In addition to my own RANT about The Law Society’s despicable behaviour in trying to get at Web Hosts for allowing detrimental content about themselves or those they are supposed to regulate the Solicitors on the sites they host . . See my RANT.
We find that the arrogance of The Law Society is matched only by those that run it. From the following letter we can see that plain as day. . . . “Mr Richard Hegarty is The Chair of the Law Society’s Compliance Board.” . . .who doesn’t like the statements . . . .
We find that the arrogance of The Law Society is matched only by those that run it. From the following letter we can see that plain as day. . . . “Mr Richard Hegarty is The Chair of the Law Society’s Compliance Board.” . . .who doesn’t like the statements . . . .
“Can you afford to trust Hegarty & Co Solicitors?”
“They are probably all guilty of ‘professional misconduct’”
“It’s food for thought’ can you afford to take a chance with Richard Hegarty & Co Solicitors?”
“They are probably all guilty of ‘professional misconduct’”
“It’s food for thought’ can you afford to take a chance with Richard Hegarty & Co Solicitors?”
published by Brian Gray in
http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/rthomas1.htm#dickie
http://www.nightmaresolicitors.com/dickie.htm
http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/rthomas1.htm#dickie
http://www.nightmaresolicitors.com/dickie.htm
But instead of using plain simple LAW . . . presumable because he knows he can’t . . . . to sue Brian Gray . . . for the authorship of those statements. Richard “The Chair” Hegarty employs yet another firm of Solicitors . . . Willoughby & Partners. (presumably because he doesn’t trust his own firm Hegarty & Co Solicitors to be capable enough to do it themselves.) . . . . to try to intimidate 1&1 Internet Ltd to close down the Websites.
I know a bit of simple Law but I obviously don’t know about the “provisions of the E Commerce Regulations.” . . . but then nor do Hegarty & Co otherwise they could have used it themselves one presumes.
The problem seems to be compacted by the fact that neither do Willoughby & Partners SOLICITORS The Isis Building Thames Quay 193 Marsh Wall, because the Website is still up and running ONE AND A HALF YEARS LATER. So one has to presume that 1&1 Internet knew more about the Law than Matt Jacob Solicitor at Willoughby and Partners, otherwise what was the point of the letter.? . . . . Well I’ll tell you what the point of it was . . . Matt Jacob of Willoughby & Partners thought he could bamboozle 1&1 by simply quoting a few of his professed opinions at them. But I would suggest he knew perfectly well there was no such provision in the Law.
For instance I don’t know about “E Com Regs” but I do know that nothing in
“Can you afford to trust Hegarty & Co Solicitors?”
“They are probably all guilty of ‘professional misconduct’”
“It’s food for thought’ can you afford to take a chance with Richard Hegarty & Co Solicitors?”
“Can you afford to trust Hegarty & Co Solicitors?”
“They are probably all guilty of ‘professional misconduct’”
“It’s food for thought’ can you afford to take a chance with Richard Hegarty & Co Solicitors?”
. . . is the least bit defamatory. . . (you want defamatory? go to my site IWG.org) Brian Gray asks perfectly reasonable questions given the ARGUMENT that he presents on the rest of his sites.
(see below) Which is why Willoughby & Ptnrs did not act on the following letter one presumes. The questions are not asked out of context. . . . the point is if I know that . . . . . then so should Matt Jacob have known it when he wrote it. And if he did know it . . . . then Matt Jacob was plainly lying. This is exactly the same sort of lies, bluster and bully I complained about by those Tosser Solicitors Lister & Wood Croydon to The Law Society, when they repeatedly threatened me with bogus Law.
(see below) Which is why Willoughby & Ptnrs did not act on the following letter one presumes. The questions are not asked out of context. . . . the point is if I know that . . . . . then so should Matt Jacob have known it when he wrote it. And if he did know it . . . . then Matt Jacob was plainly lying. This is exactly the same sort of lies, bluster and bully I complained about by those Tosser Solicitors Lister & Wood Croydon to The Law Society, when they repeatedly threatened me with bogus Law.
No wonder The Law Society condoned Lister & Wood’s lies, bluster and bullying, when I complained, at that time. This is the 1st thing The LS and their Officers turn to themselves. Fortunately the days of phoning their buddies to keep the likes of us quiet are over. And should eventually sound the death knell for these pseudo regulatory bodies like The Law Society.
