Sunday, July 03, 2011

Suicides, ill health, financial ruin : Will SLCC's latest Master Policy report deliver solution to Law Society 'pro-crooked lawyer' insurance scheme ?

SLCCSLCC to announce second Master Policy & Guarantee Fund report after 2009 report tied Master Policy to client deaths. SUICIDES, ill health, death, family break-ups, personal threats, repossessed homes, unsolved burglaries, tampered mail, spurious Police visits or raids on your home with following arrests & charges withdrawn, benefits cheat investigations, Inland Revenue investigations, losing your job, DVLA inquiries, TV license inquiries, even RIPSA surveillance by local authorities, actions all apparently instigated by aggrieved lawyers out to discredit troublesome clients, are now known to form a catalogue of common experiences in varying combinations which keep cropping up with clients who attempt to pursue ‘rogue Scottish solicitors’ through the courts by claiming against the Law Society of Scotland controlled Master Policy, the Professional Indemnity Insurance scheme which protects solicitors from damages claims from clients for negligence and other rip-offs.

However, the latest soon to be announced research by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) into the infamously corrupt Master Policy, linked by a 2009 Manchester University of Law report to suicides and many other conveniently catastrophic events suffered by clients of ‘crooked lawyers’ may say very little about any of it, if Marsh UK, the SLCC and Law Society of Scotland have their way for a second time.

According to insiders close to the SLCC, the attitudes of the SLCC’s Board members who earlier, in bitter hate fuelled email rants branded participants in the original 2009 report as “Frequent Flyers” and “complete chancers”, have hardened attitudes against the SLCC becoming involved in any substantive monitoring of the Master policy as laid down in the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007. The issue of the Master Policy and how it handles  damages claims against the legal profession, without any independent monitoring, is widely acknowledged as the ‘most corrupt protection mechanism for rogue lawyers’ affecting regulation of the legal profession in Scotland today.

John SwinneyJohn Swinney revealed memos between Law Society & Marsh sought to interfere in Master Policy claims, undermine a client’s access to justice. Marsh UK, a subsidiary of the US Insurance giant MMC, who pled guilty to charges of bid rigging in the United Stats, administer the Master Policy which is backed by insurers such as Royal Sun Alliance, for the Law Society of Scotland. Marsh were identified in memos released by Cabinet Secretary John Swinney during a Justice Committee meeting at the Scottish Parliament, which revealed the Law Society of Scotland & its insurers were engaged in interference in clients legal representation and were also actively blocking damages claims & court cases against crooked lawyers from entering the Scottish courts.

Mr Swinney also revealed the text of a secret memo where a Director of Marsh UK discussed secret moves with the then Chief Executive of the Law Society of Scotland, Douglas Mill, to spy on members of the public by collating information on clients & their claims against the Master Policy.

To illustrate the extent to which the Scottish legal profession will go after clients who attempt to recover funds stolen by their solicitors or sue for damages on issues such as poor legal services, a failed court case or outlandish legal fees, a document seen by Diary of Injustice titled “How to protect yourself” and obtained from one of the ‘representative bodies’ for Scotland’s legal profession suggests ways for solicitors to protect themselves against a client complaint or a claim against the Master Policy.

While some text from the document has been reworded in certain instances to protect the source, the questions in the document may read to many outside the bubble world of a ‘crooked lawyer’ like a set of directions for taking revenge against clients who have complained about their solicitors. The document asks such questions of solicitors :

What do you know of your clients background? Does your client or any family members have a criminal record? You can establish their relationship with the Police through contacts. Information on criminal records can undermine your client’s position and any evidence they may give in court.

Have you contacted colleagues in the area to find out what other professional services your client uses?

Financial details of your client may prove a key factor in how far a client can pursue any legal action against you e.g. does your client have a mortgage? are they overdrawn at the bank? credit checks?

If your client has a business, local accountants may be able to provide information on their current financial state or matters such as Income Tax irregularities which can be acted upon in your interests.

Does your client receive any state benefits? Anonymous information even if false can suspend their benefits for an indefinite period and undermine your client’s will to pursue any complaint to an outcome in court.

Do you have knowledge of or access to your client’s medical history? This could prove useful to your position if it can be obtained.

In a further paragraph it is suggested the solicitor ask his office staff to collate all local information on the client and submit it. A final suggestion, which clearly aims to deny the client any access to legal representation reads : “Contacting other solicitors in the area or your local bar association, alerting colleagues of your opinions of the client is to be encouraged.”

