Tuesday, April 07, 2009

Legal Aid access to rise but Law Society will still intervene in claims against crooked lawyers & powerful professions

SLAB Legal Aid to rise, but access still dodgy if you are suing a professional. Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill announced today some welcome rises in access to legal aid, where anyone with a disposable income of £25,000 or less will be eligible to apply for civil legal aid (unless the applicant happens to be suing a professional, such as a lawyer, doctor, accountant or any other member of a profession or public body coincidentally insured by the same insurers as the legal profession.

The previous limit for claiming civil legal aid was £10,306 of disposable income, Kenny MacAskill today touting that this rise in legal aid access will ‘enable applicants to apply for financial support when protecting their housing, employment and family rights.’

However, the long awaited changes to legal aid entitlements, while announced today, face many criticisms from not only consumers but also from the legal profession itself, where even some solicitors describe the ‘rise’ in legal aid as more of a loan to pay their legal bills, rather than raising entitlements.

Here is what Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill had to say :

Kenny MacAskillMacAskill : Not much change for legal aid claims in reality : "The Scottish Government is determined to use the powers at our disposal to help those facing difficult and uncertain times during the current economic slump.We have taken a series of steps to help hard-pressed families and businesses, to improve financial advice to vulnerable individuals and to stimulate growth in the economy.

"Today we will, at a stroke, bring one million more Scots into potential eligibility for legal aid, where previously their disposable income automatically ruled them out of being considered. We believe the change is long overdue as the system has for many years unfairly excluded people of relatively modest means from pursuing what might be a complex and expensive legal action.The reformed financial eligibility limits, including a tapered contribution regime, provides a fairer system which can help many more people at just the time they might need it most."

Rubbish. Pure and simply rubbish as we all know.Nothing will change for those who are trying to claim civil legal aid against banks, and the professions …

Scotsman 5 June 1998 Law Society accused of closing ranks as claim failsLaw Society of Scotland will intervene against legal aid claims. Just try suing a lawyer or a professional on legal aid and see how far you get. Hundreds of people over years have come to me with such a situation, and guess what ? the Law Society of Scotland has killed off their legal aid at every turn ... although only when their case was about to get to court, to make sure their own solicitor could dredge as much civil legal aid for advice & assistance before actually dumping the poor client in the street on orders from the Law Society's HQ in Drumsheugh Gardens, Edinburgh.

ScottishGovernmentScottish Government & Law Society still blocks legal aid access to cases suing professions & public bodies. Strangely enough, people even trying to sue a bank or a doctor or an accountant whose actions had totally financially ruined them, leaving some victims in receipt of benefits, still couldn't obtain legal aid ... and all because the so-called 'professional' they were up against, used their professional muscle with the same Scottish Government to quash the client's legal aid applications .. which Mr MacAskill knows all about but does nothing about.

So what actual use is the legal aid rise, Mr MacAskill ? Will people actually be able to put in a claim for legal aid this time without professions, banks and business being able to stop their claim simply because they don't want a few bad headlines in the press about throwing people out of their homes ? Are you actually going to allow those who need legal aid a level of decency in life and access to justice which so far you, and some of your colleagues in the legal profession have denied most of us for all these years ?

Douglas Mill letter to Scottish Legal Aid Board demanding legal aid be refusedDouglas Mill intervenes with SLAB. proving lawyers will make it their business to kill off a legal aid claim. As an example to all, my own personal experience with legal aid involving the well known case against the Law Society of Scotland and crooked Borders lawyer Andrew Penman of Stormonth Darling Solicitors in Kelso, which saw the then Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill step in to personally thwart my legal aid claim to expose the corruption at the Law Society which reversed a prosecution of Penman for what he did to my family. This is the reality of access to legal aid in Scotland, rather it is no access to legal aid when it comes to pursuing a case against a ‘professional’ who has ruined your life for their own financial gain.

More window dressing Mr MacAskill ? How unbecoming of a Justice Secretary there to help the people of Scotland ….

For your information, here is the Press Release from the Scottish Legal Aid Board :

Legal support for middle-income households

The Scottish Government today extended legal aid rules to one million more Scots – enabling them to apply for financial support when protecting their housing, employment and family rights.

Anyone with a disposable income of £25,000 or less will be eligible to apply for civil legal aid. The previous limit was £10,306.

