|
4
March 2004 James
Shutlar Re: Your letter dated 18 February '04. Thank you for your letter 18 Feb '04. I enclose a copy of a letter, that included all relevant evidence, I sent to The Information Commissioner. This file shows how this "independent and self-regulating profession" violates all their own rules and the OSS who are supposed to give an unbiased opinion, will keep your data "Secure" and will not use it "…for any unconnected purpose…" use your file to conspire with the solicitors to the detriment of the solicitors' clients. I believe this file shows how this "self-regulating profession" is nothing short of a 'Protection Racket' for all its members, the Law Society knows it, the clients know it and Lord Falconer now uses the rule book, as only he knows how, to ironclad this neatly run 'Protection' setup. Then there is Zahida Manzoor, who just happens to be in Lord Falconer's 'back pocket' to back-up the system for if you look at what she says and what she does she is either 'Charlie's Puppet' or she has not got all her marbles. You
state "you may wish to take independent
legal advice…" I sought advice from Mr Anthony Higgins
QC who gave an 'opinion' based on obvious lies told by my solicitors.
When I pointed this out he wanted to be paid again to rewrite an 'opinion'
that Ann Abraham would later refer to as "inaccurate"
and "brings into doubt its reliability". In his own defence
when Mr Higgins wrote to The Bar Council he then started shouting how
'negligent' my solicitors had been but The Bar Council and Ann Abraham
the previous LSO defended him. You now suggest I go back to another member
of this bent and twisted 'Protection Racket' for an 'opinion' that
will be nothing short of a defence to deter any complainant from taking
action against members/departments of the Law Society. Let
me refer again to your letter dated 27 January '04 with reference to the
Data Controller, you state "he has to make sure that all data
processed complies with an enforceable set of good information handling
rules… They require the data controller to ensure that data is"
Let us move on to Lord Falconer, from his department he keeps telling me the Law Society are 'self regulating' he tells me there are 'enforceable rules' that they are tied by, he then tells me if I want these 'enforceable rules' complied with I have to go to the High Court. Please explain to me the use of the High Court in connection with this 'self regulating' profession and their 'enforceable rules' which you appear to be saying they must comply with? If a profession has 'enforceable rules' that only the High Court can 'enforce' how can that profession be 'self regulating' when the 'regulating' is done by the High Court in 'enforcing' these 'enforceable rules'? Let me quote Lord Falconer from memory, "a complainant is somebody who doesn't understand the rules, therefore must be wrong", please enlighten me on 'self regulating' where the 'rules' don't apply unless you go to the High Court? In my letter to you dated 5 January I asked for certain data relating to myself held by the Law Society, your reply was I should write to the data controller but you gave no name or address. I have sent a letter, enclosing a copy of my letter of the 5 January, to the OSS headed 'The Data Controller'.
Yours sincerely |