Monday, October 26, 2009

Expenses secrecy scandal as Scottish Legal Complaints Commission seeks ban on information requests to protect lawyers 'mental health & safety'

SLCCScottish Legal Complaints Commission refuses to disclose members expenses claims. POTENTIAL MENTAL HEALTH & SAFETY PROBLEMS of four lawyers and four ‘lay people’ (two of whom are ex-senior ranked Policemen, one of whom actually served on a Law Society of Scotland Committee) have been raised by the beleaguered, scandal hit Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as excuses for refusing to disclose board members expenses, this coming after the SLCC has today been stung by claims from solicitors clients, consumer groups, & even politicians that the Commission operates an anti-consumer complaints system which has after one year, yet to have a single success for a client.

Jane IrvineSLCC Chair, Jane Irvine – our members ‘mental health’ is on the line. Jane Irvine's written refusal of full disclosure over members expenses details stated : "I have studied each and every record we hold and am perfectly satisfied that the SLCC is entitled to extract the information from records held, namely what was claimed and paid. Further that the actual claim forms etc which you now state you require are both confidential under s.36(2) and personal data under s.38(1)(b) thus we may withhold the records as exempt."

Ms Irvine staggeringly went on to claim the full release of expenses claims details may harm the safety or mental health of SLCC board members. Jane Irvine : "In addition, I consider we can withhold them under s.39 in that release might endanger the physical or mental health or safety of an individual."

SLCC Chairman Jane Irvine’s extraordinary about-turn on Freedom of Information compliance policy by the joint public-legal profession funded Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, comes after the SLCC, which has so far received a staggering two million pounds of public money from the Scottish Government, received an FOI request for the expenses claims made by its members, which can be revealed today at a staggering £128,624.00 on fees alone in an eleven month period.

The SLCC’s new anti-FOI stance also contradicts Ms Irvine’s earlier supported for making the Law Society of Scotland FOI compliant, which I reported on several months ago, here : Legal Complaints Chief supports ‘consumer advantages’ of removing Law Society’s Freedom of Info immunity

Scottish Legal Complaints CommissionJane Irvine claimed SLCC members with huge expenses claims might ‘face mental health problems’ if details of their salaries were disclosed. A legal insider today attacked the SLCC's decision to resort to secrecy over members expenses and said today : "This is deplorable. It seems when the going gets tough, the SLCC stoops to secrecy in order to protect itself from accountability on issues like members expenses. There must be a lot of duck houses to hide if this hugely expensive & unnecessary law complaints quango feels it cannot publish its members expenses claims in the same way politicians at Holyrood, and even Westminster Parliament have been forced to reveal. The Chair's reasons for secrecy are astounding. It is very bottom of the barrel stuff for Jane Irvine to claim these extravagantly paid board members mental health or safety could be affected by exposing their expenses claims to public scrutiny."

A client who is having considerable difficulty with the SLCC over a serious complaint made against a leading law firm involving fraud also commented, saying : "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I have spent months writing back & forth to this high salaried mob at the SLCC about my complaint and am no further forward. In my opinion they don't deserve the flood of money they have received."

He continued : "From the way they are treating the public, Jane Irvine should be more worried about the mental health & safety of clients who I also read have been driven to suicide over trying to complain against a crooked lawyer. Maybe the SLCC board members and their fat expense accounts should come down off their perch and treat us a bit better instead of worrying so much about what people will think over their expenses claims."

SLCC FOI expenses disclosureSLCC provided misleading information only admitting to £6k expenses on earlier FOI request. It can also be revealed today that the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission apparently intentionally provided deceptive information to an earlier FOI request from the media over members expenses, where the SLCC claimed the total sums claimed and paid to Members between 1 October and 31 August 2009 at £6408.96. However, when quizzed further on the figures, the SLCC Chair, Jane Irvine issued a new statement contradicting the earlier FOI response on members expenses, and admitted that between 1 October 2008 and 31 August 2009 members received total further payments of a staggering £128,624.00 by way of fees, giving the following 'varying interpretation' reason for the staggering £122,216.00 error in the Commission's expenses accounting figures.