Ministers pledged the change - meaning that around three-quarters of all adults will potentially be eligible for legal aid - in November, as part of their wider support for people during the economic downturn.

The Scottish Government is also investing an additional £3 million to enhance the national availability of advice and representation, including people at risk of repossession.

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said: “The Scottish Government is determined to use the powers at our disposal to help those facing difficult and uncertain times during the current economic slump.

“We have taken a series of steps to help hard-pressed families and businesses, to improve financial advice to vulnerable individuals and to stimulate growth in the economy.

“Today we will, at a stroke, bring one million more Scots into potential eligibility for legal aid, where previously their disposable income automatically ruled them out of being considered.

“We believe the change is long overdue as the system has for many years unfairly excluded people of relatively modest means from pursuing what might be a complex and expensive legal action.

“The reformed financial eligibility limits, including a tapered contribution regime, provides a fairer system which can help many more people at just the time they might need it most.”

Lindsay Montgomery, Chief Executive of the Scottish Legal Aid Board added:

“This opens up access to justice for more people and is particularly welcome news in a difficult economic climate.

“This substantial increase in financial eligibility for civil legal aid will help people who previously would not have been able to afford to pursue or defend their case.

“It will also mean that those with higher disposable incomes will pay a proportionate contribution towards their case.”

Notes for News Editors:

1. Civil legal aid provides funding for a solicitor to take a case to court, including preparation and the hearing itself, as well as funding for advocates and experts if needed.

2. Financial eligibility for legal aid is means-tested on an applicant's disposable income (including deductions for maintenance payments and childcare or travel costs associated with work, as well as an allowance for the costs of providing for dependants) and capital assets (including savings and investments, but not their home).

3. Under the new rules, civil legal aid applicants would pay the following contribution from their disposable income:

* No contribution if annual disposable income is below £3,156;
* One third of the amount by which their disposable income exceeds £3,355, up to £10,995;
* plus 50% of any disposable income between £10,996 and £15,000;
* plus 100% of any disposable income over £15,001 up to the upper limit of £25,000.

The rest of any case costs would be met through legal aid payments.

4. To date around 43% of Scottish households are potentially eligible to access civil legal assistance under the legal aid scheme. The rise in upper disposable income limit to £25,000 will bring this to around 74%. Financial eligibility tests in England and Wales are not directly comparable. However, the monthly disposable income limit for legal aid south of the border is approximately equivalent to £8,376 over one year and the estimated eligibility rate in 2007 was around 29% of households.

5. In addition to financial qualification, applicants must meet two other statutory tests: they must have a legal basis for the case and it must be reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case that they should receive legal aid (e.g. it may not be reasonable to grant legal aid to enable the applicant to sue someone who has no resources or where the applicant is able to receive financial help from other sources such as a trade union, insurance company or professional body).

6. In November the Deputy First Minister announced an additional £3 million over two years to enhance the availability of legal advice and representation for people facing repossession and other problems, such as debt, through In-Court services, and assistance provided by local solicitors, advice agencies and Scottish Legal Aid Board.

7. A Repossessions Group, established by Ministers to examine other measures to support homeowners at risk of losing their home, is due to report to Ministers by the end of April.

8. In January Minister for Community Safety Fergus Ewing established the Debt Action Forum, a panel of experts chaired by the Minister to examine information and initiatives on debt relief, debt advice and repossession and recommend a package of legislative and non-legislative measures to tackle the issues. He also announced improvements to the Debt Arrangement Scheme which helps people with disposable incomes to pay back their debts over a longer period, free from the threat of legal action.

9. Illustrative examples of how the changes will affect certain types of household are available here: Extended eligibility examples

40 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yes I agree.MacAskill must be desperate for some good publicity but November is a long time away for some who need legal aid now.

Anonymous said...

I'd like to know how many claims over the years for legal aid against lawyers have failed ?

Probably 90% or more

Anonymous said...

Civil legal aid has always been difficult to obtain for suing a lawyer or a doctor.This comes down to a question of negligence and getting an expert witness to testify to that effect or having a judge finding a lawyer negligent is next to impossible.

Having said all that what Douglas Mill did was disgusting and I don't doubt there are many more examples yet to be uncovered.

Anonymous said...

I am a solicitor Mr Cherbi and I can definitely say I would never take on a negligence case funded by legal aid.The whole thing is a nightmare to progress and as you seem to have experienced yourself there is no "access to justice" for the victims of the bad apples among us.

