Monday, July 27, 2009

Fresh appointments sleaze at Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as FOIs reveal protests against independent oversight of board member recruitment

SLCCFresh appointments row at Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as legal establishment attempts to control selection process. Serious concerns on the independence of the scandal hit Scottish Legal Complaints Commission have been expressed by both clients & consumer groups after the release of documents today showing that a Judge serving on the panel which appointed the SLCC's current board members protested to the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, over the involvement of Scotland's independent appointments regulator OCPAS - The Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland.

Lord Wheatley & Kenny MacAskillLord Wheatley protested to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill over problems with the SLCC’s appointments process. The judge in question, Lord Wheatley, himself a member of the Judicial Appointments Board Judicial Appointments Board, and also a member of the Privy Council alleged in letters to the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, released today under FOI, that the involvement of ‘outsiders’ on the SLCC’s appointments process “was constitutionally unsound in a mature democracy” and even went onto accuse the appointments regulator OCPAS as ‘being a judge in its own cause’ –something the legal establishment seems to have a habit of doing without too much concern !

Scottish Legal Complaints CommissionTransparency is seemingly not a good thing when it comes to revealing the backgrounds of those appointed to ‘independently’ handle complaints against Scottish lawyers. Lord Wheatley felt that the role of Scotland's independent appointments Commissioner was improper during the appointment of the initial batch of board members to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, appointments which saw mostly lawyers, ex lawyers, and ex Police appointed to the new law complaints body which was promised to better handle complaints against 'crooked lawyers' but which has degenerated into farce, scandal and openly expressed prejudice against consumers who dare raise complaints against Scotland's legal profession.

I reported on the first round of appointments to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission here : Call for MacAskill appointments 'sleaze investigation' as revelations show Legal Complaints Commission member was subject of Police inquiry however, strangely, the letters released now under Freedom of Information legislation were not released at the time despite FOI requests … and when I went on to investigate further, the Justice Secretary tried to gag the appointments regulator from releasing information on the matter last year, which I reported here : Justice Secretary MacAskill fails in 'gag attempt' of Appointments Chief over quango jobs for lawyers sleaze

Lord Wheatley to MacAskillLord Wheatley in his letter of protest to the Justice Secretary said : "I was astonished to find the OCPAS Assessor was to take part in the decision-making process itself. I considered that this was seriously inappropriate, but in the circumstances the only realistic course was to continue with the process on the basis that I could explain my concerns to you when it was completed. I believe that I discussed this issue thoroughly and openly with the other members of the panel at all times. He went on : “My Worry can be simply expressed. It is wholly inappropriate, and constitutionally unsound in a mature democracy, for an organisation such as OCPAS to validate a decision-making process in which it elects to take part. Among other things, OCPAS serves the invaluable role of overseeing that the exercise of making public appointments is properly carried out. it can hardly claim that it is in a position to make an independent assessment of such a process when the organisation involves itself in the making of such appointments. Being a judge in your own cause has long been regarded as inconsistent with, and alien to, fundamental democratic principles."

OCPAS to Lord WheatleyAppointments Commissioner's office replied to Lord Wheatley's protests, attempting to allay the judge's 'misgivings'. The sharp protests of Lord Wheatley to Justice Secretary MacAskill drew a response direct from the Appointments Commissioner's office, defending the role of independent assessors in the appointments process in their reply to Lord Wheatley stating : "It is the Commissioner's current view that there are sufficient checks and balances in the system, such as external audit of the process, to ensure that the nature and extent of that involvement continues to be recognised as appropriate and valuable to other participants in the process."

Lord Wheatley to OCPASLord Wheatley revealed in his reply to the Appointments Commissioner, that he had not been briefed on appointments code by the Scottish Government. The reply from the Appointments Commissioner's office led to a further reply from Lord Wheatley, who climbed down somewhat from his initial protests to the Justice Secretary, but the judge revealed he had amazingly not been briefed on the code of conduct for appointments nor supplied with a copy of it from the Scottish Government, despite Mr MacAskill appointing him to the selection panel for the SLCC’s first round of appointments !

