8 April 2004James Shutlar
Legal Services Development Division
The Department for Constitutional Affairs
54/60 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6QW
Thank you for your letter dated 25 March '04. I note you state "I have looked through your file and although I sympathise with your concerns " from that I will take it you are in agreement with me that the rules, in my case, have not been complied with? However by enclosing your letter dated 24 November 2003, which I did reply to, it appears we are back to the intimidation game 'if you don't like it, take us to the High Court'.
Let me refer to my previous letter, which you conveniently ignored, where I referred to those "set of enforceable rules" that you tell me the data controller must comply with. First from the evidence I have supplied it is clear collusion between the data controller and my solicitors took place on 7 June 2000 when the data controller illegally passed data to my solicitors for their personal use. You also tell me I should in the first instance make a complaint to the OSS, which I did, however the OSS refused to investigate the violation of these "set of enforceable rules" likewise Zahida Manzoor followed the same route (Conspiracy?? Protection Racket??)
The point here is if as you say these "set of enforceable rules" must be complied with and remember you don't mention going to the High Court to 'enforce' them (which if they are 'enforceable' one should not need to?), then the OSS cannot refuse to investigate this violation and if they do the LSO must either direct them to or investigate why they refused. If you read the LSO's 'little blue book' it states, which I quoted to her on several occasions (I will supply those letters if asked), "What the Ombudsman will do is check that all your complaints were addressed " and "they refused to investigated your complaint" (rules that Zahida Manzoor refused to implement, why?), also " didn't investigate your complaints properly or didn't investigate them at all, she will recommend that they reconsider some or all of your complaints". I have enclosed the LSO's 'little blue book' in case you don't have one then maybe you could tell me if this has any validity at all or is it the same as the 'Client Care Agreement' just another 'Load of Rubbish' put out by the Law Society?
At this point I believe Lord Falconer must, as he states in his many speeches about peoples rights (see my letter dated 27 January 2004), tell me how I can get these "set of enforceable rules" complied with or in my case 'non-compliance' dealt with, I will then send his letter to Zahida Manzoor who must then either investigate it or refer my complaint back to the OSS.
if you look at the enclosed letter from the OSS you will see my complaint
about the Chair of the Compliance Board has been passed to an independent
Let me refer you back to my letter of 25 October that I wrote to Lord Falconer, page 2, which is to date the current present " initiatives in client care": -
Finally you told me I should write to the data controller to obtain the information I previously sought from your department (remember this is 'information' that I should have been given at the time(s) it took place), however you neglected to tell me that the 'goalposts' had once more been moved further back, again shoring up this neat 'Protection Racket' the Law Society operates. Please read the enclosed letter I received from the Information Compliance Manager (ICM) that, despite the Law Society's 'Data Protection Notice', it now appears that Complainants' complaints files come "outside the Data Protection Act" and the data controller can with impunity 'blather mouth', despite you telling me he his bound by a "set of enforceable rules", data from complaints files to anyone who picks up the 'phone and asks him. Let me once again quote Lord Falconer "a Complainant is someone who doesn't quite understand the rules and therefore must be wrong". I believe you should try to explain the rules for although I have quoted them as I see they have been written it appears I don't "quite understand the rules and therefore must be wrong" albeit, if the ICM is correct it would appear you don't "quite understand the rules" either?
Let me just refer to your letter dated 27 January '04 you quote " eight data protection principles" you state 'secure' and 'not transferring without adequate protection'. From my correspondence with the OSS they have numerous copies of my signature but I have got to produce proof of my identity, Ok fair enough, but the data controller, in breach of the rules, passed data over the 'phone with no 'adequate protection' at all? Secondly I am being charged £10 for asking for information that I should have been informed of at the time it happened (i.e. my consent should have been given, I should have been told of the purpose for its collection and I should have been informed who was collecting it) but the data controller gave information illegally and free of charge to people he assumed to be members of the Law Society over the 'phone with no charge at all and it now appears the ICM is inferring that if I went to the High Court I would not have a case. Explain to me how is it that information that should have been given to me or I should have been informed of at the time I am now going to be denied access to as inferred by the ICM? Am I mad at this bent and twisted legal Mafia? You can bet your boots on it.
I have, as I have done with others, possibly decided to do a web page solely relating to Lord Falconer. At the moment you can be the sole visitor by keying in the following web address "http://www.xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx/xxxxxxx.xxx" which will give you links to "Hegarty & Co" and "Has Zahida Manzoor got all her Marbles" web pages.
X X Xxxx
PS I decided to put a copy of my reply to the Information Compliance Manager in with this letter.