Monday, October 05, 2009

Scottish Human Rights Commission oppose McKenzie Friends as Human Right in Scotland as English courts allow ECHR rights for legal assistance requests

SHRCScotland's Human Rights Commission argue against Human rights of having a McKenzie Friend in Scotland. In a move condemned by some senior legal & consumer figures this evening, the Scottish Human Rights Commission have written to the Scottish Parliament Petitions Committee on the subject of Petition 1247 McKenzie Friends for Scotland, voicing argument & opposition to giving Scots court users the 'Human Right' of a McKenzie Friend, a right which has been respected as an Article 6 Human Right in England & Wales for several years, according to advice given out by the Lord President of the English courts, and backed by the UK's Ministry of Justice.

Curiously, the SHRC’s apparent opposition to McKenzie Friends as a ‘Human Right in Scotland’, seems to fit in with the negative views expressed so far by the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates, who both oppose the introduction of McKenzie Friends to Scotland’s courts, as I have reported earlier HERE and HERE.

In an unexpected twist to the argument for McKenzie Friends, the 'impartial' Scottish Human Rights Commission used an example of an EU ruling in the context of a case in which the applicant was assisted by a McKenzie Friend. In the case the SCCRC used as a reference, “The Court in this case made no comment on the role of the “McKenzie friend” which is neither prescribed nor proscribed by the ECHR. It clearly did not, however, consider this to be sufficient to provide the applicant with the required level of legal representation in the case given its complexity, the importance of what was at stake, and its highly emotive subject matter, finding ultimately that, in the instant case, “the principles of effective access to court and fairness required that [the applicant] receive the assistance of a lawyer.”

SHRC argued in their submission to Holyrood’s Petitions Committee that it would be better for litigants to pay a lawyer to represent them in court than have a McKenzie Friend !

SHRC response to Holyrood petition McKenzie Friends

The EU case reference used by the SHRC documents : “There is no automatic right under the Convention for legal aid or legal representation to be available for an applicant who is involved in proceedings which determine his or her civil rights. Nonetheless Article 6 may be engaged under two inter-related aspects. Firstly, Article 6 s1 of the Convention embodies the right of access to a court for the determination of civil rights and obligations. Failure to provide an applicant with the assistance of a lawyer may breach this provision, where such assistance is indispensable for effective access to court…by reason of the complexity of the procedure or the type of case. Factors identified as relevant in the Airey case (Airey v Ireland 9/10.1979) in determining whether the applicant would be able to present her case properly and satisfactorily without the assistance of a lawyer included the complexity of the procedure, the necessity to address complicated points of law or to establish facts, involving expert evidence and the examination of witnesses, and the fact that the subject-matter of the marital dispute entailed an emotional involvement that was scarcely compatible with the degree of objectivity required by advocacy in court. In such circumstances, the Court found it unrealistic to suppose that the applicant could effectively conduct her own case, despite the assistance afforded by the judge to parties acting in person.”

“It may be noted that the right of access to court is not absolute and may be subject to legitimate restrictions. Where an individual's access is limited either by operation of law or in fact, the restriction will not be incompatible with Article 6 where the limitation did not impair the very essence of the right and where it pursued a legitimate aim, and there was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved. Thus, though the pursuit of proceedings as a litigant in person may on occasion not be an easy matter, the limited public funds available for civil actions renders a procedure of selection a necessary feature of the system of administration of justice, and the manner in which it functions in particular cases may be shown not to have been arbitrary or disproportionate, or to have impinged on the essence of the right of access to court. It may be the case that other factors concerning the administration of justice (e.g. the necessity for expedition or the rights of other individuals) could also play a limiting role as regards the provision of assistance in a particular case, though such restriction would also have to satisfy the tests set out above.”

“Secondly, the key principle governing the application of Article 6 is fairness. In cases where an applicant appears in court notwithstanding lack of assistance of a lawyer and manages to conduct his or her case in the teeth of all the difficulties, the question may nonetheless arise as to whether this procedure was fair. There is the importance of ensuring the appearance of the fair administration of justice and a party in civil proceedings must be able to participate effectively, inter alia, by being able to put forward the matters in support of his or her claims. Here, as in other aspects of Article 6, the seriousness of what is at stake for the applicant will be of relevance to assessing the adequacy and assessing the adequacy and fairness of the procedures (P, C and S v the United Kingdom, 11/12/2001)”

The English approach – McKenzie Friends are treated as a Human Rights issue on advice of the Lord President.

