Wednesday, June 23, 2010

FOI Chief Dunion orders Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to release board member’s anti-client jibes, Master Policy study details

Kevin DunionScotland’s Freedom of Information Chief Kevin Dunion. SCOTLAND’s FOI COMMISSIONER Kevin Dunion has ordered the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to release information relating to its research on the Law Society of Scotland’s notoriously corrupt Master Policy, the insurance protection scheme designed to protect the ever growing number of crooked lawyers in Scotland again claims for compensation to cover the millions of pounds of funds misappropriated from clients each year by solicitors in Scotland without recompense.

Frequent Flyers SLCCSLCC’s David Smith expressed anti-client jibes in emails around the anti-consumer law complaints quango. Among the papers ordered to be disclosed in a decision published late last week by Mr Dunion are emails containing anti-client jibes from one of the SLCC’s board members, David Smith who was personally appointed to the SLCC by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill. Mr Smith, a lawyer who served much of his career at law firm Shepherd & Wedderburn, who themselves often act for the Master Policy in protection of questionable solicitors against negligence claims, referred to participants in the Master Policy survey & deceased clients who had committed suicide as a direct result of involvement with the Master Policy, as “Frequent flyers”, a term (among many unprintable) apparently widely used among SLCC Board members & staff against anyone who submits complaints against solicitors.

Margaret Scanlan - Called to the Bars - Sunday Mail  15 March 2009 emailEvidence from earlier FOI releases featured in newspapers points to SLCC’s anti client culture among board members & senior officials. The redacted, but readable emails from David Smith to SLCC staff including the SLCC’s Chief Executive Eileen Masterman , who resigned recently in mysterious circumstances after a 6 month absence from work, support evidence from earlier FOI releases which featured in the national media, there is a hate fuelled anti-client culture operating at the highest levels of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which has seen other board members such as Glasgow divorce lawyer Margaret Scanlan who was revealed in emails to have rubbed victims of crooked lawyers as “complete chancers” while of course, having nothing to say about her legal colleagues conduct. In additional emails, other board members chastised consumer organisations, and sought to exclude them from the Master Policy investigation, no doubt for fear of what would be revealed …

My earlier article on the SLCC’s demands that Scotland’s FOI Commissioner shield David Smith’s anti-client jibes, which can be read here : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission demand judge’s husband’s insults against solicitors clients be shielded from FOI investigation

Master Policy Report Suicides revealedSLCC’s Master Policy report revealed client suicides, board members were more interested in attacking victims instead of helping them. Mr Dunion’s decision, commenting on the SLCC’s argument to withhold the already visible written attacks by its board member David Smith against participants of the Master Policy survey stated the SLCC had argued against disclosure of the information, including Mr Smith’s anti-client remarks, saying : “In citing section 30(b)(ii) of FOISA, the SLCC noted its concern that, if disclosed, the terminology used in this email exchange could be misinterpreted, and argued that effective working relationships with key stakeholders outwith the SLCC requires a certain amount of private space for discussions to take place.The SLCC went on to argue that not being able to discuss cases freely and openly in email for fear of being misinterpreted would affect the way it records information in the future, requiring change to its whole way of working and adding expense and delay which would substantially prejudice the free and frank exchange of views.”

Basically, the SLCC are arguing that it’s staff & board members just want to sit there and rip the living daylights out of consumers who fall victim to rogue lawyers while board members shower £135K a year on themselves in lavish expense claims and staff earn anything up to £1350 per week. It sounds reminiscent of the orgy of client hate which fuels the Law Society of Scotland … so its clear where the SLCC has learned its nasty habits from …

Mr Dunion rejected the SLCC’s arguments to keep secret its board member’s bitter attitude towards consumers, and ordered the release of the information relating to Mr Smith’s anti-client jibes, along with a further eight documents withheld by the SLCC relating to the Master Policy research carried out last year which I reported on here : 'Ground-breaking' investigation into Law Society's Master Policy insurance reveals realities of corrupt claims process against crooked lawyers and also here : Suicides, illness, broken families and ruined clients reveal true cost of Law Society's Master Policy which 'allows solicitors to sleep at night'

Mr Dunion’s decision in full can be read here : Decision 089/2010 Mr Peter Cherbi and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission : Master Policy and Guarantee Fund Research

A separate issue which was raised in the investigation – that of the SLCC’s poor quality redactions which led to the identification of individuals names, locations & contact information was dealt with ‘as a separate issue’ by Mr Dunion, and apparently no action was taken by Mr Dunion against the SLCC in this respect, even though individual's home addresses had been disclosed by the SLCC’s failure to properly redact several documents released under FOI.

