Scotland’s Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion investigates Scottish Legal Complaints Commission claims of ‘anonymous’ threats. CLAIMS OF ANONYMOUS THREATS allegedly directed to members of staff and other individuals connected to the controversial law complaints regulator, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, are to be investigated by the Scottish Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion, after the SLCC refused to provide Mr Dunion’s office and journalists making Freedom of Information requests on the subject with any evidence to support the claims, which legal insiders today commented, if accurate, should also be investigated by the Police.
Scottish Legal Complaints Commission claimed they had received ‘anonymous’ threats. The now suspect claims of ‘anonymous threats’ were made by Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to the Information Commissioner’s office on two separate occasions in response to investigations being carried out by Mr Dunion’s staff into the SLCC’s refusal to disclose controversial evidence in response to Freedom of Information requests, evidence which included senior SLCC board members lambasting consumers over their input into an investigation into the Law Society of Scotland’s Master Insurance Policy, an investigation which linked financial claims of negligence against ‘crooked lawyers’ to the suicides of clients, an issue long kept secret by the Scottish legal profession.
Master Policy secrecy : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission attempted to thwart disclosure & publication of key evidence of Master Policy Research by making unsupported allegations of threats received. In a decision earlier this year (Decision 89/2010), relating to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and its handling of FOI requests for information connected with the Law Society of Scotland’s Master Insurance Policy, now known to have caused deaths among consumers, the Information Commissioner Mr Kevin Dunion stated : “The SLCC submitted that disclosure of such information would impact upon the physical or mental health of the individuals concerned as anonymous threats had been received by individuals and other individuals connected to the SLCC. However, the Commissioner has not received any evidence of such threats to people such as the individuals in question.”
The effect of Mr Dunion’s decision regarding the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and their refusal to hand over key documents, can be read in an earlier report, here : FOI Chief Dunion orders Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to release board member’s anti-client jibes, Master Policy study details
The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission faced a further investigation after it chose to censor FOI disclosures to specific journalists amid fears of media attention. In a subsequent investigation carried out by the Information Commissioner, Mr Kevin Dunion into the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s censorship of its board minutes in reposes to Freedom of Information requests from certain journalists, the SLCC made additional claims it had received ‘anonymous threats’, apparently hoping this would be enough to prevent an order for disclosure. The FOI Commissioner again reported that no evidence had been produced by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to back up its claims.
Claims of more ‘anonymous threats’ were made by the SLCC during a second investigation by the FOI Commissioner. Mr Dunion, in a second decision involving the SLCC and its selective censorship of its own board minutes (Decision 101/2010) commented on the additional claims made by the SLCC of ‘anonymous threats’, saying: “The SLCC submitted that disclosure of such information would impact upon the physical or mental health of the individuals concerned as anonymous threats had been received by members of staff and other individuals connected to the SLCC. The SLCC also referred to threats made to other bodies. 56. The Commissioner notes that the individuals in question here are not employees of the SLCC and do not work in SLCC buildings. While he recognises that some of the individuals whose details have been withheld are connected to bodies to which threats have been made, he considers that the profile and role of those individuals is such that their relationship with the SLCC is likely to be public knowledge. The Commissioner cannot therefore accept that the disclosing their names from the minutes is likely to endanger, or will endanger, their health and safety in terms of section 39(1) of FOISA.”
“57. In most other cases, the individuals are not connected to such bodies. The Commissioner has not been provided with any evidence of danger, or likelihood of danger, to the health or safety these third parties, and cannot accept that section 39(1) applies to this information.”
A legal insider commented on the claims of ‘anonymous threats’ made by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, saying he believed the SLCC were making spurious claims in order to excuse deficiencies within their operations which could be revealed by Freedom of Information.
He said : “If there is no evidence produced by the SLCC of these actual threats, which, given their alleged very serious nature I would have expected to have been reported to Police, then it is highly likely in my opinion the SLCC are seeking to abuse Freedom of Information legislation, in terms of their own handling of FOI requests and their input into investigations carried out by the Information Commissioner himself.”
He continued : “In the circumstances, where it appears the SLCC made their claim to the Information Commissioner in the hope it would influence the outcome of his investigation, I would urge Mr Dunion to establish whether there is any truth to the SLCC’s claims it’s staff or staff from other bodies it referred to have been threatened.”
It has been known for public bodies to claim the mental welfare & health of their staff would be threatened if, for example, information on expenses claims were released as a result of Freedom of Information legislation, but here we have a key public body involved in the regulation of complaints against the legal profession claiming it has received ‘anonymous threats’. Clearly there is a significant public interest in this case to establish whether there is any truth to the SLCC’s claims and if true, have the issues been thoroughly investigated by the authorities and the required action taken.
