Friday, June 05, 2009

Justice Secretary accused of attempt to undermine Lord Gill civil justice review as Government backed survey targets only 35 court users

MacAskill tight lippedJustice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's woefully limited survey may undermine civil justice reform proposals. SCOTLAND'S Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is today facing allegations of covering up litigation difficulties & failures in the Civil Courts as a taxpayer funded survey carried out by Ipsos-MORI on behalf of Consumer Focus Scotland and the Scottish Legal Aid Board is today revealed to have targeted only THIRTY FIVE PEOPLE from the thousands of litigants who each year use the Scottish Courts system for civil litigation.

SLAB & CFSScottish Legal Aid Board & Consumer Focus sponsored the ‘limited’ research. The survey, titled "Consumer views and experiences of using the civil courts in Scotland" was to be intended to support the forthcoming release of the Lord Justice Clerk Lord Gill's review of Scotland's Civil Justice system, including his recommendations for reforms, which are rumoured to be ‘groundbreaking’ and will also include recommendations to allow Scots to use the facility of McKenzie Friends (used successfully in England & Wales for 39 years) to assist civil litigation cases where legal representation cannot be secured for a number of reasons.

A spokesman for the Scottish Legal Aid Board gave some background to the survey : "There is very little information currently available in relation to the actual experiences of litigants as they move through the court processes. The press release which accompanied the consultation paper to the Civil Court Review picked up this point :

‘We are especially interested in hearing from members of the public about their experiences of the civil court system. In this way we can ensure that their voice is heard and that their interests are central to any recommendations for reform that we make’.

In response to the weak evidence base and this statement, the Scottish Legal Aid Board (the Board) and Consumer Focus Scotland agreed to jointly commission research that would help us better understand the nature and drivers of civil litigants’ views and experiences of Sheriff Courts. The research describes the experiences and views of people coming before Sheriff Courts in Scotland for civil matters. It identifies and explores the factors associated with these experiences and levels of satisfaction.

A Research Advisory Group was established to help steer this work and to ensure the methods and approach were appropriate. The Board, Consumer Focus Scotland, Scottish Government, the Scottish Court Service and members of the Civil Courts Review Policy Group were members of the advisory group.

At the initials stages of the research we had hoped to deliver a relatively large scale quantitative survey of court users. However we were unable to access the court records that would be needed to deliver such a representative survey.

A second option was therefore subsequently developed. This involved contacting and securing the support of In Court Advice services to gain access to their service users. In addition to in court advice clients, we also contacted people who received legal aid for their sheriff court case. This allowed us to gather views from people who had representation for their case.

The research is qualitative in nature, an appropriate way of exploring views and experiences. Thirty five interviews were conducted with a range of civil litigants. Litigants had been involved in a variety of case types, including small claims actions, debt, housing/eviction actions and mortgage repossession proceedings.

The sample did not include other court users such as witnesses or jurors in civil cases. The sample included both defenders and pursuers. It included not only those whose case was actually heard in court, but those who were involved in civil legal proceedings at other stages. The interviews covered a range of issues, from access to legal advice and representation through to expectations and experience of going to court e.g. specific concerns; how people felt about the experience and the communication they had with the court.

The scope of this research must be stressed. The research is qualitative in nature therefore it does not measure the incidence of or how representative views and opinions are. It does however provide valuable provide insight into views and experiences, which we hope will be built upon in the future as evidence in this area grows.

We were unable to talk with people who were unrepresented and did not use an In Court Advice service. We are aware that this group may be even more likely to report some of the problems highlighted in the research and or may possibly report different experiences and views of the court process.”

Lord GillLord Justice Clerk Lord Gill looks set to give some harsh criticisms of Scotland’s Civil justice system. On hearing of the difficulties with the Scottish Government inspired survey, sources from both the legal profession and public campaign groups claimed the survey of Civil Courts users was not advertised enough throughout the Courts system for members of the public to participate, and may have had an unfair restricted remit due to the fact the Scottish Government fear extensive negative views from the general public on their inability to use the civil justice system or even secure the necessary legal representation to access the courts – the latter being a topic of constant debate for many years in Scotland, amid many proposals by the Scottish Law Commission and surveys the former Scottish Consumer Council requesting civil law reform.

I have written about Lord Gill’s criticisms of Scotland’s Civil justice system in an earlier report here : Lord Gill : 'Victorian' justice system fails public as soaring injustice & poor legal services undermine credibility of Scots law.

