SRA Breach The Equality Act 2010 In Their Misconduct

Here again is another apology from those that I raised concerns with about misconduct. If I did not chase up the Solicitors Regulation Authority, I would not have heard anything about ref: POL/1251547-2018. Let me make it clear to Gurpit Kaur Regulatory Support Officer SRA POLEvaluations@sra.org.uk and www.sra.org.uk I have disabilities. Because I need to keep a log of everything and tidy away the clutter. By the way, this is linked to my traumas that were triggered into Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in two (2) toxic work environment. Which would be covered as a disability within the “Protected Characteristics” of the Equality Act 2010.

I used the Subject Access Request – Data Protection Act – 117119 to gain my data from the Disclosure Team Ministry of Justice data.access@justice.gsi.gov.uk for a variety of reasons. You will understand more reading further in the report. First, let me touch briefly on the fact that www.leyf.org.uk claim not to have any data for me. In their correspondence 2 January 2018 they sent a two (2) page letter that they only have data I supply to them for the case. They have no record of the CEO Long Service Awards. All I can add to that is LEYF is acting very simple-minded as was the attitude throughout the case. I worked with them from 1/9/2009 – 27/9/2015.

I am addressing section of the correspondence from the SRA 24 January 2019, showing how this seems to be the norms by those in the Legal Fraternity. To act with impunity to those they consider to be above the law because of their status. Paragraph six (6) in parts states: “It must be noted that in contentious matters, firms may use robust language in their correspondence, however, this will not amount to misconduct“. Considering the fact that I contacted www.bwbllp.com with my Open Letter and other correspondence and I did not hear from them again. There are questions for the RSA to answer about why they come to this conclusion.

Paragraph seven (7) states: “Furthermore, you say that during the trial, the firm used your mental illnesses to advance their client’s case. A firm is under a duty to act in their best interests of their client and in accordance with their client’s instructions. Therefore, whilst you may not agree with the approach that the firm has taken, it does not raise any conduct concerns“. All I am going to say is Mr. Gurprit Kaur has missed the evidence sent to the RSA. Simple put LEYF was not a client of Bates Wells & Braithwaite London LLP (“the firm“). This information was sent by www.personnelconsultancy.com to the Employment Tribunal copied to me after the case was adjourned.

Let me clear up more of the confusions by the RSA with regards to
Bates Wells & Braithwaite London LLP (“the firm”). Mr. John Fenton and Barrister Samantha Jones. The RSA somehow believes that Mr. Fenton is part of BWB. So why is the RSA acting like he is and that’s why they have decided to uphold the original decision and the file will remain closed? This is only showing that the RSA did not take the new data that they asked for into consideration. And like http://www.justice.gov.uk/tribunals/employment/claims/responding have not bothered looking into any of my concerns about the gross professional misconduct of Mr. John Fenton.

As a result of the misconduct identified in the RSA correspondence about why the file remained close, I am making my implicit knowledge explicit. So that the RSA will think twice about acting unprofessionally and committing the misconduct to be identified throughout the letter. I will, therefore, not be wasting any more of my time with the RSA. They are incompetent and lacking the required knowledge to deal with my concerns. I would advise they are trained about the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as I did. I have my own copy of GDPR – How to be ready and 20 GDPR myths debunked. By Toni Vitale, Head of Regulation, Data & Information, Winckworth Sherwood tvitale@wslaw.co.uk, and www.slaw.co.uk.

At paragraph 5: “In addition, the issues you have raised appear to be legal issues and therefore, should have been addressed during the Employment Tribunal trial“. Any fool should know this, but not the Panel of Employment Judge Freer and Members: Ms. D Fennell and Mr. W Dixon. That’s why they used their feet to tie their hands with https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/ms-m-myers-v-london-early-years-foundation-2300047-2016. Maybe they need to go back and ask themselves why they resorted to copying Barrister Samantha Jones summary? She did not prepare a case and manufactured a contagious disease to get the adjournment.

At paragraph 7: “You have also raised complaints about Samantha Jones, the barrister acting for your employer. It is not within our jurisdiction to regulate barristers. In our letter dated 14 November 2018, we informed you of this fact and directed you to the Bar Standards Board“. In light of this information, the RSA needs to reveal which of my letters they responded to? This is supposed to be about Bates Wells & Braithwaite London LLP (“the firm“). So why go through these lengths about Mr. John Fenton and Barrister Samantha Jones www.7br.co.uk? It is evident that the RSA has joined in with the institutional discrimination. The reason I was a participant in www.acas.org.uk/researchpapers.

Paragraph 8: “You have mentioned that the Employment Tribunal the judge and Employment Tribunal Clerks failed to take your concerns into consideration. This is a legal issue that we cannot comment on. In addition, we do regulate members of the judiciary. You may wish to seek independent legal advice in respect of your rights to appeal“. Without prejudice what planet is the RSA on, when it comes to the information I sent them? That’s why I am with the www.judicialombudsman.gov.uk, trying to get someone with any Legal Training to sort out this matter.

Paragraph 9: “We appreciate this may not have been the response you were hoping for when you first contacted us, however, we hope we have helped to clarify our position on your report. Thank you for taking the time to contact us“. Without prejudice, I will be attending an interview tomorrow proving to www.gov.uk/universalcredit that I did not choose to sit indoors collecting benefits. Despite Access Denied, You don’t have permission to access “https://www.universal-credit.service.gov.uk/journal/add-journal-entry-write-content/SERVICE_ISSUES/” on this server. I have my own http://www.google.com accounts.

I will end with insight from my horoscope. Taurus Apr 21 – May 21: Your ideas are progressive and sometimes controversial but keeping them to yourself would be a sad waste. Putting your skills on display will keep you ahead of the competition. Reach out to others and satisfy your need for intellectual stimulation. Here is the reason that I have been accused of been dismissive of authority from I started working in the UK. In the end, https://realbusiness.co.uk/june-o-sullivan-london-early-years-foundation-leyf/ viewed me as a threat to her incompetence. After using the intellectual property from my CPPDP to build the LEYF brand across the world.

My husband was told, “Mr. Tomlinson, you have a small illusion of one day becoming a property tycoon“. The dreams of many have been crushed. The same way that LEYF and cohorts, with individuals in the establishments and systems in the Government Departments set about destroying 26+ years of my life in the UK. Here is https://petition.parliament-uk/help#standards. On 31/10/2017 my petition was rejected with “It included confidential, libelous, false or defamatory information or a reference to a case which is active in the UK courts. It has been marked confidential. It’s not clear what action you’d like the Government or Parliament to take“. With intellectual imbeciles employed at all levels of Government, is it any wonder I am getting these responses to my complaints?