. . . . . Colin Clifford Cole
. . . . . Colin Clifford Cole
PS . . . . how to deal with BULLIES . . . . see my own page ARE YOU BEING SERVED
The meaning of Legal terms can be a little confusing . . . here are some explanations.
“give the impression that” . . . . . means . . . appears to be defamatory to the totally gullible with no knowledge of simple Law. If it were defamatory we would sue the nuts off you. (which is why your website is still up a year and a half later.)
“It has come to our client’s attention” . . . . means . . . . . he is really pissed off about this . . especially the fact that he knows there is nothing he can do about it.
“includes but not limited to the following” . . . . means . . . . we haven’t found anything else yet but if we do you’re for the high jump laddie.
“you will be liable for publication” . . . means. . . . since we cannot do anything about the person actually responsible in Law we are going to try and blame you if you are stupid enough to take any notice. . . (obviously they weren’t)
“We act on behalf of Mr Richard Hegarty.” . . . means . . . . his two firms of Solicitors are not clever enough to threaten you themselves so they are paying us to do so for them . (equally unsuccessfully.)
“rights in the United Kingdom” . . . . means . . . the rights of Solicitors to threaten, intervene, act in anyway they feel like, as they have always done, without let or hindrance (especially if you work for them) by The Law Society or more particularly you . . . you nasty little turd.
“give the impression that” . . . . . means . . . appears to be defamatory to the totally gullible with no knowledge of simple Law. If it were defamatory we would sue the nuts off you. (which is why your website is still up a year and a half later.)
“It has come to our client’s attention” . . . . means . . . . . he is really pissed off about this . . especially the fact that he knows there is nothing he can do about it.
“includes but not limited to the following” . . . . means . . . . we haven’t found anything else yet but if we do you’re for the high jump laddie.
“you will be liable for publication” . . . means. . . . since we cannot do anything about the person actually responsible in Law we are going to try and blame you if you are stupid enough to take any notice. . . (obviously they weren’t)
“We act on behalf of Mr Richard Hegarty.” . . . means . . . . his two firms of Solicitors are not clever enough to threaten you themselves so they are paying us to do so for them . (equally unsuccessfully.)
“rights in the United Kingdom” . . . . means . . . the rights of Solicitors to threaten, intervene, act in anyway they feel like, as they have always done, without let or hindrance (especially if you work for them) by The Law Society or more particularly you . . . you nasty little turd.
FROM . “Solicitors From Hell” . http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/grass2.htm . . the admirable site of Brian Gray . . In association with “Nightmare Solicitors”
“Richard Hegarty & Co. instructed Willoughby & Partners of London E14 9SG to close down "Solicitors From Hell" in May 2004. If what Ms Aman Virk at the CCS (Consumers Complaints Services) said is true then 'Dickie the Chair' (Richard Hegarty) was acting on "Law Society business". . . . “
From . . . . http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/Hegarty.htm
On Thursday 6 November '03 at 6.15pm Hegarty & Co Solicitors with offices in Peterborough and Stamford rang me (their offices close at 5.15pm) . The first thing I noted was Hegarty & Co knew the name of my business and they found out my home 'phone number that is not listed. I believe this shows, as I have said in the past also in a letter I wrote to the Legal Ombudsman's office, that there is a lot of 'blather mouthing' goes on by members of the Law Society (see Hegarty & Co own 'Client's Charter' rule 15 "We shall keep what you tell us confidential"), if Richard Hegarty used other members of the Law Society to get information on me can he be trusted not to pass clients information on to at least other solicitors, which could end up in the hands of other third parties. Can you afford to trust 'Hegarty & Co Solicitors'?
On Thursday 6 November '03 at 6.15pm Hegarty & Co Solicitors with offices in Peterborough and Stamford rang me (their offices close at 5.15pm) . The first thing I noted was Hegarty & Co knew the name of my business and they found out my home 'phone number that is not listed. I believe this shows, as I have said in the past also in a letter I wrote to the Legal Ombudsman's office, that there is a lot of 'blather mouthing' goes on by members of the Law Society (see Hegarty & Co own 'Client's Charter' rule 15 "We shall keep what you tell us confidential"), if Richard Hegarty used other members of the Law Society to get information on me can he be trusted not to pass clients information on to at least other solicitors, which could end up in the hands of other third parties. Can you afford to trust 'Hegarty & Co Solicitors'?
Read what the Law Society of England and Wales say about SPOOF SITES such as these.
More Dirty Tricks.
Click here.