You can read more about Lord Gill’s Civil Justice review here : Lord Gill's Civil Courts Review

A legal source this morning said "For a survey which is supposed to back up Lord Gill's review of the civil justice system, it looks more like the Government has attempted to railroad the Lord Justice Clerk's findings before they are published, giving themselves reasons not to undertake the necessary reforms to be recommended, which we know ourselves as solicitors, must be implemented if the issues of lack of public access to justice are to be tackled properly."

A source from a consumer group called the survey “A political stunt which will hopefully backfire on the Justice Secretary due to the limited numbers of individuals approached for evidence on such an important issue.”

A client with an ongoing civil case who has experienced "incredible difficulty over a number of years with his litigation due to the dismal state of the civil justice system said : "I have some questions for the Research Advisory Group. Why did they not publicize this much more widely if they were concerned to obtain litigants views, particularly careless of them when they claim there is an already existing 'weak evidence base'. Thirty five interviews is a damning indictment when complaints about the legal profession run into the thousands annually.”

Further questions were raised over the incredibly limited remit of the survey and apparent unwillingness of even the Scottish Court Service to divulge court records : "Who refused them access to Court Records and why? - past published case law is readily available on the internet. What is the point of research which does 'not measure the incidence of or how representative views and opinions are' ? Why were they 'unable' to talk to people who were unrepresented ? “

An official from IPSOS MORI speaking in response to inquiries made on the little known research said : "The scope of the research was fairly limited, and this is acknowledged in our report. We spoke to a very small sample of litigants who had contacted an in-court advice service and a sample of litigants identified through Scottish Legal Aid Board applications data was also provided to us."

The Justice Secretary could not be contacted today for comment on the revelations.

So. Can a survey of 35 people from the thousands of Scots who have to use the Courts system for litigation, defence of their legal affairs & interests, and pursuit of justice, be a fair indication of the problems which many individuals encounter when they try to take a case to court, especially if the issues involve going up against notoriously corrupt professions or cases where access to justice is routinely denied ?

I think not, and I do hope Lord Gill is taking note of these goings-on, and makes appropriate comment when the time comes ….

43 comments:

Anonymous said...

More window dressing from MacAskill and Co in a clear attempt to disguise their own bias and protect the legal profession's vested interest in maintaining the staus quo.

Anonymous said...

MacAskill is as much a waste of space as the politician in your previous posting.

How can radical changes to the courts system be justified with the testimonials of only 35 people and why did the survey team not talk to those who were unrepresented in court ?

I smell a fit up

Anonymous said...

35 views ! They sure dont want to hear any bad news about the courts then !

These people are selected by who ? MacAskill himself ?

Anonymous said...

Thats right Kenny - remember not to ask anyone who might give a negative opinion of lawyers or the courts just in case something has to budge !

Anonymous said...

More spin from MacAskill who must be sh*tting himself what Lord Gill is going to come up with.

Good thing you got there first and alerted us to it but who do we complain to and why are polling organisations doing work for the Scottish Consumer Council when they are supposed to do it themselves (which is why they are paid so much !)

Anonymous said...

lol someone at slab is going to have their collar felt for telling you all that!

good one anyway Peter (as usual !)

Anonymous said...

I dont think Lord Gill will be too happy to hear his inquiry is being hatcheted down by a survey with only 35 interviews.

Seriously there should have been more publicity about this and people allowed to make known their experiences as you say.

Anonymous said...

One of MacAskill's best kept secret projects - dont ask so we dont need to report it.

Fking crook.In the name of God PLEASE GO MACASKILL !

Anonymous said...

Why exactly are the legal aid board involved in this survey being done on the back of an empty fag packet?
Is that just to give MacAskill some political spin control over it so he can say we've taken views of people into account and will do this, not that ..etc ?

Anonymous said...

Rigging a survey seems to be easy for Mac but what next ? Rigging a vote ?

Anonymous said...

A member of my family had Cameron Fyfe representing them in a litigation case. A totally useless lawyer, he did so little we wondered what the taxpayer was paying him for.
Lititation is a money spinner for lawyers, who get paid no matter the result they get for their client.

Cameron Fyfe is a partner in Ross Harper Solicitors. We wonder if his insurers are Royal and Sun Alliance, my relatives employer insurance company was Royal and Sun Alliance and the GP practice was insured by them we believe.