Lord President's Advice on McKenzie Friends - England & Wales

In stark contrast to the Scottish Human Rights Commission’s attitude on McKenzie Friends, the English approach, led by the Lord President of the Family Division, and backed by the Ministry of Justice advises that : “When considering any request for the assistance of a MF, the Human Rights Act 1998 Sch 1 Part 1 Article 6 is engaged; the court should consider the matter judicially, allowing the litigant reasonable opportunity to develop the argument in favour of the request.”

A senior figure in one of Scotland's consumer organisations attacked the SHRC's statement as profoundly shocking for party litigants in Scottish courts, claiming the commission's letter "sounded more like a pitch for business for lawyers than a defence of something already accepted as a right in England & Wales".

He said : "I am surprised by the negativity and tone of the SHRC's response to the Petitions Committee on the subject of McKenzie Friends."

"It is widely accepted in the English courts that litigants can request the presence of a McKenzie Friend, which the court usually looks on as an Article 6 Human Rights issue, as offered in advice from the Lord President of the Family Division, English Courts."

He continued : "While I respect the references used in the Human Rights Commission's reasoning, I feel their submission looks more like a pitch for forcing litigants to use lawyers, but they have not tackled the argument as to what happens if that litigant cannot obtain access to legal representation."

“I feel the SHRC has played a very dark hand making this submission on the day before the Petition is to be heard, after, I understand, having been asked to make a submission several months ago. One could be forgiven for thinking the SHRC are attempting to undermine the Petition itself with their rather poor showing."

A senior solicitor who was asked for comment on the SHRC's response to the McKenzie Friends Holyrood Petition said he was astonished the Commission had apparently went so far out of its way to argue that having a McKenzie Friend was not a Human Right.

He said : "I think people are going to look at the Commission’s letter to the Parliament and wonder why they actually exist if they are so set against issues which are handled as Human Rights entitlements in one part of the country, but not in Scotland."

He continued : "I don't see why the Scottish Border with England should be the crumbling point for individuals rights, where Scots clearly have less rights than people in England & Wales, and then we have this notion where those very organisations funded by the public in Scotland to protect & promote Human Rights, will go out of their way to argue against the very issues they are charged with protecting."

"Many solicitors in the legal profession I know, including myself, do not have a problem with McKenzie Friends appearing in Scotland's courts. However, there is clearly a movement within the legal profession who do not wish to see McKenzie Friends operating in the Scottish courts, and in these testy financial times, I would put that down to fear of the competition and lost business, not really anything to do with arguments of lawyers being able to give a litigant a better service, which I would be the first to admit, may not always be the case."

In an interview this evening, Mr Stewart MacKenzie, the Petitioner who raised the McKenzie Friends for Scotland Petition 1247, said he was disappointed with the Scottish Human Rights Commission's Parliamentary submission.

He said : "The SHRC seems to have focussed too heavily on the subject of representation, which has absolutely nothing to do with a McKenzie Friend, who is there simply to take notes, and quietly advise party litigants on what questions to ask or how to observe court procedures.”

Mr MacKenzie continued : "A McKenzie Friend should be a human right for all Scots as it is for the people of England & Wales, rather than some remote favour at the behest of the court. Why should a court have the discretionary power to say to someone you can have an assistant to help take notes, but refuse the same privilege to others ? That is not fair.”

"If I as a party litigant who cannot obtain legal representation through the services of a solicitor, want a note taker or assistant in court it should be my right to have that just as people in other parts of the country, and other parts of the world can have without all this opposition from the legal profession in Scotland. We are talking about helping people in court here, not representation or advocacy. McKenzie Friends should be a right for all and that is why I raised my petition at the Scottish Parliament."

I would certainly have to agree with Mr MacKenzie's point of view, and also, am left wondering why the Scottish Human Rights Commission have written a reluctant letter to the Scottish Parliament shying away from backing McKenzie Friends as a Human Right.

