Friday, April 17, 2009

Whitewash at MacAskill’s Legal Complaints Commission as internal sleaze investigation clears officials of anti-consumer email smears

SLCC squareScottish Legal Complaints Commission ‘now as corrupt as the Law Society'. Revelations of a whitewashed internal investigation into complaints made against the conduct of solicitors & officials personally appointed by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, show the beleaguered law complaints body has turned into little more than a cruel clone of the Law Society of Scotland, made famous over the years in its own role for protecting crooked lawyers from client complaints.

Jane IrvineSLCC Chief Jane Irvine. The internal investigation, conducted by SLCC Chair Jane Irvine herself, amazingly found that a series of discussions & emails documenting members drunken conduct, which extended into bitter hate fuelled rants against consumer groups & law reform campaigners were a result of “free discussion of ideas amongst Board members and staff” rather than offences meriting disciplinary hearings and a clean up of the now little regarded law complaints body.

Insults fly at SLCC as Law chiefs launch bitter tirades against campaign groups & law reformersHow it all started as I reported on the board members antics. Jane Irvine’s brief investigation of her own highly paid colleagues conduct, ran only to a few lines, completely exonerating members email insults towards consumer campaign groups, law campaign reformers & political parties, and Ms Irvine even went on to claim that board members email smears against claimants to the Law Society's infamously corrupt Guarantee Fund “were not defamatory”, while the actual emails reveal SLCC officials revelling in bitter hate fuelled rants against consumer groups & members of the public.

Jane Irvine SLCC investigation into emails by members 16 April 2009Jane Irvine said of her investigation into her own colleagues : “I have carefully examined the complaint you have made. I do not consider that it can be upheld. At base the copy records released to you under one of your FOI requests to us simply show working communications during an open process of discussion of process matters. As I have already confirmed to you I encourage open and free discussion of ideas amongst Board members and staff.

She concluded : “I reject this assertion which is not supported by the records released to you. The records released to you show expressions of opinions and open exchanges of views within the SLCC.”

So, as we see, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is nothing more than a costly mistake and repeat of the Law Society of Scotland.No justice for consumers and no protection against the criminal element of the legal profession, whom the SLCC seem just as willing to excuse as their counterparts over at the Law Society regularly do.

Margaret Scanlan & Douglas Mill  - similar attitudes towards clients of solicitorsSLCC email slurs ‘probably defamatory’. A senior solicitor who viewed & commented on the original email exchanges between SLCC board members retorted : “It is for a court to decide, rather than Jane Irvine, if her colleagues highly personalised slurs made against claimants to the Guarantee Fund are defamatory or not. Given what was said, I believe there may well be grounds for legal action by the claimant against the commission.”

He went on : “It is clearly in the public interest this matter be cleared up as to why claimants to the Guarantee Fund were called “chancers” by the board member concerned. It may for instance indicate SLCC members are aware there are irregularities in the individual’s claim to the fund, which clearly must be investigated.”

MacAskill tight lippedJustice Secretary Kenny MacAskill had no power to intervene. The deal to clear members of their outrageous opinions & rants against consumer organisations & political groups was apparently struck after it turned out the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, was powerless to intervene in the widely reported antics of lawyers he himself had appointed to the law complaints body, due to the fact he had failed to implement a code of conduct for members before they began work.

A spokesman for the Justice Secretary said : “The article that appeared in the media referred to the views of members of the SLCC during early discussion of particular topics. Because of the independent nature of the Board it is important that they are entitled to hold full and frank discussion before coming to a joint view.”

She went on : ”It would be inappropriate for Ministers to comment on views expressed during the course of that decision making process. The Cabinet secretary will not be making a complaint on this occasion.”

Mr MacAskill’s unwillingness to make a disciplinary complaint against the conduct of his own ministerial appointees is understandable, given the fact there is no enforceable regulatory framework in place for SLCC board members, an omission on the Justice Secretary’s part which increasingly seems as if it was more of a deliberate policy, than an oversight, leaving conduct & regulation of the SLCC itself off the books for as long as possible.

I reported on the Justice Secretary’s failure to implement a code of conduct for SLCC members before they began their work, over a year ago, here : MacAskill 'negligent' as revelations show £4.5m Legal Complaints Commission operating with no standards oversight one year on

Margaret Scanlan - Called to the Bars - Sunday Mail  15 March 2009 emailHow the media reported problems at the SLCC. However, not everyone at the Scottish Government takes that line, as a source commented : "Several of my colleagues accept this commission is a mess and there should have been action taken over what appeared in the papers, but Ministers wanted to keep publicity to a minimum as the SLCC is currently presenting its budget to the Scottish Parliament, and the Justice Secretary could do without any awkward questions on what officials at the commission have been getting up to."

