For two principal reasons, outlined towards the end of this e-mail, there will be a delay before I enter into further detailed commentary with the FSA. For the reasons given later I need to make contact with other parties before proceeding beyond this e-mail.

However, I wish to start the process (and I wish to emphasise that it will be a process) of submitting the complaint by providing a set of reference documents which will prove to be important as the matter proceeds.

In a later e-mail I will offer a more detailed commentary on the contrast in approach that can be seen between the decisions reached and communicated to IFADU by the FSA and by the FOS.

However at this juncture, and to allow you some insight into how I am likely to offer future comments, I would like to place on record this short extract from a judgement of Lord Justice Sedley in the High Court in July 1999:

‘Free speech included not only the inoffensive but also the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it did not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively was not worth having.’

Freedom of speech is a qualified right under the Human Rights Act (Article 10). That right and others enforceable under the Human Rights Act will form a central part of the complaint, upon which I will make the appropriate detailed comment in due course.

4: Human Rights Act - For the avoidance of any doubt, this is the link to the provisions of the Act that I am using and to which any reference I will use will be directed:

5: A notice issued by IFADU, which I believe will prove to be of relevance, and upon which I will offer comment later, it can be found here:

6: I would now wish to offer links to items drawn from the Financial Services Authority web site. These words relate to the FSA Complaints procedure.

"The FSA Complaints Scheme plays a crucial part in the accountability structure of the FSA, and the FSA will investigate any complaint that falls within the remit of its Complaints Scheme."

The question of "accountability" will form a second central strand in the complaint I will lodge. The link from which the words are extracted can be found here:

7: I believe a fair and accurate version of how the FSA express their views on accountability is best drawn from their web site, and can be found here:

8: Lastly in this context I wish those who handle this complaint at and on behalf of the FSA to have some assurance that, whilst the complaint will in part relate to the current procedures, I have a reasonable working knowledge of the Complaints procedure which the FSA wish to see adopted and followed. Again for the avoidance of any doubt, the link to my starting point on what are called the COAF requirements would begin here and work forward from there:

9: The last item I would like to have listed and shared as common material for the processing of this complaint relates to the submission of a Freedom of Information request made by IFADU to the FSA, and the response that was received to that request. Both the request and response can be found here (they appear in reverse order). This document also includes very specific and relevant material as it may apply to the issue of "accountability ":

There will I believe be other items that will in due course be added to this list, but I believe at this juncture these are sufficient to allow me to indicate the three main strands to the complaint that I will process to you for consideration in due course.

1: The first strand is that the FSA in issuing the Notice (Items 1 and 2 above) to the IFADU, whilst taking into account the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act singularly failed to take into account the provisions of the Human Rights Act.

2: The second strand relates to an incompatibility between the Human Rights Act and the published COAF procedures as laid down by the FSA.

3: The third strand, by also taking the above two strands into account, relates to the apparent divergence between what the FSA describe as their accountability and the subjective reality experienced by those who seek to question it.

However it is my belief that the matters to be discussed and considered run deeper and wider than may be immediately obvious, even from the above comments.

Example 1: The COAF procedures are prescriptive on who the FSA will consider as having what they would deem a recognised right to complain.

This aspect, as I have already noted, will form a relevant aspect of the complaint and whilst I believe I am currently working within, and in the future intend to follow, the current COAF procedures I am concerned that these may fall very far short of what is actually required, not on the part of the FSA, but by all those who may feel affected by the issues.

These are the reasons why I made reference in earlier correspondence to subjects such as "directly affected" and "at risk". It is not clear to me that what I think the FSA see as an "objective" matter will be a view equally shared by those who see the matter as "subjective", and the provisions of the Human Rights Act have a major part to play in this difference.

I have therefore entered into initial discussions with Electoral Reform Services, part of the Electoral Reform Society to allow those who may wish to register an interest in these matters - which would have to be an exercise carried on outwith the COAF procedures.

The right to freedom of speech is a universal right, and where in my opinion that right is curtailed or insufficiently recognised by the FSA, then I intend to gauge the reaction to an alternative to cater for that right.

Example 2: I have also had to be acutely aware that there may be a range of potential outcomes to the complaint. In the last resort it may end up in court. If that proves to be the case I cannot dismiss the possibility that legal action may not solely relate to an action brought against the FSA.

Many other Public Bodies, equally subject to the terms of the Human Rights Act, have been copied into earlier IFADU correspondence to the FSA which address the issues involved.

They are therefore aware of the issues - but perhaps insufficiently aware that there is a latent possibility of being named as "accessories after the fact" in any potential action.

For instance, as only one example it is unlikely that the current FSA COAF procedures would deem HM Treasury as "directly affected".

Decisions taken and actions taken by the FSA can be seen in isolation, but if they are known to and subsequently approved of by others within what can be called the "accountability" regime, there are potential consequences.

Accountability is a two way process. The FSA may be accountable to others, but those very others may be accountable for the FSA.

Such Public Bodies are no less "accountable" under the relevant legislation than are the FSA themselves.

It is my intention therefore, and for that specific reason, to communicate that possibility to such other parties as I believe may be affected, before I take the complaint itself further forward.

I have not yet concluded whether I will issue copies of all or any such correspondence and contact to the FSA

The two subjects mentioned above will therefore delay the processing of the complaint. This will I hope be understood.

They are matters which address issues relevant to the complaint, but fail to be encompassed within the current FSA procedures. I will however make further contact with you when these aspects have been resolved.

An acknowledgement of this e-mail would be appreciated, and whilst I do not have any expectations beyond an acknowledgement, if you indeed have any initial observations or comments I will be happy to receive these.