Good morning from Edinburgh .... and thanks for the comments everyone. I had a particularly interesting email with some file attachments the other day showing another fiddled client complaint at the Law Society of Scotland - with senior Law Society officials interfering in the case and preventing the client going to court ... more to come on this at a later date.
Anyway, today I was awoken by a phone call from a friend telling me about an edit to a web encyclopedia, so while I prepare another lawyer bashing article (complete with media article), for this week on how the Law Society of Scotland screwed me over, along with many others, I thought I would share with you the details of this little story today ....
Wikipedia .. something I've no real use for because from what I saw, there's a lot of crap on it, has an article on the Law Society of Scotland ... they even seem to have had one on me at one time (wonder if a crooked lawyer had a go at me in it, cause it's not there now) ...
Anyway, as it's interesting to my case a bit, here's the reprint from Injustice Scotland, and folks, seriously, if you want to publicise your case or wrongdoings by organisations, don't rely on sites like Wikipedia.
More often than not, there are people on these kinds of sites with vested interests who promote the views of their own profession, companies, products or themselves - hence all the fiddled edits which seem to be taking place over there, and unless common sense has taken a back seat today, I'd agree with what has been written about the comparison between the Congressional staff on Capitol Hill editing Wikipedia articles, to the lawyers who are editing (for the good) articles on their own corporate bodies ..... smacks of conflict of interest to me ....
No doubt, from reading some of the user profiles of the wiki lot, they sit themselves on pedestals apart from the rest of us .... [insert thought here] ... so I don't think these guys would know a conflict of interest if it fell on them. I especially thought funny one of the apparently 'senior' user profiles who thinks of himself as a major character in a shakespeare play. Someone not living in the real world it seems .... and to think that people are taking this stuff as being 'read' ? what a joke ! The fundraiser drive is even funnier - my god ... if people want to give to charity, I'd say go feed some poor children in the third world instead of wasting it on online promotions of the professions and big business... trust me, it would do more good to save a life & let some young people advance, than feather those who don't need it.
Anyway, if I speak on my case, I will do it with my own voice, or on my own website, thanks, and through my own media contacts in Scotland, not through some site which can fiddle about with what I write .... and remember, dear crooked lawyers, wanna sue me for what happened to me at the hands of your colleagues, or on what I am printing on this site ? I qualify for legal aid - so go jump off a cliff.
After the recent scandals affecting the online encyclopedia, "Wikipedia", an example of one where officials of Congress were found to have been editing articles on their members in a more favourable light ... we find today, through a member's posting this evening, that Wikipedia is allowing members of the Law Society of Scotland to adjust edits of their site in a favourable light to the profession's point of view, against the consumer ...
That's about the same as members of Congress staff editing articles in a more favourable light, right ? ... well, it should be ... members of the legal profession editing articles to give the legal profession's point of view ... sounds the same ? yes ? ...
Should we be surprised about this ? .. well, not really, as an investigation of Wikipedia posters seems to reveal that plenty of them are lawyers !, and as we all know, there are plenty lawyers who want to make their colleagues sound as good as possible - no matter what ... want an example of this - go and read about the infamous Julian Danskin ... who most of his colleagues describe as a 'poor unfortunate' victimised by intense media scrutiny (he was found guilty of abusing young boys & filming his exploits) .. and we have many more examples of that, where colleagues in the profession describe colleagues who have been exposed in the media as "saints, compared with clients", and in another example - the head of "Law Care" the agency set up to assist demoralised and crooked Scottish lawyers actually went after a complaining client himself and fiddled a complaint to make sure a crooked colleague got off the hook ...... so, we shouldn't expect too much from those in the profession who write about them, should we ...
In any case, if you go to the links provided at the end of this article, you will see different versions provided by different users ... judge then for yourself, which may be more relevant after you have read the items on this site, and on many many more sites & independent Scottish newspapers & media outlets....
One comment though ... from reading the Wikipedia current page on the Law Society of Scotland, it seems quite out of date - even the Law Society of Scotland has now agreed to independent regulation of the legal profession, which the Scottish Executive is now writing in a bill to be heard soon in the Parliament ... and whoever wrote the part about charges being heard before the SSDT (Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal) forgot to say that the members of the SSDT are appointed after being recommended by the Law Society of Scotland and/or the Lord President of the Court of Session (it's on the SSDT website and all solicitors are supposed to know this) but this is kind of like saying the Nazi party was independent of Adolf Hitler ... so there's not much independence there.
For your further reference, go read about how the SSDT prosecuted Gordon Coutts Thomson, a Scottish solicitor who started to attract so many legal aid clients, he upset the 'powers at be' within the Law Society of Scotland, who then fitted him up on false charges, prosecuted him before the SSDT, had him found guilty, then threw him out of the profession ... Mr Thomson then fought the case against the vindictive, evil prosecution of himself & his practice, and won, with the Law Society having to settle and pay all it's own costs.... An investigation by a newspaper revealed that one of the 'complainants' who were, in reality, asked to complain by the Law Society itself against Gordon Thomson's legal practice, were the former legal firm of Alex Morison & Co, Edinburgh. After Mr Thomson's practice was closed, guess who got to administer it ........ and take all the business ...... one of the former Alex Morison & Co lawyers even told a client all about it ..... naughty naughty ...
