With solicitors regulated to the hilt, Mike Dailly argues that we have taken our eyes off the real "likely suspects", and calls for better scrutiny of the banking trade, who would be doing porridge if they were subject to the same stringent standards as solicitors. And by the way BBC, what are you playing at??

Milton said, ‘when complaints are freely heard, deeply considered and speedily reformed, then is the utmost bound of civil liberty attained that wise men look for’. Insightful and spot on. Being able to complain when things go wrong is an essential part of our democracy. Although, this week has seen more complaints than the Osmonds might muster at a bad family reunion.

Scotland’s Great Chieftan complained when his Budget Bill was rejected by the Scottish Parliament. A wee shame and if it happens again he’ll take his baw back and call an election. Is it only me that’s noticed the Scottish Government have a predilection for threatening to ignore the law of our land?

The Scotland Act 1998 doesn’t allow the First Minister to ‘call an election’. It’s up to the Parliament to appoint a new Chieftan. Likewise, when the UK Treasury said last week that the Scottish Government’s ‘local income tax’ was ultra vires of the 1998 Act it was not reassuring to hear Cabinet Secretary Swinney say the rule of law applies a wee bitty differently in Scotland.

When I was in West Central Africa last year the British Ambassador told me about the custom of slapping 5,000 CFA francs on a person’s forehead to gain their support. Shall we see John Swinney slapping £100 million pounds on the foreheids of Patrick Harvie and Robin Harper to get his Budget Bill passed?

Maybe. But if it improves Scottish household insulation, reduces fuel poverty, and carbon emissions, all well and good. I have to admit, I admire the Scottish Greens over their principled stance and the budget will inevitably go through and be all the better for it.

Solicitors are probably subject to one of the most rigorous and independent complaints procedures in the known Universe. As the messengers of much needed reality checks we are often the subject of complaints. But that others were subject to the same exacting standards we are held to? For example, Sir Fred Goodwin and the directors of the Royal Bank of Scotland could do with a dose of our salts.

The RBS board just lost £20 billion – making UK corporate history – and in so doing ruining the lifes of countless workers, pensioners and savers in the UK and beyond. Many have complained of the unprecedented injustice, yet Fred the Shred and his colleagues remain substantially unscathed and are still at large. If they had been solicitors would they be struck-off and in the Bar L? I think so.

In this week of complaints, the big kuhuna of incompetents has to be the BBC. Leaving aside the Middle Eastern politics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, no one can dispute that innocent adults and children are being killed and injured in Gaza and because of blockades there is an urgent need to raise funds for humanitarian aid.

Well no-one except the BBC’s Director-General Mark Thompson. He refused to broadcast the Disaster Emergency Committee’s Gaza appeal because it might undermine the public’s confidence in BBC impartiality. He’s the editor-in-chief and entitled to make this decision of course, but as licence payers we were equally entitled to complain why Mr Thompson might have got that decision wrong.

And this is where a complaints procedure comes in handy. As I type, over 22,000 people in the UK have complained to the BBC on this issue. Yet the BBC have completely failed to apply its own complaints procedure. In the spirit of complaining, I shall rest my case with my letter to the Chair of the BBC’s Editorial Standards Committee.

And ponder: is it only Scottish lawyers who are subject to a real complaints procedure?

Mike Dailly

Dear Sir

Failure of the BBC to apply its own complaints procedure – ref: T2009012808R8S060

I write following the response I received today from the BBC with respect to my complaint against the decision not to broadcast the humanitarian appeal by the Disasters Emergency Committee for Gaza. I enclose a copy of the BBC’s response for your information.

As you will see the BBC response is dated Wednesday 28 January. My complaint was made on Monday 26 January – immediately after listening to the Director-General’s explanation for not broadcasting the DEC appeal on BBC Breakfast - and was made through the BBC’s online complaint’s system.

As a BBC licence fee payer my concern is that my complaint has not been considered at all by the BBC. Instead you will see that the BBC has simply referred me to a statement made by the Director-General on Saturday 24 January 2008.

The BBC’s complaints policy states that it ‘will consider a complaint’. However, in rejecting my complaint under explanation of a decision made by Director-General Mark Thompson last week you have failed to give my complaint any consideration whatsoever. The BBC has failed to apply its own complaints procedure.

Besides displaying a high handed arrogance and utter disregard for the views of possibly many thousands of people who have also complained, this failure means it is impossible for any licence fee payer to convey to Mr Thompson that the public would not lose confidence in BBC impartiality if the DEC Gaza appeal were broadcast, or that for example, the BBC could put a caveat or rider with the broadcast to avoid any confusion and so on.

In short it does appear that the Director-General has fettered his discretion on this issue. In any other sphere of public law to do so would be irrational and unlawful. Can you please intervene as Chair of the BBC Editorial Standards Committee to ensure that the BBC does not have a closed mind to complaints?

Yours faithfully


Mike Dailly
Principal Solicitor