Sources claimed the SLCC is determined not to go out of its way to look for such controversial material as described above, “for fear of upsetting the Law Society & Marsh”.

A client of a solicitor who is currently waiting on the completion of an investigation by the SLCC into his complaint commented on the document, describing it as “a wish list for criminals”.

He said : “This is a shocking set of discussions about how to get out of ripping someone off. If this is how solicitors react when a client raises a complaint about their service, we would all be better off staying out of lawyers offices for good.”

Insiders commenting on the latest SLCC survey on the Master Policy have previously revealed tips, confirmed by Freedom of Information disclosures that Marsh UK, were themselves allowed by the SLCC to hand out the questionnaires for the ‘independent’ research into the Master Policy. I reported on these revelations earlier in April, here : CENSORED : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission's secret new Master Policy & Guarantee Fund research 'shuts out' real victims of crooked lawyers where material obtained under Freedom of Information legislation revealed : “SLCC to arrange for hard copies of the 657 questionnaires to be given to Marsh to send out to claimants.”

2011 05 16 board minutes_Page2The SLCC’s long running debate on monitoring the Master Policy & Guarantee Fund has become tame, say insiders. In the latest board meeting minute available from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, of 16 May 2011, it was revealed the “draft report” on the Master Policy and Guarantee Fund research projects from Professor Stephen had been discussed and a timetable agreed to publish, although with regards to the Master Policy research, the meeting reflected that “Further clarification to be requested on data and some of the wording in the draft report”, indicating according to insiders, board members were unhappy with some of the wording & reporting of matters revealed in the research. The Master Policy research was further discussed at the SLCC’s 20th June board meeting, where the SLCC’s current Chief Executive, Rosemary Agnew, was to “bring back final reports of both reports to the Board alongside the accompanying draft letters to the LSS and what is proposed to be published on the SLCC website” although the minutes of the June meeting will not be revealed for sometime yet, unless of course the SLCC reads this report via its £10K a year media monitoring service and decides otherwise.

The SLCC board meeting also heard the research into the Guarantee Fund, also being carried out by Professor Stephen had suffered from a poor response. The Board discussed the draft report on the Guarantee Fund at its May meeting, pondering whether the response rate was sufficient for findings to be concluded. The Guarantee Fund is Law Society’s own infamously corruptly operated compensation scheme which allegedly covers claims for issues such as a solicitor stealing money from clients.

I reported earlier on the Guarantee Fund’s problems and client’s attempts to claim from it here : Law Society's 'Guarantee Fund' for clients of crooked lawyers revealed as multi million pound masterpiece of claims dodging corruption

The minutes of the SLCC’s May Board meeting further stated the Law Society of Scotland should have sight of the report and the opportunity to comment before the report is published alongside a note from the SLCC while Board members would seek further clarification on the following points of the Guarantee Fund research :

•  Detail to be added regarding what Progressive did to boost the response rate;
•  The impact on the draft findings of the group of respondants;
•  To clarify whether the response rate is sufficient.

An official from one of Scotland’s consumer organisations who passed the published board papers to Diary of Injustice said : “Are we going to be treated to a report on the Master Policy and Guarantee Fund every two years which results in little or no action by the SLCC as happened after publication of their first report in 2009 ?”

She continued : “The fact is the SLCC is populated by people who have been associated with, or have worked in regulation of the legal profession for years and know full well the Master Policy & Guarantee Fund fail to serve any useful purpose other than protecting solicitors from financial claims for negligence & other acts of loss of client funds. Nothing will change as long as the SLCC is effectively controlled by the Law Society who are clearly the root of the problem.”

Marsh UK are known to provide insurance services to many Scottish Government & local Government departments & services, including almost all enforcement services across the justice sector including the Police, also banks & the financial sector, and even local housing associations across Scotland. It was established in January 2007 the then Labour-LibDem Scottish Executive were paying the same company, Marsh UK around £157,000 a year for insurance services.

It is difficult to see how any credible research or investigation into the Master Policy, administered by Marsh UK can properly investigate the Law Society of Scotland & the insurers now well accepted corrupt practices can take place and arrive at any credible pro-consumer solutions to bring to an end this policy for protection of crooked lawyers as long as the arrangement appears to have influence with, or protection from politicians at all levels.

39 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good to know some people like you Peter are reporting the facts. They are one of the most evil professions ever and people should avoid them at all costs. The insurers and the complaints system are more crooked than the Penman's.

Complain about a lawyer and the automatic legal system shut down responds to drive a ruined client to suicide in some cases.