Stewart MacKenzie to Scottish Parliament latestPetitioner asks Holyrood to request Courts to implement McKenzie Friends. Late yesterday, the petitioner Mr MacKenzie wrote to the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee, reminding them of Lord Gill’s recommendation that a McKenzie Friend facility now be introduced into Scottish Courts, and asked the Committee to write to the Sheriff Court Rules Council, requesting that they implement a McKenzie Friend facility without any further delay. Mr MacKenzie ended his request to the Petitions Committee by saying “There has been enough prejudice to the people of Scotland on this matter.” … yes, some forty years of prejudice, and one could almost say, organised resistance from the legal profession to the allowing of McKenzie Friends in Scotland …

The Scottish Human Rights Commission claim on their website : "The Scottish Human Rights Commission promotes and protects the human rights of everyone in Scotland. We are working to increase awareness, recognition and respect for human rights in Scotland by bringing human rights into everyday life. The Commission is dedicated to helping everyone understand their rights and the shared responsibilities we all have to each other and to our community. The Commission is independent of the UK and Scottish Parliaments and Governments."

One could easily conclude from the SHRC's response to the Scottish Parliament, the individual’s Human Rights may only go so far in Scotland ... perhaps to the point of a solicitor's fee note, and if you cannot get a solicitor to act for you, you don't have Human Rights …. which is most certainly an odd way of looking at things.

No one at the SHRC was available for comment this evening.

The Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee will hold its latest hearing on Petition 1247 (McKenzie Friends for Scotland) at Holyrood on Tuesday 5 October 2009.

38 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well really Peter I am surprised at you !

We in the profession have known for a long time the SHRC are a bunch of overpaid backstabbing bastards !

Good to see you outed them though ! Keep up the good work !

Anonymous said...

"A senior figure in one of Scotland's consumer organisations attacked the SHRC's statement as profoundly shocking for party litigants in Scottish courts, claiming the commission's letter "sounded more like a pitch for business for lawyers than a defence of something already accepted as a right in England & Wales"

OBVIOUSLY

Anonymous said...

SHRC argued in their submission to Holyrood’s Petitions Committee that it would be better for litigants to pay a lawyer to represent them in court than have a McKenzie Friend !

WHAT HAPPENS IF ONE CANNOT GET A LAWYER? THE COURT DOORS SHUT.

Anonymous said...

Clearly a very different approach to McKenzie Friend in England so the shrc are simply talking bollocks.

Good work *as usual*

Anonymous said...

Money talks, Royal Sun Alliance, Law Society, Faculty of Advocates, how much are you paying the Scottish Human Rights Commission.

Yes in complex cases one may need to use a lawyer, but not all civil cases are complex. Some of us are lawyer barred.

Anonymous said...

Yes good point.Why should England have McKenzie friends as a human right and Scotland dont ?

Lawyers wanting MONEY is probably why!

Anonymous said...

Sounds like a put up job to me, waiting until the last minute to respond and then betraying evrerything your organization is supposed to stand for - there are a few brown paper envelopes passing hands somewhere I bet.

Anonymous said...

The Scottish Human Rights Commission claim on their website

"The Scottish Human Rights Commission promotes and protects the human rights of everyone in Scotland. (NO YOU LOOK AFTER LAWYERS). We are working to increase awareness, recognition and respect for human rights in Scotland by bringing human rights into everyday life. The Commission is dedicated to helping everyone understand their rights and the shared responsibilities we all have to each other and to our community. The Commission is independent of the UK and Scottish Parliaments and Governments." (PERHAPS, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THE SHRC ARE NOT INDEPENDENT OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND, FACULTY OF ADVOCATES. THERE IS SOME SINISTER GOINGS ON HERE, PERHAPS SOME POSITIVE CASHFLOW FROM LAWYERS TO THE SHRC.

Anonymous said...

No one at the SHRC was available for comment this evening.

Good evening Peter,

It is strange the way the SHRC are behaving here, they are objecting to someone quietly assisting a party litigant in court.

Many people cannot obtain the services of a lawyer, and if they are like me, would not trust lawyers anyway.

The SHRC are sidelining the issue of people who cannot get lawyers, they clearly favour the Law Society stance. One can only conclude their idea of human rights are the human rights of lawyers. Has Douglas Mill got a job with the SHRC?

