downloaded using the
performance May - Sept 2009"
From the SPSO's response it can be noted that only 1 out of 280 complaints submitted in the first 5 months of Jim Martin's
stewardship of the SPSO lead to an investigation ie the SPSO received 1400 complaints in the period May to September
2009 and the SPSO performed only 5 investigations. Surely 1400 members of the public cannot be that wrong or is the SPSO
just there to protect their cronies in the authorities they are meant to be investigating.
Jim Martin Scottish Ombudsman has also closed 150 of the 505 outstanding investigations and it would appear from
feedback from some members of the public that their cases were simply closed by Jim martin saying "complaint closed my
decision is final". This is administrative justice the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman way.
In 07/08 the SPSO received 71 comeback complaints about their decisions and 08/09 144 comeback complaints and in the
first 5 months of 09/10 Jim Martin has received 119 complaints about his decisions which works out as double the complaint
rate pro rata as compared to 08/09....this means that he is receiving twice as many complaints about his decisions than
Professor Brown received.
Latest News December 2009: This web site has been saying that the SPSO has not been providing an effective complaints
handling service to the Scottish Public. Well now it has been officially acknowledged by the SPSO themselves. Jim Martin,
the new Scottish Ombudsman asked Mr Jerry White, Local Government Ombudsmen for England to review the handling of
one of the SPSO's complaints and made the following comment
"I conclude that the SPSO's handling of the complaint was characterised by very considerable delay and confusion. Bluntly,
it is the worst case of complaint handling by an Ombudsman's office that I have seen."
This report was laid before Parliament so the MSPs know that the SPSO do not provide a just and effective complaints
handling service. The question is why do the MSPs allow this travesty of justice to continue and allow the SPSO to dupe the
public into thinking they will get a fair and impartial hearing of their complaint when in reality they will only find their valid
complaints ignored and buried by the Scottish Ombudsman Service.
The full report can be found at the
SPSO's web site (link)
or downloaded directly here
"LGO report on SPSO
Latest News August 2009: New Ombudsman, but no change, same old problem. Jim Martin was appointed as the new
Ombudsman in May 2009. A lot of supporters have contacted this site to say that they have had their investigations
terminated mid investigation by Jim Martin without explanation. Jim Martin used to be the Police Complaints Commissioner.
One Supporter had cause to submit a complaint to Jim Martin when he was PCC and found that his complaint was not
handled properly and the then Ombudsman (Professor Brown) criticised the Police Complaints Commissioner (Jim Martin)
for issuing his final reports without allowing the complainant an opportunity to comment of the validity of the information
contained within. The SPSO recommended that the "PCCS reconsider their decision not to issue draft reports, in order to
allow any possible errors of fact to be amended prior to the publication of a final report".
See SPSO
report on PCC (link).
Jim Martin is only in the position for two years then has to re-apply for the job. I would recommend that anyone who has
their complaint rejected by Jim Marin should submit a public petition to the Scottish Parliament to highlight their case and
ask for Jim Martin to be removed from office. Use this link to find out more about
public petitons (LINK)
. I would also
complain to
Ferguson Presiding Officer
and request that your complaint be kept on record and reviewed when
the SPCB determine if Jim Martin is to be re-appointed when his term of office comes to an end in May 2011.
Latest news February 2009 - Murdo Fraser MSP calls on the Committee reviewing the SPCB supported bodies to improve
the accountability of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (
double click for LINK to his submission
). Murdo Fraser's
submission documents many of the issues his constituents have experienced when using the services of the SPSO office.
The issues he has raised echoes many of the issues I have raised on my web site.
For example Murdo Fraser MSP says:
1. I have concerns that the SPSO office does not in all cases satisfactorily fulfil its duties"
2. There seems to be several similar criticisms that my constituents have noted regarding their case. These can be
summarised as follows:
a.The length of time taken to decide whether or not to take the complaint to an investigation.
b. The length of time taken to undertake the investigation
c. The quality of the investigation
d. The quality of the final report
e. The lack of dialogue and opportunity to change the draft report once it has been completed; and
f. The way that the complaint was generally handled by the SPSO office
These underlying problems of the SPSO office in relation to a complainant's case must be resolved in order to have an
effective Ombudsman's office.
3. Another issue is lack of accountability. I believe that there should be a more systematic way of ensuring that the
Ombudsman is held to account more regularly by the Parliament. I understand that the SPSO has to be independent of
Parliament. However, apart from judicial review, there is no way for a complainant to call into account the work of the SPSO.
Stronger accountability is required so that MSPs can question any reports that constituents have concerns with and can
also question the conduct of the office.
An additional 13 submissions were made by members of the public to the Scottish Parliament Committee reviewing the
SPSO. These submissions can be reviewed by clicking on the link to the
"2009 MSP review of SPSO" web page
on this site
There is now a wealth of evidence to show how Professor Brown has not been running a quasi judicial service for the
public. Hopefully the MSPs on the Committee reviewing the SPCB supported Bodies will not ignore this evidence and will
take positive action to improve the effectiveness and accountability of the SPSO as recommended by Murdo Fraser MSP.
Latest news August 2008: Question: When is a complaint not a complaint? Answer:
when you complain about the SPSO's decisions.
Scottish Ombudsman Watch has just learned that the SPSO have two types of complaints; "service quality" and "outcome"
complaints. If you look at their web site the SPSO only report "service quality complaints" and claim that no one complains
about their decisions! The SPSO have now been forced to acknowledge they get "outcome complaints" where people
complain about their decisions (641 complaints to date
response for details
double click LINK
).........why are the
SPSO hiding the fact that people complain about their decisions! What have they to hide? This is the organisation which is
meant to show how a modern complaints system is implemented and operated. If the SPSO cannot operate a visible and
transparent complaints system about themselves, then how can we expect the public authorities under their control to