SLCC FOI expenses reviewSLCC Chief Jane Irvine threatens media ‘no more FOIs’ after asking for board members expenses details. After having to admit the huge discrepancies in the FOI release of expenses claims, the SLCC’s Chair, Jane Irvine, threatened to brand journalists Freedom of Information enquires as “vexatious” as she was forced to admit the huge ‘accounting error’, saying : "Having stated all this I have very carefully considered the exact wording of your request as you have directed me to. This might be read two ways. Either as a request for records of all claims for expenses and money paid as expenses - which we have answered, or a request for records plus a request for records of all money paid. I have not sought to clarify this with you. Rather I have interpreted it expansively and in this context advise that between 1 October 2008 and 31 August 2009 Members received total further payments of £128,624.00 by way of fees."

Margaret Scanlan - Called to the Bars - Sunday Mail  15 March 2009 emailFOI disclosure exposed SLCC Board member Margaret Scanlan who wanted consumer groups excluded from SLCC business. As the SLCC’s new anti-FOI stance gathers pace, Commission insiders have also claimed that in order to stem the rising numbers of FOI requests from the media, necessitated by the Commission’s secrecy policy on just about everything, and the SLCC’s consistently late publishing of monthly minutes (up to six months late in some cases, alongside significant use of black ink) the Commission has also decided to charge for any & all FOI requests, in the hopes of putting off enquiries which may lead to further embarrassing & compromising revelations such as some of those already reported in the media where ‘on the razzle’ board members and senior SLCC officials embarked on bitter hate-fuelled email rants against consumer groups, members of the public, solicitors clients and even media journalists who all came in for heavy criticism and insults after publication of problems at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

You can read an earlier account of scandals at the SLCC revealed by FOI requests here : MacAskill must clean up law complaints body as members 'booze culture conduct' reflects lack of discipline & will to investigate crooked lawyers & here : Censorship & ‘frequent flyers’ at Scottish Legal Complaints Commission reveal attempt to write off consumers evidence in Master Policy report

A Scottish Parliamentary insider today said : “The way the SLCC is operating is clearly not what was intended in the LPLA Act and clearly the commission has a poor attitude towards the public and a poor view of how it should manage its own affairs and finances. The commission has, as I understand it, received a great deal of public money and millions of pounds from the legal profession itself. I am sorry to say I do not see value for money in what I read of the SLCC’s performance in the media of late.”

He continued : “I feel it may now be time for parliamentary scrutiny of the commission’s performance to-date and I would encourage anyone who has encountered difficulties with the SLCC to contact their own MSP and make a request the commission be brought before the parliament when its annual report is published, I believe sometime in December 2009.”

An MSP, speaking this afternoon after reading the SLCC’s refusal over members expenses details said : “If the SLCC are playing fast & loose with FOI requests, I would be willing to put in a few requests myself to assist the outflow of information into the public domain.”

The SLCC’s refusal to disclose full details of its members expenses has now been passed to Scotland’s Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion, for a full investigation.


Anonymous said...

Very revealing as ever.So we are to assume all the board members will turn into lunatics if the world knows what they claimed for ?

Might be a good thing you know - anyone with mental health problems can be sectioned and clients might end up with a better deal if that happens !

Anonymous said...

I dont think Jane Irvine's FOI opt-out will go down well with Dunion.

Keep up the pressure!

Anonymous said...

What's a little £130k between friends ?

Seriously.My annual levy payment keeps this lot in their jobs and this sounds a hell of a lot more expensive than the Law Society's effort.Might do an foi myself to see what they get up to with it.

Anonymous said...

Jane Irvine : "In addition, I consider we can withhold them under s.39 in that release might endanger the physical or mental health or safety of an individual."

So who has been lining their pockets and doesnt want everyone knowing about it?

Anonymous said...

£6408.96 v £128,624.00 seems a large mistake to make.Clearly they were trying to deceive the FOI request.

Hope Dunion makes something good of it and no doubt you will report on that.

Good work,should be in a newspaper!

Anonymous said...

also I would observe the SLCC were meeting long before 1st October 2008 so where are their expenses claims for that time period?

Anonymous said...

'Grasping at straws' is the phrase which comes to mind regarding the SLCC's latest lame excuse to excuse it's very dubious conduct.

Anonymous said...