An official from a consumer organisation who did not want to be identified said :"The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission in its current state is doing very little for consumer protection or restoring morale in the legal profession as it should have been well into by now over a year on from creation."

He went on :"Several organisations which have observed the SLCC's lack of progress to-date, when the issues it should be dealing with are very clear, feel it is not the consumer champion which was proposed in legislation. Consequently the public have been led up the garden path with claims this would be a new start in regulating the legal profession which it definitely is not.".

Jane Irvine was challenged on whether the SLCC would issue public apologies to those who were the subject of board members insults & rants, but Ms Irvine pointedly refused to do so, ending the matter by saying : “I have responded fully. I have nothing further to add.”

I would point out that since the Prime Minister has taken responsibility & apologised for a similar email smear affair at Westminster, carried out by advisers working on their own who have now resigned over their conduct, the SLCC Chair and board members who, widely and apparently quite happily discussed the smears against consumer groups & law reformers, should do the honourable thing and issue apologies too.

However, the SLCC’s refusal to even apologise for its members & officials wholly unacceptable conduct, smacks of the arrogance and self protectionism which emanates from the remarkably corrupt regulatory policies of the Law Society of Scotland, which the SLCC was itself designed to clean up.

censoredSLCC staff ‘censored’ over whistle blowing. In a sinister twist to the story, a source close to the SLCC came forward last night and indicated some SLCC staff have been privately WARNED that if they talk to the media about their work or problems at the discredited law complaints body, they face criminal charges under a legislative clause known as Section 43, which the Law Society of Scotland insisted be contained in the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, making it a criminal offence for staff to whistle blow on the failings or corruption inside the SLCC.

This seems to echo a previous warning given out to SLCC staff, which I reported on earlier in March, here : 'Culture of fear' grips Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as Justice Department witch-hunt threatens whistleblower staff over leaks to media

So there we have it. Those who were or are expecting a measure of justice through the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s presence in regulating the legal profession, will have to look elsewhere, as this organisation, unregulated and unchecked in its actions, has simply copied the Law Society of Scotland and whitewashed its own anti-client anti-consumer attitudes from public scrutiny.

Surely this is as good an indicator to the public if any is needed, that this commission’s motives & allegiances still lie with protecting the legal profession rather than the consumer’s best interests.

A regulator such as the SLCC, which covers up its own dirty linen, has no productive role to play in the community other than to further the greed & corruption of the Scots legal profession it was supposedly put there to regulate, and which has yet to find a cure in a fully independent regulator, which for now, the Justice Secretary and the minority SNP Scottish Government are resisting tooth & nail.


Anonymous said...

I'm not surprised.

Ask an unregulated institution to regulate itself and this is the result.

Anonymous said...

as I said once before Peter - Jane Irvine hasn't changed one bit.

Check out her stay at HMIC for more of this.

Anonymous said...

MacAskill is no protector of the Scottish Legal Consumer. Go to the Law Society Kenny, where you belong.
This SNP administration clearly are against reform, window dressers who are more interested in protecting crooked lawyers. Salmond wants independence, when he cannot bear to protect the Scottish Legal Consumer, by making complaints handling independent of lawyer influence. Alex Salmond like MacAskill is clearly a hypocrite. Free Scotland from the union is Salmonds cry, but not from the privilidged lawyers who steal from the Scottish People and are protected by the Scottish Executive. I do not see Salmond making a party political broadcast, asking the electorate if they want independent complaints handling, to protect the interests of the legal consumer in Scotland.
I believe most Scots wast to preserve the United Kingdom, just like Salmond and his Injustice Minister want to protect the legal establishment.

Anonymous said...

Not much good regulating lawyers if it cant regulate itself as you say!

Anonymous said...

SLCC staff ‘censored’ over whistle blowing.

In a sinister twist to the story, a source close to the SLCC came forward last night and indicated some SLCC staff have been privately WARNED that if they talk to the media about their work or problems at the discredited law complaints body, they face criminal charges under a legislative clause known as Section 43, which the Law Society of Scotland insisted be contained in the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, making it a criminal offence for staff to whistle blow on the failings or corruption inside the SLCC.