If however, there is no truth to the allegations, we are left with the only possibly conclusion in that the SLCC presented false information to the Information Commissioner, a matter which would clearly reflect on the SLCC’s credibility and the individual who signed off on the claims to the Information Commissioner.
The Scottish Government refused to back the SLCC over ‘anonymous threats’ claims to the Information Commissioner. The Scottish Government, asked for a comment on the situation, apparently refusing to support the SLCC’s claims, stated : “‘The SLCC has been established as an independent body to oversee complaints against the legal profession. Having established the SLCC as an independent body, it would be wholly inappropriate for Ministers to provide a running commentary on issues concerning it.”
The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission refused to make any comment on the matter or offer any statement to support their claims now being investigated by the FOI Commissioner, Kevin Dunion.
40 comments:
HA!
This lot are worried about themselves while trying to cover up clients who killed themselves because the Law Society protected crooked lawyers.
DISGUSTING THESE PEOPLE HAVE NO SHAME
No lie too big for the SLCC to tell ?
Irvine and her mob have zero credibility now.
Probably the SLCC's staff will spend the weekend fabricating some "anonymous threats".
I hope you spoke to the Police and got some clarification if they were involved before the lawyer lovers get the chance to cover up!
If it had been true then evidence should have accompanied whatever they had sent to Dunion.Now anything they send in will look doctored so they have shot themselves in the foot once again.
sounds like Jane Irvine has been pulling Kevin Dunion's leg
Clearly they will go to any lengths to stop you getting the information but it does have an upside - your own credibility has just shot through the roof because what this tells me is they are very afraid of you.
Keep up the good work Peter!
I'd say Mr Dunion doesn't believe them from what he says in his report.It will be interesting to see what if anything is provided by way of support to their claims.
“The SLCC submitted that disclosure of such information would impact upon the physical or mental health of the individuals concerned as anonymous threats had been received by members of staff and other individuals connected to the SLCC.
===================================
But these SLCC criminals are concerned about the welbeing and mental health of individuals. Are clients not individuals who are affected by biased self regulators?
A meeting of the minds is impossible with lawyers and their supporters, client pain to them is fine as long as a filthy lawyer is cleared. This quango should be outlawed as it is not independent as it claims and is not fit for purpose. Like the Law Society it is not professional Mr MacAskill, it is a criminal organisation.
If Pan Am 103 would have been full of Law Society staff do you think compassionate release would have applied to al-Megrahi?
No evidence No threats.
Master Policy secrecy : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission attempted to thwart disclosure & publication of key evidence of Master Policy Research by making unsupported allegations of threats received. THESE FUCKERS ARE MEANT TO BE INDEPENDENT AND HONEST IN THEIR DEALINGS WITH THE PUBLIC.
THEY REVILE ME, LIKE MY OLD GP WHO SWORE HE HAD NOT LIED IN MY MEDICAL RECORDS WHEN THE WRITTEN EVIDENCE FROM HIM SHOWED HOW MUCH DENIAL HE WAS IN.
POWER WARPS HUMAN MINDS, ANYONE WHO HAS A SELF REGULATOR IN A TIGHT CORNER KNOWS THAT.
SELF REGULATORS ALL BELONG IN CARSTAIRS.
The part about this I find most disturbing is those decisions from the Information Commissioner date over two months ago yet none of your so called mass media have bothered to pick up on it.
A public body who investigate complaints against lawyers (something we all know carries a lot of prejudice against ordinary people who make complaints) alleges they have been threatened and no one reports on it except you ? Very odd
I dont know if its possible there in Scotland but this "Information Commissioner" should have the power to raid organizations such as this SLCC and confiscate their files before any alterations can be made because you can bet they will be making some alterations in the light of what you have posted today.
Complaint Handling Services Limited - complainthandlingservices.co.uk
Claim back an average of £3,300 of Payment Protection Insurance
Dear XXX, if you think you've been unfairly charged by a bank, credit card or finance company, then we're here to help you get back what's rightfully yours. (SO KIND)
Claim back £1000s Now (FUCK OFF)
===================================
Why do they never claim against their own flock, crooked lawyers are left alone but crooked bankers are chased because that does not reflect badly on the legal profession. When lawyers from any firm phone or e mail me I tell them about my lawyer and the conversational atmosphere becomes instantly frosty.
The Law Society probably cooked the whole story up.
