Sunday, August 26, 2007

Wikipedia manipulated & censored by Law Society of Scotland in propaganda war against critics & reformers

It's taken the media long enough to report something I covered 18 months ago back in February 2006 where the Law Society of Scotland were censoring out information on it's Wikipedia entry, critical of it's operation as self regulator of the legal profession.

Today, Scotland on Sunday and a few other newspapers finally report on the story, giving the Law Society's editing out the critical information as part of the legal profession's media campaign against criticism of it's ways, which we all know to be less than honest ....

Here are some screenshots of the changing face of the Law Society of Scotland's Wikipedia entry.

This is how the Law Society of Scotland's Wikipedia entry looked with some more truthful details before the censorship started ...

Wikipedia Law Society page before edit

Next up follows the edited version by the Law Society, and the current version, which can be seen to omit any criticism at all of how the Law Society functinos or deals with complaints against it's members ...

Wikipedia Law Society page after  ediit law society of Scotland wikipedia 26 August 2007

Of course, manipulating the media is a common thing for the Law Society of Scotland when it comes to news reports critical of it's performance as a self regulator of complaints against it's own member solicitors ... and sometimes officials have even resorted to threatening journalists careers if they report too many (or any) stories of client complaints against legal firms in Scotland.

I've covered some of those media manipulation stories by the legal profession in previous articles here :

Law Society of Scotland actively censors the Scottish Press to kill articles on crooked lawyers

Scottish Legal Profession censors the Press to kill off bad publicity - Part II

Law Society of Scotland claims success in gagging the press over Herald newspaper revelations of secret case memos

Scottish media opinion being manipulated by legal profession against Parliamentary reforms of LPLA Bill ?

... with some more upsetting articles on Law Society manipulation of the popular media here ;

Scots Law Chiefs turn hostile on consumer organisation in propaganda war against deregulation of legal services markets.

Lawyers complaints system thought to have caused intimidation of clients for years

Lawyers protests over low legal aid fees revealed to be fake as Law Society's own research points to increase

Chief Executive of the Law Society of Scotland branded a liar after FSA denies claims of intervention to block complaints body

Law Society of Scotland threatens Court challenge against Scottish Executive over LPLA legal reform Bill

Scottish legal profession campaigns against open debate in Scottish Parliament on independent regulation of complaints against lawyers

Fairly obvious then, after reading through those previous articles, the legal profession in Scotland hates criticism of itself and prizes control over the media and free speech as being one of it's main weapons against reforming the complaints system against lawyers and keeping the public silent on the culture of injustice within the legal profession itself.

For my own part, I am reminded of the Law Society of Scotland's special briefings against myself and other critics of the legal profession on the same night & day after their Chief Accountant was attacked, apparently in a 'hit' arranged by crooked lawyer(s) ...surprisingly .. yet to be caught some 19 months after the 'hit' took place ...

Scotland on Sunday reported that story here : Cash laundering link to law chief stabbing and dutifully mentioned my blog - which was only 3 weeks old but apparently causing consternation in the Law Society HQ and other parts of the Scottish legal profession...

Cash Link to Law Chief Stabbing Scotland on Sunday 29 January 2006

Senior officials at the Law Society called a few journalists and asked them in for 'special briefings' to be given files on myself & others, with orders to run stories alleging it was critics of the legal profession who were responsible for the attack on Mr Cumming, and that they should be immediately silenced, websites taken offline - and one identified official - very senior in rank at the Law Society, allegedly said to a journalist that [named] campaigners against crooked lawyers "should be locked up in Guantanamo Bay for a bit of torture" ... something the press sadly decided to leave out ... it would have made a good headline though as the journalist knows himself - something like Law Boss calls for critics to be tortured ? ...

Here's today's Scotland on Sunday article on the Law Society of Scotland up to it's usual tricks of media manipulation ...

Wikipedia warzone


THEY are the Wikipedia timewasters, anonymous cyber-vandals who use one of the internet's greatest resources to abuse rivals, spread gossip and cause widespread confusion.

But Scotland on Sunday can today reveal that many of the culprits are staff at major companies, councils, government departments and other organisations who spend their time sabotaging the free online encyclopaedia rather than working.

From the Prince of Wales's official residence to British Airways, the Ministry of Defence and Aberdeenshire Council, this newspaper has established precise numbers, times and details of how employees used work computers to anonymously edit Wikipedia articles, often to spread abuse, bigotry and outright nonsense.

Among the biggest Wikipedia timewasters in the UK appear to be MoD employees, who were responsible for more than 4,600 anonymous edits in the past four years.

They included 100 entries about Formula One, contributions about the 1970s cartoon series Captain Caveman and several disparaging references to Scots Pop Idol winner Michelle McManus.