Clearly the lawyers have much to hide. I wonder what they would do to whistleblowers if they had Hitler's power.
I was in Germany and walked down Sophie Scholl Strasse in Worpswede, a street named after a university student born in 1921. Sophie and her friends were involved in the White Rose Group. The group wrote, printed, and distributed leaflets critisizing the Nazi regime. They were captured with another White Rose member Christoph Probst, and executed by guillotine. Like the Nazi's The Law Society are against free speech (SECTION 43 ABOVE), but they do not complain when MacAskill's free speech states we owe a great debt to Scotlands Legal Profession.
The whistleblowers in the SLCC cannot be prosecuted because the media would be all over the story. I wonder how far the Law Society top brass would go if like Hitler they had total power?
Kenny MacAskill cannot do much as he failed to implement a code of conduct on members of the SLCC. Perhaps this was intentional?
Power to the whistleblowers.

Anonymous said...

The clear bias present in remarks by Ms. Irvine and her fellow Board members is clear for all to see.

Mr. MacAskill's wilful failure to apply a code of conduct - while handsomely subsidising the SLCC - does not allow him to abdicate his responsibilty to protect the Public interest, something the SNP could have done long ago if the will had been there.

enraged said...

In effect the public and the profession are paying for two Law Society style regulators which is just not on if both are as bad as each other.

This should be a headline in a newspaper somewhere at the very least.

Anonymous said...

SECTION 43 being included in the Legal Profession & Legal Aid Act, as demanded by the Law Society proves one thing. The Law Society and SLCC have much to hide. If the courts start prosecuting SLCC whistleblowers, we will have the oppression of free speech in this country. What they want is to crush free speech if it critisizes lawyers.
The Law Society cannot pick and choose what they deem free speech. Clearly by the inclusion of Section 43 in the above act, their intention is to do just that.

Anonymous said...

You have a point Mr Cherbi.Brown did apologise for Damien McBride and I think Jane Irvine, Scanlan, Professor Patterson & Masterman should do the same.

After all they are a lot further down the line than the PM.

Anonymous said...

Personally I would like to see the entire legal profession FAIL just like the banks.You know, law firms going to the wall and people who haven't given a shit so far about bent lawyers getting a good lesson of who not to trust.I mean thats what we just got with the banks so why not with lawyers too.

Good blog keep it up

Anonymous said...

Deplorable to put it mildly but the real question is what do the lawyers have on the SNP to allow all this to happen ?

Is it something like photos of a few participating in sex scandals or taking bribes ?

Hello Jones Got a Da Vinci ? Hello Jones Got a Da Vinci ? said...

I think you might have caused this to be announced today :

Beware the email trap, employees warned

Published 16/04/2009

Employees are being reminded to think twice before sending personal emails from their work email accounts following the furore over the Damian McBride affair.

Specialist employment lawyers at the Birmingham office of leading international law firm HBJ Gateley Wareing are warning people to think carefully before sending emails which discuss controversial subjects. While most if not all employers have email and internet usage policies, these in reality may not be policed properly or be robust enough to avoid the kinds of problems the former Downing Street special advisor found himself in after sending emails to a colleague suggesting they spread gossip and rumours about Conservative MPs.

Damian McBride – who was forced from his job after sending email suggestions to his friend and ex-colleague Derek Draper – had not made his suggestions public or intended them to be discussed in the open. The exchanges were, he insists, ‘a private email to a mate’.

But this is precisely the issue, according to HBJ Gateley Wareing employment lawyer Mark Haworth. Mark says: ‘Whether emails are intended to be for public consumption or not you need to treat them as if you would be happy that they were. A private email to a friend may well in itself be in breach of your employer’s internet usage policy. Any email that comes from your employer’s email account is subject to their rules and policies and employees need to always have that at the front of their minds before hitting the send key. It should never be treated in the same way you would treat your own personal email account at home.’

Employers become understandably sensitive about internet use because it is their reputation that ends up being on the line. While the Damian McBride affair didn’t directly involve Gordon Brown or other senior figures it is they who end up carrying the can.

Mark added: ‘The employee needs to remember that while at work using their work email account they are entirely accountable to their employer for the emails they are sending. Emails should only be work-related and not include anything which could bring the employee’s organisation into disrepute. The mantra should be – don't say anything in a work email you wouldn't want shared in public. Keep private matters for private communication such as phone, personal meetings and personal email accounts.

‘The last thing any employer wants to see is their employees using work emails for inappropriate communication that could damage the reputation of the organisation. The employer is ultimately and legally responsible for the content of emails sent out from their company’s email accounts. So the onus is also on them through proper training and policing of internet usage to make sure the rules have been communicated properly in the first place and are understood by staff. Those who may be tempted to send personal emails during the working day need to resist and be made aware of the implications of their actions.’

Specialist employment lawyers can help draw up policies and ensure they are being communicated with employees effectively.

‘There is no substitute for a robust policy properly policed and communicated clearly. That is the challenge for the employer and something which specialist advisors like law firms can help with,' Mark adds.

