Solicitors do not deserve public humiliation.
Friday 22 July 2011 by John Hyde
John Hyde is going to stand outside of his local library shouting "Susan is an idiot" he will also scream "She can't even name all three Bronte sisters. She thinks Jordan actually writes her own books". In fact, she is so incandescent and hyperbolic that he will liken her to the devil, such is her ineptitude and inanity.'
Question to John, say by coincidence there are two, three or more Librarians all named 'Susan' in his local library, which one or are they all idiots'?
John quotes the Law Society's "chief executive Desmond Hudson describing the site (Solicitors from Hell) on Radio Four this week as 'littered' with abusive comments".
Let me also quote Desmond Hudson "fair criticism" is "entirely valid" and that the need for clients to be able to give feedback is "extremely important".
Back to 'Susan', John does not give 'Susan' any surname (suffix) so we must assume he has put them all, if there are two, three or more Susan's in his local Library, under the same 'umbrella' with his outrageous abuse?
Getting confused? So did the Guardian, Thomas Boyd Whyte Solicitors, Gregsons of Liverpool's Ian Wright and Michael Stevenson, Attorney Carolyn Elefant and some others.
Clue! There are four "Solicitors from Hell" (with different 'suffixes') websites on the www, which are not all owned by the same person, with different approaches and John is causing as much confusion as the Guardian has recently done.
John said "Solicitors may not be the most popular professionals in this country, but they don't deserve this public and unreasonable flogging from Solicitors from Hell". Same 'umbrella' John??
Let me finally quote what Mr Vassall-Adams said "...that Mr Kordowski appeared to be willing to publish very serious defamatory allegations without any prior check to establish their truth or accuracy".
It appears John is still on his learning curve!.
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/blogs/blogs/news-blog/solicitors-do-not-deserve-public-humiliation#comment-10306
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
The press should take more care not to prejudice trials.
John is on his 'Bandwagon' again as 'Mr Righteousness'.
"I can't begin to imagine what life is like for the man whose character was ripped to shreds by tabloid newspapers after he was arrested for the murder of Bristol woman Jo Yeates".

"He deserves every penny of the reported six-figure sum agreed today with eight separate newspapers, after what his solicitor described as a 'witch-hunt conducted by the worst elements of the British tabloid media' - and after recent events, that's a bold claim".

I don't dispute what he says there but then he goes on to say;

"Needless to say, if you happened to check for an apology - or even a mention of the settlement - on the front pages of websites of the Sun, Daily Mirror and Mail at midday, you will have wasted your time, although you will have seen pictures of a Hollyoaks actress eating (yes, that really is the entire story) and Imogen Thomas being attacked with a water bomb".

Just take 'John' himself he groups together a number of websites makes false allegations against them all for the misdemeanours of just one of them, publishes them in the Law Gazette and when asked to correct his article and apologise he sticks his finger-up (Nice one John).

I must again quote from above for John's attention; Mr Vassall-Adams said "...appeared to be willing to publish very serious defamatory allegations without any prior check to establish their truth or accuracy".

There are 2, 4 or say 6 'protest' websites on the Internet and John, above, as only viewed the contents of one or followed the Court cases of that one individual and from that he accuses them all, 100%, of shouting "Susan is an idiot", with a 'keyboard' of course.

John states "...and clients are entitled to vent their anger if they feel their protest is not being taken seriously. But there are official channels for this, ones which do not potentially ruin a firm's reputation without proper grounds". If John spent some time researching these 'Protest' websites he would have found most, if not all, had tried the "official channels" and only found a 'Self Regulatory Protection Racket' in operation.

One of two letters I found published on the Internet dated 6th June 2011 by the SFH website shows how inadequate one law firm were, how the "official channels" didn't work and after seven years a 'competent' law firm successfully concluded the action.
http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/thomas.htm

Mail to: - Brian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Back . . . . . . . . . . . . . . or to email John direct: - john.hyde@lawsociety.org.uk