Another case springs to mind, which is currently in the courts, of Michael G Robson v the Law Society of Scotland & SSDT - another case where a solicitor seems to have been fitted up on charges because he turned against the profession and it's point of view against the client, and the SSDT seems bent on prosecuting Mr Robson, with tales of witness statements being withheld from the investigation and fiddled to reflect the Law Society's point of view .... plenty to read about that one on the internet too ...
There are plenty more examples of case fiddling before the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal - who do everything to ensure that guilty solicitors get off from serious charges, or only get a slap on the wrist so they can go on robbing clients at will ..... what a nice cosy set-up the SSDT is ....
Wikipedia .. get your facts right, or don't get them at all.
Links for you to read the various articles .... and remember, anyone can sign in to Wikipedia, create member accounts, and edit pages to reflect the reality of what is happening in Scotland ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Law_Society_of_Scotland&oldid=26984792
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Society_of_Scotland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sjharte
That's about the same as members of Congress staff editing articles in a more favourable light, right ? ... well, it should be ... members of the legal profession editing articles to give the legal profession's point of view ... sounds the same ? yes ? ...
Should we be surprised about this ? .. well, not really, as an investigation of Wikipedia posters seems to reveal that plenty of them are lawyers !, and as we all know, there are plenty lawyers who want to make their colleagues sound as good as possible - no matter what ... want an example of this - go and read about the infamous Julian Danskin ... who most of his colleagues describe as a 'poor unfortunate' victimised by intense media scrutiny (he was found guilty of abusing young boys & filming his exploits) .. and we have many more examples of that, where colleagues in the profession describe colleagues who have been exposed in the media as "saints, compared with clients", and in another example - the head of "Law Care" the agency set up to assist demoralised and crooked Scottish lawyers actually went after a complaining client himself and fiddled a complaint to make sure a crooked colleague got off the hook ...... so, we shouldn't expect too much from those in the profession who write about them, should we ...
In any case, if you go to the links provided at the end of this article, you will see different versions provided by different users ... judge then for yourself, which may be more relevant after you have read the items on this site, and on many many more sites & independent Scottish newspapers & media outlets....
One comment though ... from reading the Wikipedia current page on the Law Society of Scotland, it seems quite out of date - even the Law Society of Scotland has now agreed to independent regulation of the legal profession, which the Scottish Executive is now writing in a bill to be heard soon in the Parliament ... and whoever wrote the part about charges being heard before the SSDT (Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal) forgot to say that the members of the SSDT are appointed after being recommended by the Law Society of Scotland and/or the Lord President of the Court of Session (it's on the SSDT website and all solicitors are supposed to know this) but this is kind of like saying the Nazi party was independent of Adolf Hitler ... so there's not much independence there.
For your further reference, go read about how the SSDT prosecuted Gordon Coutts Thomson, a Scottish solicitor who started to attract so many legal aid clients, he upset the 'powers at be' within the Law Society of Scotland, who then fitted him up on false charges, prosecuted him before the SSDT, had him found guilty, then threw him out of the profession ... Mr Thomson then fought the case against the vindictive, evil prosecution of himself & his practice, and won, with the Law Society having to settle and pay all it's own costs.... An investigation by a newspaper revealed that one of the 'complainants' who were, in reality, asked to complain by the Law Society itself against Gordon Thomson's legal practice, were the former legal firm of Alex Morison & Co, Edinburgh. After Mr Thomson's practice was closed, guess who got to administer it ........ and take all the business ...... one of the former Alex Morison & Co lawyers even told a client all about it ..... naughty naughty ...
Another case springs to mind, which is currently in the courts, of Michael G Robson v the Law Society of Scotland & SSDT - another case where a solicitor seems to have been fitted up on charges because he turned against the profession and it's point of view against the client, and the SSDT seems bent on prosecuting Mr Robson, with tales of witness statements being withheld from the investigation and fiddled to reflect the Law Society's point of view .... plenty to read about that one on the internet too ...
There are plenty more examples of case fiddling before the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal - who do everything to ensure that guilty solicitors get off from serious charges, or only get a slap on the wrist so they can go on robbing clients at will ..... what a nice cosy set-up the SSDT is ....
Wikipedia .. get your facts right, or don't get them at all.
Links for you to read the various articles .... and remember, anyone can sign in to Wikipedia, create member accounts, and edit pages to reflect the reality of what is happening in Scotland ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Law_Society_of_Scotland&oldid=26984792
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Society_of_Scotland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sjharte
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments should encourage & promote an acceptable & respectful level of public debate on law & legal issues, the judiciary, courts & justice system.
All comments are subject to moderation. Anonymous comments are enabled.
Abusive or unacceptable comments will not be published.
Comments & links to material may not always be published but will be noted and investigated.
Sourced information, news leaks, or cases with verifiable documentation for investigation should be emailed to blog journalists.