Lt Gen Sir Michael Willcocks the "Reviewer" who as no Balls to go with his 'cock'
Gen Sir Michael Willcocks
Dear Ms Milton
On the 13th June I sent an appeal to Sir Michael Wilcocks which you acknowledged on the 28th, you then sent me a letter on the 22nd July saying Sir Michael "...is still carefully considering the issues you raised", nine weeks have now passed which seems an excessive amount of time for the 'Review' to be completed.
In the PCC 's 'Decision' they patted the Guardian on the back for their 'quick' response and in fact looked at their six weeks of ignoring me and the belated, inadequate effort by them as "Sufficient Remedial Action" (see enclosure (1)) which was strengthened with the Letters Editor's "genuine human error" and now part of the PCC's Editors' Code of Practice 'Repertoire'. As the www is still profusely littered with the false allegations against me that I complained of, let me again quote what Judge Jones said to Mr Kordowski "But traces of the allegations remained on search engines after..." Please see enclosures (2) for a small sample of the many "traces" still on the Internet which it appears Judge Jones' opinion would be the Guardian remains at fault for.
I would like to quote from the PCC's website;.
seems very clear, but I don't remember having negotiated a "resolution
with the publication" that was "satisfactory".
I do remember the 'Commission' deciding in their wisdom that the Letters
Editor had made a "genuine human error"
and of course "The failure to respond
to a direct complaint was, of course, regrettable..."
which "the Commission trust that steps would
be taken where possible to avoid similar oversights in future"
and the reason being "that a genuine human
error had resulted in an oversight". It's clear the
Guardian had been 'negligent' and 'incompetent' which the Commission
put the label of 'regrettable' upon
it. It sounds, to me, like the Guardian employed the Commission on a
'No Win No Fee' basis.
I have made an 'Appeal' to the Reviewer 'Lt Gen Sir Michael Wilcocks'
because I had not had a "satisfactory"
"resolution with the publication"
how can the PCC publish on their website the issue has been 'resolved'?
The Guardian's Managing Editor did, belatedly, apologise for confusing the two websites which should not have happened, let me again quote Mr Justice Tugendhat in the conviction of Mr Kordowski (the owner/author of the website the Guardian got confused with mine) "... you are a publisher and anyway you didn't take reasonable care in relation to the publication". What the Managing Editor did not even bother doing was to make an apology for publishing false accusations and defamatory content against my Domain name and stating there were five convictions against me and some fifteen pending including bestowing the title of "The scourge of all lawyers, good and bad" upon my website which is inaccurate and unwarranted.
You will be aware of the statement below that is printed on the PCC's website;
If the Journalist, the Readers Editor and the Managing Editor 'happily' ignore twelve emails, how the hell do you make "a direct approach before considering a formal complaint to the PCC", not only that but even though the Commission Members are aware of this they covered it all up and what do they come up with "It accepted the newspaper's explanation that a genuine human error had resulted in an oversight and remained satisfied that the action - taken on the day the complaint was received via the PCC- represented a sufficient remedy to the complaint under clause 1 (ii)". Now come on "taken on the day the complaint was received" which just happened to be six weeks after I had followed the PCC's advice in trying to contact the Newspaper with a total of twelve emails even though the Commission expects Editors to respond within a week "If you do not receive a reply within a week...write to us as soon as possible".
have previously made this point if the reason(s) the Commission has
'stepped' outside of its rule book is because of the name of my website,
their dislike of its content or myself it would, I believe, amount to
discrimination, the Commission job is to abide by the rules, enforce
the rules and ensure that the Newspapers "honoured
not only to the letter but in the full spirit" of
the EDITORS' CODE OF PRACTICE and put aside any likes or dislikes of
the person(s) making a complaint. If it is considered by the Commission
in any way that the content of my website contains 'defamatory' content
that they object to, let me remind them of part of the last paragraph
of their 'Decision' "as defamation is
a legal matter, it was not able to comment further".
This is stated on the PCC's website and of course it is for the individual(s)
to pursue through the legal channels as in the case of Rick Kordowski,
owner/author of the website solicitorsfromhell.co.uk, by the Law Society
on behalf numerous law firms;
The Journalist and the Guardian have failed to honour their own codes of practice, the PCC has stepped outside of the EDITORS' CODE OF PRACTICE which, in my opinion, makes the Commission guilty of 'Maladministration', add to that Sir Michael Wilcocks sitting on his hands for nine weeks I believe gives me the right to refer my complaint to the Ombudsman which I will be doing in the coming week.
In addition, I will consider making a complaint to the Trading Standards as the service offered by the PCC is not up to an acceptable standard that the public are led by the PCC to believe or expect it to be as it falls far short of being an adequate, unbiased service in applying and honouring their own rules. In fact I feel if the PCC were Builders more likely than not they would end up on Dominic Littlewood's TV programme 'Cowboy Builders' or even his current TV series 'Fake Britain'.
Ok, maybe I repeat myself at times but in my 74th year I cannot get my head around the PCC's rules as they appear in stark contrast with the Commissions administration of the rule book when dealing with complaints against their members of the news media, I thought the principle was for the Commission to take an 'unbiased' approach to complaints with no 'tweaking' of the rules to favour one side or the other. Oh well, maybe I don't understand the fundamental principles of 'Self Regulation'.
Below as published by the PCC see enclosure (1): -
We know my complaint had "raise a breach of the Code of Practice" because as published in the "monthly summary" it states "Sufficient Remedial Action". Bearing in mind "A complaint is deemed to be resolved when the PCC has been able to negotiate a resolution with the publication concerned that is satisfactory to the complainant" how is it the 'Commission' decided my complaint had been "concluded" when there had been no 'negotiated resolution'???Maladministration