Contact me info@ingramwintergreen.co.uk
More Dirty Tricks.
Click here.
Contact me info@ingramwintergreen.co.uk
SEE WHAT SIR IAN BLAIR SAYS ABOUT HIS TWAT TEAM IN THE MET POLICE CROYDON? OR GUN THREAT IS NOT A CRIME IF YOU ARE BLACK IN CROYDON? “This is not a matter for the Police” . . . Mark Stockford Crime Manager
(Talk about a “conspiracy of silence”)
READ THE RESULT OF THE PROMISED INVESTIGATION THAT MARK STOCKFORD, MADE INTO THE DISGRACEFUL “MATTER” OF THE BEHAVIOUR OF HIS OFFICERS IN CROYDON
CLICK HERE
(Talk about a “conspiracy of silence”)
READ THE RESULT OF THE PROMISED INVESTIGATION THAT MARK STOCKFORD, MADE INTO THE DISGRACEFUL “MATTER” OF THE BEHAVIOUR OF HIS OFFICERS IN CROYDON
CLICK HERE
Metropolitan Police give whole new meaning to . . . “Getting a Brazilian”
The amazing disappearing Solicitor David Ingram is not only a Ptnr at TOSSER Solicitors IWG, but a Director at
NSC GLOBAL Ltd . . Click this link.
http://www.nscglobal.com
/aboutnscglobal/more
/management#nonexecdirector
NSC GLOBAL Ltd . . Click this link.
http://www.nscglobal.com
/aboutnscglobal/more
/management#nonexecdirector
And if you read http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/omblet8.htm . . . and also http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/Virk.htm . . . you will see that Brian makes a very good case.
I do not know if The Law Society have replied in full . . .but if my experiences are anything to go by it is doubtful . . It seems that the golden rule these days for Solicitors and their supposed Guardians is . . If you’ve got something you don’t want someone else to know about . . CLAM UP.
From the former I see in a letter from Brian to Zahida Manzoor CBE Legal Services Ombudsman
I'm aware you say that concerning my complaint against Thos Boyd Whyte you "do not intend to revisit these particular complaints". In your letter (page 3 4th paragraph) concerning the "possible contravention of the data Protection Acts was a matter which fell within the remit to investigate". If you look at the enclosed attendance note and a letter which I sent to you dated 21st May 2003 you clearly must have been aware at that time there had been a "possible contravention of the data Protection Acts" that you now say comes "within" the CCS's "remit to investigate" which at the time I bitterly complained that the OSS and then yourself refused to investigate.
And from the latter, I would have thought this snippet indicates that The Law Society acted outside The LAW. And the implications of it should be investigated by the Police.
Let us look at the last part of that sentence; "the question of information passing outside of the Law Society would not in any event arise". Are you saying that any data/information that is collected from Complainants' files over the 'telephone' ('unsecured means') by whom it is assumed are members of the Law Society, even when they are 'closed files', is legally correct?
NO WONDER BRIAN’S SITES ARE STILL ON THE NET. . . quite frankly it would seem Richard Hegarty is lucky The Police are not investigating him.
I do not know if The Law Society have replied in full . . .but if my experiences are anything to go by it is doubtful . . It seems that the golden rule these days for Solicitors and their supposed Guardians is . . If you’ve got something you don’t want someone else to know about . . CLAM UP.
From the former I see in a letter from Brian to Zahida Manzoor CBE Legal Services Ombudsman
I'm aware you say that concerning my complaint against Thos Boyd Whyte you "do not intend to revisit these particular complaints". In your letter (page 3 4th paragraph) concerning the "possible contravention of the data Protection Acts was a matter which fell within the remit to investigate". If you look at the enclosed attendance note and a letter which I sent to you dated 21st May 2003 you clearly must have been aware at that time there had been a "possible contravention of the data Protection Acts" that you now say comes "within" the CCS's "remit to investigate" which at the time I bitterly complained that the OSS and then yourself refused to investigate.
And from the latter, I would have thought this snippet indicates that The Law Society acted outside The LAW. And the implications of it should be investigated by the Police.
Let us look at the last part of that sentence; "the question of information passing outside of the Law Society would not in any event arise". Are you saying that any data/information that is collected from Complainants' files over the 'telephone' ('unsecured means') by whom it is assumed are members of the Law Society, even when they are 'closed files', is legally correct?
NO WONDER BRIAN’S SITES ARE STILL ON THE NET. . . quite frankly it would seem Richard Hegarty is lucky The Police are not investigating him.
