Kamlesh Bahl

For some time Chair of the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC), we believe on a salary of about £50,000 pa. In 1999 she was appointed Vice-President of the Law Society, the solicitors' trade union, reportedly on a salary £23,250 pa.

 

We believe she is a qualified lawyer. As Chair of the EOC for some years, she is well known. Many men known to us have asked the EOC for assistance. Despite enormous injustices to men, and for which the EOC we believe could have acted, they chose not to, using the typical reasons of 'not being able to interfere with other laws' and/or 'having to prioritise its work with limited resources'.

 

In contrast to this, the EOC supported women in the Borders' common ridings dispute - women wanted the equal right to ride horses in a local tradition which dates from the Scotland/England border skirmishes which had involved only men. For this very trivial issue, the EOC supported the women's legal actions against the common ridings organisers with £1,000s of finance.

 

telegraph11mar00.jpg (14138 bytes)

Acknowledgement :  image from The Daily Telegraph of 11 March 2000.

Meanwhile the EOC would do nothing about the most serious issues of matrimonial law, and many other issues affecting men, of which the EOC had been informed.

 

See the campaign against the NAPO 'Anti-sexism' Policy for examples of Bahl's letters in which she did not act against the most serious subversion of the law. We believe her letters on this subject contain blatant untruths. We also believe she could readily have acted on this issue, and that not doing so demonstrates the real agenda of those operating the EOC, which is to obtain further privileges for women while conceding no rights to men where men are discriminated against.

 

Shortly after her appointment as Vice-President of the Law Society, the Society produced proposals for changes to family law that would provide the same conditions for the unmarried as for married cohabitants. This proposal can be seen as a further step in the eradication of men's rights in marriage and the family. This is another example of lawyers interfering in law-making in fundamental ways without the public even knowing.

 

Kamlesh Bahl has had a very successful career promoting women's rights. After her suspension from the Law Society position, in March 2000, it was reported she claimed 'sexual and racial discrimination'. This rings utterly hollow to the average man in the UK.

 

She took the case to an employment tribunal, in November/December 2000. We provide some newspaper reports of the case. However, there is so much information on this, that we include the website dedicated to her : www.icsbahl.com or try www.ics-bahl.com as someone is trying to gag this information. We wonder who ?

 

The story of the spat between Bahl and the Law Society continued without press coverage, as it appeared that one of the parties had requested no publicity. So enjoy what is available !

 

times17mar00.gif (64083 bytes)

 

Acknowledgement : image from The Times of 17 March 2000.

telegraph22mar00.gif (61681 bytes)

 

Acknowledgement : image from The Daily Telegraph of 22 March 2000.

telegraph29nov00.gif (50282 bytes)

 

Acknowledgement : The Daily Telegraph of 29 November 2000.

telegraph30nov00.gif (39545 bytes)

 

Acknowledgement : The Daily Telegraph of 30 November 2000.

telegraph1dec00.gif (16332 bytes)

 

Acknowledgement : The Daily Telegraph of 1 December 2000.

telegraph2dec00.gif (25253 bytes)

 

Acknowledgement :  The Daily Telegraph of 2 December 2000.

 

telegraph6jul01-b.gif (14102 bytes)

 This photograph and report from The Daily Telegraph describes the outcome.

Acknowledgement :  The Daily Telegraph of 6 July 2001.

In the case, Bahl was accused of lying under oath, about a phone call to Frances Gibb, The Times Legal Correspondent (who appears to have feminist tendencies). The Times article (see below), written by Gibb, is much more supportive of Bahl than The Daily Telegraph articles.

 

telegraph6jul01-a.gif (60662 bytes)
The Daily Telegraph commented on the case in an editorial.

Acknowledgement :  The Daily Telegraph of 7 July 2001.

 

 telegraph7jul01.gif (39677 bytes)
An article and photograph from The Times, written by Gibb, gives a different 'spin'. The photograph is presumably meant to evoke sympathy.

Acknowledgement :  The Times of 6 July 2001

 

times6jul01-b.gif (15587 bytes)

 

times6jul01-a.gif (39749 bytes)
But this isn't the end of the story. A report in The Daily Telegraph of Saturday 14 July 2001 indicates that The Law Society will appeal this decision. So Bahl will have to go through the whole case again, at additional stress and cost.

This is just the sort of treatment men receive in law. Despite requests to the EOC when she was Chair, she would not assist many men's cases. Is this a case of   'getting a taste of her own medicine' ?

Acknowledgement :  The Daily Telegraph of 14 July 2001.

 

telegraph14jul01.gif (15064 bytes)
A further report of 17 July 2001 allows the main actors for the Law Society, Robert Sayer and Jane Betts, to give their response to the initial tribunal's decision.

telegraph17jul01-b.gif (7253 bytes)

Acknowledgement :  The Daily Telegraph of 17 July 2001.

telegraph17jul01-a.gif (18105 bytes)

(This image is here for the headline and picture only. We know you can't read the text. Please don't complain !).
But wait, Kamlesh hasn't finished making allegations ! Now she makes allegations against the new Law Society president.

Is anyone in this country innocent of acts against her ?

Acknowledgement :  The Daily Telegraph of 18 August 2001.

 

telegraph18aug01.gif (51807 bytes)

 

Not less than 2 years later, at the employment appeals tribunal, the facts come out.

The headlines say it all.

Will Kamlesh fight on ? It must have cost her a fortune !

Acknowledgement :  The Daily Telegraph of 1 August 2003.

telegraph1aug03.gif (94791 bytes)

 
This report appears to be the end of this tiff. Much of the case was clearly not reported in the press, presumably because one of the parties requested this. It's a pity we didn't get some of the detail reported, it would have been entertaining.

It seems that it is possible for a lawyer to boss around other laymen and ordinary people, but not other lawyers. The lawyers themselves made sure of that.

 

Acknowledgement :  The Daily Telegraph of 6 April 2005.