Anonymous said...

Couldn't help noticing the SHRC's letter is UNSIGNED.

Did their boss Professor Alan Miller feel he couldn't put his name to the assassin's knife against McKenzie Friend ?

Anonymous said...

BBC NEWS

Former lawyer jailed for stealing

A former lawyer who embezzled over £400,000 from a dead woman's estate to pay off his own debts, has been jailed for three-and-a-half years.

Anonymous said...

I suspect the shrc waited until the last minute to avoid the kind of publicity you have given them.
We are the better for your alerting us to their treason against the people of Scotland.

Anonymous said...

SHRC have tellytubbies on YouTube !
Here Alan Miller tells you what NOT to expect from human rights in Scotland:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6BejZ__3uM

Anonymous said...

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Man-jailed-over-embezzlement.5705538.jp
"Man jailed over embezzlement" is the Hootsmon's headline LOL !! "MAN" !!

I prefer the BBC version :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/8291294.stm

Former lawyer jailed for stealing
Michael Karus
Michael Karus, 48, earlier pleaded guilty to embezzling £413,052

A former lawyer who embezzled over £400,000 from a dead woman's estate to pay off his own debts, has been jailed for three-and-a-half years.

Michael Karus, 48, earlier pleaded guilty to embezzling £413,052 while acting as the executor of the estate of Edith Hampton, who died in 2003.

The former teacher left the cash to her cousin's daughter, June Pirie.

But before Mrs Pirie even knew about the fortune, Karus had already used it to settle debts in his own law firms.

Sheriff Derrick McIntyre sitting in Edinburgh Sheriff Court on Monday told Karus: "This was a grave breach of trust.

"You were formerly a solicitor, having been suspended by the Law Society in 2002.

"In my view the public are entitled to expect people like you, acting in a position of trust, to display the utmost integrity. You have clearly failed to do so in this case."

Not only did Michael Karus abuse his power as Ms Hampton's lawyer, but he also broke her trust and was able to profit considerably from his deception
Det Sgt Alan Dickie
Lothian and Borders Police

Karus put £115,000 into Edinburgh Metropolitan Properties, of which he was a director, £82,000 to Karus & Co pension fund, £60,000 to a judicial factor to clear the law firm's debts and between £3000 and £5000 for his credit card debts.

Karus told HM Customs and Excise and Mrs Pirie, when he met her at Miss Hampton's funeral, that all the proceeds of the estate had gone to Cancer Research.

The charity had made numerous attempts to communicate with Karus.

Defence counsel, Ian Duguid QC, said Karus had been in the middle of an acrimonious divorce and his mother was suffering from dementia.

His personal difficulties had "clouded his judgement".

Sentencing Karus, Sheriff McIntyre said his starting point was five years, but he would reduce that by six months as the guilty plea had saved a lengthy trial.

'Extremely pleased'

Furthermore, he said, because Karus had lodged £500,000 with the court to cover the embezzled sum which in due course would go to Miss Hampton's beneficiary, Mrs Pirie, he would reduce the sentence by a further 12 months to three-and-a-half years.

Lothian and Borders Police said it was are "extremely pleased" with the sentence.

Det Sgt Alan Dickie, of Lothian and Borders police, said: "Not only did Michael Karus abuse his power as Ms Hampton's lawyer, but he also broke her trust and was able to profit considerably from his deception.

"Following extensive enquiries by the specialist fraud unit, we were able to build up a significant body of evidence against Mr Karus and were confident the courts would find in favour of that evidence."

Philip Yelland, director of regulation at the Law Society, said: "Honesty is paramount in solicitors' dealings with their clients. Mr Karus has clearly breached this fundamental principle of being a solicitor."

"Once the society has official notice of his sentence from the courts, we will be able to raise a formal complaint against him to allow us to prosecute Mr Karus before the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal."

Anonymous said...

Very sorry to see an organization that calls itself a Human Rights promoter has in effect become an opponent of Human Rights in its own country.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Very sorry to see an organization that calls itself a Human Rights promoter has in effect become an opponent of Human Rights in its own country.

12:51 AM

Yes.Only a 'Scottish' human rights organisation would spend 4 pages trying to persuade us we should not have human rights.