The Law Society of England & Wales Dirty Tricks Page
Visit THE Croydon Council information site www.croydoncouncil.info
Local Government Ombudsman. (LGO) Jerry White washes report of maladministration.
LETTER FROM Willoughby & Ptnrs to 1&1 Internet Ltd
Our ref: dxp. Mpj.H4762.00001 . . . . I
By post & fax
By post & fax
21 May 2004
Legal Department
UK Headquarters
1&1 Internet Limited
Pegasus Court
25-
SL1 2PA
Dear Sirs
WHAT are TOWER HAMLETS and UNITY TRUST BANK doing in bed with the likes of INGRAM WINTER GREEN and the pennyless Berkeley Independent Advisors? . . . . Click here
Croydon Ratepayers against Croydon Council
http://www.cracc.co.uk
http://www.cracc.co.uk
These sites were created because Solicitors Ingram Winter Green and Denniss Matthews will not respond to my many letters, and because The Law Society will not investigate all this:-
For the removal of doubt, I have never called Daniel J Ginsbury “a lying, conniving, scheming piece of pig shit, low life life gutter scum”.
I merely ask the question? If all of the above is true would that make him one? Daniel Ginsbury declines to ans either the former or the latter. It is true that I accuse IWG of being a bunch of total tossers for allowing these sites to be here and are not able to fathom a way out of this dilemma. Not worthy to call themselves Solicitors in fact.
For the removal of doubt, I have never called Daniel J Ginsbury “a lying, conniving, scheming piece of pig shit, low life life gutter scum”.
I merely ask the question? If all of the above is true would that make him one? Daniel Ginsbury declines to ans either the former or the latter. It is true that I accuse IWG of being a bunch of total tossers for allowing these sites to be here and are not able to fathom a way out of this dilemma. Not worthy to call themselves Solicitors in fact.
And now they are trying it on with me . . . . On 2nd May 2006 Denniss Matthews managed to get all my sites closed down . . . Fortunately I have a contingency plan. . . . Letter to Denniss Matthews.
Mr Cole
Wednesday, 03 May 2006
To the STUPID ONE
Denniss Matthews Solicitors
145 Anerley Road
London SE 20 8EG
Mr Cole
Wednesday, 03 May 2006
To the STUPID ONE
Denniss Matthews Solicitors
145 Anerley Road
London SE 20 8EG
Dear STUPID ONE re; DISPUTE shop 243 Portland Rd SE25
So who was the STUPID ONE who thought it would be a good idea to threaten my Hosting Co?
Oh Dear Oh Dear Oh Dear. What BAD TIMING. . . . FOR YOU
I didn’t know anything about my sites being down until I got a knock at the door last night. It was a reporter from the Daily Mail who was trying to contact me about my campaign in Croydon. . . . .
The upshot is . . . after a lengthy interview and a long photo shoot we are to be featured in TOMORROW’S Daily Mail.
The best bit is my sites will be up and running UNALTERED in a few days and hosted in Brazil where you can do sweet FA about them.
IF YOU GOT ANY THREATS TO MAKE . . MAKE EM TO ME . . . OK?
BEST . . . would be . . . is for you and your mates at IWG to settle the matter which will be more difficult for you now since you’ve given away your main bargaining chip . . . the freehold.
Colin Cole . . . . . . .
CONSPIRATORS Denniss Matthews Solicitors Anerley and Islington have been very busy. They managed to close half my sites for a little while. . . So they are going to be hosted elsewhere from now on (as you can see). Denniss Matthews wouldn’t have a leg to stand on if they took me to Court otherwise they would do so . . . so they threatened my hosting Co . . see Law Society Dirty Tricks page . . . . And of course my Letter s to Denniss Matthews
Followers of my sites might have noticed that they have been down more than they have been up these last two weeks .May 2006 . . That is because since they were moved offshore to escape legal dirty tricks the servers have been under constant attack . . . Enough to destroy the hard drives. . . Can’t say who it is of course and it can’t be Ingram Winter Green or Denniss Matthews because they aren’t even clever enough to be Solicitors. . . However I’m told they know a man who is clever enough and he is the ex MD nsc global ltd jailbird Mohammed Yaseen who used to be MD before he went to prison. A Co that David Ingram of IWG Solicitors, is a Dir of . BUT is he the same Managing Director now at nscgloballtd under another but very similar name, Yaseen Khan as I am informed ? . . . . care to confirm or deny that any of you? . . . Not so far they haven’t.