Anonymous said...

all that guff and it doesnt even happen till november !

whats next kenny ? are you going to tell us xmas comes in december ? lol

Anonymous said...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7986475.stm

Mike Dailly says its more of a loan than extra access to legal aid

More SNP fiddling while the country burns and might have guessed they wouldnt give us any extra money just liek they cant even give us extra Police !

SNP = Sleaze said...

"To date around 43% of Scottish households are potentially eligible to access civil legal assistance under the legal aid scheme" - bollocks with capital letters SNP attached to it

I take it the SNP are writing the press releases for everyone now ?

Anonymous said...

Fergus Ewing .. I could tell you a lot about him.
Whats your email ?

enlightened said...

" 7. A Repossessions Group, established by Ministers to examine other measures to support homeowners at risk of losing their home, is due to report to Ministers by the end of April."

The reprobate group have done sod all, which you can read for yourself here :http://www.aib.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/4/0000698.doc
REPOSSESSIONS GROUP: MEETING ON 11 FEBRUARY 2009

MINUTES OF MEETING

Present
Adrian Stalker (Chair)
Paul Brown, Legal Services Agency
Gavin Corbett, Shelter
Keith Dryburgh, Citizens Advice Scotland
Paul Fenn, Home Loan Management
Kennedy Foster, Council of Mortgage Lenders
Yvonne Gallacher, Money Advice Scotland
George Gretton, Scottish Law Commission
Mark Higgins, Irwin Mitchell
Sarah O’Neill, Consumer Focus Scotland
Hazel Thoms, Scottish Legal Aid Board
George Way, Law Society of Scotland

In attendance
Shona Stephen, Housing Access and Support Division, Scottish Government
Stephen Sandham, Housing Access and Support Division, Scottish Government
Jackie Walder, Housing Access and Support Division, Scottish Government
Struan Horsburgh, Housing Access and Support Division, Scottish Government
John St Clair, Legal Directorate, Scottish Government
Edythe Murie, Legal Directorate, Scottish Government
Diane Dunn, Accountant in Bankruptcy

1. Adrian Stalker introduced himself and opened the meeting. There were no apologies. Following introductions, Stephen Sandham gave a presentation on the background (Paper 1) to the establishment of the Repossessions Group. This covered the projected rise in the number of households facing re-possession, the Scottish Government’s response to date and the remit given to the group. The following issues were then covered in discussion:

The FSA and its role in ensuring that lenders review their arrears policies and treat their customers fairly.
The Mortgage Rights Act, and initial views on scope for change.
The need for better understanding of statistics and trends around legal applications and re-possessions in Scotland, and the potential for Section 11 of the Homelessness etc (Scotland) Act 2003 to contribute to this along with work underway related to the Mortgage Rights Act.
The impact of securitisation of debts on lenders.
The increase in workload for debt advice services and the potential for further investment in face to face advice services in the light of the increasing number of repossessions.
A better understanding of whether those who seek debt advice at an early stage are less likely to face repossession.
The impact of negative equity on lenders’ willingness to avoid repossession and selling the property at a loss.
The impact of effective representation on the outcome in repossession cases.

Action Points:

Kennedy Foster to provide a paper on regulation of lenders and the lenders’ perspective for next meeting.

Paul Fenn to provide additional data on securitised mortgages.

Yvonne Gallacher/Keith Dryburgh to provide data on numbers of clients seeking face to face debt advice.

2. Adrian set out the current legal context (Paper 1). The following points were made in discussion:

The two voluntary pre-action protocols in Scotland work because they provide a benefit to each side in a legal case.
The Civil Courts Review is considering the issue of pre-action protocols.
A mapping of the civil supply of solicitors and in-court advice is currently underway. This should show how the current provision is working and how it might work better.
There are marked variations across the country in the numbers of people accessing legal aid.
Anecdotally, no more than 10% of repossession actions have a Mortgage Rights Act application. The documents involved are complex, and many see the costs of taking action as too great.
Remortgaging had historically been an option to address re-possession, but this is now difficult for those with adverse credit histories.
There is a need to be careful not to develop a system that discourages lending.
There is concern about recent increases in the sale and rent back market. The UK Government has announced a consultation.