A legal insider speaking this morning on condition of anonymity dubbed the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as ‘nothing more than a den of bitterness against those who complain about their solicitors’.

He said : “Clients who are forced to complain to the SLCC about their solicitors should be in no doubt they are hated at all levels of the organisation.”

He continued : “It is common knowledge there are those at the SLCC who constantly slur, insult and tell jokes about clients who have written into the organisation after being put in the most difficult circumstances by their solicitor’s failings. I’m sure these poor clients would not be impressed if they knew what was being said about them behind their backs”

An official from one of Scotland’s consumer organisations which is now receiving letters complaining against the SLCC itself, alleging the quango is covering up for crooked lawyers, said this afternoon : “It is clear from the public feedback we are receiving, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is not the solution to resolving the historical problems of bias in the regulation of Scotland’s legal profession which now date back many years.”

slcc suicides1Advice ? Don’t trust a regulator that hates consumers. Based on my previous articles reporting on news & consumer difficulties with the SLCC, I also would not advise any member of the public to trust the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to investigate any complaint against a solicitor. Those who complain may well get the results of an investigation but you can bet there are so many get-out-of-jail clauses for the solicitor concerned, it wont be worth the paper its printed on. The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is, as so many now say, nothing more than a front organisation for the Law Society of Scotland and crooked lawyers.

Only fully independent regulation of legal services in Scotland will bring any protection for consumers and I urge anyone who can, to campaign for independent regulation of the legal profession – its in everyone’s interests to do so.

As for Mr Smith and the others at the SLCC who apparently hate clients who dare complain about their solicitors, well, why don't you all resign and make way for people who the public can trust, instead of people who just sit there insulting everyone and keep taking the expenses & salaries cheques for doing so … what is that called again ?

46 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well done Peter - another first which the mainstream Scottish Media is pleased to studiously ignore.

I do hope Which and Consumer Focus Scotland are reading your blog, and are preparing to act on the information you have obtained.

If memory serves me correctly Mr MacAskill was previously a senior partner at Shepherd & Wedderburn, so no surprise he personally approved the appointment of Mr. Smith.

Anonymous said...

These people are mendacious self regulators. Peter I am not surprised they hate clients who complain. I think self regulation creates a mental attitude of arrogant complacency among these people who believe they are above being questioned. They believe the public have no right to question them whatsoever.

Power without control is dangerous, and omnipotent power is created when self policing has evolved. I am no psychiatrist but I strongly believe these people have no compunction about client suicides. I do not think it is possible to debate with them, bypass the Law Society and Commission with an e bay type feedback for clients to warn potential clients.

Self regulation is a wonderful business model for lawyers, and a licence to steal from clients with impunity.

Anonymous said...

Frequent flyers, complete chancers, these comments demonstrate the evil mindset of people who are not fit to be in the positions they hold.

They are members of a profession of outlaws. If I had my way they would be jailed today.

How the hell can a profession with dictatorial power be allowed to keep operating in a democracy. There can never be a meeting of the minds with these warped self regulating self protecting crooks.

Anonymous said...

Corruption and self regulation complement each other, because the O'Donnells, Penmans, Mill's know they are answerable only to their own biased flock.

Lawyers do not have military power but they are omnipotent in political terms. They keep issues dangerous to them off the policymaking agenda, so who is running Scotland?

Lawyers MSP's are Law Society puppets there to undermine the policymaking process, in favour of the Society.

Anonymous said...

