a6-email-topcc.htm 16 May I reply to Ms Hales email stating that "My dissatisfactions are many".

Complaint against the Guardian and Journalist Jon Robins
. . . . . Halton House, 20/23 Holborn, London, EC1N 2JD (0207 831 0022)
. . . . . complaints@pcc.org.uk

From email: brianrgray@msn.com
Website: www.solicitorsfromhell.com (.com)

Dear Ms Hales
You ask; "Do let me know whether the action taken by the Guardian represents an acceptable means of resolving your concerns". Frankly, I'm afraid not.

My dissatisfactions are many.
The Guardian published Jon Robins article on the 25 Mar 2011, I emailed Jon Robins and the Guardian five days later, 30 Mar (auto reply shows it was received on the same day), a second email was sent on the 15 April and all were ignored. Six weeks later on the 9 May, after you contacted the Guardian, they took some action, even so they said it was still then only after an email was received from the Journalist, too little too late. Let me again quote the Guardian "correct significant errors as soon as possible", it seems their excuse appears to be a lack of their in-house communications, and that is no excuse for what happened. For the Guardian to say "We have been unable to find a record of his first email..." being that of the 30 Mar when I had received an automated reply on the same day and when Jon Robins eventually replied on the 12 May (after 6 weeks) with a copy of the said email showing all addresses it was sent to, clearly shows the Guardians statement of having no 'record' is pure 'Hogwash' to make it look as though they didn't know about my complaint 'til mid April and the excuse they give of "unfortunately not actioned" is not acceptable and wouldn't stand-up in a Court of law.
If the Guardian had acted immediately when they received my complaint on the 30 Mar, five days after the publication, the spread of the defamatory content would have been limited, but six weeks of delay allowed the defamatory content to be published all over the world (I have copies of the said article from Ghana, New Zealand, USA and many other countries) and my website is now unfairly known as the "Website that has become the scourge of all Lawyers, good and bad" bestowed upon me by Jon Robins and the Guardian.

Let me again quote the Guardian;
. . "This office handles reader queries about Guardian accuracy and standards.
. . ... we do aim to read them all
. . It is the Guardian's policy to correct significant errors as soon as possible.
. . If you have sent a correction request we will not usually send you a response unless the article directly affects you."

I don't think the Guardian know or understand half the rubbish they put in their auto replies and elsewhere.
The Guardian states although their article carried the wrong address the link address was correct, that was true on their own website but not on 100's of search engine listings or other websites that ran the story(s) copied from the Guardian's website of some 50+ I have copied and the correction on their own website has not righted the problem on the internet or the search engines. To see just a few such web pages clearly stating the solicitorsfromhell.com website: -
http://www.thelawreport.co.nz/news/3311/jon-robins-on-the-solicitorsfromhellcom-website-the-scourge-of-all-lawyers-good-and-bad-26-march-2011/ . . (The above have been removed but the www is still littered with scores of others.
Check this out Click Here & Here )

If you read the first two paragraphs of the web page below it is clearly still accusing my website of outrageous false allegations: -

"I've no particular problems with the legal industry as a whole. One of my best friends is a solicitor." Such magnanimity might dangerously raise the blood pressure of lawyers when they realise the view expressed is from Rick Kordowski, owner of solicitorsfromhell.com, scourge of all dodgy lawyers and perfectly decent ones that have the misfortune of falling into his notoriously non-discriminating net.

Mr. Justice Lloyd Jones last month lambasted the hugely controversial website - which seeks to name and shame "corrupt, negligent, dishonest, crooked, fraudulent lawyers" - for comments about a young solicitor that were, he said, "baseless, abusive, malicious and an unwarranted slur on the competency and probity of a young lawyer". The lawyer in question was awarded £10,000 in damages. The judge was particularly vexed by the site's £299 "administration charge" that lawyers have pay to get their names taken off the website"

You will recall in my complaint on the 4 May that Judge Jones said to Mr Kordowski: - "But traces of the allegations remained on search engines after...", that clearly means the Guardian are responsible for all 'traces' of their article still on the Internet in whatever form.

I must again quote a paragraph from my complaint as made to the PCC on the 4 May 2011;
"Furthermore Mr Justice Tugendhat stated: "... you are a publisher (Mr Kordowski) and anyway you didn't take reasonable care in relation to the publication". That statement clearly shows the Guardian 'didn't take reasonable care' in the defamatory content they published about my website and clearly have not "...follow the letter and the spirit of a Code of Practice adopted by the industry.
. . . . . "This Code of Practice covers a wide range of issues from accuracy through to 'opportunity to reply' and 'distinguishing.
. . .. . . clearly between comment, conjecture and fact'."
In my email to Jon Robins dated 30/03/2011 I stated;
"I will expect an apology for stating my domain name, through inadequate 'vetting', in mistake for some other persons and the problem corrected."
Jon Robins and the Guardian's choice to ignore my generous offer for six weeks (the PCC say allow at least 7 days for a reply) and allowing it to get out of hand was, I believe, a blatant refusal of that offer and I now feel I'm not prepared to accept an apology. Bearing in mind Justice Tungendhat's opinion above the Guardian is at fault, not the writer of the article.
The Guardian stats show they have 12,000,000 pageviews a day, the article has been picked-up by some 30, 40, 50 other media websites, a lot can be seen on the search engines, with similar stats so if you do some calculations, in one month it is some 15,000,000,000 pageviews and a lot still carry the story so the Guardian's correction on their own website is not much in comparison to the damage done already exacerbated by the six weeks delay.
The Guardian twice use the word 'error' in their defence, once "...was due to the high volume of correspondence and investigations during that period," (a pity they didn't 'investigate' Jon Robins article).
Question; if I walked into a shop and put an expensive item in my pocket because I was busy talking and walked out without paying does that mean I would not be guilty of 'shoplifting'?

Finally, I am very annoyed at the Guardian's cavalier attitude to lambasting a website blaming the crime of others onto an innocent party without a thought of vetting an article for its validity and continued to ignore what they were doing for weeks when they were clearly aware of what they had done by 30 March. The Guardian's Journalists are sent out like Vultures to scavenge the bones of people like Rick Kordowski and just don't take care to see they have the facts right and are totally oblivious as to who gets hurt through their carelessness. Jon Robins interviewed Rick Kordowski on behalf of the Guardian and asked him "Why doesn't he vet claims?" You will recall in my email of complaint I quoted Mr. Justice Lloyd Jones who said the Publisher was responsible for all postings and also Mr. Justice Tugendhat said the Publisher should take 'reasonable care in relation to the publication', the Guardian did not do any of this and thumbed their nose at me when I complained which I consider to be an insult.

Yours sincerely

Brian Gray