SLCC appointments scandal 'humiliation' for Justice Secretary as MacAskill forced to abandon new lay member recruitmentDiary of Injustice reported on latest SLCC appointments scandal in early July. As I revealed a few weeks ago, the SLCC was hit with a new appointments scandal this year, after one of the current lay members on its board decided to step down, forcing a new appointments round, which was started in early February 2009. However, the new appointments round was quickly cancelled in April after reports in the media of scandals involving SLCC board members and officials who had sought to exclude consumer groups & law reform campaigners from consultations and investigations into issues such as the Law Society's infamously corrupt Master Insurance Policy & the mired-in-fraud 'Guarantee Fund', two compensation schemes touted by the Law Society itself as being the "ultimate in consumer protection" but which in reality are little more than heavily corrupt schemes run by the Law Society itself to protect crooked lawyers rather than compensating clients.

I reported on the results of the research into the Master Policy & Guarantee Fund in the following two articles : 'Ground-breaking' investigation into Law Society's Master Policy insurance reveals realities of corrupt claims process against crooked lawyers & Suicides, illness, broken families and ruined clients reveal true cost of Law Society's Master Policy which 'allows solicitors to sleep at night'

Jane IrvineSLCC's Chair Jane Irvine 'wanted independent appointments assessor off her interview panel' However, the protests against the independent assessors taking part in the SLCC’s appointments process di dnot stop with Lord Wheatley, as further documents released through Freedom of Information legislation today show amazingly the SLCC's Chairman, Jane Irvine, also protested against the involvement of independent assessors to the now cancelled 2009 round of appointments, citing apparent conflicts of interest in the role of independent assessors which seem rather mild compared to the conflicts of interests most of those currently working at the SLCC have themselves, coming mostly from backgrounds associated or linked with the legal profession in one way or another.

Jane Irvine to Justice Dept protesting OCPAS SLCC's Chair Jane Irvine 'keen on having senior member of the legal profession on appointments panel'. In emails released, Jane Irvine states to the Justice Department : "You asked me just to let you have a note of why we would prefer not to have an OCPAS representative on the interview panel. As we discussed the primary reason is that of conflict. I state immediately we recognize and respect OCPAS's oversight role. We no that our appointments will be subject to scrutiny. We think OCPAS can comment independently on the process, but not if they are part of it as part of the interview panel. Put simply either they are in oversight or participation mode. We do not think that they can do both and think their value here is in oversight mode.” Jane Irvine went on : "In addition as you know I am very keen we have a senior member of the legal profession on the panel and like your suggestion of a senior member from a consumer advice/representation body if we are aiming to recruit someone from a regulatory/consumer advice background."

A spokesman for a consumer organisation expressed shock after reading the released papers from the SLCC. She said : "Clearly there is a strong indication in the papers released under FOI that the appointments process for the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is a mess. I do not see any benefit to transparency in throwing off the independent assessors who are there to safeguard the public interest in appointments to public bodies such as the SLCC."

She went on : "Clearly there has been an organised attempt from the very beginning to undermine the independence of the SLCC as it was initially promised in the LPLA Act by what can only be described as resistance from the legal establishment to the concept of any outside scrutiny of the SLCC’s operations, even it seems in the appointments stage of placing people onto the SLCC whom the legal profession clearly want to have there without too much fuss."

OCPAS warn Justice Dept over oversight roleAppointments Commissioner’s office warned the Justice Department the independent assessor would still intervene if appointments code not complied with. In a round of further correspondence released through FOI, the Appointments Commissioner's office reported it had discussed the matter with the SLCC's Chair, Ms Irvine, but while agreeing that the assigned OCPAS appointments assessor "would play the usual role in the appointments process, with the assessor contributing as a selection panel member to the panel's collective decision", OCPAS apparently conceded to the wishes of the SLCC and the Law Society, saying the assessor "will not ask questions at the interview but will instead observe and take notes on the interview process." However, the Appointments Commissioner's office warned the Justice Department that "If the OA believes during interviews that the code is not being complied with, for example if they believe that a candidate has not been questioned on the same areas as other candidates or a candidate is questioned inappropriately, our expectation is that the OA will intervene immediately."

You can read the complete FOI releases from the Office of the Commissioner for Appointments in Scotland HERE and the Scottish Government’s FOI release on the SLCC’s now cancelled appointments round HERE

A legal insider after reading the latest Freedom of Information releases on the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission branded the commission “worthless” and “a fit up for consumers with problem solicitors”.