The "senior solicitor" quoted in the post might be right about why these idiots exist if all they are going to do is tell us "No No No" each time a HR issue comes up.

Anonymous said...

What has the SHRC got against McKenzie Friends ?

Anonymous said...

Very sinister coming on the day before the Parliament looks at the petition and clearly an attempt to influence the msps against McKenzie Friends for Scotland.

I for one will never believe a word the SHRC comes out with again.Criminals against Human Rights in Scotland is what they should be called.

Anonymous said...

Det Sgt Alan Dickie, of Lothian and Borders police, said: "Not only did Michael Karus abuse his power as Ms Hampton's lawyer, but he also broke her trust and was able to profit considerably from his deception.

This policeman is correct, Karus is an abuser, and it is his kind that put lawyers reputations in the gutter. Penman should have been jailed too.

Anonymous said...

Michael Karus, 48, earlier pleaded guilty to embezzling £413,052 while acting as the executor of the estate of Edith Hampton, who died in 2003.

Another financial grave robber, he must have been listening to Austin Lafferty who said his favourite client was a vulnerable old lady, shame on you both, but let us be fair, Austin has not done this, so innocent until proven guilty.

Anonymous said...

Here's another 'Scottish' try at Human Rights.Doomed to fail if someone really needs them I bet :
http://business.scotsman.com/legalissues/Students39-dream-of--a.5702323.jp

Students' dream of a focal point for human rights law debate is realised

Published Date: 05 October 2009
By Christopher Mackie

EARLIER this year, a group of Edinburgh University law students chased after advocate Aidan O'Neill, QC, as he left a tutorial on human rights and begged him for help. The students were keen on developing a focal point for the discussion and debate of human rights law in Scotland after a successful campaign to have an elective in the subject added to the curriculum of their diploma course.

Some months later, the plaintive pursuit of Mr O'Neill has finally paid off, as the Scottish Human Rights Law Group celebrated its launch in the University's Playfair Library on Wednesday.

Top of the bill was Cherie Booth, QC, a noted speaker on human rights, wife of former prime minister Tony Blair, and a former colleague of Mr O'Neill's. She came to celebrate the achievement of the students in establishing a network of individuals interested in contributing to the debate on human rights law in Scotland.

That network now boasts more than 300 individuals, drawn from legal practice, academia, politics and campaigning, who are already contributing to the discourse on the group's website and plan to take part soon in a series of live events.

Speaking at the launch, Susan Reddy, a member of the group that chased down Mr O'Neill, and one of its seven-strong steering committee, said she was delighted the forum had come so far.

"The sheer number of people who have shown interest in our group spells out loudly and clearly the great need their is for a focus on human rights law in Scotland," she said.

"Before the group's existence, it seemed to us that human rights and those interested in it lacked a focal point. We are now convinced we do have a focal point which will continue far beyond this evening."

Mr O'Neill, himself an expert in human rights law, said he became involved because of a concern that human rights law was considered a marginal interest by practitioners in Scotland.

"My own experience in legal practice at the Bar has been instead that human rights considerations permeate the whole gamut of law and legal practice in Scotland," he said. "From family law to commercial arbitrations; from employment law to criminal procedure; from personal injuries cases to building disputes. Human rights law is not, then, some discrete compartmentalised area of law out on its own. To think of it as such – and worse yet to teach it as such – was, it seemed to me, to misunderstand and misrepresent the legal system that we now have in Scotland."

Anonymous said...

Business for lawyers getting so bad the Human Rights mob have to step in to knife the competition ?

ET TU ALAN MILLER & CO ????

Anonymous said...

If the SHRC is not into defending our Human Rights (like all lawyers they probably consider it beneath themselves to do so unless paid to do it) we should scrap their public funding

Anonymous said...

Very unhelpful letter from the SHRC and I agree with all who have already commented.
Maybe the SHRC should be investigated for its motives ?

Anonymous said...

I am really surprised the shrc put it in those terms and you are quite correct to tackle them the way you have.

Keep up the good work Peter.

Anonymous said...