MoD computers have been used to edit the entry on the Faslane Peace Camp, claiming the submarine base was vital to the local economy and that if the nuclear base left, the campaigners would find something else to complain about.

Wikipedia was founded in 2001 and currently has two million English articles, all of them written and edited by computer users around the world. The site has always been vulnerable to abuse and last week it emerged the CIA had edited articles including those relating to casualty levels in Iraq.

Many malicious editors of Wikipedia try to mask their identities, but using sophisticated scanning software, Scotland on Sunday has traced thousands of edits back to hundreds of organisations, several of which last night launched investigations to track down those responsible.

Computers operated by Scotland's local authorities were used in 16,190 Wikipedia edits in the past four years.

Top of the league is Aberdeenshire with 2,004 changes. They were used to make no fewer than 12 entries about Jaffa Cakes, along with a comment that all "neds" are "gay".

In second place was South Lanarkshire Council, which recorded 1,505 Wiki edits, including obscene and bigoted remarks about Celtic FC and Rangers owner David Murray.

Perhaps one of the most surprising sources for anonymous Wiki editing is Clarence House, the home of the Prince of Wales. An enthusiastic linguist at the royal residence added a paragraph on the usage of the Australian greeting "G'Day", while another remarked on the sexuality of a Surrey businessman.

In addition, a computer on the network of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission was used to make comments about Rangers, calling them "the world's most bigoted football club". And a Scottish Parliament computer was used to change Tory MSP Phil Gallie's date of birth to 1839.

British Airways computers have been used to make anonymous edits about the 2005 Helios air crash north of Athens, which killed all 121 on board. Meanwhile, a BBC computer was used to remove criticism of its iPlayer software.

Computers at the Law Society of Scotland have been used to make anonymous edits which removed a paragraph which was critical of them.

Wikipedia is also being used as a weapon in disputes within organisations. Lesley Hinds, chairwoman of NHS Health Scotland, was criticised in an anonymous, ungrammatical and misspelt Wikipedia posting which came from an NHS Health Scotland computer.

It said: "Health Scotland is under the relocation review which will most likely see it being moved from Edinburgh to Glasgow. Lesley Hinds appears to support this which is surprising since she is meant to represent the interests of Edinburgh in her Lord Provost role. When this policy was released it was expected she would of resigned is [sic] protest but instead has continued working in both jobs."

Mike Emmott, employee relations adviser with the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, said: "Most employers would expect anyone wanting to edit Wikipedia to do it at home and in their own time. Employers are not Attila the Huns who will ban everything and they accept a little bit of give and take, but it is hard to see how vandalising Wikipedia pages is acceptable. A ringleader for this kind of activity could even find themselves being dismissed."

Andre Coner, a consultant with computer security firm Commissum, said: "It's a myth that everyone is anonymous online. They're not. In order for you to send and receive information, the various servers need to know where your computer is."

Spokeswomen for both the MoD and the Scottish Parliament said they were aware of the issue and were looking into the origin of the offending edits. A BA spokesman said it was also looking into the issue.

And South Lanarkshire Council pledged "appropriate action".

However, a spokeswoman for Aberdeenshire Council suggested that most of the edits would have come from youngsters using school computers and members of the public using library machines.

A spokeswoman for the Law Society of Scotland said it had removed inaccurate and outdated criticism and that since the number beside the edit could be identified as belonging to the Law Society it could not be construed as anonymous.

Cut and run

January 31, 2006, 6.58pm

A user going by the name of Sjharte, who identifies himself as being an Edinburgh-based lawyer, added the following paragraph to the Wikipedia page on the Law Society of Scotland.

"There has been criticism of the Law Society of Scotland from some sections of the Scottish public citing the level of complaints by members of the public against Scottish solicitors. The Scottish Executive has instituted studies into regulation of the Scottish legal profession."

February 8, 7.11pm

An anonymous writer deletes the paragraph. The edit can be traced to a computer on the Law Society of Scotland network.


Another Wikipedia editor, under the name of ALoan, restores the critical paragraph.

February 17, 1.22pm

Again an anonymous writer deletes the paragraph of criticism. Again from a computer on the Law Society of Scotland network.

February 19, 10.17pm

"Sjharte" edits the page to bring back the paragraph.

February 23, 5.27pm

Again an edit is made from a Law Society computer.


"Sjharte" puts the critical paragraph back in.

March 24, 3.18pm

Anonymous but traceable. The Law Society computer is used to wipe out the paragraph again.


Sjharte has another go, adding the critical paragraph and branding the anonymous edits as "vandalism".

April 13 ,2006, 10.56am

Resistance is useless. Again the criticism is blanked out. Again the edit is anonymous. Again it can be traced to a Law Society of Scotland computer.


