Recently appointed to role of Chair of the SME Liason panel by the BBRS, Anthony Townsend, was CEO of the Solicitors Regulation Authority between 2006-2014. By 2014 complaints NOT investigated by SRA jumped from between 15-20% to approx 57% @TransparencyTF @appgonpbandffs ...... 
Over that same period the % of complaints to SRA that were upheld fell from an already disturbingly low average of approx 10% to a simply inconceivable uphold rate of just 2.82% in 2014....... @andyverity @jameshurley @APPGbanking @AWhistleblowing @True_and_FairUK
We should not forget that Samantha Barrass, CEO of BBRS was also a senior executive at the SRA during that time. A time when it has been proven that law firms were actively involved in the HBOS Reading fraud, actively involved in the concealment of it & destruction of victims...
A time during which law firms regulated by the SRA on the watch of Townsend and Barrass, were dishonestly representing banks in defence of IRHP, GRG and BSU cases, and the SRA upheld how many complaints in respect to this dishonesty? .....
Many of those victims that were subject to subjective and/or dishonest conduct by law firms representing the banks, and prejudiced/dishonest review by the SRA under the watch of Townsend and Barrass, are the same victims that now must avail themselves of the BBRS.....
The Chair of the SME Liaison panel is probably the most important role within the BBRS infrastructure in terms of the interests of SME's. It is the role that can challenge the BBRS, identify and articulate the concerns of SME's and patterns of concern within the process.....
Essentially, this role can hold the BBRS accountable and help ensure that SME's get fair and objective review and remedy, more so because of the almost 100% domination of BBRS roles by those with proven conflict and/or a history of perverse or 'questionable' judgements....
I applied for this role in writing directly with the recruitment firm @starfishsearch & the BBRS/CEDR. Initially both claimed that I had not applied for the role and therefore had missed the deadline. I proved this to be an entirely false representation.(Not the first by BBRS)...
After some backtracking, I was eventually interviewed. Now, let's be clear, everyone who applies for a job understands that the odds are against you. You are always one of many. But you expect, and the law demands, that you are treated fairly and given equal opportunity.....
During the interview I was informed that @starfishsearch and the BBRS were concerned how my appointment to the role would be perceived by media, SME's & public, given my 'background'. They feared a backlash apparently. I explained why there would be no such backlash....
I was a two time bank whistleblower, was an SME owner, husband of an SME owner, and provided professional and objective expertise and review both for a living and on a pro-bono basis for customers of banks & other financial firms. Always identifying if there was no case.....
Is this backlash concern not now rendered as entirely false, given appointment of Townsend to this role? A figure who is entirely distrusted by SME's, consumers and experts, and with good reason, all of it evidentially supported, during his time as FCA Complaints Commissioner...
During his tenure as Commissioner how many complaints did he uphold in respect to FCA's conduct in respect to IRHP's, RBS GRG, LBG BSU, FX, LIBOR, LC&F, Blackmore, car finance, 500,000 LBG Mortgage customers dishonestly treated? All PROVEN FCA failures...
@starfishsearch also said that the BBRS was concerned by my 'lack of Chair' experience and this was principal reason for not getting the role. They never once asked me about my Chair experience. They defined the criteria during the interview and this wasn't mentioned......
I have no issue with not being a successful applicant, but don't lie to me about the reasons why. If you can't be honest about that, how can you be trusted to be honest and objective in carrying out your primary function, that demands honesty and objectivity.....
There is another threshold here also. I have been a two time bank whistleblower. I've been excluded for 'less than honest' reasons, but Stephen Pegge, former Director of LBG SME Markets, for example, the worst offending business unit in LBG against SME's, is a Board member....
Blacklisting or discrimination is a disturbing trait for such a body to demonstrate. This is the UK, and where freedom of speech is a key right. Speaking truth & fact and raising concerns with evidence is both a right & an obligation in a democracy & to preserve democracy....
Whereas, the BBRS believes it has the right to discriminate against, and to censor anyone that dares to raise concerns. They have 'blocked' me on Twitter for having raised my valid concerns all supported by evidence and the BBRS has said it can't challenge on truth or fact....
Had I raised these concerns with this evidence to my employer, I am treated as a whistleblower and afforded protection. Whereas, if you raise those concerns with the BBRS, they discriminate against you and censor you, with intent to conceal the evidence and concerns.....
I was under no illusions. I was well qualified, but BBRS didn't want me in that role. That was evident from the lies by BBRS/CEDR in respect to 'we didn't receive your application' for this role & a prior role. Just don't insult me & at least make your reasons vaguely plausible.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