operate a complaints system? Gregor Hamilton submitted this evidence to the Scottish Parliament as part of his
evidence in
support of petition PE1163 double click LINK
Latest news June 2008: Professor Brown decides to stand down after 9 months into her second 4 year term. Prof Brown no
longer wants to be the Scottish Ombudsman and is leaving on the 31st March 2009, two and a half years before she needed
to. This is brilliant news for all of the members of the public who have had their valid and irrefutable complaints of
maladministration incorrectly rejected by Professor Brown. The Scottish Ombudsman Watch web site would like to thank
everyone who has taken part in the campaign to get a more accountable and effective Ombudsman, your hard work has
been effective. Professor Brown's departure is a start to getting an effective quasi-judicial Ombudsman who protects the
public from the authorities.
Professor Brown's departure
letter can be read here (link)
here are two campaign groups that are largely made up of people who have contacted this web site with similar
bad experiences with the spso and that campaign for transparent public accountability in Scottish governance
and for improvements in all aspects of the Scottish complaints handling service. One is 'Accountability Scotland'
and the other
is 'Integrity4Scotland'. Details including how to contact and support them, are to be found
on their websites:
A headmaster has asked that I publish on my site his experiences of first complaining to the HMIE then spso. The
complete details of his experiences can be viewed on the web page
"HIME & spso link"
. The headmaster
complained to the HMIE about an inspection report. The headmaster was not happy with the HMIE response and
was informed that he could complain to the spso. The complainant contacted the spso on the 2nd August 2008,
then had to vigorously campaign to have his complaint authorised for investigation which eventually was
approved by Professor Brown on the 23rd April 2009. The spso did not perform an investigation and on the 7th
December 2009 the new Ombudsman Jim Martin decided the spso would not investigate the complaint and made
the complaint disappear. The headmaster sent a report "Accountability and complaint handling of Scotland's
public services and the role of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman"
link to view report)
to the
Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body who have responsibility for the spso. The Scottish Parliamentary
Corporate Body have taken no action. All members of the public, MSPs and regulators should read his report as
this is the norm not the exception of how members of the public are treated when they complain about public
services in Scotland.
My experience has been very similar and unfortunately after 5 years of campaigning through the correct channels
the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body , Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament all seem to want to
have an ineffective Scottish Ombudsman.
Scottish Ombudsman Watch now has written proof that the Local Government & Regeneration Committee MSPs
ignored all of the public's submissions regarding the spso. On the 17th January 2013, David Cullum, Clerk to the
LR&RC Clerk to LG&RC assured the spso that
"I am receiving a steady stream of correspondence from the public in advance of the session, as yet I have not
determined how to deal with it but suspect from the content that all and their issues are familiar to you. I am not
anticipating any individual issue being raised by members, at least none that arises from the correspondence
coming in."
The David Cullum's email can be reviewed by clicking on the link
"FOI 2013-493695 Reply
20130325 (part 3)"
The public's submissions which the LG&RC ignored
can be reviewed by clicking on the link
2013-493695 Reply
20130325 (part
I have come to the conclusion that the only way the Scottish Public can raise their concerns about the spso is
through the public petitions forum. The MSPs cannot stop the public submitting the petitions and if enough are
submitted they will not be able to ignore them.
The key to getting the Scottish Parliament, Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and Scottish Government to
take action will be by encouraging everyone who has had their complaint rejected to submit a public petition
detailing their concerns and how they were treated. If the Scottish Parliament received 3,000+ petitions a year from
the people who have had their valid complaints rejected by the spso then they could not continue to ignore the
problem. (In July 2010 Jim Martin Scottish Ombudsman had received 3793 complaints, of these, only 22 formal
investigations have been carried out, with just 17 reports being laid before parliament so there is plenty of people
out there who have been let don by the spso)
It is really easy to submit a petition. See link on how to submit a public petition
Link to Scottish Parliament Public Petitions web site
How to submit a public petition guide (link)
The only way we will get an effective spso is if everyone submits a public petition detailing the problems they have
experienced with the spso and ask the Scottish Parliament to perform a judicial review of their complaints about
the spso. Please help make Scotland a fairer and better place to live by making the spso a just and effective
organisation which holds the authorities to account and ensures that the public are getting the services they
"Our sense is that SPSO is doing untold damage to individuals, families and to public
services due to incompetent investigations and discrimination. We had thought their job
was to help the public when they have been harmed, not to kick them when they are down.
In our case SPSO's decisions and statements completely opposed the facts and were
demonstrably false. Faced with the evidence, they perform contortions of logic, shift
goalposts, change the conversation and believe it is their right to ignore evidence that
contradicts their statements and supports the complaint. They dismissed the law, saying
the authority was free to breach it if they chose to. We experienced overt bias towards the
authority being complained about, who we could prove were lying. Regardless, SPSO
repeated their story.
"A waste of public money"
"This seems set up to drag their heals to protect public services than actually help the
"Really terrible. They're just a buffer for civil service complaints, they dont act on anything
even when you have indisputable proof. They turn a blind eye"
"Very bad; nothing but a whitewash. It is no wonder services are declining when this is all
that the public have to protect them.... the Scottish people deserve better."
"An absolute waste of public money. Totally powerless and toothless. They are nothing
more than a smoke screen to run the complainant down to the point where they give up. It
seems the best outcome that can be achieved is a mealy mouthed apology.
Whatever this department costs annually could be an instant budgetary saving by closing
it down. It would not be missed."
The Old web site is detailed below.


