11 October 2011

Lt Gen Sir Michael Wilcocks
Independent Reviewer
(Press Complaints Commission)
c/o Halton House
20/23 Holborn
London EC1N 2JD

Dear Sir,

I received your copy letter dated 10th August on 1st October. I wonder why?

After several hard to believe excuses by the Guardian you say the Commission settled for the contents of the Readers' Editor's email to Rebecca Hales on 19th May, which was nine weeks from the date of the first email I sent him, and it appears from your letter the Commission's 'Decision' was based on and accepting the reason put forward by Elisabeth Ribbans "genuine human error" which, as we know, is not part of the Editor's Code and, in fact, as far as I can see, is not even mentioned in it. If it is in there, I would appreciate it if you would point out where it is located in the Code.

Let me quote from Rebecca Hales letter of the 25 May 2011
. . . . "The commission will now consider matter formally under the terms of the Editors' Code."

Let me quote from the PCC's website http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html
"The Press Complaints Commission is charged with enforcing the following Code of Practice which was framed by the newspaper and periodical industry and was ratified by the PCC in January 2011.
Also;
"All members of the press have a duty to maintain the highest professional standards. The Code, etc, etc, etc..."

What the Commission said, and you agreed with, the action carried out by the Guardian on the 9 May which the PCC published on their website on the 1 June amounted to "Sufficient Remedial Action" and my complaint became closed. In my request for a 'Review' to the 'Independent Reviewer' I found the 'Independent Reviewer' had no powers to 'review' the 'Decision' - very confusing!

I have previously enclosed Google listings and news media content from the www to show how through six weeks of delays, reasons you say were caused by "genuine human error" that was conveniently add to the 'Editors' Code of Practice', caused the problem to spiral out of control. I once again add some content taken today from the Internet that shows the false defamatory content the Guardian's article published about me and copied by other media websites is still there and will be for years to come and you and the members of the Commission believe this is acceptable. Your actions are on a par with Rick Kordowski who, as you know, has lost numerous law suits where a number of judges held Rick Kordowski responsible for content published and of all traces that still remained on the web, as well as content published by third parties.

If you look at enclosures 1, 2 & 3 you will see the articles (Guardian based) all quote, which many other web pages do also, the Law Society's chief executive, Desmond Hudson, who is accusing my website of actions that I am clearly not guilty of.

"... what this website is about is simply a blanket characterisation of all legal professionals as corrupt, and providing a vehicle for pursuing personal grudges and vendettas."

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence,

As I see it, in the eyes of the PCC all content still live on the www originally published by the Guardian and which has been copied by others is 'accurate' not 'misleading' or 'distorted'. When Jon Robins discussed his comments with Desmond Hudson both were in no doubt, it would appear, the website being discussed was my .com website so I will shortly be writing to Desmond Hudson for his comments on his false allegations voiced to Jon Robins against me. Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, has been very vocal of the PCC of late I will also be sending him the contents of this letter for his comments and remind him of Desmond Hudson's other comment "fair criticism" is "entirely valid" and that the need for clients to be able to give feedback is "extremely important" also let me quote Mark Manley, Deputy District Judge "...the intention - a consumer-based website to enable members of the public to make legitimate statements about service - is good" (Jon Robins 23/3/2011).

It seems you and the Commission believe name calling i.e. "The scourge of all Lawyers, good and bad" and false derogatory allegations is an acceptable pastime, you must remember this is a 'two-way street' and 'fat for the Goose is fat for the Gander'.

My little story of the "Red-light Jumper" funny you jumped straight to "...the Commission and editors are linked in any "lodge-like" fashion". If like me you are a sports fan mostly the Spanish La-Liga and the English Premier League you would have noticed recent media headlines "Wayne Rooney's father and uncle arrested over game fixing scam". However I suppose like myself in the 60's as a young man you liked the 'Pop' scene I'm sure you would remember Sandy Shaw's 1967 Eurovision song winning entry.

These days I have more of a 'Country' leaning towards Kenny Rogers type music, like 'Coward of the County' as the story goes "sometimes you got to fight when you're a man". . I wonder what Kenny Rogers song would be in your 'Must have List' Odds-on it would be the 'Gambler'.

Who do you see when you look in the mirror is it a 'man' or some 'big' girls blouse? With a CV like yours you start to believe you are always right and all 'subordinates' are wrong and have no right to complain of their treatment, probably a legacy from your army career. "He's efficient, he's a straight guy, he's got a sense of humour," said a Labour life peer.

As your original letter dated 10 August was lost in the post and never found, also ten of my emails were not apparently received despite the 'automated' replies I was sent, I will send this letter by recorded delivery.


Yours sincerely

B R Gray