Mr Smith should be sacked but as he was appointed by MacAskill (not very honest anyway) he wont and he wont resign as he's getting too much money for being on the SLCC.

The Law Society got what they bribed for in the SLCC,a front company to front their corruption

Anonymous said...

Yes he should resign along with that jackass MacBuckfast who appointed him.

Anonymous said...

Suicides and heavy arm tactics are regularly relied upon by insurers to avoid paying claims in the States - as an american lawyer confirms at;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?hl=en&v=b26IML6WoIA&gl=US

Anonymous said...

RESIGN MR SMITH

Anonymous said...

How did the loved ones of the suicide victims feel about their departed being called frequent flyers by this ***** ?

Hope they sue or whatever

Anonymous said...

Obviously Kenny MacAskill selected all these people in his own image.Frequent Nasties.

Anonymous said...

Resign Mr Frequent Lawyer protector!

Anonymous said...

A highly suspicious redaction considering its context and why did Mr Dunion not refer in his opinion to the fact the documents you apparently received could be read even after being redacted ?

Whoever authorised the redactions at the SLCC is just as prejudiced as the author of the comments.In my opinion all should resign.

Anonymous said...

Reading through Mr Dunion's decision I noted the following :

"12.During this subsequent correspondence, the SLCC provided the Commissioner with copies of six notices, which had been served on it under section 10(1) of the DPA (Right to prevent processing likely to cause damage or distress) by various employees of the SLCC, asking the SLCC not to disclose certain personal data in response to information requests made under FOISA.In effect, this meant that the SLCC was claiming an additional exemption under Part 2 of FOISA, i.e. section 38(1)(b) as read with section 38(2)(a)(ii).These notices are addressed below."

These were former Law Society staff,former SLSO staff or board members ?

If someone has something to hide (and it sounds like they certainly have) then they should not be part of any regulator.Anyone in a regulator must face up to it they are in a public position and subject to scrutiny otherwise they should not be in their job.

The 6 who served the notices in an attempt to avoid FOI should also be sacked given they are in their jobs to deal with the public.If they dont like it,tough.

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 16:50

Thanks ... you can be assured however Consumer Focus Scotland & Which? will do nothing ....

# Anonymous @ 16:53

Yes I agree .. and actually what I have obtained through FOI is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the insulting comments strewn across the SLCC ...

# Anonymous @ 17:01

I'm sure their friends in the Scottish Parliament will give them a helping hand .. for a few more legal favours ...

# Anonymous @ 17:05

Yes indeed .. and all political parties are the same when it comes to bending over backwards for the legal profession ...

# Anonymous @ 17:14

Yes .. I'm sure Mr Smith is enjoying claiming his £9,000 plus a year for his line of speciality insults towards consumers ...

# Anonymous @ 17:38

Thanks for the video link .. I will use that at some stage.

I understand the SLCC may have caused an attempted suicide so far ... however the case is proving difficult to investigate as family of the complainant are reluctant to talk since the lawyer who is the subject of the complaint has threatened them to prevent them talking to the press ... I'm sure the SLCC and probably Jane Irvine will know exactly which case I am talking about if they are reading this ...

# Anonymous @ 19:07

I agree ...

# Anonymous @ 19:27

Good points, all of which I agree with.

Anyone in a regulator should be subject to full public scrutiny otherwise be shown the door ... too much secrecy as we see with the SLCC, benefits the crooked against the honest ...

Anonymous said...

"Don’t trust a regulator that hates consumers"

I hope people follow your good advice !

Anonymous said...

"I understand the SLCC may have caused an attempted suicide so far however the case is proving difficult to investigate"

No surprise to me after reading everything else you have written about these creeps.

Roll on judgement day thats what I say.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 16:53

Yes I agree .. and actually what I have obtained through FOI is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the insulting comments strewn across the SLCC ...

Yes Peter they will fight to hold their dictatorial powerbase. The lawyer Smith's and lawyer Scanlans of this world, are protected by the self regulatory system that they use to ruin people.

They are ruthless bastards so ruthless that they would have fitted into Hitler's regime.