text:
Notice anything screwy with the board? Have a question? Ask the Admins about it here. Or if you want to give some feedback, leave it here.
Use this control to limit the display of threads to those newer than the specified time frame.
Allows you to choose the data by which the thread list will be sorted.
Order threads in...
Note: when sorting by date, 'descending order' will show the newest results first.
Forum Rules

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The performance, watched by millions across the globe, was awarded the title of Music Moment of the Year at a ceremony in London tonight.
The Rolling Stones, who performed sell-out gigs last year in celebration of their 50th anniversary, beat The Maccabees, The Cribs, Blur, Biffy Clyro and Foals to best live band of the last year.
They were also awarded best music film for Crossfire Hurricane, with Ronnie Wood performing live with Johnny Marr to close the show.
Marr, formerly of The Smiths, won the annual prize for "Godlike Genius", playing six songs in honour of the occasion.
He joins a list of artists including The Clash, Ozzy Osborne, Ian Brown, Paul Weller and Dave Grohl acclaimed by NME magazine for their "services to music".
Other winners at this year's awards include Biffy Clyro for best British band, and The Killers for best international band,
Florence Welch, of Florence and the Machines, won best solo artist and best dance floor anthem for Sweet Nothing with Calvin Harris.
The Maccabees beat Frank Ocean, Jake Bugg, Alt-J, The Vaccines and Tame Impala to best album, for Given To The Wild.
The hotly contested hero of the year category, including David Bowie, Bradley Wiggins, Pussy Riot, Frank Ocean and Dave Grohl, was won by Barack Obama.
It is the second recognition for the President of the United States, after he was crowned in the same section in 2009.
Harry Styles, from boyband One Direction, was awarded Villain of the Year, beating the magazine's shortlist of David Cameron, Skrillex, Psy, Fred Macpherson and Azealia Banks.
Teen favourites One Direction were also crowned "worst band".
See below for the full list of winners from the NME Awards 2013:
Best British Band
Winner: Biffy Clyro
Arctic Monkeys
The Vaccines
The Maccabees
The Cribs
Best Album
Winner: The Maccabees – Given To The Wild
Frank Ocean – Channel Orange
Jake Bugg – Jake Bugg
Alt-J – An Awesome Wave
The Vaccines – Come Of Age
Tame Impala – Lonerism
Best International Band
Winner: The Killers
Tame Impala
The Black Keys
Odd Future
Crystal Castles
Foo Fighters
Best Track
Winner: Foals – 'Inhaler'
Arctic Monkeys – 'R U Mine?'
Haim – 'Don't Save Me'
MIA – 'Bad Girls'
Palma Violets – 'Best Of Friends'
Tame Impala – 'Elephant'
Best Re-Issue
Winner: Blur – 21
Manic Street Preachers – Generation Terrorists
Prodigy – The Fat Of The Land
Interpol – Turn On The Bright Lights
Smashing Pumpkins – Mellon Collie And The Infinite Sadness
Ian Brown – Collected
Best Solo Artist
Winner: Florence Welch
Jake Bugg
Noel Gallagher
Miles Kane
Paul Weller
Best New Band
Winner: Palma Violets
Django Django
Alabama Shakes
Best Music Video
Winner: Arctic Monkeys – 'R U Mine?'
Grimes – 'Oblivion'
MIA – 'Bad Girls'
David Bowie – 'Where Are We Now?'
Haim – 'Don't Save Me'
Tame Impala – 'Feels Like We Only Go Backwards'
NME - NME_26_How_Soon_Is_Now on MUZU.TV.
Best Festival
Winner: Reading & Leeds
T In The Park
Isle Of Wight
Best Small Festival
Winner: Festival No.6
The Great Escape
Field Day
End Of The Road
Best Live Band
Winner: The Rolling Stones
The Maccabees
The Cribs
Biffy Clyro
Best Dancefloor Anthem
Winner: Calvin Harris and Florence Welch – 'Sweet Nothing'
Mosca featuring Katy B – 'What You Came For'
Psy – 'Gangnam Style'
MIA – 'Bad Girls'
Kanye West/Jay-Z – 'Paris'
Solange – 'Losing You'
Music Moment Of The Year
Winner: London 2012 Olympics Opening Ceremony
David Bowie's comeback
The Stone Roses comeback shows at Heaton Park
The Rolling Stones 50th anniversary show at London's O2 Arena
Green Day's secret set at Reading Festival
Pussy Riot's punk prayer
Hero Of The Year
Winner: Barack Obama
David Bowie
Bradley Wiggins
Pussy Riot
Frank Ocean
Dave Grohl
Villain Of The Year
Winner: Harry Styles
David Cameron
Fred Macpherson
Azealia Banks
Worst Band
Winner: One Direction
Mumford & Sons
Justin Bieber
Ed Sheeran
Best Book
Winner: Mike Skinner – The Story Of The Streets
David Byrne – How Music Works
Neil Young – Waging Heavy Peace
Tim Burgess – Telling Stories
The Rolling Stones – 50
Peter Hook Unknown Pleasures: Inside Joy Division
Best Film
Winner: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
iLL Manors
The Dark Knight Rises
The Perks Of Being A Wallflower
Best Music Film
Winner: The Rolling Stones – Crossfire Hurricane
Searching For Sugar Man
LCD Soundsystem – Shut Up And Play The Hits
Hit So Hard: The Life & Near Death Story of Patty Schemel
Led Zeppelin – Celebration Day
Best TV Show
Winner: Fresh Meat
Breaking Bad
Noel Fielding's Luxury Comedy
The Thick Of It
Doctor Who
Best Fan Community
Winner: Muse
30 Seconds To Mars
Manic Street Preachers
The Killers
Enter Shikari
Best Twitter
Winner: Alana Haim, Haim (@babyhaim)
Muse (@muse)
Fred Macpherson, Spector (@fredmacpherson)
Theo Hutchcraft, Hurts (@theohurts)
Wiley (@EskiDance)
MIA (@MIAuniverse)