Wikiscanner allows users to hunt for anonymous edits which came from computers at the networks of various organisations.

This is the basic Wikiscanner link, enjoy:

This is the link which takes the user to all the anonymous edits originating with computers on Ministry of Defence networks:

This is the link which takes the user to all the anonymous edits originating with computers on British Airways networks:

This is for the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission:


Archie said...

LOL you beat the newspaper by 18 months ! Does that qualify them as slowwwwwwwwwwwww ?!

Jamsey said...

This proves 2 things.
Wikipedia is a pile of garbage as a reference and not to be trusted,and YOU Mr Cherbi should be writing in the newspapers or on television !

Anonymous said...

"A spokeswoman for the Law Society of Scotland said it had removed inaccurate and outdated criticism and that since the number beside the edit could be identified as belonging to the Law Society it could not be construed as anonymous."

Which crooked liar lawyer at the Law Society authorised this idiotic statement ?

Wiki sucks big time said...

you missed the best bit Peter.This user Sjharte who was editing the Law Society page supposedly against them is a Wikipedia member with his page at

He says he invented "queer technology" whatever that is.What do you think he would say to your Client H who had their daughter threatened with rape if her father didn't remove his complaint against the lawyer ?

Isnt that a conflict of interest anyway ?lawyers writing articles in an encyclopedia on their own complaints protectorate ?

Anonymous said...

Must say you write a bloody fantastic weblog Mr Cherbi.This wikipedia story in Scotland on Sunday,its almost as if they lifted the Law Society example from your blog but why did take from February 2006 to August 2007 to write it I wonder ?Did you let them know about it ?

Peter Cherbi said...

#Archie @6:43 PM

Yes .. they were a bit slow don't you think ?

I'd have thought Jennifer Veitch would have had a crack at it long ago to gloss it over .. better that than writing about Douglas Mill wanting to lie in a bath and slash his wrists, as was published the day after the Law Society forced the Herald to print a 'confirmation' (retraction) on one of their articles relating to Mr Mill himself.

#Jamsey @7:47 PM

Open to offers of course

#Wiki sucks big time @9:04 PM

Good point, well you can always ask him on his user page ...

That 'client H' you refer to is so scared now he wants to leave Scotland.

I hope Kenny MacAskill our Justice Secretary is watching the debate on how the Law Society manipulate the media and control the truth of how they treat clients ...

Time for reforms Mr MacAskill, and time to help the people rather than those who threaten our wellbeing.

Anonymous said...

This mill guy sounds like a nut and he is the bar president or something in Scotland ?How fucked up is that.I think you guys need to start again with your legal system before criticizing other countries.

in & out said...

No great surprise here that lawyers are helping lawyers out on Wikipedia but I agree it all seems part of this campaign of theirs to clear up opposition to their view of themselves.

Anonymous said...

99.9% of lawyers give the rest a bad name !

Anonymous said...

Dont forget all that legal bullshit we have to read in Mondays Scotsman.Ive stopped buying it now after seeing a lawyer of a friend I know writing all kinds of rubbish about how great the profession is when its not.

Anonymous said...

The wiki page looks like it could do with an update.How about adding numbers of complaints,how many clients have been ruined and how many lawyers struck off to the statistics ? No mention of the new law on complaints or the commission either.Is wikipedia being a bit too sympathetic to the lawyers ?

Anonymous said...

Another own goal by the LSS.Really it's time we were rid of Mill's shenanigans as you say.Personally I don't know anyone who likes the man at all.How he is still there defies logic.

Anonymous said...


I see from your blog you even traced the wikipedia entries way back in Feb 2006.Brilliant work and remarkable foresight on this one.Did the paper really come up with that story on it's own or did you feed it to them ? I wonder.

Still waiting on you coming to your senses and crossing the big pond you are stuck at the other side of.

M.Neith said...

I agree - looks like Peter piped the papers to the post on this one.Can't help wondering why a lawyer is editing wikipedia against Law Society edits though.This Sjharte going against his own club, wouldn't that mean they should strike him off or boil him in oil for not towing the official line or is it darker than that, more like the whole thing was organised or he thought he was doing them a favour of putting in a very lame piece of criticism which doesn't really reflect any of what I read here or in the newspapers on crooked lawyers.I think I will stick with your version Mr Cherbi in this blog.I don't like lawyers that much anyway so reading their own stories on the web wouldnt be my first choice anyway.

Good luck and keep up the reporting.

Anonymous said...

Brilliant exposure of the lawyers editing their own page and how ridiculous of the hootsmon on sunday to take 18 months to report it.Proves even more your points about lawyers in Scotland definitely not to be trusted.