There is too much Law Society rot in the Commission and at Hollyrood but some newspaper editors have the guts to print readers letters. Bless them and freedom of speech.

Anonymous said...

Why were the anti-client jibes blacked out in the first place ?

Was it to protect him and his judge wife's reputation ?

Anonymous said...

Ah so the SLCC are a bunch of potential killers too.I thought as much after 2 years they must have ruined a few lives too.

Expose them all Peter you are doing a great public service!

Anonymous said...

Good evening Peter,

I have watched Michael Moore's DVD "Sicko" about American healthcare (lack of it) and how the doctors there fought against a comprehensive system of healthcare for all. The drug companies augmented the bank balances of members of congress and even Hilary Clinton had a price.

Just like the Law Society SLCC who's mission statement should be

"torture for profit is good business". Scum all of them.

Anonymous said...

FROM THE EVIDENCE I SEE ON THE WEB I DO NOT BELIEVE THERE IS AN HONEST LAWYER ANYWHERE.

Anonymous said...

If the SLCC are as bad as this with victims of lawyers can you imagine what the Law Society might be like ?

Anonymous said...

I'm sure David Smith doesnt give a sh*t about any of this or anyone who his cums have ruined.Clearly not someone fit to be in any regulator he should be fired.

Anonymous said...

I used to have respect for Scotland but Lockerbie and all the justice scandals since then finished off any lingering thoughts of coming back for a visit.What you guys need is some kind of revolution but I can see the people are kept drunk & drugged by the toffs who are on all these stitched up organizations and companies so no one can do a damn thing about it.Hell even the French farmers manage better protests than you guys and thats some deal right there !

Anonymous said...

Without a doubt he is unfit to regulate anyone with that kind of attitude.Same goes for his boardroom colleagues featured in the press cutting you posted.

Anonymous said...

I see the complaints levy is being well spent on creeps who think more of their colleagues than the victims and probably a reason the SLCC dont have their board members pictures up in their annual report.
How much are the Law Society paying the papers to keep this one out of the press ?

Anonymous said...

All of the key decision makers are above prosecution, the Law Society, SLCC, MacAskill. Only the courts can prosecute corrupt lawyers and they will not prosecute the Mill's Yellands, Pritchards, Smith's because lawyers never ruin their colleagues. A legal system that protects its membership. It is an insider, outsider relationship, with MSP's Lawyers, Insurers, Accountants and Doctors all above the law and they call this a democracy.

Control the policymaking process. That is what has happened. The LPLA Act set up to protect the public has been watered down by the lawyers who keep issues dangerous to them off the policymaking agenda as far as practicable. The political Scientists Bachrach and Baratz have highlighted this use of power in the policymaking process. Holyrood has been a disaster for Scotland. Mr MacAskill and his lawyer colleague MSP's are key players in protecting the profession, and the SLCC is a facade to bury client complaints, and protect the criminal cartel known as the Scottish Judiciary.

Anonymous said...

Bring back the birch !

Anonymous said...

Your readers might be interested to learn someone from the slcc has privately threatened legal action against anyone who reports the content of Mr Smith's email.

Anonymous said...

True to tradition, when faced with the possibility of payout due to negligence in any field, be it medical, legal or financial, the lawyers are wheeled out on behalf of affected organisations to argue against any legislation or reforms which may adversely affect their paymasters.

People and lives are far too small a thing to get in the way of money, and anything, any argument can be presented as being honourable or sane, no matter how dirty or beneath contempt it may sound ...

PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND THE ABOVE BASTARDS WILL PROTECT THEIR INSURERS. IT IS THE SAME EVERYWHERE, AMERICANS TAKE OUT PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE AND MANY ARE LEFT TO DIE OF CANCER AND OTHER DISEASES.

ONE MAN DIED WHEN HIS BROTHER WAS A PERFECT MATCH FOR A BONE MARROW TRANSPLANT.

WATCH MICHAEL MOORE'S DVD "SICKO" AND YOU WILL SEE WHAT I MEAN.

INSURANCE IS NOT WORTH THE PAPER IT IS WRITTEN ON.