Anonymous said...

I hate to admit it Peter but I did have a smidgeon of sympathy for Margaret Scanlan after you chopped her up in the papers but now I think she should resign along with the rest of them including Jane Irvine and MacAskill for standing on the sidelines.

Anonymous said...

“free discussion of ideas amongst Board members and staff” does not equate to sanctioning defamation or conspiring to exclude consumers from the slcc's mission.

I feel Irvine should at least apologise and those who wrote these emails should resign.If its good enough for Westminster as you point out its good enough for Scotland.

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 11.26am

I agree

# Anonymous @ 11.32am

Thanks, I will look into that.

# Anonymous @ 11.40am

Good points, and I agree entirely.

# Anonymous @ 12.18pm

Interesting points you make and I agree, it would be difficult to prosecute SLCC members of staff under Section 43 of the LPLA Act, however the way it was said to me last night, it seems that guilt is presumed, rather than innocence until proven guilty ...

# Anonymous @ 12.24pm

I agree entirely with your comments, and it is time for MacAskill to act on this matter since the SLCC will not.

# Anonymous @ 1.23pm

A fair point. If any such files or pictures exist, you know where to send them ...

# "Hello Jones got a Da vinci" @ 1.34pm

Thanks for that interesting link. Could it be the legal profession stepping up to protect their 'independent' but bought & paid for regulator ?

# Anonymous @ 2pm

Good to see you changed your mind then ... as the facts show, this is a resigning affair for all concerned, given we are talking about an organisation which was put there to protect consumers, not condemn them.

# Anonymous @ 2.10pm

I agree with what you say.

Anonymous said...

Just a thought - if the slcc are as bad as this the Law Society are probably much worse and for years !

I agree with those who say they should resign or be sacked and if any blackmail pics come out of the snp in compromising situations I hope you send them straight to the tabloids!

Anonymous said...

Scotland's answer to Guido Fawkes ?
Good work keep up the hacking away at those crooks They seem to be everywhere these days !

Anonymous said...

There is no one big enough in this world to apologise,even the pope managed it.Irvine's refusal shows us this group of people are not fit to be there and putting the whole thing down to full & frank discussion is bull****

Anonymous said...

Interesting points you make and I agree, it would be difficult to prosecute SLCC members of staff under Section 43 of the LPLA Act, however the way it was said to me last night, it seems that guilt is presumed, rather than innocence until proven guilty ...

I am not surprised you say this Peter, but if guilt is presumed, rather than innocent until proven guilty, we truly are heading for the Nazi ways, although it will never happen. Perhaps they have a Roland Freisler (Nazi Party Show Trial Judge)in the wings ready to step into the area to prosecute whistleblowers.

We clearly do not have a democracy if the maxim, guilty until proved innocent prevails. We both know this would never stand up in a court of law, no matter what the high command at the Law Society want. Finally the converse is true of the Law Society when investigating bent lawyers, innocent until proven INNOCENT.

Warning : Your solicitor has been given the right to torture you said...

Justice Midget MacBuckfast was heard to say :

"We in the NSdaP will allow the SLCC and Law SOciety to do the following to clients of thieving lawyers :

Waterboarding: Aimed at simulating sensation of drowning. Used on several clients to ruin their morale and allow their wallets to be taken

Insect: Harmless insect or deadly snake to be placed with suspect in 'confinement box', client to be told the insect would sting or kill.
Used on people who try to claim to Guarantee fund.

Walling: Client Detainee slammed repeatedly into false wall to create sound and shock
Used on people who reveal emails at the SLCC

Sleep deprivation: Client Detainee shackled standing up. Used often on solicitors clients who discover their lawyer is BENT, once for 180 hours

Anonymous said...

and people said the FSA were bent ? this lot are definitely the leaders of the pack when it comes to fake regulation !

Anonymous said...

When I read your site Mr Cherbi, it is shocking how much human lawyer and politician trash are in powerful positions. Criminals the lot of them.

Anonymous said...

I am not surprised the anti consumer group e-mails have vanished like the hangovers. Another coverup in an attempt to make the SLCC look good.
A building built on weak foundations will crumble. That is why the lawyers have to be kicked out of the SLCC now. They and SECTION 43, are there to undermine the complaints process to ensure crooked lawyers go unpunished. A discrimnatory legal system indeed.

News Release - "We've got what it takes" ... said...

News Release - "We've got what it takes" (the alternative, and more accurate, version of the Scottish "Nasty / Nazi" Party's new campaign slogan) ...


"We've got what it takes" ...