To the last post ; It does so safe in the knowledge that no member of any major political party will dare call it - or its paymaster - to account.

£308 a day for Jane Irvine and still not satisfied ! said...

I wouldn't even believe the £130k they are now admitting to and this Jane Irvine is very arrogant in her letter where I see she is even complaining about getting £308 a day !! Christ doesn't she know we are in a recession ??

Please give me £308 a day ! I will gladly take it !

Anonymous said...

No wonder this lot crawled out of the woodwork to get on the slcc.Money.

Also from that Sunday Mail story maybe Jane Irvine should be more worried about the state of some of her pals livers than their outrageous expenses claims and "mental health" !

Anonymous said...

Some links for Jane Irvine's mental health crusade against releasing the expenses dirt :

also if anyone at the slcc needs admitted to Carstairs !

Anonymous said...

Irvine wont be able to get out of FOI disclosures no matter how hard she tries so keep sending them in !

Anonymous said...

I know someone who works at the SLCC - she says you could cut the air with a knife in their office and calls it a hell hole.From reading your blog tonight I can see why.

Anonymous said...

This free for all at the slcc must be ended and those brought to account for misleading us we were going to get a fair hearing of complaints against bent lawyers.

Anonymous said...

Margaret Scanlan will have mental problems if her expenses claims are disclosed ? haha !

Anonymous said...

Maybe MacAskill is letting them dip their fingers in the till in the hope the resulting scandal will kill off the slcc because of their own greed ?

Peter Cherbi said...

Thanks for your comments.

# Anonymous @ 5.13pm

Possibly they already have ...

# Anonymous @ 6.27pm

Yes, it does seem a bit of a waste, solicitors paying to keep the SLCC in expenses claims ...

If you do any FOIs please post the results !

# Anonymous @ 7pm

You can be sure of that.

# Anonymous @ 7.03pm

Good point .. I will ask.

# Anonymous @ 7.40pm

I agree .. time for a little more exposure on the SLCC ..

# Anonymous @ 9.28pm

I've heard much the same ...

# Anonymous @ 10.29pm

I agree.

# Anonymous @ 11.10pm

Its a possibility .. although the 'till dipping' seems to be increasing from what I've been told tonight ...

Anonymous said...

Good investigation and I hope the newspapers follow it up on these expenses spongers.

btw how many other quangos and commissions are this lot on and what else do they claim for ?

Anonymous said...

No doubt the SLCC would have given this crooked lawyer a medal and an expenses chitty :

Lawyer jailed for theft from dead

A former deputy coroner and solicitor has been jailed for stealing money from a charitable trust account he set up with money taken from dead clients.

Alan Benstock, 51, of Chapel Allerton, Leeds, was jailed for 22 months for the thefts while working as a solicitor at Lister Croft in Wakefield.

Leeds Crown Court heard the will and probate specialist took £43,450 from the estates of three dead clients.

Some of the cash was used for personal expenses and to generate more business.

The court heard Benstock moved the money into LC Charitable Trust, which he had set up but not registered, in order to try to generate more business for the firm and fund personal expenses.

'Broken man'

He also used £27,200 from the trust to pay off personal credit card bills, his family's private medical fees and his daughter's private school fees, the court heard.

I do not think you were motivated by greed but you were undoubtedly motivated by a desire to live beyond your means
Judge Penelope Belcher

Benstock was arrested in February 2008 after a partner at the solicitor's firm heard about the trust and informed the Law Society.

Jeremy Barnett, mitigating, told the judge Benstock's offences had not been carried out to fund a lavish lifestyle and that he had paid back the money after borrowing it from his brother and sister-in-law.

Mr Barnett also told the court Benstock was a "broken man" and was taking medication for depression.

In her summary Judge Penelope Belcher said she was satisfied Benstock had not set out to steal money but had turned to it when he realised he could not afford his lifestyle.

"I do not think you were someone who was motivated by greed but you were undoubtedly motivated by a desire to live beyond your means", she said.

Anonymous said...

Comment #3
In the same boat & feel the same.
Flint @ MacRoberts might be worth a chat.

Anonymous said...

"might face mental health problems"?
and what of those who are facing / enduring mental health problems, through the negligence of these lawyers and lay people? what of them?