Now they are sunk because it sounds fake !
It is troubling to see what is happening here. These people are meant to protect the public.
Part of citizenship is governments duty to protect citizens from internal and external enemies.
Lawyers victims are rightless so the Scottish Government are human rights abusers. The Scottish Parliament is the Scots greatest mistake.
What we have here is a Quango protecting the states actors, not it's citizens.
The press are not free in Scotland.
This seems to be a case of the SLCC with their backs against the wall and lying to get out of it.
Well done Peter.You proved again lawyers cant be trusted to investigate themselves !
It sounds as if the SLCC have a lot to answer for. No doubt another cosy one to one chat with Mr Dunnion will be in the offing.
Should the absence of any objective evidence from the SLCC persist the FOI Commissioner should use his powers to fine the SLCC and hit it where it hurts.
Deeds speak louder than words.
Yes it would be interesting to see if the Police were brought in.After all if Irvine was trying to make a big thing of the threats to Dunion to stop him ordering her to release papers you'd expect Police involvement otherwise the whole thing sounds like a pack of lies which it probably is anyway.
One thing for sure Peter - They must be afraid of you to go to this extent!
CLAIMS OF ANONYMOUS THREATS, Bullshit, I would publish every complaint available to the SLCC since its inception, and we will see a quango that does nothing for the public.
The state does not like its actors being incriminated hence this useless attempt at protecting the public. Lawyers are more dangerous than ever.
If this had really happened it would have been all over the newspapers with Irvine & co in tears backed up by the nasties at the Law Society.
"Crash for cash" scams where fraudsters stage accidents to claim on other drivers' insurance are at an all-time high, the BBC has learned.
The Insurance Fraud Bureau (IFB) estimates around 30,000 accidents were staged last year.
The scams cost insurers about £350m in 2009 and added £44 to the premium of every driver in the country.
Birmingham was the UK's top fraud hot-spot and incidents rose in parts of London, the industry-funded body said.
Until recently the claims were largely confined to north-west England, and the other four top spots for insurance fraud of this sort were filled by Liverpool, Blackburn, Manchester and Leeds.
Vulnerable victims
But the scam appears to be moving south, with parts of London in the top 10 for the first time. East London takes sixth position while north London is in ninth position.
The fraudsters ensure an innocent motorist drives into the back of their vehicle by braking suddenly on a clear road or roundabout. Often they use the handbrake so there are no warning lights.
It is usually accepted that a driver rear-ending another car must be at fault.
Sgt Mark Beales, from Greater Manchester Police, said fraudsters choose their "victim" drivers carefully.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote
Alma Gallanders
Our only crime was being on that road at that time”
End Quote Alma Gallanders Fraud victim
"What these fraudsters tend to pick on are people who are single mums or elderly people, people who are less likely to cause them any issues. They also target drivers of commercial vehicles, because drivers tend not to care as much if they're not driving their own vehicle," he said.
The claims made average around £17,000 and can include demands for payment of storage costs and recovery fees as well as the usual personal injury claims.
Earlier this month two men, 35-year-old Rehan Javed and his brother Rezwan, 33, from Burnley in Lancashire, were convicted of running a £12m scam.
They processed many of the claims themselves via their own claims management company.
Andrew Wigmore, Policy Director at the Claims Standards Council, says the scam is "highly organised fraud".
"If you imagine the claims management company is the acquirer. He might be part of the gang. He then sells that claim for a fee to someone which is also part of the gang, or in his family which is a solicitor's firm. (WHAT A SURPRISE, CROOKED LAWYERS AND DOCTORS)
"They then measure that injury by employing a doctor (who) is also in that supply chain so before you know it you've already ramped up two (or) three thousand pounds worth of fees," he told the BBC.
Glen Marr, from the IFB, said the scam costs everyone: "We estimate there are around 30,000 staged accidents a year costing the insurance industry £350m.
"And overall, fraud adds £44 to the insurance premium of every motorist - no matter what no claims bonus or safe driving record he or she may have."
Even if it turns out they have been threatened they probably brought it on themselves I mean what a bunch of bastards sitting there covering up for bent lawyers and the Law Society
Just consider what kind of people would stoop to such a low level to cover up for gutter rats ?
Dunion should have demanded proof after they said it - because they said it to stop you getting the info so it was his duty to get to the bottom of it.
My opinion - I think the SLCC are LYING
Its a bit fishy all these alleged threats to the SLCC and other bodies are anonymous and if the SLCC is aware of all these other bodies having the same threats why no headlines on the news ?