text:
You can quit smoking
If you're thinking about quitting smoking, you're not alone. Order our booklet with information, advice and support to help you.
Find information, articles and activities relevant to you.
If you're struggling to find what you need, call our Support line on 0808 808 0000 (7 days a week, 8am-8pm)More ways to contact us
If you're a smoker, choosing to stop is a decision that will benefit your health. It may be stressful and difficult to do, but techniques and support are available.
General information
Choosing to stop smoking is a decision that will benefit your health. It can be a difficult habit to break, but there is support available.
General information
Whether you're living with or after cancer, giving up smoking has important health benefits.
General information
Giving up smoking can be challenging. There are several things you can do that will help you quit.
General information
There are things that can help you cope with some of the problems you might face in the first few weeks of stopping smoking.
General information
If you've decided to give up smoking, several things can help you stay stopped.
General information
There are several medicines you can use to reduce cravings and help you give up smoking.
If you're thinking about quitting smoking, you're not alone. Order our booklet with information, advice and support to help you.
There are some possible causes or risk factors of cancer that we can change, for example our diet or lifestyle. Others, for example our genes, we can't control.
Meeting new people is one of the best things about volunteering. Browse our volunteering opportunities and see if it could open doors for you.
What's happening near you? Find out about support groups, where to get information and how to get involved with Macmillan where you are.
Have you had difficulty getting travel insurance after a cancer diagnosis? This blog gives helpful updates on the travel insurance group discussions.
Share experiences and advice on practical issues when living with cancer, such as money, work, benefits, transport, food and drink, organising support at home, or getting specialist equipment.
We rely on a number of sources to gather evidence for our information. If you'd like further information on the sources we use, please feel free to contact us on: firstname.lastname@example.com
All our information is reviewed by cancer or other relevant professionals to ensure that it's accurate and reflects the best evidence available. We thank all those people who have provided expert review for the information on this page.
Our information is also reviewed by people affected by cancer to ensure it is as relevant and accessible as possible. Thank you to all those people who reviewed what you're reading and have helped our information to develop.
You could help us too when you join our Cancer Voices Network – find out more at: http://www.macmillan.org.uk/cancervoices
Need to talk? Call us free* 0808 808 00 00 7 days a week, 8am-8pm
© Macmillan Cancer Support, registered charity in England and Wales (261017), Scotland (SC039907) and the Isle of Man (604). Also operating in Northern Ireland. A company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales company number 2400969. Isle of Man company number 4694F. Registered office: 89 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7UQ. VAT no: 668265007
We make every effort to ensure that the information we provide is accurate and up-to-date but it should not be relied upon as a substitute for specialist professional advice tailored to your situation. So far as is permitted by law, Macmillan does not accept liability in relation to the use of any information contained in this publication or third party information or websites included or referred to in it.


text:
Glitter Cropped Hoodie & shorts Co Ord
Glitter Cropped Hoodie & shorts Co Ord
Colour: lilac
UK Size: Please select
- 6
- 8
- 10
- 12
- 14
Co-ords – the dream team wardrobe essentials for days you CBA to put an outfit together.
It's time to get matchy matchy babe, so couple up with Miss Pap's must-have co-ord collection. Get ready to go beach to bar in our super chilled crochet two-piece sets, turn heads in the club this weekend in our glam tailored co-ords, or be the topic of conversation in our endless print duos. Team with trainers for a toned down, cool AF vibe, or raise the bar this weekend and add a pair of killer heels.
Delivery infoGET IT TOMORROW! £1.99 NEXT DAY DELIVERY* ENDS IN {{#days}}{{days}}d {{/days}}{{hours}}h {{minutes}}m {{seconds}}s
Delivery option Delivery times Delivery cost UK Standard Delivery Up to 5 days £2.99 per order UK Next Day Delivery Order before 11pm Sunday to Friday or before 9:30pm on Saturdays £5.99 per order DPD Precise Delivery Select your preferred day and DPD will text you to organise a 1hr delivery slot between 11am-5pm £5.99 per order Next Day 24/7 Locker Collection Collection next day if ordered before 6pm, Sunday to Friday only. £5.99 per order Hermes Standard Parcel Collection Up to 5 days. Find out more £2.99 per order Hermes Next Day Parcel Collection Arriving in shop between 12pm and 5pm if ordered before 11pm Monday to Friday & Sundays or before 9.30pm Saturdays £5.99 per order
Click here for further information.
Returns info
Miss Pap UK returns are free and easy!
We hope you are satisfied with all of your purchases but if you ever need to return an item, you can do so within 14 days from the date your parcel arrived.
Please note, we cannot offer refunds on cosmetics and pierced jewellery or on swimwear and lingerie if the hygiene seal is not in place or has been broken.
Great news! We now offer a FREE Collect+ returns service via over 5,500 local stores nationwide.
Click here to view our full Returns Policy.


text:
Bijou Skinny Eternity Ring
Bijou Skinny Eternity Ring
Select your size
This item is no longer available
Effortlessly minimal worn alone or create a statement stack with Sharon Mills London's fine diamond or gemstone stack rings.
Must-have addition to your capsule jewellery collection. Perfect for gifting.
Also available in rose gold finish.
Presented in a complimentary gift box.
To keep in perfect condition, remove before showering, bathing or swimming. Avoid spraying perfume or applying cream directly onto your jewellery. If needed, gently rub with a soft, dry and lint free cloth.
UK Ring sizes K, M and O broadly reflect small (K), medium (M) and large (O)
- Tracked delivery to home or work, direct from the designer
- All customs fees, duties and taxes are included
- See Delivery page for full details, conditions apply
- Free returns within 14 days, collection arranged by us.
- See Returns page for full details, conditions apply
- Price match guarantee
- If you find an item cheaper elsewhere we will match the price
- See FAQs or Contact Us for full details, conditions apply
- Wolf & Badger acts as agent to the brand only - you, the customer, are purchasing any item directly from the brand
View More Sharon Mills LondonRings
Meet The Designer
British luxury jewellery brand launched in 2016 by mother-daughter design team Sharon and Natasha. Creating vintage-inspired jewellery with a modern aesthetic. Fine antique jeweller, Sharon, has always had a talent for finding special pieces of jewellery. Recognising that fine craftsmanship and iconic designs can be a rare find and a big investment, Sharon always wanted to create her own affordable collection inspired by her antique treasures. Following the lead of her own mother and grandmother who started a jewellery business together in the 1970s, Sharon teamed up with her daughter Natasha to launch the brand. Thoughtful designs crafted in 18k gold vermeil and precious gemstones. Wearable, stackable, collectable. Discover a new generation of affordable modern heirlooms.