To protect Scotland's 10,000 solicitors, our pals at the Scottish Law Society, our friends at the Scottish Crown Office, our buddies in the Scottish Police, and the Scottish establishment in general.

"We've got what it takes" ...

To do nothing to help you, your loved ones, family and friends if you approach us with your cases of wrong-doing, criminality and injustice involving any of our friends mentioned above.

Yours aye,

Alex Salmond MSP / MP, First Minister of Scotland


Kenny MacAskill MSP, Scotland's INjustice Secretary


Anonymous said...

Mr Cherbi, I hope you do not mind me temporarily changing the subject.

A Derbyshire GP has been convicted of downloading nearly 90,000 images of children.
Robert Manley 46 was caught due to a tip off. Just as well, his patients would be taking their children to see him for consultations. They should have given him 30 years, evil pervert. Good on the police for collecting the evidence, and the Child Exploitation Online Protection Centre for notifying the police what Manley was doing.
Have you heard the saying "Trust me I am a doctor".

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 2.41pm

You can be assured of that.

# Anonymous @ 3.37pm

I am happy to confirm the source close to the SLCC last night informed me that guilt is presumed, making the SLCC about as democratic & 'just' as any dictatorship you care to mention ...

# "Warning your solicitor ..." @ 4.33pm

It sounds from that I am in for the "Walling". I hope this involves nothing kinky .. considering lawyers are involved ...

# Anonymous @ 5.10pm

I have been saying exactly that for years.

# Anonymous @ 6pm

I agree entirely with your comment.

# "News release ..." @ 6.22pm

Well this is happening under the SNP's stewardship, so no one else can be blamed for this, thankfully.

# Anonymous @ 6.42pm

I don't mind at all. Actually it reminds me of some information brought to my attention by the wife of a senior Edinburgh lawyer, who sits on chatrooms pretending to be a 13 year old boy, so he can chat with other children.

His secretary blew the whistle on him to his wife, who filed for divorce.God knows what his own children think of him. So, if anyone tells you "trust me I'm a lawyer" - you know which door to use, quickly.

Thanks for all your comments everyone. There are a few I have not published, due to the severity of views expressed, but nevertheless, I do understand how much damage lawyers can do to people, and with no one there to help those victims of the legal profession, it is a terrible predicament to be in. We all have to pull together and campaign as much and as loudly as possible to bring change, and make sure the misdeeds and inaction of those who are supposedly there to protect consumers, is publicised as widely as possible, and disgrace those who claim to represent us but fail us - be they politicians, lawyers, or other.

Justice and the public interest must prevail.

Anonymous said...

I was about to write a comment on how good I think your writing is but I am so shocked by what you just said, Peter.

I hope that "senior lawyer who pretends to be a child to chat to others" whoever he is gets a jail cell with several hardened criminals to keep him down.

I am beginning to think like others here the best thing is to avoid dealing with lawyers.

they all seem to be crooked or disgusting in some way.Really shocking and very upsetting these kinds of people are allowed to handle peoples legal problems and things.

Anonymous said...

Mr Cherbi you said,

Justice and the public interest must prevail.

How right you are, and as for the Edinburgh lawyer you told us about, his secretary and wife have much higher morals than he has. Good on his wife for letting you know.

Anonymous said...

It would be no use the wife complaining to this slcc.They would probably give the sick pervo lawyer a boy to play with.

I do hope you get this lot out of our hair Peter.They are obviously just put there to defend lawyers no matter how twisted crooked perverted or corrupt they are.

all the best !

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the warning.
I will be keeping my family away from my solicitor.

Anonymous said...

Someone should surprise the SNP conference with this very disturbing reality check on Kenny MacAskill.

Anonymous said...

Alex Salmond wants an independent Scotland with the SNP running it. He wants to run the country, but opposes any rights for the Scottish People to take lawyers to court over their corrupt practices. So he wants to lead and oppress simultaneously.
Perhaps due to the fact that his party are so loyal to lawyers who have dictatorial power the SNP should be renamed The Scottish Nazi Party.

Anonymous said...

If they are going to go around arresting their own staff while the board gets on with these "bitter hate fuelled rants" against everyone else then I'd suggest straight jackets for the lot of them.

This could only happen in Scotland, right ?

Anonymous said...

Most political parties are controlled by money so you should be looking at the motives of the SNP's donors for clues over their love-in with the Law Society.

Anonymous said...

Better watch yourself Peter.MacAskill might hire some mercenaries to come and get ya

Anonymous said...

You can bet there are a lot more emails and nasty chats about clients and others at this slcc.

I wouldn't trust them on anything now.

Anonymous said...