Complete fabrication if you ask me !
“In the circumstances, where it appears the SLCC made their claim to the Information Commissioner in the hope it would influence the outcome of his investigation, I would urge Mr Dunion to establish whether there is any truth to the SLCC’s claims it’s staff or staff from other bodies it referred to have been threatened.”
==================================
These people will say anything to save themselves. Next they will be claiming Al-Qaeda are threatening them. Investigators of lawyers, like lawyers have zero credibility.
Even if it turns out they have been threatened they probably brought it on themselves I mean what a bunch of bastards sitting there covering up for bent lawyers and the Law Society
Just consider what kind of people would stoop to such a low level to cover up for gutter rats ?
THE WORST KIND OF HUMAN FILTH, ONE DAY THEY WILL THEIR OWM MR MOAT.
Swap "Bus Driver" for "SLCC" in the headline and you probably get the same scenario :
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2010/08/21/scots-bus-driver-sacked-after-pretending-rock-throwing-yobs-injured-him-to-claim-compensation-86908-22502927/
Scots bus driver sacked after pretending rock-throwing yobs injured him to claim compensation
Aug 21 2010 James Moncur
A bus driver has been sacked after deliberately injuring himself and blaming it on rock-throwing thugs.
Police made a public plea for help in catching the yobs Shaun Cashley claimed had attacked him.
But bosses at Travel Dundee have now sacked the 27-year-old after it emerged he made up the story in a bid to claim compensation.
A source at the firm said yesterday: "Cashley didn't realise that the bus he was driving had CCTV because quite a few of our vehicles don't have cameras.
"It was obvious from the footage that he inflicted the injuries on himself and was acting very suspiciously.
"The evidence against him was pretty overwhelming."
Police are investigating the allegation that Cashley made up the claims he was hit by a stone as he prepared to drop off a passenger opposite Adamson's Court in Lochee, Dundee.
Cashley, of Dundee, who received hospital treatment for concussion and a cut head, was unavailable for comment yesterday.
Yes as the 1st comment says this mob at the slcc have some cheek considering they have done sod all for people against crooked lawyers who have probably caused a few deaths by now.
Even the Scottish Govt dont believe them or at least refuse to support the threats!
I expect someone will be hauled over the coals for coming up with that idiotic excuse ..
I've had similar excuses re the mental welfare position thrown at my fois although not as detailed as what appears in this example.
The Information Commissioner should take this opportunity to stamp on the overuse of these kinds of arguments and now is as good a time as any with the SLCC's far-fetched claims.
Good luck Peter.
It's encouraging to note that the SLCC have not taken President Truman's advice, namely;
'If you find yourself in a hole, first stop digging'.
Goodness only knows what will come out next......
Every tool in the book used to lie,misinform and put out lies against their critics - this is the SLCC as I know it from 6 months of writing back and forth on a complaint that is still not being investigated because they cant decide if it all started before October 2008 even though I FIRST VISITED MY LAWYER IN MARCH 2009 so I know what you are up against with this shower of ****
Threats against the SLCC to prevent an FOI disclosure ?
Who the hell do these people think they are ?
Hilarious !
What will these people think of next ?
"We cant catch crooked lawyers because they threatened us" ?
Sack the lot and reclaim all the millions spent
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11055639
Doctor cut lip of Harlequins winger Tom Williams
Dr Wendy Chapman Dr Wendy Chapman was suspended from her post at Maidstone Hospital in Kent last September
A doctor has admitted cutting the lip of Harlequins rugby player Tom Williams to enable the winger to pretend to be injured during a Heineken Cup match.
A General Medical Council (GMC) panel has been told how Williams became "extremely panicked" after he bit into a fake blood capsule and was challenged about the authenticity of his "injury".
He then asked Dr Wendy Chapman to cut him and she agreed, the panel was told.
The "Bloodgate" incident allowed a goal-kicker to be brought on the pitch.
Dr Chapman, who was suspended from her post as a consultant at Kent's Maidstone Hospital last September, is appearing before the GMC to face allegations her conduct was likely to bring the profession into disrepute and was dishonest.
==================================
The majority are dishonest especially if you report one of them the rest distort documents to support the wrongdoer. Report one GP and the practice are against you, that is the way it is.
Honestly I have no confidence in Dunion doing anything to the slcc even though they are clearly telling lies.The whole foi/regulation thing is wrapped up together by politics and prejudice against outsiders and this is easily illustrated by Irvine believing she can say what she likes because she know she gets away with it.
I could say more but for now I wont.
Post a Comment