Its time the whole justice system was overhauled, these problems just rumble on and on..............LB

Anonymous said...

Excellent break Peter - this lot should be locked up for hoodwinking the public over better complaints procedures against bent lawyers!

As for their mental problems well I think the excuse to censor their expenses over mental health shows us what kind of people this lot really are.

Anonymous said...

Just taken a call about Cherbi and his news on the SLCC.He isnt a solicitor but I think we should support him on this and have a go at them.What say folks ?

Cherbi : If the SLCC is so rotten it must be put to the sword what is your solution to complaints ? and don't make me sorry I asked !

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 12.16am

A few I would imagine ... once people are on the 'quango circuit' they seem to clone themselves onto other quangos ...

# Anonymous @ 11.07am

I take it you are a solicitor ?

At the end of the day its your money (and the 2million the SLCC received from the taxpayer) they are using to fund their 'expenses' claims, furniture, travel, fees .. etc etc ... so it would certainly be in the profession's interests to 'have a go at them' as you put it ...

A solution to complaints is easy ... take regulation away from the legal profession.

The Law Society proved itself self regulation does not work, and the SLCC has proved their half-way, half-baked regulation is just as much a failure, simply because most people at the SLCC either have an affiliation with the legal profession or previously worked at the Law Society.

There are plenty aside from myself who say regulation should be taken out of the hands of the profession .. its just that the Law Society wants to retain it for all eternity, as you will know yourself.

England & Wales now has a [mostly] independent regulator of legal services, so why not Scotland. We would all be better off with a fully independent regulator as the failure of the SLCC has itself demonstrated.

Anonymous said...

"At the end of the day its your money (and the 2million the SLCC received from the taxpayer) they are using to fund their 'expenses' claims, furniture, travel, fees .. etc etc ... so it would certainly be in the profession's interests to 'have a go at them' as you put it ..."

A sore point for many I've spoken to I can assure you.

"A solution to complaints is easy ... take regulation away from the legal profession."

Fair enough but who will pay for it ? Same funding model as the SLCC or public ?

"England & Wales now has a [mostly] independent regulator of legal services, so why not Scotland. We would all be better off with a fully independent regulator as the failure of the SLCC has itself demonstrated."

You mean the SRA right ?

They also have problems although not half as much as the SLCC from your own reporting.

I definitely agree a balance must be struck on regulation and the SLCC model is not the way ahead.

Will chat with some like minded and see what happens.


Anonymous said...

What a shocking misuse of public money.They should be made to pay it all back and why is Jane Irvine complaining she is only on £308 a day ?

ONLY paid £308 a day ! How terrible for her !

Anonymous said...

I knew it would end up this way with the slcc.
No credibility now - they should be closed down in a hurry.

Scottish Legal Duck House Commission said...

So what we need to know is who has been claiming for duck houses and moat cleaning at the SLCC ??

I'm going to call this the Scottish Legal Duck House Commission now !

Anonymous said...

Looks like you hit the lawyers expenses weakness just like Mps expenses

Make sure you get Dunion to release all the stuff or fight for it in court if necessary.

Keep up the good work !

Anonymous said...

SLCC Levy Charges for 2009/2010
Solicitors with 3 plus years experience Annual Levy £275
Conveyancing and Executry Services Annual Levy £275
Advocates Annual Levy less 19% £223
Solicitors within first 3 years of practice Annual Levy less 50% £138
In-house and Outwith Scotland Solicitors Annual Levy less 66.6% £91
Assoc of Commercial Attorneys Annual Levy less 66.6% £91

If the complaint is accepted, the charges are as follows:
Complaint accepted - First Settlement £500
Complaint accepted - Second and Further Settlements £700
Formal Determination - First £800
Formal Determination - Second £1,200
Formal Determination - Third and Further Determinations £2,000

.. and all because the lady loves milk tray ?

Anonymous said...

Comment at 9:11am

No don't think so.Mr Flint "has been tamed" according to the LSS rumour mill.

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 12.19pm

The polluter pays ... so yes, the same funding model currently used by the SLCC.

The thing is, if the profession wants to clean itself up, regain public trust, and business .. this will have to be achieved by means other than using the SLCC as a front for complaints investigations, because make no mistake, that is all the SLCC is .. a front for the Law Society.