text:
Markets were lower ahead of the Weekly Export Sales Report tomorrow morning. December corn settled 6 ¼ cents lower at $5.50 ½, November soybeans 14 ¼ cents lower at $12.09 ¼, and July wheat 10 cents lower at $7.21.
We are still in a weather market. Prices were heading lower while everyone was expecting normal yields, now it appears that we have reversed that decline and have priced in some weather premium. The next two weeks are going to be crucial for price action. If we continue to see heavy rain amounts into late next week we can easily see corn taking out the highs of $5.70. If we get some warmer/drier weather we can see corn taking out the lows of $5.17. The latest GFS model is forecasting a drier model in the 10-15 day range for much of the Midwest which helped contribute to today's weakness.
While many are touting a corn rally from the slow planting pace, we haven't heard much chatter about how bearish this could be for November soybeans. A 2-3 million acre swap from corn to soybeans would be very bearish for the November contract. Where are the latest bullish headlines for soybeans? We have bird-flu in China, lower than expected Chinese GDP, a large South American soy crop, and soybean export sale cancellations originally scheduled for China.
As a producer with guaranteed bushels we want to any rallies as opportunities to make additional hedges, especially if you were able to buy the short dated calls that we recommended last week. Please feel free to sign up for our newsletter to get our recommendations emailed to you. Have a great week!
EHedger | 866.433.4371
Premier full service commodity brokerage offering risk management services for the agricultural sector as well as professional traders.


text:
Save big when you purchase, lease or finance your new machine.GET PRICING
Save big when you purchase, lease or finance your new machine.GET PRICING
Ten ways Bobcat compact loaders help reduce downtime.FIND OUT HOW
See the difference between published specs and real-world performance.LOAD THE PLAYLIST
For over 50 years, Bobcat has built the world's most popular loaders. It's a title we take seriously. That's why we engineer each model to the standards you expect: performance, reliability and comfort. For you, that means building the most trusted brand of loaders to take-on your toughest work.
Bobcat skid-steer loaders have a celebrated 50-year history of quality, performance and reliability. Find the best machine for your work with the most skid-steer loader models, attachments and options.
Bobcat compact track loaders keep working where other equipment can't. Get big results in a small package through higher pushing force, increased flotation and increased lifting with minimal ground disturbance.
Bobcat mini track loaders can replace manual labor, wheelbarrows and shovels. Complete a variety of jobs in limited-access areas where large equipment wouldn't fit. Gain the attachment versatility of larger loaders with the convenience of walk-behind and ride-on style loaders.


text:
Soccer ballsSerious (18+)Soccer Balls is not a normal soccer game. In this physics game you have to use teamwork to hit the referee with the ball and get a red card
Escaping the prisonSerious (18+)Escaping the Prison is a choose-your-own-escape game that sentences you to 50 years of fail. Your scheming stickman must successfully break out of the big house any way he can, from rocking rocket launchers to running scared
Cubikill 4For boys, Flys, Serious (18+), ArcadeCubikill is back with another entry of chaotic awesomeness. Help our mental hero end his misery for a 4th time in this really fun action game
Smurphin in BrooklynShooters, Serious (18+), ArcadeSmurph gangster has had enough and wants vengeance. So its time to kill some blue scum!
The black knightSerious (18+)The King has created a new way of getting taxes from his people. Are you up to the challenge?
Cat with bow golfSerious (18+)Try not to send this kitty sailing out of bounds. Getting the cat on target is harder than it looks, but the usual rules of golf apply to these floating greens
Zero Secret of The CaveSerious (18+), Combats, Fighters, ArcadeHelp Zero solve the mytery cave's deadly puzzles. Don't let the Cave defeat you!
Cheating examSerious (18+)So you wake up in the morning, have breakfast and go to school. Without your knowing (because you always skip classes), it's another test day at school! You go to school totally unprepared and as the last resort, you must do a sin almost every student does: Cheat! Grab your throwing paper to ask for answers from the smarties and knock down the nerds so they won't report you to the teacher
Strike the BossSerious (18+), Combats, Fightershit a boss and kick Strike the Boss is available on Free Online Games where you can play over 70,000 free online


text:
Order Now For Guaranteed Delivery by Dec 24th
Filled with delightful champagnes, decadent chocolates, and a variety of exquisite treats, our swoon-worthy Valentine's Day gift baskets are sure to make your sweetheart weak in the knees.
Whether you need a special gift for him or something romantic for her, we've got you covered with our collection of Valentine's Day baskets. Each one is artfully handcrafted using slow-melting chocolates and irresistible treats to make this year love at first bite!
GourmetGiftBaskets.com60 Gourmet PlaceExeter, NH 03833 United States 603-606-5269 Fax: 603-657-9083


text:
PuzlzleMaster needed a new logo design and created a contest on 99designs.
A winner was selected from 55 designs submitted by 30 freelance designers.
We need a logo for a new Enterprise Financial Management software company.
ObviO Software, Inc.
Accepted File Formats:
Layered Formats (.psd or .tiff)
The name of the company is ObviO Software, Inc. (OSI). The software tracks Accounting Information, Inventory, Project Management, etc. We are targeting the Government Contracting, Architectual/Enginering, and Professional Services market. Currently we think we want to use purple and green for colors but we are open to suggestions and new ideas. http://www.obviosoftware.com/ the link to our under construction site (a contest will be coming for that also once we decide on a color scheme and logo). Let me know if you need additonal info.
 Have fun.
Find out how a design contest works or learn more about our logo design services.