3. Adrian outlined the remit, membership and work programme of the Group (Papers 2 and 3). The following points were made in discussion:

The first part of the remit should be considered first to ensure a conclusion by end April. The second part may continue into May.
Consideration of issues related to tenants and rent arrears could be carried out under the second part of the remit, as an ongoing issue. The Debt Action Forum should be asked whether this sat better with its remit.
It may be necessary to establish smaller groups to work on some issues between meetings, rather than work on everything at every meeting.
Minutes will be prepared for agreement at the following meeting. They will then be published on the Scottish Government website.

Action Points:

Adrian Stalker to report to Debt Action Forum on possibility of considering issues relating to tenants and rent arrears.

Jackie Walder to note that final report to be the last item on the agenda for the next meeting.

4. Adrian introduced his paper (Paper 4) which proposed a structure for discussing the issues which the group had to address. The following points were made in discussion:

The possibility of a debt advice and information pack being put out at an earlier stage to make people aware of the Debt Arrangement Scheme.
How mortgage rescue schemes are best brought to the attention of borrowers.
Need to view the issue from the perspective of an individual going through the process, from the point of going into arrears and covering interaction with lenders, to identify the current gaps and how to best address them.
Consideration of the links between the Mortgage Rights Act and Section 40 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, while noting this may need to be considered over the longer term.

5. The Group agreed the importance of taking a holistic approach, encouraging people to access independent advice at an early stage, but also focusing on ability to defend actions effectively if matters did get to court.

Action Points:

Group members to submit to Shona Stephen or Stephen Sandham any suggested areas for discussion.

Hazel Thoms to provide a paper on current situation with legal advice and representation.

Jackie Walder to circulate Shelter’s recent paper on evictions by social landlords.

Adrian Stalker to raise the linkages between the Mortgage Rights Act and Bankruptcy Act with the Debt Action Forum.

6. George Way introduced the Law Society’s position paper (Paper 5). The Law Society had been asked to consider a voluntary pre-action protocol. but was of the view that a protocol without teeth would not be useful. The Sheriff Court Rules Council was amenable to making the forms used in summary applications more user friendly.

7. The Group agreed that future meetings should start at 11am to allow more time for discussion. The next meeting on 4 March should first consider the wider advice context and then move on to issues related specifically to lenders. It was agreed that the Finance and Leasing Association should be invited to join the Group.

Action Points:

Stephen Sandham to invite the Finance and Leasing Association to join the Group.



Housing Access and Support Division

February 2009

Anonymous said...

I am a solicitor Mr Cherbi and I can definitely say I would never take on a negligence case funded by legal aid. The whole thing is a nightmare to progress and as you seem to have experienced yourself there is no "access to justice" for the victims of the bad apples among us.

Responding to 2:32PM above

Please note,
You say there is "no access to justice for the victims of bad apples among us".
I can tell you that the consequences of bad solicitors, doctors and accountants are devastating. I believe you are all bad apples. One day if I ever see a lawyer in court suing another lawyer for the one of their victims, then I might say there are decent lawyers.
The European Parliament have laws about discrimination. I urge a member of the public to go into any law firm and ask a lawyer to sue another lawyer on your behalf. You will find revulsion and discrimination in abundance.

Anonymous said...

I agree its highly unlikely anyone would be able to sue a lawyer funded by legal aid as your own case demonstrates Mr Cherbi.

Perhaps there should be a full investigation as to why such cases never get funded in the wake of that Law Society letter you uncovered.

Anonymous said...

THIS WAS CUT FROM MR CHERBI'S ARTICLE ON LEGAL AID.
Scottish Government & Law Society still blocks legal aid access to cases suing professions & public bodies. Strangely enough, people even trying to sue a bank or a doctor or an accountant whose actions had totally financially ruined them, leaving some victims in receipt of benefits, still couldn't obtain legal aid ... and all because the so-called 'professional' they were up against, used their professional muscle with the same Scottish Government to quash the client's legal aid applications .. which Mr MacAskill knows all about but does nothing about.

Mr Cherbi how right you are, but even if the legal aid were granted could the lawyer be trusted? I do not think so. The culture is that the public do not sue so called professionals. (So called is the right term because they are not as smart as they would have us believe). Having MacAskill as Justice minister is like putting a fox in a hen house and expecting the fox not to eat them. MacAskill's loyalty lies with his lawyer colleagues. Litigation is cash for the so called professionals, they get paid whatever the outcome, a great motivator eh? MacAskill resign for all the good you are, and go where you belong, The Law Society of Scotland.