THE NHS, OVER HERE IS WONDERFUL BUT DO NOT EXPECT JUSTICE AGAINST A CROOKED GP, OR CONSULTANT, YOU WANT JUSTICE. GO PUBLIC YOURSELF ONLY IF YOU HAVE EVIDENCE TO BACK UP WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. THE NHS COMPLAINTS SYSTEM IS THE SAME AS THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND'S COMPLAINTS SYSTEM.

LAWYERS, DOCTORS, ACCOUNTANTS CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT BECAUSE THE LAWYERS, DOCTORS AND ACCOUNTANTS SHARE THE SAME INSURERS. SO IF YOU GOT A LAWYER TO SUE A DOCTOR OR ACCOUNTANT (THE LAWYERS INSURERS WOULD BE PAYING THE DAMAGES).

SCOTLAND'S PEOPLE HAVE ACCESS TO POOR LEGAL SERVICES. SCOTLAND'S LAWYERS, DOCTORS, ACCOUNTANTS ARE ABOVE THE LAW.

Anonymous said...

Smith writes it twice proving how much he hates the Master Policy study.

You said his own legal firm worked for the Master Policy ?

He shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near this SLCC if that is the case.

Anonymous said...

MacAskill's Lockerbie bomber is lasting a long time. I think the man was innocent and our justice secretary wanted him out of the country before his appeal came up.

Perhaps the Lockerbie Judges are like the mandarins at the Law Society of Scotland.

Anonymous said...

Leaving a lawyer in charge of a clients estate is like leaving a paedophile in charge of a nursery.

Anonymous said...

The SLCC is poison pure anti client poison. When the FOI information comes out we will see what MacAskill's Law Society front is really like.

We are trying to reason with people with entrenched vile anti client views who love the money the make from clients and want to destroy those who complain because they have been destroyed by their last lawyer.

Lawyers and justice are mutually exclusive. Trust none of them.

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 24 June 2010 10:37

Thanks for the tip ...

I've not been threatened so far however since the FOI Commissioner has already said the information should be disclosed I dont think whoever at the SLCC made the threat will have much chance of keeping the issue quiet ...

If you know who is making the threats from the SLCC, please let me know in a comment marked "DO NOT PUBLISH" and I will investigate further ...

# Anonymous @ 24 June 2010 13:38

The release of Mr Megrahi was certainly nothing to do with his health .. more about protecting the crooked reputation of Scotland's justice system and taking his case out of the law, a case and a conclusion which may have helped others, and reformed elements of the justice system a little faster than Holyrood or the judiciary can manage ...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

How much are the Law Society paying the papers to keep this one out of the press ?

24 June 2010 09:50

Usually its a call reminding whichever paper there will be less advertising and difficulties if the paper goes through with it.

One paper you may already have in mind with your comment is selling much less than 30,000 a day despite its figures to its lenders so an unfriendly call from the lawyers will often kill stories like the ones Peter writes about.

Anonymous said...

Good expose Peter and Smith should go but as others have said I doubt he will because of the money and his duty to help cover up all the complaints going into the SLCC.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Your readers might be interested to learn someone from the slcc has privately threatened legal action against anyone who reports the content of Mr Smith's email.
-----------------------------------
I HOPE THEY DO BECAUSE VICTIMS OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION WILL BE THERE PEACEFULLY PROTESTING THAT MR SMITH SHOULD BE SACKED AND THE SLCC DISBANDED. THE ONLY ANTIDOTE TO THE POISION THAT IS THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND AND THE COMMISSION IS LAWYERS AND THEIR SUPPORTERS KICKED OUT.

GOING TO A LAWYER IS LIKE CONFRONTING SNAKE, WHICH ONES ARE DANGEROUS?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Your readers might be interested to learn someone from the slcc has privately threatened legal action against anyone who reports the content of Mr Smith's email.
----------------------------------
Well the someone is a fool because all they will do is highlight the fact, (LAWYERS CAN GET LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND LAWYERS VICTIMS CANNOT GET REPRESENTATION), and this fact is what the growing dissident community is all about.