text:
Tuberculosis testing scheduled for Central Maine Community College in Auburn
AUBURN, Maine (AP) � Maine public health officials are headed to Central Maine Community College in Auburn to test students and staff for tuberculosis.
The testing scheduled Monday by the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention comes after a student at the school tested positive for the disease earlier this month.
The school earlier this month sent letters and emails to hundreds of people who may have had exposure to the student.
Health officials say the person was infected in the fall, but was just diagnosed this month. The person has been treated with antibiotics and is recovering.
Tuberculosis can be spread through the air when someone with the lung disease coughs, sneezes, or even speaks.
Monday's testing is free.


text:
A Chamber of the European Court will deliver its merits judgment in Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. United Kingdom (no. 61498/08), the case dealing with detention and non-refoulement in Iraq, on Tuesday 2 March (press release here). For our previous coverage, see here and here. For more in-depth analysis of the various issues in Al-Saadoon, such as norm conflict and the UK government's decision to disregard interim measures ordered by Strasbourg, see here. See also this article by Nehal in the JICJ, and this note in the ICLQ by Sarah Williams and Matthew Cross.
This as hot a case as it gets, and we'll see what the Chamber does with it. It certainly moved very quickly, since it pronounced on admissibility only in July last year. Whatever the outcome, it is likely that the case will also be referred to the Grand Chamber. Analysis and commentary will follow!


text:
Le Creuset Heritage Stoneware Rectangular Bakers, Set of 2
- Only at Williams Sonoma
Easy, hassle-free returns online and in-store for eligible items.Learn More
Earn 5% Back in rewards4 plus free standard shipping3every day when you shop with your Williams Sonoma credit card at Williams Sonoma.Apply Now Learn More
- Summary
Le Creuset Stoneware is an extremely durable and versatile choice for one-dish baking, serving and storing. Bake and serve everything from comforting casseroles to homey fruit cobblers in these beautiful baking dishes. Thanks to their generous cooking surfaces and efficient heat conduction, they're also perfect for roasting meats, poultry and vegetables.
- High-fired stoneware is exceptionally strong and ensures even heating.
- Safe for oven, broiler, freezer and microwave.
- Durable porcelain enamel-glaze finish is easy to clean and resists chips, scratches and stains.
- Will not absorb odors or flavors.
- Wide bottom and low sides ensure perfectly cooked cobblers and casseroles.
- Vibrant, colorful exterior for stove-to-table presentation.
- Dishwasher safe.
- Small Baker: 10" x 7"; 2 1/2-qt. cap.
- Large Baker: 13" x 9"; 4-qt. cap.
- Made in Thailand and China.
- Use & Care
- Oven safe to 500ºF.
- Microwavable, freezer and dishwasher safe.
- Use wood, plastic or heat-resistant nylon tools to avoid scratching the enamel surface.
- Enamel can chip or crack if dropped or banged on hard surface.
- Do not use on stovetop or any other direct heat source.
- Allow to cool before washing.
- Dishwasher safe.
- Avoid using steel wool, steel scouring pads, harsh detergents or abrasive cleansers.
- Stubborn food residue and stains can be removed with a nylon scrubbing pad or sponge.
- Shipping
Shipping Information
UPS can deliver most in-stock items within 3–5 business days. UPS is unable to deliver to P.O. boxes.
Shipping Rates
The shipping rate varies depending on your order total and shipping destination. View Shipping Options and Charges.
Next Day Delivery
For an additional charge of $26 per address, we can expedite delivery to most destinations. This service is not available for some oversize items, items shipped directly from the supplier (including perishable and custom-manufactured items), out-of-stock items and items to be shipped outside the contiguous 48 states.
Orders received by 9:00 p.m. ET Monday through Thursday will arrive the next business day; orders placed Friday through Sunday will arrive on the following Tuesday.
Return Policy
At Williams Sonoma, we take great pride in the quality and craftsmanship of our products. Attention to design, materials, safety and construction are our priority. Upon receipt, please inspect your purchase and notify us of any damage; we will arrange for a prompt replacement.
If within 30 days, you are dissatisfied for any reason, you may return your purchase for a refund of the merchandise value. An original receipt or gift receipt is required for all returns and exchanges. Returns with a gift receipt will be refunded in the form of a Merchandise Credit for the amount indicated on the gift receipt. Returns with original receipt will be refunded in the original form of payment, cash and check refunds over $100 will be issued as a company check (may take 14 business days from time of request).
For all cutlery returns (knife sets, single knives, cutting boards, knife sharpeners and knife storage), please contact us at 888.922.4108 to initiate the return.
We cannot accept returns on monogrammed, personalized, special-order items, custom upholstery, food, items shipped direct from the vendor or on items damaged through normal wear and tear. Final sale items ending in .97 or .99 cannot be returned.
Made to Order and Final Sale Furniture items are non-returnable and cannot be cancelled once the order is placed.
For returns of items purchased from your Williams Sonoma Gift Registry, we will gladly provide a refund or exchange for the merchandise within 90 days of your event or within 90 days of purchase, whichever date is later. View Full Returns Policy.
Customers Who Viewed This Item Also Viewed
Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought
Rated 2 out of 5 by Ws10 from Cracks Easily Both of mine cracked within 6 months after baking in the oven at 350. Had no issues getting replacements from Le Creuset's warranty department at least.Date published: 2018-05-13Rated 1 out of 5 by Fuey1 from Cracks after six months of use I love this bakeware but after six months, the large dish cracked all the way through. I'm very careful when baking and cleaning, I feel these dishes are very poor quality for the price.Date published: 2018-01-19Rated 5 out of 5 by creidsd from These are the best baking pans! I finally invested in this set of baking pans and I love them! They are heavy duty and excellent quality. The larger size is slightly bigger than a 13 x 9 x 2 pan which is great for a large lasagna, stuffing, or any other casserole that will feed a large group. I have several key pieces of Le Creuset and this one is a great addition.Date published: 2016-12-28Rated 1 out of 5 by SarahKD from These WILL break on you. Don't purchase Our first set arrived completely broken. On the replacement set, the larger of the 2 baking dishes broke in our oven under normal use. If you go to La Creuset's website you'll see many other reviewers have had their baking dishes crack in the oven as well. La Creuset's customer service department does not pick up the phone, so I'm not sure that I will even be able to get a hold of them to honor our warranty. Terrible quality and customer service.Date published: 2016-12-12Rated 1 out of 5 by MimiTN from Not Reliable First off, I LOVE Le Creuset enamel cookware. However, I would NOT recommend this bakeware. I take very good care of my Le Creuset, because it is expensive and I consider it an investment. These bakers are beautiful, but I have been through TWO of them suddenly developing defects (random cracks from the inside of the bakeware to the outside of the bakeware). Further, for Le Creuset to cover their warranty, they require YOU to ship their defective product back to them at YOUR expense. That is, if you can get a hold of someone at their customer service department. The cost of mailing this product back to them a second time makes it worthless. It's going in the garbage!Date published: 2016-12-08Rated 5 out of 5 by mom4kids from Awesome Baking Dishes These baking dishes are sturdy, but not too heavy, they are so perfect to use in the kitchen and are so beautiful that they can also be used to serve on a buffet.Date published: 2015-02-17Rated 5 out of 5 by jan1234 from Great product These are great sized pans for every kitchen! Le Creuset lives up to its wonderful reputation.Date published: 2015-01-17Rated 5 out of 5 by RainbowGirl from Excellent Bakeware This bakeware bakes beautifully and evenly. Clean up is quick and thorough. The dimensions and capacity as now stated are correct. I highly recommend this set and all Le Creuset products.Date published: 2014-09-20


