|John Hyde is the Gazette's City reporter, also covering in-house, professional indemnity and personal injury|
do not deserve public humiliation.
"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".John Hyde Thursday, 28 July 2011 http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/blogs/blogs/news-blog/the-press-should-take-more-care-not-prejudice-trials
I received an email from an 'Annie' on Google gmail that said she published a 'Comment' on John's Gazette Blog but he promptly removed it, I wonder why!
Is John 'Picky'
Rick Kordowski lists, I believe, over 900 Solicitors on his website SFH out of some 110,000 practicing Solicitors which is less than 1%, the true figure is, I suspect, more like 10 or more times greater than that which have given a poor service.
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.
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.
I must add part of a comment "Submitted by Pot Hole Pete on Wed, 03/08/2011 - 17:37" and put on John's Law Gazette Blog "Seems to me that Mr Hyde has been hanging out with his middle-class solicitor chums for slightly too long and has inherited their moral values."
Will this 'Comment' be removed by Mr Hyde???