I think MacAskill is like Fyfe and every other lawyer with an agenda to undermine anything that will reduce the lawyers powerbase. We will never trust lawyers again, a fatal mistake.

Anonymous said...

Lord Justice Clerk Lord Gill looks set to give some harsh criticisms of Scotland’s Civil justice system. (WE LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING HIS VIEWS). On hearing of the difficulties with the Scottish Government inspired survey, sources from both the legal profession and public campaign groups claimed the survey of Civil Courts users was not advertised enough throughout the Courts system for members of the public to participate, and may have had an unfair restricted remit due to the fact the Scottish Government fear extensive negative views (OH YES THAT IS WHY ONLY THIRTY FIVE HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE) from the general public on their inability to use the civil justice system or even secure the necessary legal representation
(WARNING YOU ARE BETTER IN COURT YOURSELF THAN TRUSTING A MEMBER OF SCOTLANDS LEGAL PROFESSION, A GROUP OF EVIL RUTHLESS CRIMINALS, THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE) to access the courts – the latter being a topic of constant debate for many years in Scotland, amid many proposals by the Scottish Law Commission and surveys the former Scottish Consumer Council requesting civil law reform.
LAWYERS KNOW THERE IS STRONG EVIDENCE IN CERTAIN CIVIL CASES. THEY THEN DESTROY THAT EVIDENCE AND OBTAIN EVIDENCE THAT PROVIDES THE OUTCOME THEY AND THEIR INSURERS WANT, NOT THE OUTCOME THEIR CLIENT WANTS. LAWYERS USE PROPLE TO MAKE MONEY AND DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES FOR THEIR VICTIMS.

Anonymous said...

Anyone in their right mind would agree with you Peter.
A survey of 35 people is total bollocks on an issue of law.

Keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

Looks like you have put your foot in it Peter ! MacAskill wont be able to tell so many fibs about this poll of 35.

Haha ! a poll of 35 .. just imagine if Mori had been asked to poll 35 people on a general election result.What a joke !

Anonymous said...

This should have been advertised in the press. Clearly they do not want to have a large scale survey, it is about time MacAskill was kicked out of office.
Kenny MacAskill is out to kill any initiative that will undermine his profession. In comparison with the many thousands of litigants who go through the Scottish courts each year this is a farce. A waste of time, MacAskill is unfit to be in his job. A man who states we owe a great debt to Scotlands Legal Profession, has pinned his colours to the mast. People knew this when he appointed lawyers to the commission.

Anonymous said...

“A political stunt which will hopefully backfire on the Justice Secretary due to the limited numbers of individuals approached for evidence on such an important issue.”
-------------------------------------

Yes MacAskill this is a stunt. He clearly does not want to undermine the position of lawyers. A survey of thirty five individuals, will not show the reality of what is happening. When the MacKenzie friends are implemented (they will have to allow this) litigants will not need lawyers to the same extent. This will have a knock on effect by undermining the Law Society and Legal Complaints Commission. Lawyers will lose revenue to some extent, but I would rather have a MacKenzie friend than a lawyer, simply because I could never trust the latter. It's time MacKaskill was out on his arse.

Anonymous said...

Lawyers can never be included in a complaints handling institution for obvious reasons. So why do we have a lawyer Justice minister? He is there to stop reform or slow it down, the man is a barrier to justice for users of legal services.

The administration in Edinburgh is too lawyer friendly, people should look at that when they cast their vote.

Anonymous said...

The Freedom of Information Act applying to MP's expenses has demonstrated one thing. MP's think taxpayers provide a blank cheque, buy what you want ideology.
It seems Labour got a bloody nose at the local elections. The Tories did better.
Kenny MacAskill must now realise that if the people running the country are subject to the FOI Act, then it is only a matter of time until the FOI Act applies across the board. The Law Society skeletons should be aired, that will create some stink.

Anonymous said...

The game of Monopoly allows a player to obtain a "get me out of jail Card".

Lawyers pay the Law Society £650.00 for their practising certificate. This is a "stop me going to jail card". Lawyers deal with complaints from the public about other lawyers. Result, lawyers criminal activities are covered up for £650.00 per annum, and lawyers victims get no justice.

PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND--NEVER TRUST A LAWYER--EVERY LAW FIRM IN SCOTLAND IS FULL OF CRIMINALS. THE ABOVE ARRANGEMENT ALLOWS THEM TO STEAL, EMBEZZLE, LIE, CHEAT, COVER UP, DISTORT EVIDENCE BECAUSE ONLY ANOTHER LAWYER WILL CHECK WHAT YOUR LAWYER HAS DONE WHEN YOU FILE A COMPLAINT. BUT THIS IS NO GAME, IT IS VERY SERIOUS SO NEVER TRUST THEM.