Anonymous said...

THIS WAS TAKEN FROM MR CHERBI'S ARTICLE ON LEGAL AID.
MacAskill today touting that this rise in legal aid access will ‘enable applicants to apply for financial support when protecting their housing, employment and family rights.’

Mr MacAskill very noble of you. You talk about rights. I know if I was sitting opposite you and asked you based on strong written evidence I have to expose a corrupt lawyer what the answer would be.
On the Legal Aid matter, I will not wait until November because I want to sue one of your own profession, and no doubt your friends at the Law Society will do all they can to intervene.
This battle is not just about Legal Aid. It is about professionals who for the most part are above the law. I have read law as part of my course at university. What we are talking about here is the application of the law. Lawyers want to regulate themselves so that they can act with impunity. Applying the law fairly means that all a country's citizens have equal rights. This as you well know will never be the case so long as the present system remains. Why are you the Justice Minister? That is the same as NHS Primary Care appointing a nurse or doctor as their complaints manager. Totally obscene. You are a Justice Minister for Lawyers. You should resign.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Peter, but I think you've misread the press release. I read it as saying that the legal aid rules are extended "today" ie yesterday. The changes were PLEDGED in November (2008). The legal aid board's site definitely says they apply now.

Anonymous said...

That comment with the details on the repossessions group - how much are that lot getting paid to sit around and do nothing ?

Anonymous said...

WHAT FOLLOWS IS A STATEMENT BY A MEMBER OF THE SCOTTISH LEGAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION.

“I don't think consumers will get any satisfaction with the way the commission is being bullied around by interests from the legal profession who should never have been part of it in the first place as we are now seeing demonstrated in their attitudes.".

Yes this person is correct,

"No member of the legal profession should ever have been a part of it in the first place".

Having lawyers in the SLCC who want to use anti terror legislation to spy on people from the defunct ombudsman, is resulting in another Law Society with a different name. Masterman & Scanlan and their colleagues are their to undermine this process, so that only lawyers investigate complaints against lawyers. Professional loyalties are the barrier to justice in Scotland.
We need the opposite of the Law Society, a complaints handling body without lawyers. MacAskill is a massive barrier to this. The legal profession will lose a lot of revenue, if members of the public can go to court themselves.
The changes to date are a smoke screen. By attempting to address the needs of the Scottish Legal Consumer Jamieson and MacAskill have failed because we still have lawyers in the complaints handling process. That will ensure complaints against members of the legal profession are never dealt with. In my view the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission cannot serve the public if lawyers are involved. The refusal to investigate complaints on matters which occurred, before October 2008
ensures there is the stigma of coverup there. MacAskill get the lawyers out now, and prove to the Scottish People you mean business with respect to independent complaints handling.

Anonymous said...

Is it more likely that this new McKaskill initiative to boost the numbers of potential Legal Aid claims by 1 million is a simple exercise to increase the pay packets of the double charging Legal Aid lawyers?

Or am I just cynical?

Judy

Peter Cherbi said...

# ANonymous @ 10.49am

Thanks, well I spoke to someone in the Justice Department who said while the changes apply now, no one with an application currently in the works will be entitled to the higher limit - which seems a bit of a rip off.

I have corrected my report to reflect the points but the core of the argument remains the same, as a former SLAB employee confirms - "If you try and claim legal aid for suing a solicitor, doctor, accountant or a public body - there's little chance of getting funding" .. shortfalls & outrageous discrimination which I note Mr MacAskill has done nothing to address.

Peter Cherbi said...

# Judy @ 11.39am

I'd agree entirely with you on that, as of course, its the solicitor who the legal aid is actually paid to, not the client.

This is ultimately a benefit for the legal profession, not the public.

skewered said...

This is ultimately a benefit for the legal profession, not the public.

EXACTLY ! That is what legal aid is all about.The client doesn't get access to it if their face or case doesn't fit with the legal profession.

Anonymous said...

Interesting but I don't see much change in legal aid as Cherbi himself points out.

I mean who but a lying bullshitting politician would come out with the following : "Today we will, at a stroke, bring one million more Scots into potential eligibility for legal aid, where previously their disposable income automatically ruled them
out of being considered."

That has to be Macaskill and the SNP,not the mandarins at SLAB !

Anonymous said...