So we are left with the feeling that little changes in the legal world, when it comes to regulating the legal profession and handling clients complaints against crooked solicitors. The Law Society have always stated they wish to retain full control of regulation, and that wish is certainly evident in every facet of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, from the appointment of its board members, to senior staff, to its policy on complaints from members of the public, which for the main seem in their results to be little more than a reflection of the Law Society’s policies of whitewashing complaints against solicitors, no matter how bad they are.

While the SLCC Chair, and senior judges are quick to protest over alleged conflicts of interest relating to the independent appointments regulators, where it seems a little transparency is unwelcomed if it doesn’t come from within the legal world itself, there is not one protest in sight from those very same people over the level of injustice their colleagues in the legal profession are causing to members of the public, some of whom have committed suicide over the way they have been treated by the likes of the Law Society and thoroughly corrupt lawyers.

In the circumstances, one can easily conclude the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is unfit for purpose, and is definitely not to be trusted by the public in its current format.

40 comments:

Anonymous said...

lol welcome back !

do you think Lord Wheatabix will be upset they released his letters to you ?

Anonymous said...

“was constitutionally unsound in a mature democracy” and even went onto accuse the appointments regulator OCPAS as ‘being a judge in its own cause’ –something the legal establishment seems to have a habit of doing without too much concern !

Well Lord Wheatley, you clearly cannot see the woods for the trees, whether you like it or not, we have a legal dictatorship in Scotland where people like you are stuck in the past. Who are you accountable to or are you so supercilious you think you are above everyone else. We will crush self regulation because this doctrine protects people like you, as if you were ancient kings, despots.

People with no legal remedy against law officers is constitutionally unsound. This is Scotland not Nazi Germany. We reject dictatorships here. What gives you the right except hundreds of years of tradition that you are not accountable. Evolution of a system, that is all. You are a human being, stuck in the Victorian era and a member of an anarchonistic legal system that protects lawyers. A system that protects people like you no matter what you do, is corrupt to it's core and needs overhauling. This is a battle we will not lose, end self regulation now.

Anonymous said...

Dont worry Peter.I think anyone would be daft to trust the slcc after reading this.

Anonymous said...

Wheatley wake up, you said "the involvement of ‘outsiders’ on the SLCC’s appointments process “was constitutionally unsound in a mature democracy.”

Interesting comment, OUTSIDERS, well Wheatley it is because your profession are corrupt that we need outsiders as you call them, because you have had things your own way far too long.

If the suicide victims of the Law Society corruption has outsiders checking what was happening, these poor people may be here today. They certainly would never have been sent to that other criminal organisation, The Legal Defence Union.

We clients are human, and our human rights are violated when a lawyer can ruin us and we cannot obtain a legal remedy because lawyers look after each other. This is no surprise when we hear attitudes like yours. Your problem Wheatley, is that outsiders as you call them will ruin lawyers reputations, but we clients need outsiders because the lawyer insiders and their sympathisers cannot be trusted. Clearly you want insiders to be in charge of board member recruitment for the SLCC. This is sinister and proves what we all know, that lawyers investigating complaints from the public about other lawyers will always end up in a cover up.

Anonymous said...

There are some problems with what I'm reading here Peter.

If Lord Wheatley admits he wasn't briefed on the appointments code then why did he continue with the process ?
He should have stopped the hearings just as quickly as he would have to do if it were a point of law in the court.

OCPAS appear to concede ground to Jane Irvine over the 2009 round but they don't need to.The duties of OCPAS are there in legislation and I don't see any reason in all of this for them to withdraw from any interview panel for posts to the SLCC.

Lord Wheatley should re-examine his involvement in the earlier appointments if he feels so perturbed as he expressed himself to be to MacAskill.

Anonymous said...

While the SLCC Chair, and senior judges are quick to protest over alleged conflicts of interest relating to the independent appointments regulators, where it seems a little transparency is unwelcomed if it doesn’t come from within the legal world itself, (there is not one protest in sight from those very same people over the level of injustice their colleagues in the legal profession are causing to members of the public), some of whom have committed suicide over the way they have been treated by the likes of the Law Society and thoroughly corrupt lawyers.

Well Peter no shock here, they protest if there is a risk to lawyers, say nothing about the human and financial cost to lawyers clients. These people in my opinion believe it is their God given right to treat clients any way they want. Clearly the Commission is more corrupt than the Law Society, and they have poured taxpayers money into a complaints body that is a farce, and will continue to protect crooked lawyers. I wonder if Lord Wheatley has much to hide in his past, because all of these people are horrified by being subjected to scrutiny.