Anonymous said...

I am a bit sceptical about why consumer focus and slab have joined up on this one.Seems iffy to me considering one organisation has a remit to look after consumers of the other.

The good thing is you caught them out before it was used so maybe there will have to be some 'alterations to plans' now !

Anonymous said...

Someone in the comments said this "Haha ! a poll of 35 .. just imagine if Mori had been asked to poll 35 people on a general election result.What a joke !"

Spot on and this is paid for by taxpayers.What value is a poll of 35 people ? Nothing.

Anonymous said...

Self regulation in politics means milk the taxpayer for everything you buy. Accountancy, medicine, law, public institutions in these self regulation is the same as self protection. The system has evolved this way, but it will not stay this way.

When MP's make the rules, they rob their constituents. MP's are not sorry for screwing the taxpayer, they are sorry they have been exposed for the criminals they are. The other's mentioned above protect professional reputations at the expense of their victims. As I have said before bad reputations have destroyed political careers at Westminster, doctors, accountants, lawyers public bodies must be treated the same way. A system that protects the guilty at the expense of their victims, needs urgent attention. MacAskill you are a protector of lawyers, we demand your resignation now.

crooks of a feather flock together said...

more dirty tricks from MacAskill

he will be telling us the survey was full and complete but now we know its only 35 people haha

crook

Anonymous said...

Very well reported Peter.

Keep up the good work against these sinister thug lawyers.They should all be sent to hell where they belong.

Anonymous said...

This is Kenny MacAskill wanting to continue the state sponsored theft of clients money and possessions at the hands of those fucking lawyers - nothing less.

All those arse kissers to the snp cant see past their corneas that this party will do sod all for ordinary people.They will sell us down the river just like Thatcher did when the torags were in power all for money

Anonymous said...

No surprise here. Kenny MacAskill I would not be surprised if the thirty five are lawyers, they want to keep the lid on this can of worms.
Statisticians would laugh at this, how can this possibly provide reliable data.

The terrible loss of the RMS Titanic in 1912 is not comparable to this because of the lives lost. No disrespect to the 1500 plus victims and their families. The ship's owners the White Star Line claimed that all classes had equal opportunity to get into the lifeboats. The statistics told a different story but only because the evidence was there for all to see.

It will be impossible to establish what is happening with this survey with a small sample of thirty five people. They are not looking for findings based on statistics, the outcome they want has already been established.

Anonymous said...

The £650.00 lawyers pay their crooked masters the Law Society should be £1'050.00. This is because the Law Society and Scottish Legal Complaints Commission are the same institute. The £400.00 lawyers pay the commission is just a top up. These people will never accept independent regulation of lawyers, it will need to be forced on them. I urge prople to NAME & SHAME their lawyers on the internet, to protect others from one of the most crooked set of criminals in Scotland.

Anonymous said...

Alex Salmond I am against Scottish Independence, and I think most other Scots are too.

Try having a referendum of thirty five Scottish people on the independence issue. You and MacAskill would be told to go visit a taxidermist.

You really are fools trying to undermine Lord Gill, and we see it for what it is.

Peter Cherbi said...

Thanks for all your comments & emails on this article.

Fair enough, people are understandably angry with this kind of spin coming from the Scottish Government - whom we were always told would not embark on the old habits of past administrations.How hollow that promise was.

I would encourage anyone concerned about this attempt to undermine Lord Gill's Civil Justice Review, to write to him at the Court of Session, and send on a copy of your letter to the media, or publicise it on the web.

I believe the Lord Justice Clerk should be made well aware of the Justice Secretary's lack of will to reform areas of justice & law in Scotland which the legal profession itself have for so long, campaigned against, in effect maintaining the profession's power over the individual's right of access to justice & legal representation.

Several points made in the comments caught my eye, particularly a comment at 9.49pm, relating to Cameron Fyfe, who will most certainly be insured via the Master Insurance Policy, by the Royal Sun Alliance as all solicitors are in Scotland, ata the direction of the Law Society of Scotland itself.