I'm in the same boat as you and tried to get legal aid to sue a hospital after my daughter nearly died of an mrsa infection at the Royal Infirmary.Legal aid was turned down so my solicitor said but he never let us see any letters from the legal aid board and when I called them they said they would only discuss it through my lawyer who dropped representing us when I said I had called legal aid to ask what happened.Now trying to get anothe rlawyer to take it on after 3 years of run around and no success.Can you help >

Anonymous said...

Did anyone ever find out how much Kenny MacAskill used to get in legal aid ?

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 1.53pm

Could you post a further comment (I will not publish it) with details of your case or a contact email and I will try and help you.

Anonymous said...

If someone could just tell us how many cases against crooked lawyers have been taken on funded by legal aid and reached a successful conclusion I suspect that would prove the point of Peter's article in a nutshell. I suspect the figure will be less than 10, probably less than 5.

Anonymous said...

Douglas Mill must hate your guts to write a letter like that.He deserves to be locked up along with anyone else from that bloody Law Society who has done that to someone complaining against a lawyer!

Anonymous said...

This is another one of those SNP 'we are great' announcements - NOT TO BE BELIEVED.

Anonymous said...

Legal aid is a racket for lawyers no matter who says what and you are totally correct, the lawyers get paid not the public !

Anonymous said...

I don't believe anything MacAskill says and why should he be included in a press release from the legal aid board anyway ?

legal aid should be separated out from political point scoring because its just the likes of Macaskill playing with peoples rights and entitlement to justice for votes which he and his band of crooks dont deserve

Anonymous said...

Mr Cherbi

If Douglas Mill hates your guts I can assure you I detest this man, and all lawyers.
Any member of the public who has not dealt with them is fortunate indeed.

Anonymous said...

A very good point has been raised in comments about Mr MacAskill's political rant within the Legal Aid Board's press release but isn't everything in Scotland now being twisted by the nationalists ?

I was at a meeting of (refrain from naming the group) a few weeks ago and one person got up asking we toasted Alex Salmond,who had done nothing for the issue we were discussing.When we refused, the person of some standing who raised the motion started an argument that if we didn't care for the SNP we should all be replaced with nationalist Scots and he proceeded to cheer Mr Salmond on his own (very bizarre to watch - you had to be there to see it I suppose)

Many of us felt the whole thing was reminiscent of fanaticism for nationalism a la Adolf Hitler style but no one dared say anything at the time for fear the SNP would be round with their bullies. This week it has happened and we are being vilified by the SNP for not including their leader in the group, to the point of intimidation.

Coincidentally I read this morning that the author, Ms Rowling, has resigned from an MS charity over trouble between their Scotland & London offices, which I can't help wondering will happen to us in the next few weeks, courtesy of the Scot Nats.

You will forgive me slightly off topic comparison Mr Cherbi, but I do believe from reading your work you are not the greatest admirer of at least some of the methods of the party who are now undoubtedly pushing out anyone who doesn't sing their tune, and perhaps the reason so much political content was included in the legal aid board's press release was that SLAB officials were concerned for their own positions under the current 'regime'.

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 3.54pm

A very good point, and one I will attend to.

I agree the figure will be very low, probably less than 10 a year at the most, and most of those cases will never reach a conclusion ...

# Anonymous @ 4.12pm

Apparently he does, as a journalist reported to me several years ago ...

Its terrible to think his fixation with me has ruined the Law Society !

# Anonymous @ 10.20pm

A very good point which I agree with.

# Anonymous @ 10.28am

I agree.If anyone is fortunate enough not to need legal services in Scotland, they are very lucky !

# Anonymous @ 11.13am

Thanks for your comment and you also raise some very interesting points.

I have heard rumours of what you have said happened to you, occurring in other organisations recently although as its more of a political nature I have passed on details to journalists who can cover the story better than I can.

Perhaps you could contact me with further information ?

Anonymous said...

I read in the Scotsman today the Rowling affair is more about London trying to grab power over the Scottish end of that charity than a tiffle with the nats but who knows.There are probably agent provocateurs in the background stirring things up.

Still its interesting to hear anyone not toasting Alex salmond is being hounded out of whatever they are into.How far will this go? Do you think they will force any non snp voting individuals to wear an armband with MacAskill making it legal for snp voters to attack the 'marked' non voters ?

It'll be book burning next if you lot up there don't watch out.

Anonymous said...