# Anonymous @ 2.24pm

Yes, its been passed to the FOI Commissioner's office for his investigation.

# Anonymous @ 2.28pm

Yes .. it takes a lot of money to staff & run a small complaints commission ... over 6 million so far ...

Anonymous said...

The amounts of money being thrown at this thing are staggering !

Close it and save a lot of money while we still can.

Anonymous said...

Yes Peter spot on
Lawyers cant be allowed to regulate themselves because they are bloody crooks just the same as anyone else who regulates themselves!

Anonymous said...

I wouldnt believe anything anyone at the SLCC said in foi its all bound to be lies

Ive been writing to them for weeks and still cant get an answer on where my complaint went to after they told me first they would look at it and then said it went to the Law society

Anonymous said...

"England & Wales now has a [mostly] independent regulator of legal services, so why not Scotland."

Sorry Peter, you're wrong on that, the new set up in England is no more than a "re-branding" of the old Legal Complaints Service. They have a shiny new office but it'll be staffed by all the staff from the Legal Complaints Service, so I don't expect any real change down here.

It looks like England took a leaf out of Scotland's book. There may be many things we can learn from Scotland but this was one lesson we shouldn't have followed.

Anonymous said...

Irvine's letter to whoever made the foi request is not worth the £308 a day she claims she 'only gets'.
I also notice she misses out the fact that is per day and not per week.

Did she just forget to add that detail just the same she forgot how much was really claimed in expenses ?

Definitely not to be trusted by anyone.

Anonymous said...

How much bar time went on expenses ?

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 6.17pm

Most people who have contacted the SLCC and then contacted myself seem to be saying the same in that the Commission is useless (by design).

# Anonymous @ 7.29pm

Thanks for that correction.

So England & Wales have copied the crooked complaints process used in Scotland to create the SLCC ?

Yes I would imagine you will encounter the same problems we have in Scotland with the SLCC, which is now in my view, 10 times worse than the Law Society of Scotland

Anonymous said...

Irvine is some piece of work
First she says the Law Society should be made to obey FOI then she complains about her meagre expenses of £308 a day (makes me sick) then she lies through her teeth in her own foi replies !

Is this the person we should trust to police lawyers ? NOT BLOODY LIKELY ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE CRONIES ON THE WARPED CROOKED SLCC !

Anonymous said...

Someone at the Justice Dept said Jane Irvine and others in that picture are in for MBEs ??? Also Scanlan already has one apparently but her honour doesnt seem to want to admit her expenses claims

Just as bad as MPs!

Anonymous said...

How all this corruption has been allowed to go on is beyond me but I'm sure it is a good indicator how rotten the Law Society itself is and what a disgusting bunch of people they really are.

Anonymous said...

Read Irvine's snotty letter
I will do some fois just to keep them busy

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 12.37pm

Thanks for the tip .. I hadn't heard that but if true I'm glad I don't believe in honours.

Jane Irvine may have been in the regulatory business for a long time but the way the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has let down the public is unbelievable and not worthy of a medal for any of them.

Anonymous said...

If any of that lot get honours for fucking up complaints against lawyers it must be a bloody joke

Anonymous said...

so lying in foi papers gets someone an mbe ? great !
what next ?
a title for blowing the head off a client ?

Anonymous said...

Peter.Thanks for a very interesting insight into this murky world of complaints about lawyers.

As you say the only way this will be resolved is through completely independent regulation and I do hope you continue your writing even after such an aim is reached because I am sure there will always be problems when it comes to clients saying one thing and lawyers backed up by their professional bodies telling another version (usually always the version believed)

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Someone at the Justice Dept said Jane Irvine and others in that picture are in for MBEs ??? Also Scanlan already has one apparently but her honour doesnt seem to want to admit her expenses claims

Just as bad as MPs!

12:37 PM

Really ?

I'd find it very creepy if any of this bunch were getting a gong for screwing up already screwed clients !

Anonymous said...

It seems complaints to Europe are the last option - no political party here will speak about, far less complain of, the conspicuously corrupt cabal in charge of the legal profession here.

Anonymous said...

I dont think I could add much to what has already been said suffice to agree with Mr Cherbi the Foi by Jane Irvine is a disgrace, highly insulting and I hope Kevin Dunion goes to town on them.