Anonymous said...

Jane Irvine went on : "In addition as you know I am very keen we have a senior member of the legal profession on the panel and like your suggestion of a senior member from a consumer advice/representation body if we are aiming to recruit someone from a regulatory/consumer advice background."

Oh well she admitted it - lets have another lawyer please !

Anonymous said...

Well I think this is bloody ridiculous that judges are picking who sits on a complaints regulator against lawyers.No wonder people get nowhere when they are robbed and financially raped by their twisted little scummy lawyer because they have the backing and protection of all their pals all the way up the line

Keep exposing these crooks !

Anonymous said...

Comment at 7pm

No no .. nothing to see here.Remember its the lawyers we are talking about and they just make the rules up as they go along!
Definitely a case of lawyer dictatorship in Scotland.I wonder when they will legalise all the unmentionables they get up to behind the scenes and never get arrested for it!

Anonymous said...

I can understand why Lord Wheatley is concerned but am very worried that OCPAS should agree to 'ask no questions' and also by Ms. Irvine's desire to have a senior member of the legal profession being on the appoinements board.

Disturbing news, very well presented.

Anonymous said...

In the circumstances, one can easily conclude the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is unfit for purpose, and is definitely not to be trusted by the public in its current format.

It was never the intention of the politicians to create an independent complaints system, so the public must never trust lawyers. The reports in the media of crooked lawyers show this profession are totally dishonest. The maggot profession.

If the troops on D day fought the way lawyers do for clients, the Germans would have won the war.

Anonymous said...

sure sounds like Scotland has a shit eyed legal system if all a judge needs to do is write a letter and it all goes his way

Anonymous said...

Scotland is ruled by Nazi lawyers, these legal people are the same as Hitler, Goerring, Himmler, Eichmann, Ribbentrop, power with no accountability. They call the shots, and expect the public to accept what they do. It is criminal that these criminals act with impunity because the system evolved this way.

Anonymous said...

Didnt Lord Wheatley wonder why he was put on some panel and not even briefed about stuff he was complaining against ???

I sense the long hand of the Law Society at work here.As for Irvine and her 'lets have another lawyer on the panel attitude' well doesn't all this prove you correct yet again ??

Get rid of the slcc !

Anonymous said...

I think its about time these panels to put people into highly paid quango jobs should be scrapped.
What do you think Peter ? What is your take on this ?

Anonymous said...

They do not want independent oversight simply because they want to tightly control investigations against members of the legal profession. The public must never trust the commission. The political will supports a lawyer loving complaints system. It is all about looking after the lawyers, and their similarly powerful wealthy insurers.
I would not trust Irvine either, perhaps she has shares in Royal & Sun Alliance? The commission in my view stands for one thing,

Justice for lawyers, nothing else. This is because the majority of Msp's will not bite that hands that feed them. A closed shop of corruption for the few to oppress the many, simple as that.

Anonymous said...

been messed around by this slcc since december and no further forward on my complaint

how hard is it for someone to realise my bastard lawyer has stole my title deeds yet no one at this thing wants to do something about it?

lawyers should not be allowed to investigate themselves EVER

Anonymous said...

OCPAS keep themselves well hidden - although I can find them on the web easy enough it took me ages to get info out of some at the justice dept what they actually do.
If they are so easy to buckle under pressure then why bother at all ?
I think there should be an investigation into the judge and Irvine pressurising OCPAS into taking a back seat on this stuff.

Anonymous said...

I downloaded and read the FOIs you got on this and it seems to me OCPAS,the Scottish Executive and the SLCC should all be investigated for what is obviously a fit up on getting the people the Law Society wanted onto the SLCC first time around.

Anonymous said...

A little bit technical for my tastes but I see what you are getting at with the judge interfering in something I don't think he should be involved in anyway.

Marvellous this FOI stuff isn't it.Makes you wonder why it wasn't around years ago ?!

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 5.34pm

Probably !

# Anonymous @ 6.06pm

Yes, and this is exactly why appointments decisions should be handed to elected representatives at the Scottish Parliament.

# Anonymous @ 6.43pm

Exactly .. which is why regulation of the legal profession must be taken away from those inside it.