Anonymous said...

SUICIDES, ill health, death, family break-ups, personal threats, repossessed homes, unsolved burglaries, tampered mail, spurious Police visits or raids on your home with following arrests & charges withdrawn, benefits cheat investigations, Inland Revenue investigations, losing your job, DVLA inquiries, TV license inquiries, even RIPSA surveillance by local authorities, actions all apparently instigated by aggrieved lawyers out to discredit troublesome clients.
=================================
Yes exactly Peter they can do what they want because they ARE THE LAW. THE SCOTTISH MAFIA.

Anonymous said...

I doubt the SLCC will admit to any of it otherwise Irvine will be admitting she's known it all along (which she does of course)

Anonymous said...

"Does your client receive any state benefits? Anonymous information even if false can suspend their benefits for an indefinite period and undermine your client’s will to pursue any complaint to an outcome in court."

I have a response to this but I cant type it here otherwise I might encourage someone to do something everyone will bloody well approve of.

Anonymous said...

Sinister, criminals they are Peter, I have often wondered if they can even fabricate evidence against a client to undermine the reputation of the client.

Like the famous criminal case of the Birmingham six and Guilford four, no one was prosecuted for jailing ten innocent people despite the fact evidence was witheld at the original trial, which would have exonerated them. I am told and do not know if it is true that one of the forensic experts at the Lockerbie Trial provided dodgy expert witness reports on the above terrorist bombings. Traces of an element which are in explosives on the convicted persons hands were actually from playing cards.

Anonymous said...

I'll be interested to hear more about the Police involvement on behalf of crooked lawyers as its about time this was exposed

Anonymous said...

"Suicides, ill health, financial ruin : Will SLCC's latest Master Policy report deliver solution to Law Society 'pro-crooked lawyer' insurance scheme ?"

No it wont!

The SLCC will still be doing their research in another 2 years time and bugger all will have been done to help all their victims!

Anonymous said...

Where are Consumer Focus Scotland and why no comment from them?
Are they out taking a p*ss while the rest of us get ripped off by these crooked *******s?

Anonymous said...

How many inquiries have there really been into this Master Policy ?

Here's a story from the Scotsman EIGHT YEARS AGO :

Part 1

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Inquiry-into-Law-Societys-claims.2477520.jp

Inquiry into Law Society's claims policy

Published Date: 10 November 2003
By ANDREW DENHOLM SCOTTISH POLITICAL REPORTER

CONSUMER watchdogs are to investigate the way the Law Society of Scotland handles compensation claims against solicitors, The Scotsman can reveal.

The Scottish Consumer Council (SCC) has written to the Law Society requesting a meeting to discuss the operation of its so-called master policy - the insurance for all compensation claims against Scottish solicitors arising from negligence, fraud or dishonesty.

In its letter, the SCC states that the operation of the master policy gives the impression to some complainers that solicitors from the Law Society, Marsh UK, who broker the policy and the insurance companies, such as Royal & Sun Alliance, "are in league to the detriment of complainers".

A spokesman for the SCC said: "We have been made aware of concerns over the transparency of the Law Society’s master policy and we share those concerns.

"There have also been allegations of collusion in the operation of the policy.

"We have made no conclusions about that aspect, but we want to investigate the way the policy works and we have sought a meeting with the Law Society to discuss how we are to conduct our research."

The Law Society has told the SCC that it is unable to meet with them in the short term because of current work priorities and limited resources. However, officials have agreed to contact the SCC in the near future to discuss the issue.

Last night, the Law Society issued a robust defence of the master policy, claiming it was one of the best in the world and had been used as a model for other countries.

A spokeswoman said: "We take any concerns very seriously. The society is in correspondence with the SCC and has agreed to continue dialogue about the master policy.

"The master policy is good news for solicitors and especially their clients which is why it is used as a benchmark in comparison with other jurisdictions - it is internationally recognised as a system that works well and provides a very high standard of consumer protection.

"The society appreciates that the interaction between complaints handled by the client relations office and negligence claims handled under the master policy can involve a number of procedures which is why it makes every effort to explain the processes and how they work in its leaflets, on the website and on an individual, case-by-case basis."

The spokeswoman added that it would be very difficult for consumers to find out the standards of protection for each solicitor if there was a "plethora of companies running a plethora of policies".

"As far as transparency goes, the society provided full information to the justice committee in the Scottish Parliament and the petitions committee about the master policy," she added.