Nice idea about gatecrashing the snp conference but you can bet there wont be any references to injustice brought up by that useless lump Macaskill.

The good thing is with their conferences you get to see just how much like all the other parties this lot are.All the usual bullshit and playing to their sponsors with public money.

Someone should do a brown envelope count - I bet it would be higher now than the last lot!

Anonymous said...

Mr MacAskill,

You and Cathy Jamieson have proved one thing. You have spent public money on the consultation, Reforming Complaints handling, I was a respondent, and nothing has changed. The lawyers in The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission are there to undermine any possibility that complaints against the legal profession are treated in a balanced way. Furthermore the inclusion of legislation to prosecute whistleblowers, is a clear public statement that the politicians were biased in favour of the Law Society when the legislation was passed.
Churchill talked about an iron curtain decending over Western Europe, that curtain is here today but it is not Stalins politics, but an iron curtain of resistance against any person who has a complaint against a lawyer.
A profession with the power lawyers have cannot be left unacountable because this is a green light to the Law Society criminals they can still do what they want. As I type this, there are god knows how many unsuspecting victims dealing with these deviant lawyers. Your consultation document I responded to, was not a genuine attempt to create an unbiased complaints handling institute. I have grave doubts that an independent complaints handling body which is balanced was ever your intention Miss Jamieson, and your replacement with a lawyer like MacAskill was the wrong move.
I remember the journalist Donal MacIntyre's blog. He spoke about a consultant doctor who was jailed for raping a patient. When he was released, the General Medical Council allowed him back to work because his colleagues said he was a good bloke and his victim should not be believed. (Check his site yourself). The GMC did not tell new patients about his conviction for rape. In my view the legal profession are every bit as deviant, people with great power who are not fit to breathe. Donal also called doctors a "disturbingly out of tune profession". Lawyers are the same, too much power for the good of their clients. You clearly are unfit to deal with this problem as you are too cosy with the legal profession. Perhaps you are all getting financial sweetners?

Peter Cherbi said...

Thanks for all your comments and tips.

I agree entirely with people's views on the SNP as regards Kenny MacAskill and the injustice the party is wilfully ignoring.

It seems that money more than people count to some in the SNP, who rather than being the representatives of the people of Scotland, are more interested in representing their paymasters and the professions.

Not very 'William Wallace' or 'Robert the Bruce' of the likes of Mr MacAskill & his colleagues ... but at least it should show people where their motives truly lie .. and that is not with ensuring the well-being & rights of the Scots public ...

Anonymous said...


Your GP will look after you as long as you are not a threat to a doctor's reputation.
Medical opinion changes as soon as you know something that can damage a doctor's reputation. They will all lie about you, distort your medical records. Why you ask? It is because they are treated like gods, not humans their opinions are sacrosanct, and try and get legal aid, never mind a lawyer to take a doctor to court. Impossible I know I have been there.
When they lie in your medical records, NHS Primary Care managers will look at your complaint. If the evidence shows the doctor is dishonest, Primary Care will wash their hands of you. Like lawyers they have criminal power and criminal levels of protection. Your GP will betray you, because colleagues are more important to him. If you ever end up in a situation like this you will find you have no legal rights. Patients and Clients are insignificant rubbish to these people. If like me, you knew the way it works, you would never trust a professional again. It is the doctors and lawyers of this world that are trash. Too dishonest to deal with any patient of client.

Anonymous said...

Responding to the comment left at
7:45 PM

Yes Please Do avoid lawyers at all costs.
Unfortunatley if is not always as simple as that. You can be sucked into a legal problem through no fault of your own.
I can tell you that they are the vilest of human beings, the devils followers, evil and ruthless who think they do nothing wrong. But of course right and wrong in life depend on morals. Lawyers revile me the same as I revile them when I ask one of them to sue another lawyer.
Oh and paedophiles, the medical and legal profession have their share of these evil deviants, although this cannot be said about all lawyers or doctors.

Anonymous said...

Good Evening Peter.

The LPLA Act with the inclusion of section 43, is another barrier to justice.
Law Society of Scotland, I am proud of you and the Executive, you have convinced us (not that this was necessary) that Jamieson and MacAskill want to protect lawyers not the public.
Like Stalin you will deal with anyone who threatens your power, not by firing squad but prison. You would shoot whistleblowers if you could. The press will be all over you if you try to prosecute a whistleblower. You are the antithesis of honesty and decency.
Lawyers can do what they want to clients, that is why you are reaping the whirlwind.

Anonymous said...

I was about to write a comment on how good I think your writing is but I am so shocked by what you just said, Peter.