Mr MacAskill would also have been insured by RSA when he was a practising solicitor too .. and the Scottish Government's Justice Department has many insurance arrangements with Marsh and the RSA, all mashed up with many other public bodies, local NHS Trusts and other services in one huge conflict of interest the public have yet to understand.

# Anonymous # 11.47am also makes some good points about self regulation in politics, which has been furthered for all these years, by the legal profession and their political allies, in many areas of industry & public life.

The time has certainly come to end that crooked club of self regulators, who sit on each others committees, and ensure justice remains out of reach for all their victims, no matter how heinous their crimes.

Going back to this 'survey', such as it is ... the views of 35 people cannot be a true representation of the problems within the Scots justice system, and even the Scottish Legal Aid Board admitted that in their response which I printed verbatim.

It is up to us, to ensure there is a more thorough survey of users of Scotland's courts, and I would encourage anyone who has had problems with using the courts or legal services in Scotland to get in touch with Consumer Focus Scotland directly, and insist their views are taken into account and published, before Mr MacAskill adds another touch of dangerous spin to the outcome of Lord Gill's review.

Lastly, thanks to those for the compliments. I can assure you, it is a team effort, and the only outcome that one could settle for is surely, access to justice for all, and a move to clean up the legal profession's sins of the past against many innocent people, who have been harmed, ruined, and their lives made a misery, simply because members of the Law Society of Scotland are just too damn greedy for their own good.

Lets work together to make things better.

Anonymous said...

Thank's Peter, Cameron Fyfe was working for my employer when he represented me in a litigation case, because he left so many things that could have made things legally difficult for them. He got legal aid money and he covered up what happened to me.
My employer was insured by Royal & Sun Alliance, there is the conflict of interest.

Cameron Fyfe, you are a corrupt lawyer. I urge people to post their experiences if this man represented them (or if any other lawyer represented them) when they were injured at work.

So Cameron, I could not have won my case. Your insurers (the same company who insured my employer) would have had to pay my damages. You will have done this to others I am sure of that. I can prove you do not chase things up, things which would have put pressure on my employer. But you were protecting your insurers, a conflict of interest. Ross Harper's Insurance Premiums would have increased. Now I know why everyone who is injured at work and need medical reports, never get damages.
PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND STAY AWAY FROM THIS LAWYER, HE WORKS FOR THE PEOPLE WHO INSURE HIM. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO WIN DAMAGES BECAUSE ALL LAWYERS, DOCTORS, EMPLOYERS, ARE INSURED BY THE SAME COMPANY.

Anonymous said...

The time has certainly come to end that crooked club of self regulators, who sit on each others committees, and ensure justice remains out of reach for all their victims, no matter how heinous their crimes.

Yes Peter, The Medical Defence Union in Glasgow, interesting how apart from lawyers they have at least one ex GP on their panel of experts. All insured by Marsh UK RSA who can take legal action against patients, but the patients are powerless against them. Any GP practice has a nice loyal GP to discuss matters with, a closed shop.

Anonymous said...

Good reply Peter.I admire your ability to write so strong as you do on these law scandals.
If there is any justice at all MacAskill will have to go and all these crooked lawyers will be made to regret the day they robbed their clients (and you).

Anonymous said...

The Complaints Process FROM THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS WEBSITE.

Who will consider my complaint?

If your complaint is about a member of ICAS it will initially be assessed by the Head of Investigations or a member of the Investigations Department. (ANOTHER ACCOUNTANT)? The objective is to determine whether professional misconduct or professional incompetence, in terms of the ICAS Rules, can be established. ICAS may need to contact you for further information or clarification. If the matter can be resolved by conciliation this will be undertaken. If the complaint is incapable of being resolved by conciliations, and relates to possible professional misconduct or professional incompetence, an investigator will be appointed to investigate your complaint (who may be the same member of staff as before). (AN ACCOUNTANT OF COURSE).

Can I be called as a witness?

You may be asked to attend a meeting with a member of the Institute’s staff and/or with members of the Investigating Panel to provide further information in connection with your complaint. If the matter is referred to a hearing of the Discipline Tribunal (PROBABLY THE SAME AS THE SCOTTISH SOLICITORS DICIPLINE TRIBUNAL) you may be required to attend to give evidence and you will be given notice. The Discipline Tribunal hearing is chaired by either a Solicitor, a Solicitor-Advocate or an Advocate of at least seven years’ standing who is independent of ICAS. (BUT INSURED BY THE SAME COMPANY AS ICAS & THE ACCOUNTANT UNDER INVESTIGATION) RIGHT?