text:
So you've decided to start your very own podcast. That's great news! Podcasting is a great way to get your name or brand out there and every single podcast, no matter how popular, started right exactly where you are now. With just an idea. A lot of people struggle with exactly how to turn that idea into a quality podcast. Let's go step by step on how to move from an idea to a podcast.
Everyone's needs will be different depending on what kind of show you're putting together. Here are a few options that should be fine for most podcasters:GarageBand is a free piece of software for Mac users that can pretty much handle all audio podcast needs.
There are many more audio and video editing software options but we'll stick with these for now. If you feel like you need something a little more advanced, try looking into ProTools, Adobe Audition or free options like WildVoice.
We have a great page set up that details some cheap and popular equipment to get your podcast going. Check it out here.
Now that you have your software and your PodOmatic account, you're ready to make your first episode.
Make sure you record in a quiet place and before you start, it's a really good idea to have a detailed rundown of what your episode will contain. This is often called show-notes and usually includes your intro, segments broken down by order, any special announcements and closing statements. The more prepared you are, the better you will sound on the air.
Publishing a show on PodOmatic is very simple. We have a great publishing system that walks you through all of the steps, from adding a title to uplaoding an image and setting up chapters. Everything you need to add to an episode is broken down, step by step.
Now that you have created an episode your podcast is a reality. Make sure to check out or help pages for much more information and good luck!


text:
Louisville coach, not players, to attend women's final
NCAA rules make players pay own way
Louisville coach Rick Pitino is heading to New Orleans to watch the Cardinals' women's team play Connecticut in Tuesday night's NCAA championship - but he can't bring his players along.
Under NCAA rules, neither the school nor Pitino could pay for the players to get to New Orleans or attend the game. The NCAA says it granted a waiver to Louisville early Tuesday that would have allowed the school to pay for the trip, but the school says it had already made plans to go home.
Pitino, his staff and several administrators were expected to attend the women's final. The players were expected back on campus by 2:15 p.m. EDT.
After Louisville beat Michigan 82-76 Monday night in Atlanta, players and Pitino hinted at going straight to New Orleans to support the surprising women's team against the Huskies in the final. The men and their coach have frequently attended women's games this season and both programs have said they feed off each other's success.


text:
Updated polls in the forum section. Please check them out to help us grow and improve this place! Look for the yellow question mark.http://www.theshirtboard.com/index.php/board,24.0.html
Only registered members are allowed to access this section.
Please login below or register an account with TSB.
Forgot your password?
Page created in 0.106 seconds with 18 queries.


text:
This stunning hamper comes from our Christmas Gifts collection and is sure to get you in the festive spirit. An ideal choice for Business Gifts, Company Gifts, for Employee, for Staff, for Customers, for Clients, loyalty or promotional.
Presented in a traditional wicker basket this luxury hamper contains:
Taylors Port Late Bottled Vintage 75cl
Las Montanas Red Cabernet Sauvignon Wine 75cl
Las Montanas California White Wine 75cl
Border Biscuit Selection Box 300g
Jules Destrooper Butter Crisps 100g
Bond Street Gold Ingot Bar Chocolate Creams 140g
Border Crunchy Oat Crumbles 150g
Coles Champagne Plum Pudding 454g
Walkers Pure Butter Shortbread Fingers 160g
Hazer Baba Authentic Turkish Delight 125g
Shropshire Spice Co Mulled Wine Mix 8g
Rick Stein Savoury Oat Biscuits with Thyme 170g
Twining's Original English Breakfast Tea 125g (50 bags)
Taylors Fresh Ground Coffee (Green Lazy Sunday) 227g
Shropshire Spice Co Wild Sage & Roast Onion Stuffing Mix 150g
Epicure Duck & Orange Pate 180g
Cartwright & Butler Apple Sauce
Epicure Goose Fat 320g
Mrs Bridges Cranberry Sauce and Port 113g
Mrs Bridges Ploughmans Chutney 100g
Mrs Bridges Sweet Onion Relish 100g
Mrs Bridges Strawberry with Champagne Preserve 42g
Mrs Bridges Raspberry & Redcurrant Preserve 42g
Mrs Bridges Blackcurrant & Blueberry Preserve 42g
Basket Dimensions: 51 x 37 x 26 cm
Port 20% - Country of Origin Portugal
Wine 13% - Country of Origin Chile
UK Deliveries
Parcels are delivered direct to your door by our trusted couriers and require a signature upon delivery.
Monday to Friday Deliveries
Our 'Standard' rate is Free per UK delivery address.
Our 'Expedited' rate is £6.95 per UK delivery address. Orders must be placed before 1pm for next day delivery.
Saturday Deliveries
UK 'Saturday Next Day' delivery rate is £9.95 per individual address. Please note orders must be placed by 1pm if ordering on a Friday for a Saturday delivery.
Multiple Delivery Addresses
If you order 6 items to be delivered to 6 different UK delivery addresses on a 'Standard' Monday to Friday service, this is free.
If you order 6 items to be delivered to 6 different UK delivery addresses on a 'Saturday Next Day' service, then you will be charged 6 x £9.95 Totalling: £59.70.
(Please note, if you order multiple items that exceed 15kg, we reserve the right to revise delivery charges accordingly.)
All delivery costs stated are the costs for deliveries to the UK mainland only.
If any of the items listed are out of stock, we will endeavour to replace them with a close substitute.
If you are ordering a hamper or gift box with alcohol, then you must be over 18 years of age. On delivery the courier will only deliver to an adult over 18 years of age.