# Anonymous @ 7pm

I agree .. once Lord Wheatley realised he had not been briefed on the code or even given a copy he should have stopped the appointments round until he was ...

# Anonymous @ 7.10pm

Yes it certainly is .. and the Law Society have their dream regulator - one appearing to be independent, but full of the same bias, prejudice and client hatred that comes straight from the Law Society of Scotland.

# Anonymous @ 9.25pm

Spread the word please ...

# Anonymous @ 10.07pm

Thanks ... and yes I too am concerned as to why OCPAS felt obliged to 'bend over' to the desires of the SLCC ... more questions will be asked I can assure you.

# Anonymous @ 9.59am

Yes I agree .. and for my own opinion, I would ditch all the appointments 'panels' and allow Holyrood to select candidates instead, with full public hearings and searching questions of candidates wishing to get into these highly paid positions which are supposed to exist to 'protect consumers' ...

# Anonymous @ 11.02am

Yes, exactly .. I agree with your comment.

# Anonymous @ 11.14am

Please post more about your case or contact me.

# Anonymous @ 11.54am

I support your idea of an investigation into OCPAS and this entire affair at the SLCC.

# Anonymous @ 1.30pm

I agree.

# Anonymous @ 2.43pm

Yes .. no wonder FOI laws have been held back and obstructed for so long ...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

been messed around by this slcc since december and no further forward on my complaint

how hard is it for someone to realise my bastard lawyer has stole my title deeds yet no one at this thing wants to do something about it?

lawyers should not be allowed to investigate themselves EVER
11:14 AM
-----------------------------------
I have not dealt with the SLCC but what you say does not surprise me. It is a one sided, criminal organisation, like the Law Society.
Do lawyers control everything in this country? Cathy Jamieson should not have bothered setting up this organisation, a total waste of time. The acid test will be people like you spilling the beans on the way you have been treated by Scotlands untouchables.

I noticed in the Herald today the NHS complaints system is a waste of time. My experience is it leaves doctors who lie about their patients working with others. Criminal.

Anonymous said...

Wheatley said "constitutionally unsound in a mature democracy.”

Constitutionally unsound means "we do not want the legal establishments powerbase undermined." Only criminals self regulate = only criminals are not subject to scrutiny.

Anonymous said...

Lord Wheatley's letter to MacAskill very interesting.If anyone wanted to do a challenge against the numpties drafted onto the slcc this has to be the document to use ! (You did spot that one,right Peter ?)

Anonymous said...

Took me sometime to read all this and I am surprised the papers have not picked up on it.After all we are talking about a Privy Council member taking up quite a strong protest over something that MacAskill seems to have passed the buck onto someone else.
Questions in the house please ! (if only you were an MP Peter you could do it youself)

Anonymous said...

to the person at 1114am

I also called the SLCC and sent in a complaint 4 MONTHS AGO AND STILL HEARD NOTHING!

Peter is right they are just a bunch of con artists!

Anonymous said...

"Being a judge in your own cause has long been regarded as inconsistent with, and alien to, fundamental democratic principles."

aye only a judge could have said that one ! haha !

Anonymous said...

I am mystified as to why Lord Wheatley wrote that letter when he could have cone something about it at the time.

Now the commission is just a joke and those serving on it are tarred with this forever.

Anonymous said...

to the person at 10:27PM

I also called the SLCC and sent in a complaint 4 MONTHS AGO AND STILL HEARD NOTHING!

Peter is right they are just a bunch of con artists!
===================================
I CALLED THIS ORGANISATION

THE SCOTTISH LAWYER COVERUP COMMISSION.

PLEASE FORWARD INFORMATION TO PETER. LAWYER CORRUPTION IS ENCOURAGED, BECAUSE THERE IS NO DETERRENT. WHEATLEY AND HIS LOT WANT TO REMAIN "ABOVE THE LAWS" THEY EXPECT EVERYONE ELSE TO LIVE BY.

WHEATLEY TAKE NOTE, ONE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES IS FAVOURING AND PRACTISING SOCIAL EQUALITY (SOURCE LONGMAN NEW GENERATION DICTIONARY). CLEARLY YOU LIKE SELF PROTECTION FOR LAWYERS, SO YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO TALK ABOUT DEMOCRACY. YOU ARE CLOSER TO MUGABE. WHAT YOU MEAN IS THAT LAWYERS ARE ABOVE QUESTIONING, WE REJECT THAT, WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO HIDE IN YOUR PAST?