In addition the tribunal includes at least one further Public Interest Member who is not a member of ICAS. Participation of Public Interest Members in the disciplinary process provides scrutiny of the conduct of the proceedings thereby protecting the public interest. (PERHAPS)?

Anonymous said...

Yes I agree with your posting Mr Cherbi.MacAskill is playing politics with the civil court review before its even published.I also agree Lord Gill should be told about what is happening.
Well done for reporting on it.

Anonymous said...

THE FOLLOWING LETTER APPEARED IN THE HAMILTON ADVERTISER ON THURSDAY THE 4th OF JUNE 2009. PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW SO THAT WE SPREAD THE WORD REGARDING THE CORRUPTION SELF REGULATION CREATES. PETER PLEASE ADD YOUR COMMENTS IF YOU WISH.


I am writing about the letter in last week's advertiser "Once Proud Parliament is now Mother of Corruption" letter from W S McGeary.

The Speaker of the house Michael Martin stood in the way of reform at Westminster. There is perhaps some truth that MP's were trying to focus attention on Mr Martin in an attempt to exonerate themselves, but of course they could not escape the attentions of the press.

MP's are now living with the consequences of Freedom of Information Laws, and the public exposure of their corrupt expenses claims are there for all to see.

Self regulation creates corruption in any profession. Lawyers investigate complaints from the public about other lawyers, doctors investigate complaints against doctors.

If readers want to know more about the system they should look at, Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers on the website www.sacl/info and A Diary of Injustice in Scotland by Peter Cherbi.

Anonymous said...

Cameron Fyfe represented me in a litigation case against my employer.

He failed to tell me my documents and medical records had been sequestrated by the court. (HE WAS INSURED BY THE SAME COMPANY AS MY EMPLOYER SO HE HAD NO INTENTION OF TAKING MY CASE TO COURT).

When I later checked with the court because my corrupt GP was angry my documents had been sequestrated there was no evidence in the court case file that Cameron Fyfe had ever represented me.

The clerk told me there was something seriously wrong.

Cameron Fyfe stated than he needed an expert to check the systems of work at my employers premises. He wrote to me and stated that my employer would not let the expert into their premises so the expert could not produce a report.

Fyfe then stated that he would apply for a court order so that the expert could go into my employers workplace. He never applied for a court order. (SEE COMMENTS IN BRACKETS BELOW). Some months later Fyfe told me he was trying to get legal aid for another ergonomics expert. I said to him you did not get a court order for the last expert. (AN EMPLOYER WHO WAS CONVINCED THEY HAD NOT INJURED ME COULD HAVE LET THE EXPERT IN AND THE CASE COULD HAVE BEEN RESOLVED THEN EITHER WAY).
I think Cameron Fyfe was stringing the case out to get more legal aid money. How can he leave so many things if he was fighting for me his client?

Fyfe covered up what happened to me and every solicitor I have stated this to agrees with me. But no solicitor will help me. He also asked for medical reports and refused to get them after I had been examined, because one medical report blamed my employer. I have written evidence to back all of this and more. Every time Fyfe could have made things legally difficult for my employer he did nothing. I have too much evidence to list it all here.

Any individual who has a solicitor for any purpose must keep all of their documents. This man does not fight for you. He works with the defence team not against them. If your incapacity benefit is stopped by the medical profession he will ignore your please for help. He did so little for me I knew he was on my employers side. (MY GP STOPPED MY INCAPACITY BENEFIT BECAUSE HE WAS LYING IN MY MEDICAL RECORDS. I FOUND THIS OUT WHEN HE WOULD NOT GIVE ME A REPORT FROM THE HOSPITAL. LIKE FYFE EVERYTHING MY GP DID FAVOURED THE COMPANY I WAS IN LITIGATION AGAINST. WHEN MY CASE COLLAPSED AGAINST MY EMPLOYER, MY GP THEN COVERED ME FOR THE SAME THING HE STOPPED COVERING ME FOR DURING THE LITIGATION.

Lawyers have full legal protection because they do not expose corruption in each other. Doctors have Legal Privilidge which means they can produce a report about you as an expert witness, and they cannot be sued for their medical opinion. I can only say to people reading this avoid Fyfe and Ross Harper Solicitors. (NO DO NOT TRY TO SUE YOUR EMPLOYER USING ANY LAW FIRM BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO WIN DAMAGES). If you get injured at work and your injuries are not visible you will need medical reports. The doctors and lawyers get paid more if they cover up what has happened to you.

