& Jones have been employed by ZM (Zahida Manzoor the LSO) to fill
in a 'Questionnaire' concerning her un-equal treatment of me to that
of a woman 'Sexual Discrimination'??
would anyone employ a Solicitor to fill in a 'Questionnaire' if they
believe they have treated everybody 'Equal'??
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.
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'.
the 18 August I wrote to Mace &
Jones in reply their above letters.
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.
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'.
I received a letter from ZM's solicitors,
& 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".
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'.
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.
January '06 Click
Here to read a letter from Ol' ZM's
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
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'.
Page . . . . . . . GOOGLE