"There are confidentiality and data protection issues about individual claims which the society cannot make public without breaking the law."

Anonymous said...

Part 2

However, Linda Costelloe Baker, the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman, said procedures could be improved.

"What doesn’t help is that there is no obvious firewall between the client relations unit of the Law Society, which handles complaints, and the rest of the Law Society, which is entitled to discuss anything it likes with the insurers.

"People who complain think that the Law Society is feeding information about them between the client relations office and the insurers when that is not the case."

Ms Costelloe Baker went on to criticise the existence of the master policy as a means of insuring all solicitors in Scotland.

"The negotiation of an insurance policy for all solicitors regardless of the number of claims made against individual firms is anti-competition because good firms pay roughly the same as bad firms.

"Blanket cover for all solicitors can protect failing solicitors at the expense of good solicitors.

"If individual firms had to negotiate their own insurance with companies, bad ones would go out of business because they would be unable to get insurance."

The Law Society’s master policy provides all Scottish solicitors in private practice with insurance against losses arising out of their negligence.

It guarantees that any claim established against a solicitor arising from negligence will be paid, even if the solicitor’s practice has ceased to exist and the solicitor is unable to pay.

The insurance provides cover for all Scottish legal firms for up to £1.25 million for any one claim.

Anonymous said...

"What do you know of your clients background? Does your client or any family members have a criminal record? You can establish their relationship with the Police through contacts. Information on criminal records can undermine your client’s position and any evidence they may give in court."

Anyone daft enough to go to a lawyer and pay for all their time wasting tactics then have stuff like this thrown back at them is a mug!

Anonymous said...

I bet Swinney just loves all this publicity about him & Mill!

Anonymous said...

Little wonder our beloved Scottish Parliament forbids anyone telling their precious committees what really happens at the Master Policy.

Good work Peter I know we can count on you to expose all this lawyer thuggery against clients.

Anonymous said...

So Marsh is allowed to set the parameters of any 'independent investigation' into its own affairs - and the SLCC still refuses to ask for, far less demand, a copy of the policy it is pretending to oversee.

Blatant corrpution from top to bottom.

I do hope any foreign business considering using Scotland's
'independent arbitration service' as touted by the SNP is fully aware of the travesty that is the Scottish justice System.

Anonymous said...

This is a case of lawyers using their contacts within the Police to harass their clients into backing out of complaints,right?

I can imagine this happens because you only need to go to any sheriff court to see Police cuddling up to lawyers for a favour and in return we know what the lawyer gets.

Anonymous said...

Quite a list there Peter.

I could make my own list about what should happen to lawyer criminals who rip off people and get away with it although as someone earlier said I better not.

I am disgusted at all Scottish lawyers and this Marsh set up

Anonymous said...

With Scottish Government handing money over to the same company that runs the master policy they are essentially backing a policy of suicides to protect bent lawyers

Anonymous said...

Why the deafening silence from Which magazine I wonder?

Anonymous said...

If crooked lawyers are using the cops against their clients this is a big scandal you must completely expose

Anonymous said...

One phrase sums up the SLCC and its master policy research - Window Dressing

Anonymous said...

Have you got any examples of Police meddling with clients you might like to share with us Peter?

Anonymous said...

WOW!!! This isn't the policy of a legal establishment in a country claiming a maturity and seeking independence. This is a policy for a banana republic - sorry - that's an insult to banana republics.

Outrageous.

I may also add that it is also outrageous, and an indication of how bad the situation actually is, that most of your commentators (including myself) feel compelled to write as 'anonymous'.

Anonymous said...

What good is all this research if nothing is ever done about it and who took the stupid decision to allow Marsh to hand out the papers themselves?

Anonymous said...

The culprit here is self regulation (again)

Allowing lawyers to regulate themselves produces these convenient scams to block anyone being able to claim back what was stolen from them or lost through what most people call negligence but is probably standard behaviour from a lawyer under this horrible master policy arrangement.

Peter Cherbi said...

Thanks for your comments & emails on this article.

A certain number of comments have not been published to in some cases to their strength, in others due to solicitors being identified in cases of claims to the Master Policy, which I will consider for publication in more fuller articles in the future ...

# Anonymous @ 3 July 2011 16:11

Yes indeed ... a thoroughly corrupt system which closes ranks on anyone who challenges it (or reports on it!)


# Anonymous @ 3 July 2011 16:20

Jane Irvine has been connected to the world of regulation of the legal profession long enough to know the score, after all, she was Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman for a time before the SLCC was created in 2008.