A lawyer protecting state or a democracy with equal legal rights for all? Come on Smith, what are you waiting for? Take legal action, we cannot get lawyers to help us, and you will highlight the fact that you can. I rest my case.

Peter you know as well as I do the SLCC Law Society hate the dissidents BECAUSE THEY KNOW WE ARE RIGHT.

Anonymous said...

Good afternoon Mr Smith, the list below is a small but very important part of the worldwide dissent against self regulating criminals. It is people like you who are responsible for the dissent because you regard clients as unimportant.

Self regulation is the vehicle that undermines client justice. We do not deal with lawyers, we deal with abusers, yes lawyers are abusers and we will never flinch until self regulation is dead. You people think it is your god given right to ruin people and cover it up to save the lawyer.

EWAN, HARRIS & CO - SUTHERLAND (97331 hits)

Ewan Harris & Co - Sutherland (33659 hits)

Blackadders (19611 hits)

Thorntons WS (19259 hits)
THE MACKENZIE LAW PRACTICE (12311 hits)

W.G.Boyle (10618 hits)

Rubens Solicitors - Argyll (7792 hits)

Burns (7602 hits)
EWAN HARRIS & CO DORNOCH (5763 hits)

TSH Burns & Son (4964 hits)

TSH Burns now Burns (4859 hits)

Blackadders of Dundee - Angus (4283 hits)

Rubens Solicitors (2421 hits)

McGrigors (2084 hits)

Ian S Smart & Co (2064 hits)

George More & Co (2022 hits)

Shepherd Wedderburn (1967 hits)

Grant Smith Law Practice - Turriff (1918 hits)

Stormonth Darling Solicitors - Roxburghshire (1811 hits)

RUSSELL AND AITKEN, DENNY (1785 hits)

Andrew Murchison (1746 hits)

Ross Harper (1596 hits)

Walker & Sharpe (1590 hits)

Murchison Law (1577 hits)

John Henderson & Sons (1546 hits)

Thorntons of Dundee (1502 hits)

Thorntons of Dundee (1501 hits)

BANSKI & CO (1494 hits)

Warners (1439 hits)

Innes & MacKay Solicitors - Inverness (1285 hits)

Culley McCalpine (1244 hits)

Purdie & Co Solicitors (1235 hits)

Primrose @ Gordon (1234 hits)

Buchanan Clark and Wells - Glasgow (1143 hits)

BRODIES LLP- Edinburgh (1084 hits)

James Guthrie & Company (1031 hits)

W.G. BOYLES (1030 hits)

RUBENS Solicitors (995 hits)

ROSS HARPER SOLICITORS - GLASGOW,

STRATHCLYDE (983 hits)

W.G.Boyle and Co. (939 hits)

Bob Bruce & Co Solicitors -

Arbroath, ANGUS (876 hits)

Blackadder and McMonagle -

Falkirk, Scotland (872 hits)

Anderson Shaw and Gilbert

Inverness (871 hits)

Whelan & Co - Arbroath, Angus (857 hits)

HBJ Gateley Wareing - Edinburgh (840 hits)

Blackadder and McMonagle -

Falkirk, Scotland (821 hits)

Adams Solicitors (804 hits)

Thorntons Solicitors - Dundee (756 hits)

Thorntons Solicitors - Angus,

Forfar (712 hits)

Muir, Myles & Laverty - Dundee, Angus (709 hits)

Dissidents everywhere, self regulation = ruined members of the public. We will never quit, Smith NEVER.

Anonymous said...

http://www.i-p-o.org/Koechler-Lockerbie-statement-Aug2003.htm

A Part of the Statement by Dr. Hans Koechler, international observer of the International Progress Organization, nominated by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, at the Lockerbie trial in the Netherlands (2000-2002), on the agreement between the United States, the United Kingdom and the Libyan Jamahiriya on the remaining issues relating to the fulfilment of all Security Council resolutions resulting from the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie


The chapter of the Lockerbie investigation can only be closed when the full truth will have been established and when the question will have been satisfactorily answered why only a lone individual has been sentenced in a case that relates to a terrorist crime the commission of which required a vast and sophisticated operational network (most likely involving more than one country and/or terrorist organization) and huge financial resources. An ambiguous declaration of “state responsibility” such as the one deposited with the UN Security Council does in no way answer the urgent and legitimate question as to personal criminal responsibility of individuals other than Mr. Al-Megrahi (and eventually also from other countries) for the Lockerbie crime.