I am responding to the person who left the above statement regarding the pervert senior Lawyer in Edinburgh.

Nothing shocks me about this profession, they are pure human filth, as evil as Hitler & Stalin without the total power of these two dictators. Good job or we would be put against the wall and shot.

Anonymous said...

Walking into a lawyers office is like a soldier walking into a minefield, sooner or later they will get you.

Anonymous said...

Glasgow-based Ross Harper is the Scots firm which earns the most from Legal Aid. According to the latest figures they received £1.804million.
I noticed this on your site Mr Cherbi, take it from me they do nothing for clients, avoid like the black death.

Anonymous said...


I saw corrupt doctors and politicians facilitate the manipulation of a system for personal advantage; and while there was some considerable relief to those who need the kidneys or heart valves – the theft of one person’s rights should not be used to improve the life of another. The medical establishment is changing but it is a disturbingly out of tune profession. Two years ago I challenged the General Medical Council about a case of a gynaecologist who was convicted and jailed for the rape and sexual assault a patient who was then allowed back to work after testimonials from his colleagues said that he was a nice bloke and the accuser could not be believed. The GMC put itself ahead of the law courts and displayed the same arrogance that we saw at the core of the Alder Hey scandal.
The GMC felt no obligation to inform patients of his past criminal convictions. In the face of such blinkered administration - can we really trust the medical establishment and the Government to run compulsory schemes fairly and with integrity? These are the serious questions that have to be asked. That is my professional view – on a personal basis my mother has sight because of cornea transplants.

Readers, can you trust a doctor?

Anonymous said...

If after reading Mr Cherbi's diary and the posted comments, you still trust lawyers you deserve everything that the legal profession can throw at you.

Anonymous said...

The next time you are called for jury service ask yourself who the real criminals in Scotland are. Those who cross examine witnesses and pass judgement and wear wigs and gowns. How many have been reported to their protectors, The Law Society? Think about it.

Anonymous said...

This is the kind of stuff probably going on at the slcc !

Anonymous said...

The Cambridge Online Dictionary states Justice, law and fairness.

Law. "The system of laws in a country which judges and punishes people".

Fairness, "Fairness in the way people are dealt with".

Clearly Scottish Justice as far as the legal and medical professions are concerned, does not punish these professionals, because the Scottish Executive have shown that these professions are above the law. Doctors and lawyers who do wrong, go unpunished because bad reputations kill careers. The next time you go to your doctor or lawyer ask yourself, how honest is this individual when their partners cover up what they do, and the complaints handling managers do the same? Being allowed to practice does not mean they are fit to practice. NHS Primary care, the Law Society & SLCC are full of doctor and lawyer lovers, who protect these people no matter what they do.

Anonymous said...

First Minister Alex Salmond has outlined £95m of European funding to help Scotland out of recession.

He said £25m would offer new skills opportunities to 75,000 Scots and £70m would go to stimulating business growth and urban and rural regeneration.

Speaking at the SNP conference, Mr Salmond also challenged Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy to meet with the Scottish Government cabinet.

The SNP leader said it was time for the country to pull together.

Mr Salmond told delegates in Glasgow that he wanted to open cabinet up to hear from organisations including councils, unions and businesses to chart a way out of the economic downturn - while also inviting Mr Murphy to "explain UK Government policy".

Good Morning Mr Salmond,

Yes the economy is important but I do not see any promise from you to kick the lawyers out of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. A repeal of Section 43 which you included in the LPLA Act would also be of great benefit to us. Clearly your loyalties are with Scotlands Lawyers. We need a public campaign to let people know this. I do not think a lawyer loving first minister is the right man for the position you currently hold.

Anonymous said...

Our First Minister said

"The SNP is, and always will be, the pro-Scotland party".

Alex Salmond

Oh Mr Salmond, you forgot to say

"The SNP is, and always will be, the pro-lawyer party".

You appointed a lawyer, Kenny MacAskill as Justice Minister and he appointed the lawyers in the Scottish Legal Complaints Committee. The police have an independent complaints commission, why not lawyers, do you get money for your holidays Mr Salmond from the Law Society Master Fund?

All politicians are economical with the truth.

Anonymous said...

There could be another Shipman out there, but how can we detect him or her, especially when we do know if a doctor has been reported by any patient in the past?
The medics know everything about us, but what do we know about them?
We should know everything about a doctor who can prescribe drugs, inject drugs etc. We trust them because we were brought up to do so.
A doctor could have suffered emotional, sexual, abuse as they grew up, just like any of us.
How do we know thay do not have mental health problems. How do we know if Shipman was reported to NHS Primary Care for anything in his early career?

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Hows Scotland's answer to guido fawkes today ?