They are evil and ruthless, be warned. I have learned the hard way, all litigation cases where injuries are not visible always go the employers way.

Employers know money placed in the right hands kills medical evidence against them dead.
-----------------------------------
THIS ALL MAKES SENSE TO ME NOW BECAUSE CAMERON FYFE THROUGH THE LAW SOCIETY INSURANCE FUND WAS INSURED BY THE SAME COMPANY AS MY EMPLOYER, MARSH UK ROYAL AND SUN ALLIANCE. NO WONDER HE DID NOT TRY TOO HARD. FYFE'S INSURERS WOULD HAVE HAD TO PAY MY DAMAGES, A CLASSIC CONFLICT OF INTEREST. MY GP WHO WAS CAUGHT LYING IN MY MEDICAL RECORDS, WAS INSURED BY THE SAME COMPANY.

PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF THIS ADVICE. IF YOU ARE BEING INJURED AT WORK GET OUT, BECAUSE TRYING TO SUE YOUR EMPLOYER WILL RESULT IN A COVER UP. YOUR LAWYER WILL BE SUPPORTING YOUR EMPLOYER BECAUSE THEY ARE BOTH INSURED BY ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE. CHECK MATE FYFE.

Anonymous said...

Access to Justice Act 1999 Chapter 22 186. Section 47: Fees for solicitors' practising certificates. This section enables the Lord Chancellor, after consulting the Master of the Rolls and the Law Society, to make an order amending the Solicitors Act 1974 to limit the purposes for which the Law Society may use its income from practising certificate fees. The use of fees could be limited solely to the regulation, education and training of solicitors, or could include any other purposes that the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate. Any order would require an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. The Law Society already has a power under section 11 of the 1974 Act to charge compulsory fees for the issue of practising certificates. NONE OF THIS MONEY WILL BE USED TO PROTECT THE LAW SOCIETIES VICTIMS).

At present, the use the Society may make of this income is not restricted. The Government has announced that it will not restrict the purposes for which the Law Society may use its income from practising certificate fees for at least 18 months after Royal Assent.

Anonymous said...

I think all lawyers are criminals now after reading this blog

Anonymous said...

This is an astounding story and should be in the papers.MacAskill fiddling the results of a survey just to water down an inquiry has to be in the wider media

Anonymous said...

Something is very wrong here.
I worked at the SCC a few years ago and it usually worked that people came to us to do a survey not the other way around.

Did you find out how much this cost and who authorised the project ?

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 8.36pm

I have heard much the same from a source at Consumer Focus Scotland.

Please contact me so we can discuss this further.

Anonymous said...

WARNING,

If you try to sue your employer when your injuries are not visible this will happen.

Your GP, all consultants you see who prepare medical reports, your lawyer and your employer will be insured by MARSH UK Royal & Sun Alliance.

These people will lie in medical reports, your GP will state you have mental health issues even if you have never seen a psychiatrist.

How can they do this and get away with it?

If you complain to NHS Primary Care they will protect yout GP, and all NHS consultants.

If you complain to The Law Society of Scotland/Scottish Legal Complaints Commission they will protect your lawyer.

If you complain to the General Medical Council they will protect all doctors.

If you could eventually prove in a court of law these people have lied, covered up what has happened to you, you will NEVER GET TO COURT, because,

You will need a lawyer to take your case who is a paid up member of the Law Society of Scotland.

All lawyers are insured by Royal & Sun Alliance, so they will not seek damages for you for two reasons,

Professional loyalty.

lawyers insurers would put their premiums up if they have to pay damages to you. ALL OF THESE PEOPLE ARE CRIMINALS YOU CANNOT BEAT THROUGH OUR CURRENT LEGAL SYSTEM.

If you have been injured at work, and your injuries were not visible, your GP and all of the above have covered up what happened to you TO PROTECT THEIR OWN INSURANCE COMPANIES. THIS IS WHY EMPLOYERS ARE ALWAYS INSURED BY MARSH UK ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE BECAUSE THEY KNOW IN LITIGATION OTHER PROFESSIONALS INSURED BY THE SAME COMPANY WILL COVER UP WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO YOU THE EMPLOYEE.

Anonymous said...

35 People ?? Theis must be the smallest survey of consumer views ever undertaken by Consumer Focus so far ! Are they trying to get into the record books or spin books for MacClown ?