Philip Yelland, director of regulation at the Law Society, said: "Honesty is paramount in solicitors' (YELLAND YOU AMAZE ME, YOU SEND A FARMER WHO ASKED YOU FOR ADVICE ON OBTAINING DAMAGES FROM THE LAWYER WHO RUINED HIM, TO A LAW FIRM WHO REPRESENTED THE LEGAL DEFENCE UNION, WHICH PROTECTS LAWYERS AND THEIR INSURERS, THE FARMER GOT NO HELP FROM YOUR LAWYERS AND TOOK HIS LIFE WITH A SHOTGUN.
YOU SEND A RUINED CLIENT TO THE LEGAL DEFENCE UNION AND NOW YOU STATE "HONESTY IS PARAMOUNT IN SOLICITORS". YOU ARE A NUTTER). dealings with their clients. Mr Karus has clearly breached this fundamental principle of being a solicitor."

"Once the society has official notice of his sentence from the courts, we will be able to raise a formal complaint against him to allow us to prosecute Mr Karus before the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal."

IS THE LAW SOCIETY ATTEMPTING TO CLEAN UP IT'S ACT BECAUSE OF THE PRESSURE IT IS UNDER AS A CROOKED MANAGER OF LAWYERS? TIME WILL TELL, BUT I DOUBT IT.

WHEN WILL YOU BE PROSECUTED MR YELLAND FOR ALL THE TORTURE YOU HAVE CAUSED CLIENTS?

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter.
I've been reading your blog today after being told of the McKenzie Friend petition.

Like others I am surprised the Scottish Human Rights Commission appears to be so vociferous against allowing McKenzie Friends into courtrooms.
Clearly their preference is for litigants to obtain the services of a solicitor or not appear at all.

I am beginning to think the SHRC has lost its way as a Rights organisation if it engages in what is obviously a campaign by the legal profession itself to block litigants bringing in a note taker or some kind of help in the form of a McKenzie Friend which as you so clearly point out is already viewed as a Human Right issue in England.

Perhaps it is time for a review of the SHRC itself - after all they are publicly funded but if they are actually campaigning against public issues then has the time come to pull their funding.

Anonymous said...

Does the SHRC want us to go back to Douglas Mill's argument its a lawyers human right to charge clients the earth and get away with it ?

What a disgrace.

Anonymous said...

No surprise to me Mr Cherbi.

I tried to enlist the support of the SHRC on a petition I filed at the Parliament 2 years ago.They said they would think about it but when I called a journalist to ask for some coverage he said they had already contacted him and told him they wouldn't be doing anything.

I sent 2 letters asking why they did that and never got a reply so thats the SHRC for you,self interested lawyers out for their own again and dont bother asking them for anything about human rights.

Anonymous said...

By their statement the SHRC commission reveals that they are nothing of the kind, but instead confirm the informed and perceptive judgement of the UN Observer on Human Rights and Democracy - Dr Hans Koechler - who compared the application and administration of the law in Scotland to that of a BANANA REPUBLIC.

God help us, McAskill and the SNP certainly won't.

Anonymous said...

!0:02pm

Normally I would advise you to go straight to the media with that story but I'm sure Peter Cherbi can make a better investigation for you.

Anonymous said...

So now we know why the SHRC do nothing about human rights in Scotland - because they dont want human rights in Scotland !

Anonymous said...

First comment says it all really.
The SHRC have refused hundreds of valid cases where clients hopes have clashed with professional relationships.
Happy to see someone finally exposed them for what they are.

Anonymous said...

Oh but this has to be wrong - we are always told Scots Law trumps over English every time so it just cant be the human rights mob are against anything ? haha (kidding) they are only against it because SURPRISE their pals in the legal profession will be done out of fee extortion from poor clients !

Anonymous said...

and not one word of condemnation from any politician - just goes to show how much the shrc have weaseled their way into the pants of all concerned

money money !

Anonymous said...

That is a DISGUSTING letter from Scottish human rights.

Do they really expect people to believe you have to get a lawyer to get justice when English can do different ???

YOU DID US ALL A BIG FAVOUR SHOWING THEM UP FOR THEIR DECEPTIONS

Anonymous said...

Staggering really.I know some of those at the SHRC who turn up at functions & dinners speaking about the good they do.I doubt they would admit to their blast against McKenzie Friends.

Anonymous said...

Q.When is a Human Right not a Human Right ?
A.When it takes place in Scotland.