She cannot feign ignorance of any of it.

# Anonymous @ 3 July 2011 16:59

I note what you say.

In one case I have before me, a solicitor who had ruined a civil damages claim went on to provide the Benefits Agency with false information relating to his now former client who made a complaint to the Law Society.

The solicitor had his former client's disability benefits suspended for a number of weeks and threatened with arrest. When the information was proved to be false the individuals benefits were reinstated yet nothing was done about the solicitor who provided the false information ... a little one sided and very unfair ...

# Anonymous @ 3 July 2011 17:00

I agree ...

Anonymous @ 3 July 2011 18:07

Probably ...

There has been a great deal of discussion at the SLCC about how to avoid monitoring the Master Policy ...

# Anonymous @ 3 July 2011 18:50 & 3 July 2011 18:51

Thanks for reminding me ... and yes, as you can see there have been many attempts to investigate the Master Policy yet none have come up with an effective solution to its anti-client practices ...

# Anonymous @ 3 July 2011 21:14

Thanks ...

# Anonymous @ 3 July 2011 22:06

Indeed yes ...

# Anonymous @ 4 July 2011 21:39

Yes, some cases will appear in future reports ...

# Anonymous @ 5 July 2011 10:14

The SLCC allowed Marsh to hand out the questionnaires ...

# Anonymous @ 5 July 2011 11:02

I agree .. self regulation is the problem once again, and noticeably a problem not resolved by the appearance of the SLCC ...

Anonymous said...

Yes Peter - self regulation is the cause of it and probably the same problems exist in other self regulating professions like we all know - doctors/hospitals,accountants,police, politics etc

Anonymous said...

How much has been budgeted for this latest survey?

Anonymous said...

So what have the SLCC got to say about all these threats and dirty tricks by lawyers against their clients?
Nothing?

How can lawyers get away with using the Police,Inland Revenue,Benefits Agency against people just because they've put in a complaint about how crooked they are?

This SLCC is some piece of cover up agency and as you say nothing done about the first report so nothing will be done about this new one.DISGUSTING!

Anonymous said...

Very Concerned - part 1


Good grief! They actually wrote this in a document? Their conceit displaces all caution. They must be feeling absolutely confident, secure in their belief that the SLCC has been so thoroughly “trained” or "co-opted", that they can act with complete impunity.
I have long suspected that the actions of the ‘profession’ in response to a potential claim against one of their professional practitioner members displayed a pattern suggestive of co-ordination and a systematised response. I consider that suspicion to have now been substantiated by this document (in conjunction with the infamous "McKenzie memo").

I select a few of the lines for comment:-

“Financial details of your client may prove a key factor in how far a client can pursue any legal action against you e.g. does your client have a mortgage? are they overdrawn at the bank? credit checks?” – this is knowledge that will enable their indemnity team to ascertain how effective a war of attrition will be – it is a signal that they intend to waste a lot of Court time and run up huge legal fees for all concerned as a tactic to compel settlement at non.
“… matters such as Income Tax irregularities which can be acted upon in your interests.” – isn’t this stuff supposed to be “confidential”, and what was that? – 'acted upon' by whom in the lawyer’s interests? Are their links to the revenue that strong that they’ve co-opted an arm of the state (with all of its peculiar and extra-ordinary powers)?
“Anonymous information even if false” – lie if you need to – no integrity required – just hammer the weak wee client whose circumstances are dire enough that they’re on benefits in the first place - for crying out loud that’s so morally repugnant it is obscene.
“Contacting other solicitors in the area or your local bar association, alerting colleagues of your opinions of the client is to be encouraged.” Well there we have it – that’s why there are increasing numbers of party litigants clogging up the Courts – the lawyers have all had a nice wee chat with their nominal competitors in the market for the provision of the legal services necessary to obtain access to justice, and lo and behold, none are willing to represent the party with an action against a professional practitioner, - voila! - you have a resultant litigant-in-person (substitute “lamb to the slaughter” due to ignorance of the procedures, and you’d be a little bit accurate).

Anonymous said...

And the SNP allow this?

Some Justice Minister you have there.

Anonymous said...

Hardly surprising they get up to all the things you've written about.They are lawyers after all and in it for themselves all the way just like many of our crooked politicians who coincidentally have links right back to the legal profession and even sit on some of these insurance companies as directors!

Anonymous said...

Well I must say Mr Cherbi you are probably THE expert on the legal profession and their insurance system and in view of these inescapable facts is it not telling you are not part of this Master Policy report group?

