• This letter replies to a letter dated 9 March 2000 from Mr Roderick Dadak, of Lewis Silkin Solicitors, acting for the FSB and for David Dexter.
• The letter published below, has had some contact details and references were removed before publication.
• To obtain a balanced account of the facts, please also read the letter from Roderick Dadak.
• Paul Horan, who wrote this reply letter, on behalf of Hubert Taylor, is an FSB member and a former FSB national policy specilialist-committee chairman.

PAUL HORAN
Davenport
Stockport
Cheshire SK3 8SX

10 March 2000

Mr Roderick Dadak
Lewis Silkin Solicitors
50 Victoria Street
London SWIH

Your ref:
Fax:

Dear Mr Dadak

Federation of Small Businesses/Hubert Taylor

Your letter written to Mr Taylor yesterday has been passed to me for reply on his behalf.

Firstly, I must point out that if you must represent the Federation of Small Businesses you should name that organisation correctly. I am not aware of any organisation known as the "National Federation of Small Businesses" or the "Federation of Small Businesses Ltd".

You quite rightly acknowledge on page 1 of your letter that the Internet Service Provider of Freenetname was not the author of the website and that the contents of www.htdbs.co.uk was the responsibility of Mr Taylor. That being the case it was improper of you to put your concerns regarding www.htbds.co.uk to Freenetname the correct procedure would have been to contact Mr Taylor direct. I also inform you that as a result of your action Mr Taylor has obtained a more secure agreement for his web pages from his new Internet Service Provider and that you should not contact that Internet Service Provider directly concerning Mr Taylor.

Your numbered points on pages 2 and 3 of your letter are not the words used by Mr Taylor on his Web Site and whilst you have understood some of the allegations others appear to have been taken out of context.

1

For the sake of convenience I will answer your points numbered 1 to 18 in the same numbered order as they appear:

1. This is true.

2. This is correct

3. Mr Taylor does not state that there has been actual fraud

4. This is correct as regards Mr Taylor

5. Mr Taylor did not make this allegation

6. This is correct

7. This is correct

8. Mr Taylor does not know what you mean by "accountants"

9. Mr Taylor did not state that Mr and Mrs Anslow are guilty of fraud.

10. Mr Taylor alleges that Mr Juby and Mr Godby have been involved in irregularities

11. Mr Taylor did not use these words

12. Mr Taylor did not state that Mr Dexter or Mr Catto were guilty.

13. This is correct

14. This is correct

15. This is correct

16. This may be correct – which Annual General Meeting?

17. This is taken out of context.

18. Mr Taylor does not know what you mean?

Further points:

2

As to your demands made in points 1 to 4 on page four I will answer those points as follows to correspond with your numbers:

1. Mr Taylor has factual evidence concerning this dispute and genuinely believes that any allegations he has made are true and therefore he cannot accede to this request. The FSB seems to be oblivious to the fact that Mr Taylor has been unjustly treated by the FSB and that the FSB has made no proper attempt to address his complaints.

2. As per point 1 above.

3. As per point 1 above.

3

4. Mr Taylor does not agree to this. If the FSB feels free to squander member's money it will have to answer to its members. However, Mr Taylor has incurred substantial expenses due to the FSB's actions and he seeks to have these expenses and continuing expenses reimbursed by the FSB. Furthermore, Mr Taylor does not believe that the FSB would be successful in seeking substantial damages from him because the FSB will have suffered no loss and that by speaking out he is providing a valuable service for members. In fact Mr Taylor will be seeking substantial damages from the FSB, so I assume that any litigation will consist of damages and counter damages. Indeed, Mr Dexter's improper withholding of relevant documents from Mr Taylor has been a major contributory factor in the continuance of this dispute.

Conclusion

This dispute cannot be cleared up by the tone of your letter. The demands that you request of Mr Taylor are wholly unrealistic when you consider the FSB's complete failure in understanding the complaints made by Mr Taylor.

Indeed, Mr Taylor is only making justified criticisms of an institution in the same manner that the FSB attacks institutions. The FSB cannot have it both ways. Only recently, the government minister for competition, Mrs Helen Liddell, made a scathing comment on the "so called leaders of the FSB" and this comment was reported in the Financial Times.

The FSB must not take it upon itself to dictate what does and what does not appear on a Web Site nor should it attempt to stifle free speech in the commercial world by using bully boy tactics to close an individual site down (it should be noted that Mr Taylor uses his site to conduct and advertise his own private business). The FSB has every means, opportunity and resources to communicate directly to its members and potential members with alternative views to those of Mr Taylor.

In my opinion the FSB is using the wrong approach in addressing this dispute. The FSB should consider a fresh proposal that both parties should meet informally with the intention of resolving this very unhappy situation. If the FSB wishes to choose this option then you can write to me or telephone on xxxx xxx xxxx and I will put such a proposal to Mr Taylor.

Yours faithfully

Paul Horan, FSB member, (former FSB policy committee member)

Copies to:

Mr I Handford
Mr D Dexter
Mr G Catto
Mr B Juby
Mr G Godby
Mr and Mrs Anslow

4