against the Guardian and Journalist Jon Robins
. . . . . PRESS
. . . . . Halton House, 20/23 Holborn,
London, EC1N 2JD (0207 831 0022)
. . . . .
You ask; "Do let me know whether the action
taken by the Guardian represents an acceptable means of resolving your
concerns". Frankly, I'm afraid not.
dissatisfactions are many.
The Guardian published Jon Robins article on the 25 Mar 2011, I emailed
Jon Robins and the Guardian five days later, 30 Mar (auto reply shows
it was received on the same day), a second email was sent on the 15
April and all were ignored. Six weeks later on the 9 May, after you
contacted the Guardian, they took some action, even so they said it
was still then only after an email was received from the Journalist,
too little too late. Let me again quote the Guardian "correct
significant errors as soon as possible", it seems their
excuse appears to be a lack of their in-house communications, and that
is no excuse for what happened. For the Guardian to say "We
have been unable to find a record of his first email..."
being that of the 30 Mar when I had received an automated reply on the
same day and when Jon Robins eventually replied on the 12 May (after
6 weeks) with a copy of the said email showing all addresses it was
sent to, clearly shows the Guardians statement of having no 'record'
is pure 'Hogwash' to make it look as though they didn't know about my
complaint 'til mid April and the excuse they give of "unfortunately
not actioned" is not acceptable and wouldn't stand-up in
a Court of law.
If the Guardian had acted immediately when they received my complaint
on the 30 Mar, five days after the publication, the spread of the defamatory
content would have been limited, but six weeks of delay allowed the
defamatory content to be published all over the world (I have copies
of the said article from Ghana, New Zealand, USA and many other countries)
and my website is now unfairly known as the "Website that has become
the scourge of all Lawyers, good and bad" bestowed upon me by Jon
Robins and the Guardian.
me again quote the Guardian;
you read the first two paragraphs of the web page below it is clearly
still accusing my website of outrageous false allegations: -
. . "This office
handles reader queries about Guardian accuracy and standards.
. . ... we do aim to read them all
. . It is the Guardian's policy to correct
significant errors as soon as possible.
. . If you have sent a correction request
we will not usually send you a response unless the article directly
I don't think the Guardian know or understand half the rubbish they
put in their auto replies and elsewhere.
The Guardian states although their article carried the wrong address
the link address was correct, that was true on their own website but
not on 100's of search engine listings or other websites that ran the
story(s) copied from the Guardian's website of some 50+ I have copied
and the correction on their own website has not righted the problem
on the internet or the search engines. To see just a few such web pages
clearly stating the solicitorsfromhell.com website: -
. . (The above
have been removed but the www is still littered with scores of others.
this out Click Here
no particular problems with the legal industry as a whole. One of
my best friends is a solicitor." Such magnanimity might dangerously
raise the blood pressure of lawyers when they realise the view expressed
is from Rick Kordowski, owner of solicitorsfromhell.com,
scourge of all dodgy lawyers and perfectly decent ones that have the
misfortune of falling into his notoriously non-discriminating net.
Justice Lloyd Jones last
month lambasted the hugely controversial website - which seeks
to name and shame "corrupt, negligent, dishonest, crooked, fraudulent
lawyers" - for comments about a young solicitor that were, he
said, "baseless, abusive, malicious and an unwarranted slur on
the competency and probity of a young lawyer". The lawyer in
question was awarded £10,000 in damages. The judge was particularly
vexed by the site's £299 "administration charge" that
lawyers have pay to get their names taken off the website"
will recall in my complaint on the 4 May that Judge Jones said to Mr
Kordowski: - "But traces of the allegations
remained on search engines after...", that clearly means
the Guardian are responsible for all 'traces' of their article still
on the Internet in whatever form.
must again quote a paragraph from my complaint as made to the PCC on
the 4 May 2011;
"Furthermore Mr Justice Tugendhat stated:
"... you are a publisher (Mr
Kordowski) and anyway you didn't take reasonable care in relation
to the publication". That
statement clearly shows the Guardian 'didn't take reasonable care' in
the defamatory content they published about my website and clearly have
not "...follow the letter
and the spirit of a Code of Practice adopted by the industry.
. . . . . "This
Code of Practice covers a wide range of issues from accuracy through
to 'opportunity to reply' and 'distinguishing.
. .. . . clearly
between comment, conjecture and fact'."
In my email to Jon Robins dated 30/03/2011 I stated;
"I will expect an apology for stating my
domain name, through inadequate 'vetting', in mistake for some other
persons and the problem corrected."
Jon Robins and the Guardian's choice to ignore my generous offer for
six weeks (the PCC say allow at least 7 days for a reply) and allowing
it to get out of hand was, I believe, a blatant refusal of that offer
and I now feel I'm not prepared to accept an apology. Bearing in mind
Justice Tungendhat's opinion above the Guardian is at fault, not the
writer of the article.
The Guardian stats show they have 12,000,000 pageviews a day, the article
has been picked-up by some 30, 40, 50 other media websites, a lot can
be seen on the search engines, with similar stats so if you do some
calculations, in one month it is some 15,000,000,000 pageviews and a
lot still carry the story so the Guardian's correction on their own
website is not much in comparison to the damage done already exacerbated
by the six weeks delay.
The Guardian twice use the word 'error' in their defence, once
"...was due to the high volume of correspondence and investigations
during that period," (a pity they didn't 'investigate' Jon
Question; if I walked into a shop and put an expensive item in my pocket
because I was busy talking and walked out without paying does that mean
I would not be guilty of 'shoplifting'?
I am very annoyed at the Guardian's cavalier attitude to lambasting
a website blaming the crime of others onto an innocent party without
a thought of vetting an article for its validity and continued to ignore
what they were doing for weeks when they were clearly aware of what
they had done by 30 March. The Guardian's Journalists are sent out like
Vultures to scavenge the bones of people like Rick Kordowski and just
don't take care to see they have the facts right and are totally oblivious
as to who gets hurt through their carelessness. Jon Robins interviewed
Rick Kordowski on behalf of the Guardian and asked him "Why
doesn't he vet claims?" You will recall in my email of complaint
I quoted Mr. Justice Lloyd Jones who said the
Publisher was responsible for all postings and also Mr. Justice Tugendhat
said the Publisher should take 'reasonable care in relation to the publication',
the Guardian did not do any of this and thumbed their nose at me when
I complained which I consider to be an insult.