text:
At least that's the way it appeared, as the Panthers, who have arisen from their short-season slumber to gain points in their last four games, matched the Flyers grinding stride for grinding stride at Wells Fargo Center.
Unfortunately for the Flyers, there isn't much of a difference in the way they settle shootouts. They don't score enough on them, and as sharp as goalie Ilya Bryzgalov has been this season, he still lags behind most of his goaltending counterparts in these silly shootout things. Bryzgalov was beaten twice easily in a short shootout on this night as the Panthers stole away with a 3-2 win.
The Flyers (4-6-1) are now 23-40 in games settled by shootouts since they were introduced starting in 2005-06. This one was particularly ugly.
For the Flyers, Matt Read and Claude Giroux couldn't beat Jose Theodore, who made 30 saves and two more in the shootout of a game that for long stretches - especially in overtime - was dominated by the Flyers.
They appeared well on their way to another win over the Panthers in the second period when Mike Knuble - who played his first game of the season the last time these teams met Jan. 26.
The 40-year-old Flyer flashed some of his old gritty form this time around, especially in the second period, crashing into Panthers goalie Jose Theodore's crease and quite literally creating havoc. While that was going on, Matt Read was able to pull out the loose puck and lift it over Theodore for a 2-1 lead.
While Knuble's work down low bodes well for the immediate future of a Flyers team still in need of scoring help, it didn't prevent the shootout because Theodore stone the Flyers in overtime. The Flyers outshot the Panthers 5-zip in the five-minute overtime period, and must have launched a dozen other shots that either were blocked or slipped just wide of the Florida goal in that extra period.
Nonetheless, sharper on the power play, solid on the penalty kill, and with a goalie in Bryzgalov who still doesn't appear in need of rest, the Flyers have recovered from their lousy start.
Well, maybe that's overstating it a bit.
But it's a better start than the one they had.
The Panthers, who in the course of a 7-1 loss to the Flyers on their ice Jan. 26 looked like a team that had wished for a year-long lockout, showed early in this game that they wished to make up for past embarrassment.
They forged a lead 10:52 into the game when appropriately named Jack Skille burst through center ice, took a pass from Dmitry Kulikov and fired a shot that hit Bryzgalov in the shoulder pad and deflected into the net.
Less than a minute later, the Flyers employed their invigorated power play to tie the game.
Jakub Voracek carried the puck deep into the left circle and let go a shot that appeared to tick off Florida's Brian Campbell on its way into a short side hole past Theodore at the 11:44 mark for 1-1.
Early in the second, Knuble did his handiwork at the corner of the Florida net. Allowed to pound away at the puck while two Panthers stood by dumbly, Knuble didn't wait for a stoppage whistle - which should have blow because Theodore had the puck frozen.
But Knuble just moved Theodore's glove away with his stick, allowing Read to grab the puck and sky it over the pack and in for a 2-1 lead.
For a while that appeared to count as a winning goal. But a penalty call on Bruno Gervais changed all that in the third period. He was in the box mere seconds before Stephen Weiss wristed a shot through a screen that beat Bryzgalov at 8:35 and knotted the game at deuce.
Before long, however, the Flyers won the momentum back and the Panthers were getting caught behind. That led to a couple of Florida penalties, but they were able to kill them off. It was a bad sign for things to come.


text:
We ran at a breakneck speed all summer. That was not our intention, but somehow it happened that way. Since school started last week, things have been so much more relaxed. This slower pace has been strange and it's made for a weird week. Or maybe it's just that when I try to slow down, my brain has too much time to create ridiculousness. Here's a little look back at the week as documented by facebook statuses:
*today my daughter told me that her brothers are 1% evil and 99% hot gas.
*I know it's immature, but I find it comical that the name of the syrup we currently have in the house is called "morning delight".
*this morning I saw a mouse. And like every good cliched woman, I jumped up on the chair and started screaming. Then I grabbed a broom. Not sure what I thought I was going to do with the broom, but years of TV has taught me that a woman on a chair fearing for her life from said mouse must have a broom.
*while I was busy doing Miles' hair this afternoon, the other children thought it would be a good idea to empty a bottle of soap in the bathroom so they could "skate" to Lady GaGa music. God help them. Seriously- God, I mean it. You better help them.
*"Most men are very attached to their penises,"- a quote in our local paper today. Ummmm, duh?!
*When I asked the boys what they wanted to do today one said, "I wanna twy to poop in da gwass." The other said, "I wanna eat a gump stick". (not even sure what that is) Whoever said that kids lack ambition these days has obviously not met Noah and Miles.
*just watched the sunrise with Noah. What a blessing that boy is to me!
Have a great weekend everyone! Hope you take the time to enjoy a sunrise and a gump stick or two!
Like what you read? Join us on Facebook!