Mr Cherbi,

I know the system is corrupt, especially exposing dishonest doctors and lawyers.
I know a woman who wore a T shirt because she could not get a lawyer to go against her doctor. The writing on her T Shirt is shown below.

"Doctor David T Dobbie
Portland Park Medical Centre
Caught Lying in my Medical Record
in 2003".

She showed me a letter from this practice. All partners threw her out of the practice, and refused to give her the last prescription she needed. This doctor had been reported to NHS Primary Care, and they did not tell other patients what Dobbie was up to. He had been working with his other patients medical records for four years, before she went public.
The moral of the story, if you want to expose a corrupt doctor or lawyer you will have to do this yourself.

Anonymous said...

A friend of mine thought he was receiving legal aid and his lawyer turned round and demaded 5 grand to continue the case or he would be dumped.

My friend won his case and it turned out he was getting legal aid all the time the lawyer was threatening him for money and guess what - legal aid were not told of the cash that was paid to the lawyer.

Worth investigating for you ?

Anonymous said...

Posting @ 1.31PM

"Doctor David T Dobbie
Portland Park Medical Centre
Caught Lying in my Medical Record
in 2003".
Brilliant idea, wearing a T shirt, she was a walking advert, what a way to expose a dishonest professional, wonderful and priceless.

Anonymous said...

Discrimination with regards to race, gender, is illegal. Discrimination against those who seek to challenge lawyers, doctor's etc is omnipotent.
Your average professional has the attitude, we want to exploit our clients, patients as we see fit, without any repercussions whatsoever.
Scary when they can steal your money legally, stick syringes in your body etc.
Yes MacAskill, more of us will be entitled to legal aid, but access to justice against a professional is forbidden. People are entitled to money for legal action as long as it is impossible to sue a lawyer, doctor etc. These professionals have dangerous power, and leaving them unnacountable to the people they serve is abhorent.

Anonymous said...

MacAskill spare us the rhetoric and get the lawyers out of the SLCC.
You talk as if you are doing the public a great favour with more Scots being covered by legal aid.
Smart move, more money for your lawyer colleagues to screw out of the taxpayer.
I see nothing about diminishing the criminal levels of protection lawyers give each other. Laypersons are still blocked from any form of justice against the legal profession. MacAskill song, that's the way, a ha a ha I like it, a ha a ha,
that's the way, a ha a ha, I like it, a ha a ha.

Anonymous said...

Kenny MacAskill said,

"Today we will, at a stroke, bring one million more Scots into potential eligibility for legal aid, where previously their disposable income automatically ruled them out of being considered. We believe the change is long overdue as the system has for many years unfairly excluded people of relatively modest means from pursuing what might be a complex and expensive legal action.The reformed financial eligibility limits, including a tapered contribution regime, provides a fairer system which can help many more people at just the time they might need it most."

Mr MacAskill, you are avoiding the issue, this is how I interpret what you are saying, do not talk as if you are doing us a great service you are not.

Mr MacAskill should have added the following,

I am a lawyer. I will fight tooth and nail to stop an independent complaints handling body being set up. That is why Masterman and her colleagues are in the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. No No No, my lawyers will not be subject to independent investigations, because a lawyers reputation and career are far more important to me than justice for the general public. Yes by and large my lawyers can do what they want and the public can suffer the consequences because it does not affect my life. This is also the view of the legal profession in general. I would rather see a member of the public lose their money, have their lives ruined, than have any lawyer held to account for causing it. Lawyers are the important party here, that is why I am the Justice Minister.

Oh and a work of warning from me not MacAskill, if you lose a litigation case, the doctors and lawyers always get paid more for a cover up, and you the victim will end up with a bill from the Legal Aid Board. Some are quashed, others are not. The risk is yours. Doctors and lawyers will leave you injured with no compensation, because they are protecting their insurers and their decisions about you do not affect their lives. You have been warned, they will cover everything up for their insurers.
They are the most evil professionals on the planet, and they are also above the law.

Anonymous said...

I could not get a lawyer never mind legal aid to sue my doctor. In many ways the laws that apply to people do not apply to the professions.
It is criminal the legal protection professionals have just because they read a particular subject at university. Distorting patients medical records may as well be legal, because lawyers do not go against doctors who do this. It is in fact a twin legal system we have, they prosecute the layman, and protect the professional. The latter have much to hide, that is why the FOI Act has not been applied to our friends at the Law Society. Get the SNP out now.