Anonymous said...

ok well I've read your bit and agree with what you say but whats your solution to sort all this out and if you were on the slcc would you have done any different on the expenses thing ?

Anonymous said...

After watching Question Time last night about expenses these people should be treated the same and shamed but as they dont want to publish their claims there must be something they fear being published so go for it Peter and expose this lot of milkers and as for someone saying they are in for medals well thats just disgusting.Maybe they should give their medals to the victims of bent lawyers because its them that deserve it not the people who excuse corruption with a million word essay of a report.

Anonymous said...

Another Scottish style whitewash investigation you can read about on bbc :

'Whitewash' over cancer blunder

A ruling which allows a clinician who botched a teenage cancer patient's treatment to keep on working has been branded a "whitewash" by her father.

Ken Norris spoke out after a Health Professions Council hearing upheld charges against Dr Stuart McNee but decided he should not be struck off.

Dr McNee worked at the Beatson Oncology Centre in Glasgow where Lisa Norris was given 19 radiation overdoses.

The 16-year-old died from a brain tumour at her home in Ayrshire in 2006.

The Health Professions Council (HPC) hearing in Edinburgh found that Dr McNee had shown a lack of competence over Ms Norris's treatment.

She was initially diagnosed with the tumour in October 2005, and was given radiation 58% higher than prescribed in January 2006, which left her with burns on her head and neck.

The panel said Dr McNee had been responsible for planning the botched course of radiotherapy, but said his biggest failing had been not speaking out over staffing pressures in his department.

This had led to his failure to ensure that standing operating procedures were up to date or even followed, or to make sure that systems were in place to ensure his trainee practitioners were supported.

Despite all misconduct charges being proven against him, the HPC panel ruled Dr McNee could continue working.

Its chairman Colin Allies said: "We are confident the Registrant has learned from his mistakes and would act differently in similar circumstances today.

"We took into consideration the lack of staff and a lack of support from senior management.

'No reprimand'

"The Registrant's fitness to practise is not impaired therefore the allegation is not well founded."

The conduct and competence hearing was attended by Ms Norris's parents Ken, 53, and Liz, 52.

They described the outcome as a "travesty" and a "whitewash" and said they would continue with legal action against the health authority, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.

Mr Norris said: "I'm very disappointed that a man can do what he did and walk away from it. I was expecting him to at least get reprimanded for it.

"I expected him to be here so we could come face to face with him.

"No-one has taken responsibility for overdosing Lisa and as far as I'm concerned they have just whitewashed it.

"It doesn't matter that he had a good, impeccable record. What he did, he shouldn't have done. It's a travesty. We will still continue our fight against NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde."

Anonymous said...

Scotland must have mental problems itself it it allows this crew to investigate crooked lawyers.Now THATS MENTAL !

Anonymous said...

dont think macaskill has much say in this because hes just a puppet of the real lawyers in charge of it
crooks regulate crooks as always

Anonymous said...

My view.Expenses for people who sit on millions of committees is really just theft from the public purse.

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 1.38pm

The easy solution is for the SLCC to pay back all public money, and for members expenses claims to be means tested, given they already have other positions and income.

I am not and would never be on the SLCC, thank goodness. I could not sit by and participate in a front organisation for the Law Society of Scotland.

Anonymous said...

"The easy solution is for the SLCC to pay back all public money, and for members expenses claims to be means tested, given they already have other positions and income."

Good luck trying to get that.Most people who get themselves onto quangos would probably commit murder to protect their expenses claims so I dont think there's any chance of means testing them in the near future - even if it is a great idea.Something like the more quangos someone is on the less they can claim ?

Anonymous said...

If MPs at Westminster can be forced to declare their expenses then so can this bunch of milkers and boohoo to Jane Irvine who is so down she only gets £308 a day.

Anonymous said...

Marvellous blog you have here and you nailed this lot of con artists on their expenses !

Keep up the good work Peter !

Anonymous said...

Well this proves their main aim is to claim as much for themselves as possible while doing as little as possible for the rest of us.

Typical quango tricks and why we all put up with it I'll never understand

Douglas45 said...

Insightful read. Great Blog.