I read your comments in the Sunday Mail
Well done laddie !

Anonymous said...

Is the inclusion of section 43 in the LPLA Act a sort of Scottish Watergate Scandal. The Law Society must see the staff from the former legal services ombudsmen as potential whistleblowers. Nixon was bugging the offices of the opposition politicians, and the Law Society is gagging, non lawyer members of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.
A complaints handling commission must be free of lawyers so they must be removed if the commission is to be seen to be impartial.
The assumption that a whistleblower is guilty is clearly in conflict with the laws of natural justice, but this has to be expected when we are dealing with lawyers. Clearly the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, is another department of the Law Society of Scotland, with it's corrupt methods.

Anonymous said...

SLCC staff ‘censored’ over whistle blowing. In a sinister twist to the story, a source close to the SLCC came forward last night and indicated some SLCC staff have been privately WARNED that if they talk to the media about their work or problems at the discredited law complaints body, they face criminal charges under a legislative clause known as Section 43, which the Law Society of Scotland insisted be contained in the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, making it a criminal offence for staff to whistle blow on the failings or corruption inside the SLCC.

IT IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE FOR A LAY MEMBER OF THE SCOTTISH LEGAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION TO TALK TO THE PRESS. Next we will be having a Night of the Long Knives (when Hitler executed his political opponents) so the Law Society can keep control. Make no mistake they would execute if they could, they are Nazis the lot of them.

Anonymous said...

The Nazi party under Adolf Hitler passed an enabling act in the Reichstag, which banned all opposition parties. Section 43 included by the Scottish Parliament at the insistance of the Law Society in the Legal Profession & Legal Aid Act is the same in principle, the banning of free speech.
Thank you to The Law Society, the SNP and lawyers within the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. You have shown us you believe in dictatorial Nazi principles by silencing people who are a threat to your powerbase.

Anonymous said...

Donal MacIntyre is right, I remember him interviewing the chairman of the General Medical Council (the chairman was so uncomfortable when questioned).
There was a case in England where a GP was touching women patients. The woman who was interviewed was shocked to learn he had been doing this for twenty five years, and had been reported many times. NHS Primary Care managers were covering up what this pervert was doing. Believe me they cover up everything short of murder.
A doctor was exposing himself to schoolchildren, he also advertised for a cleaner. When the girl turned up at his flat he was naked, and told her he always walked about his house like this. NHS Primary Care managers moved him from practice to practice.
This the tip of the iceberg, how many more patients have complained about doctors and their complaints have been ignored. NHS complaints managers are as loyal to doctors as Douglas Mill formerly of the Law Society is to lawyers. There are many thousands of patients out there who have had their complaints ignored because the doctor's name has not to be tarnished. This is wrong and must be fought at all costs. If a patient can damage a doctors reputation, all kinds of mental health accusations are made against the patient who complains. There is a stigma about mental health issues due to a lack of understanding. Some of the greatest artists, composers had depression etc. Some Nobel Prize winners have been mentally ill. John Nash played by Russell Crowe in the film A Beautiful Mind was schizophrenic. He won the Nobel Prize. He was a genius, so why the stigma. These people were of a much higher intelligence than those who would stigmatise them. I agree patients who are a threat to themselves or others must be hospitalised, but that does not mean they are of low intelligence.
If a patient goes public about their GP, all other doctors in the practice will kick the patient out. I know someone this happened to, and other patients said they must all be the same as the crooked GP.
Donal is right, "a disturbingly out of tune profession they are" full of denial of any wrongdoing. There are many doctors who have mental health problems, one of their greatest is denial.

Anonymous said...

Comment posted at 11:13 AM.

How right you are, Frederick Chopin, Ludwig Van Beethoven, Robert Schumann, Wolfgang Amadaeus Mozart, had depression during their lives. The word genius applies to all of them, intellects miles above those who would critisise them.
Vincent Van Gogh, this list is not exhaustive, so the next time someone looks at another person with depression, ask yourselves if that person is a freak or a human being with a common problem. Severe mental illness has touched some of the most talented human beings on planet earth. Those who stigmatise them are the ones with low intelligence and mental health problems.

Anonymous said...

When I look at what is happening here I wonder why the politicians set up the SLCC in the first place. It was not to allow the clients of lawyers access to justice.
Professional loyalties run deep, it is impossible to make the SLCC fair for the public if lawyers are there. I want the legal profession to steal from clients, the more victims the greater pressure for reform. You lawyers are fools, if I was was a lawyer stealing money from my clients I would be looking over my shoulder all of the time. It will happen one day, people will not keep taking this sort of treatment.