Anonymous said...

End result will be the same old same old as others say nothing will happen and they will still be talking about it years from now and still claiming all that money while more clients get ripped off as you say.

Who is mad enough to use a lawyer these days anyway with money as tight as it is?

Someone in another comment said we should all stop paying our lawyers bills and I think that is a brilliant idea how about it folks?

Anonymous said...

I like the way you write Mr Cherbi telling us how it really is without all that bullshit from patronising politicians we always have to suffer.As the first comment says its very good to know some people like you exist!

Anonymous said...

It is difficult to see how any credible research or investigation into the Master Policy, administered by Marsh UK can properly investigate the Law Society of Scotland & the insurers now well accepted corrupt practices can take place and arrive at any credible pro-consumer solutions to bring to an end this policy for protection of crooked lawyers as long as the arrangement appears to have influence with, or protection from politicians at all levels."

I agree with everything you said!

Anonymous said...

If a self regulator Peter is corrupt and no one will give the victim a legal remedy we have a dangerous situation.

You report on legal hell, they are an evil unnacountable scourge and they are profoundly dangerous. A human without rights especially legal rights is an object to be abused as the abuses sees fit. It is an outrage.

Anonymous said...

Suicides, ill health, financial ruin. THIS IS THE BRUTAL REALITY OF TRUSTING LAWYER SCUM.

THIS IS REAL, ALL YOU NICE PEOPLE OUT THERE PAY ATTENTION. I HAVE BEEN LIKE SO MANY OTHERS TO LEGAL HELL. MY CRIME, GOING TO AND TRUSTING A LAWYER. I AM ALIVE TODAY BECAUSE MY FAMILY STOOD BY ME WHEN MY MONEY WAS STOPPED FOR MONTHS TO STARVE ME INTO SUBMISSION. WITHOUT MY FAMILY, MY ROCK I WOULD NO BE HERE TODAY. MY MONEY WAS STOPPED SO I COULD NOT PAY MY BILLS AND THE LAW SOCIETY AND NHS PROTECTED THE SCUM I DEALT WITH.


PROTECT YOURSELVES. YOU ARE DEALING WITH SATAN IN HUMAN FORM WHEN YOU TRUST A LAWYER, STAY AWAY FROM THESE EVIL RATS IN WIGS. YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND HOW DANGEROUS THEY ARE UNTIL YOU DEAL WITH THEM AND IT GOES WRONG. I DO NOT WANT SYMPATHY, IF THIS WARNING SAVES ONE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, GOD BLESS PETER CHERBI FOR PUBLISHING IT.

STAY AWAY FROM SELF REGULATING EVIL, AND THE SLCC LAW SOCIETY ARE WORSE THAN YOUR AVERAGE HIGH STREET MEMBER OF OUR LEGAL MAFIA.
HAVE YOU EVER SEEN AN ADVERT ON THE TELEVISION ASKING PEOPLE TO CONTACT THE ADVERTISING LAW FIRM SO THEY CAN SUE CORRUPT LAWYERS. IT NEVER HAPPENS, WHY BECAUSE ALL LAWYERS ARE A CRIMINAL NETWORK DEDICATED TO COVER UPS AND THIS MEANS THEY CAN TREAT YOU ANY WAY THEY WANT.

Anonymous said...

In Scotland no justice system exists against those who work in it. I told a man at Hamilton Sheriff Court the system was corrupt as hell.

MSP's Lawyers, doctors, accountants, MP's the Law society and SLCC, who polices the activities of these people? We do not have the army entering the political space but we have no protection against self regulators. These actors shape policy to protect themselves, do not be fooled by Salmond, Clegg, Cameron, or Milliband. They will still be screwing taxpayers on the expenses.

Anonymous said...

Like the famous criminal case of the Birmingham six and Guilford four, no one was prosecuted for jailing ten innocent people despite the fact evidence was witheld at the original trial, which would have exonerated them. I am told and do not know if it is true that one of the forensic experts at the Lockerbie Trial provided dodgy expert witness reports on the above terrorist bombings. Traces of an element which are in explosives on the convicted persons hands were actually from playing cards.
===================================
The case of the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four prove one fact beyond reasonable doubt, state actors can engineer any result they want and the police and lawyers who framed these ten innocent people were exonerated. They can get away with anything if there have enough friends in they right places.

Perhaps Al Megrahi was a threat to MacAskill's friends in the judiciary, he is better back in the Middle East Kenny. I would be surprised if he has cancer?