b11-email-pcc.htm 18 May an email to Ms Hales again making it clear I want my complaint considered by the Complaints Commission.

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

Thank you for your email dated 18/05/2011.

Below are the email addresses I posted to on 30 March, 'letters' and 'reader' at the Guardian also 'letters' at the Observer, which I believe is part of the Guardian, and despite getting automated replies to all three I'm told there is no record of the Guardian receiving them, can that be believed?
letters@guardian.co.uk; letters@observer.co.uk; reader@guardian.co.uk; info@jures.co.uk; gus@jures.co.uk; jon@jures.co.uk;

The PCC say I should allow at least 6 days for a reply, I waited 16 days and again posted a second email to all 6 email addresses on the 15 April. After a further 19 days, 45 in all, having no reply, and I'm told "there was a genuine oversight in regard to your direct complaint to the newspaper and there was no intention to ignore your concerns", six email addresses and I'm supposed to believe that! The way I see it is that after 12 emails to 6 email addresses (two each) that's no coincidence that there were no replies for over six weeks until I involved the PCC.

I notice "Chris Elliott is the Guardian's third readers' editor, formerly Managing Editor GNM, news editor and reporter", maybe the Guardian need a new "fourth" 'readers' editor!

As I've said and as you are aware, in my first email on 30 March I made a generous offer which I thought would have been accepted and acted upon; "It is the Guardian's policy to correct significant errors as soon as possible. ...errors may be corrected at our discretion". It is my opinion their joint "discretion" was to ignore me totally.

The period of over six weeks of delay did irreparable damage to the standing of my website's name which is known for its totally honest opinion and supportive evidence at every stage. As I have said before, the Guardian is like a bunch of Vultures picking over the bones of Rick Kordowski but when it comes to the victims of the Law Society Complaints Procedure they ignore what has gone on. The only other reason I can see that 12 emails were ignored for 45 days until the PCC stepped in was the name of my website being disliked by the Guardian, which I suppose could be looked upon as 'discriminatory'.

Anything the Guardian does at this late stage would only be marginal; the damage caused is too far embedded into the Internet it would be impossible to rectify, a bit like 'bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted'.

I think I will settle for "we ask the Commission to take a view on the matter under the terms of the Editors' Code".

Yours sincerely

Brian Gray

PS. It is ironic that in October 2004 Jon Robins penned an article under the Guardian and the Observer let me quote the first part of that article: -
"A law unto themselves
The Law Society wants us to love our solicitors, but the number of complaints means it is a difficult case to prove..------_

My hero, my solicitor' is the unlikely slogan for a poster campaign designed to impress upon an uncaring British public just how wonderful lawyers are. 'Hero' certainly isn't the word that David Smith would choose to sum up his feelings towards his lawyer. 'His opinion turned out not to be worth the paper it was written on."

After seven years the article is still live on the Internet which will give an insight into how long the 'traces' of the Guardian's carelessness will remain there to be seen by everyone.