Queen Rat's Office for the Lawyers 'Protection Society'
30 April 2005
Re: Your letter of the 18 April 2005
Thank you for your letter of 18 April 2005 in reply to my letter of the 28 February 2005 which took six weeks and as you knew I had made a referral to the Parliamentary Ombudsman your letter arrived ten days after I received a reply from the Parliamentary Ombudsman???
In a letter dated 18 January 2005 Zahida Manzoor told me that on the 19 April 2004 the OSS became the CCS (Consumers Complaints Service). If your neighbour had a vicious ''Mutt'' (Rocky the Rottweiler) to protect members of their household and every time you went out to complaint about the behaviour of their Children this vicious 'Mutt' savages you, you now complain to the 'parents' (The LSO's) who supposedly have control over the 'Mutt', no luck there, so the only option is to carry on being savaged. Of course with so many complaints against the Children Rocky gets a bad name so the parents decide he should be called 'Fido' which now makes Fido a friendly 'Mutt' and Mrs LSO tells you "Fido is the Complaints Service we have put there which helps you if you have a problem with our Children" 'Yeah Right'. When you open your front door there is Rocky 'WHOOPS' I mean Fido the now friendly Rottweiler with a large smile on his face showing his lovely set of whitish teeth and that friendly deep growl that he had when he was called 'Rocky'. One of the neighbour's Children (Solicitor John Wilson) told me that Fido has had his name changed many times in the past but there is no doubt Fido is still that same old ferocious 'Mutt' and the same as he was in the beginning before any name changes occurred. My question is would you be man enough to lean over the fence and stroke Fido while complaining about the Children's behaviour bearing in mind Mrs LSO does not like men that complain about her Children? In future I will refer to and call Rocky (OSS) by his new name Fido (CCS).
You tell me my complaint against Thos Boyd Whyte was finalised in August 2003 giving the impression I asked for it to be reviewed in my letter dated 28 February '05? Having re-read my letter of the 28 February I don't see where I asked for a 'review' but if you look at the letter Zahida Manzoor wrote to me dated 18 January it stated "I accept that your earlier complaints have some relevance to your present concerns" (these being those concerning TBW).
I go any further let me quote Zahida Manzoor, which has become a habit
In the light of what the Information Commissioner recently said ZM would have been aware the CCS had ill advised me also bearing in mind complainants are led to believe; "The Consumer Complaints Service is the part of the Law Society which helps you if you have a problem with your solicitor" ZM should have asked why they (CCS) did not give me assistance at the time I asked for help instead of giving me advice to bring about a 'Conflict of Interests' that ultimately brought about my sacking as a paying client. You must also remember the CCS only came back to me 18 months after I asked for help because somebody had violated the 'Confidentiality' rule by telling the CCS I was seeking professional advice which again ZM refused to or see was investigate.
In my recent letter to Zahida Manzoor dated 5 April (which after three weeks has not been acknowledged) it is clear Richard Hegarty was acting for and on behalf of the Law Society when he tried to intimidate me in an evening 'phone call. The investigation into that by the CCS has been carried out behind closed doors and going by the letter I receive from the CCS the LSO is putting her head together with them for another cover-up of the 'misdoings' of the Law Society. What happened to all the talk by the Law Society of "transparency" that exists within the complaints procedure?
As I stated above I have been 'persistent' in asking Zahida Manzoor about why she treated a woman more favourably than she did myself and not once has she even made an attempt to give any response. Bearing in mind the 'quotes' above including: - " ensuring that the people of this country know what are their rights, how they can obtain them, and how they may enforce them" I believe ZM is clearly guilty in the very least of 'Sexual Discrimination' and I feel I must now make a very clear accusation on these grounds unless she can give reasons why she never saw that my complaints against TBW were investigated and those against Richard Hegarty are not being investigated within the rules. Let me quote the points that ZM has failed to see were investigated or the rules not followed in the correct procedures.
In the case of Richard Hegarty although this complaint is still under investigation there are many rules being ignored and from the contents of the letter I received from the CCS dated 31 March 2005 the investigation has ended up behind 'closed doors' with the CCS, Richard Hegarty and the LSO putting their heads together to decide the outcome.
You say my complaint against Thos Boyd Whyte has been closed, in your eyes that might be so but with the advent of the Internet I can and will keep my complaint open and also very active. If you look at the enclosures from Internet Search Engines you will see my web site is all over the world it has been translated in every language from Portugal through Europe and Asia as far China I believe when the world sees how corrupt the English Law Society are it will, hopefully, have a severe affect on overseas business.
Thos Boyd Whyte and Hegarty & Co have been trying by the back door to close me down. However if you look at a present case where David and Victoria Beckham took their nanny to the High Court to stop her revelations about their private lives the Judge ruled it was in the public interests for the facts to be known. I believe it is in the public interests for the facts to be known how the Law Society conducts the business of their complaints procedures. My suggestion to TBW and Hegarty & Co is to try the front door.
have said above I have been 'persistent'
in trying to get equal treatment to that of a woman that the LSO commented
on in Mar '03 where Practice Rule
15 was not complied with, let me once more quote Zahida Manzoor's comments
at the time; "ludicrous"
and "This kind of thing has just got to
change.". In my complaint against Gordon Luckhurst he
was on three occasions guilty of Professional Misconduct, I was misadvised
by the CCS and my complaints file was misused on 7 June 2000. As I am
a 'white English male' at the very least the LSO
is guilty of 'Sexual Discrimination' and if once again Zahida
Manzoor does not want to give reasons for why I was not given equal
treatment to that in a woman's case that she personally quoted then
I must seek further advice.
B R Gray