On the 29 June '05 I sent a 'Questionnaire' to Zahida Manzoor the Legal Services Ombudsman regards to Sexual Discrimination against me for I see no other reason why she enforced Solicitors Practice Rule 15 in the case of a woman but refuses to do so in my case.
On the 22 July '05 I received a letter from Zahida Manzoor's solicitors 'Mace & Jones' and a follow-up letter on the 5 August '05. Below is my reply and as can be seen the passing of Clients/Complainants' files around members of the Law Society is 'Open House'. But as they say "Fat for the Goose is fat for the Gander" so I can use this to my advantage which is thanks to 'King Richard'.
On the 18 August I wrote to Mace & Jones in reply their above letters.
On 7 Sept '05 I received a reply to my letter of the 18 August and it appears Mace & Jones cannot understand my letter for it is over Two Pages and they also don't find that the using of the Internet comes easy ('funny', I wonder why or who set up their 'Website'). However I have written another letter and tried to make it easy for them. If you read this letter it will be seen ZM who does not apply the rules that any complainant/client are entitled to be enforced is clearly going to try and enforce an 'out of time' rule to save her from any 'Sexual Discrimination' accusations. Does anyone know any bigger crooks than the Law Society??? Click Here to read their letter.
20 September I wrote again to Mace & Jones this time I have avoided all the internet links that they complained about. Oh yes, in this letter you will read how the 'Old Boy Network' gave one of their own a years 'Garden Leave' and a £1,000,000.00 Pension deal and Mace & Jones tell me a £1,500 compensation I was offered was a "VERY GENEROUS OFFER" 'Yeah Right'.
13 December '05 I received a letter from ZM's solicitors, Mace & Jones that states "Your allegations of sexual discrimination ...". I haven't made any 'allegations I have only, at present, sent a 'Questionnaire' which is my right also M&J are trying, I believe, to intimidate me by saying I'm out-of-time, I have a 'weak' case and put the 'scarers' on me by saying they will claim cost against me. Ol' ZM is only supposed to answer the questions in the 'Questionnaire' not make threats, if I do decide to start court proceedings she will probably send round Dickie the Chair to sort me out. M&J tell me in their letter I don't have a case, that sound right for we all know where the Law Society members are concerned they are 'Judge and Jury'. Let me quote from Ol' ZM's solicitors letter "The complainant in that case was a woman, but that was not a material factor in the case. The practice in that case which was described by our client would plainly have been unacceptable, whether the complainant had been a man or a woman". That gives the impression I was or would have been treated equal to the female species, so why wasn't I?? I suppose the short answer is the 'Old Boys Network' swung into action. Remember that old 'Musketeer' saying; "All for one and one for all".
30 December '05 I reply to Mace & Jones letter telling them they have still not given an answer to why a man was not treat equal to a woman, also I have pointed out 'Examples of maladministration by Sir William Reid' suggesting she is probably guilty of 'maladministration'.
13 January '06 Click Here to read a letter I have sent to my Member for Parliament, Dr Howard Stoate, that included the above letter that I sent to ZM's solicitors.
25 January '06 Click Here to read a letter from Ol' ZM's solicitors Mace & Jones. ZM stated that in an identical scenario to me what happened to a woman she described it as 'ludicrous', 'unacceptable' and 'things have got to change'. In my case she "vehemently denied" it is 'unacceptable', how can something be 'ludicrous', 'unacceptable' and 'things have got to change' for women but in the case of a men it becomes 'acceptable'. Answer, the Legal Services Ombudsman is a woman who doesn't believe men should be treated equal to that of women. Zahida Manzoor who is the Legal Services Ombudsman is clearly guilty of 'Sexual Discrimination' and for refusing to implement the Law Society rules is guilty of 'Maladministration' also for what she said in Parliament when being questioned she is clearly a 'liar' and 'hypocrite'. Click Here it appears Ol' ZM is not popular with her workforce and it looks like she is 'incompetent' of running the office of Legal Services Ombudsman, never mind she has her head so far up 'Charlie Falconer's arsehole she has become 'Teflon Coated'. Yuck!! On the 4 May 2004 ZM answered questions in Parliament and what a load of 'Crap' she came out with. Did ZM get her job on 'the away goal rule'??? Click Here also click Here and it looks like the "merit criteria have been relaxed to meet quotas". Well done 'Charlie' soon we will be able to play 'Spot the White Man'.