A political deal such as the one concluded last week between the US, UK and Libya linking individual compensation with the lifting of multilateral and subsequently unilateral sanctions does not advance the cause of justice in the present case, but is part of the politics of national interest of the countries involved in the present dispute.

The doubts and misgivings about the Lockerbie trial in the Netherlands will only disappear when a full investigation of the crime by an independent commission will have been undertaken. Up to this moment the undersigned will maintain his doubts about the Lockerbie verdict and will consider the judgment concerning Mr. Al-Megrahi – on the basis of an Indictment that was substantially modified in the course of the trial and altered by the judges as part of the Verdict – as a miscarriage of justice.


Dr. Hans Koechler
==================================
Yes Peter,

Mr. Al-Megrahi in my opinion is innocent and MacAskill released him to save the Scottish Judiciary. This case is a massive stain on Scottish justice, a Banana Republic.

Peter Cherbi said...

Thanks for all your continuing comments and excellent points of debate on this article ... I will feature more on the SLCC & FOI later next week ... even more revelations to come ...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Your readers might be interested to learn someone from the slcc has privately threatened legal action against anyone who reports the content of Mr Smith's email.

A dangerous strategy for the SLCC. Take legal action.

The GM Crops debate. Tony Blair attempted to bypass the legislature, and cabinet because Lord Sainsbury his unpaid science minister paid millions to the Labour Party and invested millions in GM research at the same time.

Blair refused a public inquiry because this would elevate the GM issue and tie the governments hands. Ironically dissent highlighted the issue when Greenpeace activists trashed the farmers crops, and were charged.

The trial allowed the press to have a field day, elevating the controversial policy in a way Blair and Sainsbury did not want. Remember this the next time you go to Sainsbury, give enough money to politicians and they will attempt to feed you GM foods behind your backs. Ref, The Open University Course DD 203 GM Crops Debate.

So come on Mr Smith, dissent renews politics, and it will crush self regulation too. The SLCC will elevate this issue and the dissidents will respond.

Anonymous said...

Mr Smith, if you have the ability put yourself in Mr Cherbi's shoes. You would want justice.

If you cannot come to terms with that without feeling revulsion in you gut, you are an immature individual. Christ man grow up.

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 24 June 2010 23:43

Actually I would welcome the SLCC trying to challenge the FOI Commissioner's ruling over David Smith's insults and the other details withheld from the Master Policy FOI disclosure ...

Such arrogance on the SLCC's part, along with the desire to waste more money on legal challenges would show the public exactly what this organisation is .. a front company for the Law Society that launders complaints to whitewash whatever the solicitor did and let them off with a slap on the wrist - and keen to keep it all secret ...

Besides, it would give me further opportunities to write about the anti-client culture at the SLCC ... backed up by the comments & insults expressed inside the SLCC against consumers who fall victim to rogue lawyers ...

Anonymous said...

The Open University Course DD 203 GM Crops Debate. One final point, GM Crop Field Trials had been going on in secret for ten years prior to the GM debate.

This was a perfect example of powerful business interests acting as a policy community (these keep outsiders out) where Prime Minister Blair was enthusiastic about GM and he knew 85% of the public were against the policy. There are parallels with this and the SLCC.

The Food Standards Agency was set up in the aftermath of the mad cow, Salmonella egg crisis to protect the public. Blair appointed Sir John Krebbs to head the FSA, a passionate supported of GM and anti organic. The FSA attempted to sipn the outcome in favour of the policy.

Just Like Mr Smith being appointed to the SLCC, his wife is a high court judge. You are fooling no one Mr Smith.