PETER WHERE I LIVE THE PRESS ARE FRIGHTENED OF THE LAW SOCIETY, AND NO DOUBT THE SLCC. PERHAPS YOU CAN GET SOME PRESS COVERAGE OF THESE ISSUES?

Anonymous said...

Nearly half of all convicted criminals commit more offences within two years of receiving their punishment, leading Cathy Jamieson, the justice minister, to admit that the system, for some, is little more than a "revolving door".


Well, where lawyers destroy their clients lives Lord Wheatley, they face a locked door. because no lawyer will ruin another lawyers reputation. How is that for Mature Democracy?

Anonymous said...

been messed around by this slcc since december and no further forward on my complaint

how hard is it for someone to realise my bastard lawyer has stole my title deeds yet no one at this thing wants to do something about it?

THEY DO REALISE IT, THEY JUST WILL NO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT, THAT IS SELF REGULATION FOR YOU.

Anonymous said...

Wheatley said "constitutionally unsound in a mature democracy.”

He means those Law Lords who oversee the laws, and their footsoldiers who apply them in the courts, should not be prosecuted by the courts. If anyone disagrees with me ask yourself this question,

How many lawyers do you know or have seen taking legal action against another lawyer for a client? None.

Anonymous said...

MacAskill dodges replying again - Christ why is he the Justice Minister if he can't be bothered to write back to a judge ?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

MacAskill dodges replying again - Christ why is he the Justice Minister if he can't be bothered to write back to a judge ?
1:09 PM
=====================================
He is the lawyers justice minister, perhaps intimidated by the judge.

Anonymous said...

It all comes down to who they wanted to sit on this quango and they got who they wanted by the look of that picture!

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter
Your reputation as a law reporter is second to none!

I wonder if I might have your comment on the following story from "The Firm" magazine where luminaries from Scotland's legal establishment are calling for an inquiry into the Lockerbie case.

http://www.firmmagazine.com/news/1589/News_Exclusive%3A_FIRM_acts_on_call_for_Pan_AM_103_public_inquiry.html

Anonymous said...

I don't think the slcc has any credibility left.Its only being sustained because the Law Society are behind them dont you think ?

Anonymous said...

The lawyers will probably argue as they are now paying for this quango they should get to say who sits on it.What would you say to that one Peter ?

Anonymous said...

"In addition as you know I am very keen we have a senior member of the legal profession on the panel and like your suggestion of a senior member from a consumer advice/representation body if we are aiming to recruit someone from a regulatory/consumer advice background."

Great idea Irvine, who do you suggest, Douglas Mill perhaps, Phillip Yelland or that other crook Kenneth Pritchard. One thing I am sure of, he or she will be of the same mindset as the above. The Scottish Lawyers Coverup Commission is the right name for the SLCC.

Anonymous said...

BBC NEWS
Dr James Armstrong

VIEWPOINT
Dr James Armstrong
Medical Defence Union

Doctor assessing patient
Patients sometimes request specific treatments.

In days gone by, there was a perception that doctors knew best and had the final say - but things have changed and patients are increasingly instrumental in decisions about their care.

However, Dr James Armstrong, a medico-legal advisor for the MDU, says doctors sometimes still have to say no.
===================================
Dr Armstrong is correct, especially when someone is injured at work and the lawyers and doctors cover up what happened to them because the claimants

Employer

GP

Consultants

Lawyers

are all insured by Royal & Sun Alliance. In this case the doctors and lawyers, allow the case to go ahead so that they can have their slice of the Legal Aid, find out what has happened to the claimant, then produce false medical reports to ensure the case never gets to court.

In this case as Dr Armstrong knows, the doctors and lawyers protect their insurers. It is no surprise that the most corrupt professions in Britain are also the most protected from a legal point of view. Money influences governments so that if you are injured at work and the outcome of your case depends of medical evidence, you will be the victim of a medical coverup.

Be honest Dr Armstrong, tell the public how these cases are dealt with. Protect the insurers at all costs. No doubt the Medical Defence Union will be insured by Royal & Sun Alliance too. The insurance club protected by the lawyers and medics.

I believe your average doctor would have covered up Harold Shipman's crimes as long as it did not backfire on the doctors involved in the coverup. Such is the bond of loyalty in this and the legal professions.