Answers on the back of a mailbag to par84colin@hotmail.com
Answers on the back of a mailbag to par84colin@hotmail.com
MORE DIRTY TRICKS . . This time from IWG Solicitors. Because they can’t do anything about these sites by going to Court . . since that would mean going into a witness box and swearing under oath. They tried to close THIS site down by making complaint to my Hosting Co . . Click here.
It never ceases to amaze me. What search engines make of your pages. It sometimes seems they know how to be ironic. These two results are top of page 1 on MSN Search . . . nscglobal ltd . . Which really must piss them off when you consider how much work they have done to try counteract those searches. . . all to no avail it seems
Jailbird MD nscglobal ltd Mohammed Yaseen or nscglobal MD Yaseen Khan?
Jailbird MD nscglobal Mohammed Yaseen or nscglobal MD Yaseen Khan? ... nscglobal
employs only the best people in the industry. Individuals come from a wide spectrum
of ... . . . what? prisons? . . . . . www.sir-
nscglobal MD? Crook Mohammed Yaseen or Yaseen Kahn?
nscglobal MD? Crook Mohammed Yaseen or Yaseen Kahn? ... David Ingram is not only
a Ptnr at these TOSSER Solicitors IWG , but a Director at NSC GLOBAL Ltd
www.sir-
COLIN IS BACK . . . My sites have fallen by the wayside for a year while I was being sued unsuccessfully in the High Court of Justice . . . . Not for Defamation or Lible; because every word in them is true. . . but for Harassment under the 1997 Act. . . Trouble is . . One of MCP clients had to PERJURE himselves to do it. With the assistance of MCP Law of course who had no right to be in the sameCourtroom , according to the rules, let alone prosecuting. There will be a tale to tell of Conspiracy to Defraud. Theft, Fraud, Conspiracy to Perjure, and just about every malpractice a Solicitor and Barrister can manage.
Please excuse the bad links you find. It’ll take months to restore these sites to their former No 1 in the World glory . . I’ll enjoy every minute of it.
The main reason this site was reinstated is not to have a go at dear old Sir Ian . . . He’s got enough criticism out there without mine. It was because it became impossible to re-launch all my sites individually . . . . They are so intricately entwined..
BESIDES . . . It’s about time The Police started doing their JOB . . .
ARRESTING CRIMINALS and PERJURERS and not making excuses NOT TO.
Please excuse the bad links you find. It’ll take months to restore these sites to their former No 1 in the World glory . . I’ll enjoy every minute of it.
The main reason this site was reinstated is not to have a go at dear old Sir Ian . . . He’s got enough criticism out there without mine. It was because it became impossible to re-
ARRESTING CRIMINALS and PERJURERS and not making excuses NOT TO.
The Impropriety of
Sarah Adlam.
Click Here.
Let’s see you ignore this Law Society like you usually do.
SARAH (LIAR) ADLAM here . . . Deserves to be locked up (and might be yet) for what she did. Not only was she NOT ALLOWED to ACT in this matter. EVERYTHING she did was on behalf of herself and MCP LAW. . . . See the IMPROPRIETY of SARAH ADLAM and her pet barrister Matthew Hutchings. . . .Unlike Lisa Richardson below who was probably only doing what she was told . . . ADLAM must have sat down for hours planning skullduggery and PERJURY with her clients and Matthew Hutchings. . . and she wanted to charge ME £15,000 for it .
PARTNERS IN CRIME
The CROOKS at MCP Law
On Scotland Yards own NOT official web site
You want to catch a few criminals easy peasy Ian?
Here they are.
Colin’s NEW sites
Barnett Ross the no forms required to bid Auctioneers.
Contact Andrew
Mahon NI plaintiff 1’s chief fixer for details.
He knows Steven Grossman so doesn’t
have to fill out all those nasty Money Laundering forms.
Or ANY forms come to that.
www.barnett-
(Andrew Mahon
3 Pettigo Rd, Kesh,
Co
Fermanagh, NI.
02868 632102
0775 665878)
Barnett Ross Auctioneers . . . We laugh at
money laundering regulations.
But will the police investigate?
What a STAR . . .
HARRY ROFFEY
In his Seventies and having a go at the HSBC and Kent Police. His site is
www.corruptpolice.co.uk/
He used to drive the BIG RED BUS. A really nice Guy until you upset him.
Bit like
me really.
See what I mean.
Click here