Monday, February 11, 2013

VICTORIANA : Report reveals Lord President Lord Gill ‘froze out’ Judicial Complaints Reviewer amid series of revoked findings, secret unshared memos & dismissed complaints

Lord GillLook who’s Victorian now – Lord Gill criticised over conduct towards Judicial Complaints. SCOTLAND’S top judge, the Lord President Lord Brian Gill, who once branded Scotland’s Civil Justice system as “Victorian”, a failure to Scots society, unfit for purpose, and went onto proposed wide ranging reforms which have not been implemented some five years on, has himself come in for severe criticism over the judiciary's attitude towards complaints made against judges after it was revealed that Moi Ali, the independent Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR) tasked with looking into complaints made against Scottish judges has been “frozen out” of the process by angry members of the judiciary who despise independent scrutiny of their own activities.

The revelations, coming from Moi Ali’s first annual report as Judicial Complaints Reviewer were published only last week after the Scottish Government ignored a series of Freedom of Information requests made byDiary of Injustice journalists over the course of 2012 asking for the disclosure of information about the Judicial Complaints Reviewer’s appointment, her activities over the past year, and costs of her office.

Ms Ali’s first annual report, which can be read online here : Judicial Complaints Reviewer Annual report 20011- 2012 or on the JCR’s website HERE reveals a series of incidents where her office has been blocked by the Lord President from accessing communications, internal memos and reports between the office and the judges about complaints.

Ms Ali has also revealed in her report that, staggeringly, she has not even been able to meet the current Lord President, Lord Gill, or the previous Lord President Lord Hamilton.

In one particular case, Ms Ali revealed in her report “When the Judicial Office made an initial assessment of this complaint, it was not reasonable for them to conclude that the behaviour complained about, which left the complainer “insecure and scared”, fell into the category of judicial decision/case management/court programming. According to the Rules, they should have referred that element of the complaint to the disciplinary judge for consideration. This did not happen, and instead the complaint, in its entirety, was dismissed. For that reason I made a referral to the Lord President, who then revoked that part of the original determination and referred it to the disciplinary judge, who then dismissed the complaint.”

Clearly Scotland’s judiciary have operated in a closed world for too long, and have become used to writing their own rules, and living above expectations of transparency which the rest of us – even the Prime Minister, have to adhere to. In this regard, Lord Gill also attacked proposals put before the Scottish Parliament in the form of a Public Petition calling for a register of interests of Scotland’s judiciary, more on which can be read here : DECLARE YOUR INTERESTS M’LORDS : Scottish Parliament seek views on Public Petition calling for a Register of Interests of Scotland’s wealthy Judges & Sheriffs

Lord Gill heavily criticised the plans for a register of interests of judges, claiming he and his fellow colleagues should have their significant wealth & assets shielded from public disclosure in case "aggressive media or hostile individuals, including dissatisfied litigants" were to find out the true state of judges wealth and their connections to big business, including financial connections with insurance companies, offshore tax-dodging trusts, and somewhat odd property ownership schemes.

Lord Gill’s full letter to the Scottish Parliament on Petition PE01458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary will be reported further on Diary of Injustice later this week.

The Sunday Mail newspaper has featured a report on Moi Ali’s difficulties with the Scottish Judiciary, and Lord Gill’s attack on plans to make Scotland’s judiciary more transparency & accountable. Since yesterday’s report in the press, sources within the Scottish Government have this afternoon informed DOI journalists that “officials had operated a policy of deliberately ignoring FOI requests relating to the Judicial Complaints Reviewer's office from Diary of Injustice.”.

For the record, Rosemary Agnew, the Scottish Information Commissioner was made aware of the Scottish Government’s refusal to answer any Freedom of Information requests relating to the Judicial Complaints Reviewer during 2012 and the SIC were copied in on the relevant FOI requests made to the Scottish Government at the time.

The Sunday Mail reports :

Judicial Investigator Moi Ali left in the dark over complaints against Scottish Judges - NO She May Not 10 Feb 2013 Sunday MailJUDICIAL INVESTIGATOR LEFT IN THE DARK

May the watchdog appointed by the Scottish Government to investigate complaints against judges have leave to approach the bench, Your Honours? 
NO.. SHE MAY NOT

SILENCE IN COURT Lord Gill has not met judicial investigator so far.
EXCLUSIVE, By Russell Findlay, Sunday Mail 10 Feb 2013

A watchdog appointed to look into complaints against Scotland's judges fears she is being frozen out.

Moi Ali has accused the country's most senior judge, Lord President Lord Gill, of undermining her work by blocking access to vital documents.

She revealed her frustration in her first annual report since taking up the newly-created role of Judicial Complaints Reviewer.

Ali said she was only seeing the correspondence between the Judicial Office, who act for the judges, and the complainers.

But she was not allowed to see the internal memos and reports between the office and the judges about complaints.

She said: "I believe that in order to conduct a review, and to make wider recommendations on complaints handling, I need to see files in their entirety. "Without this, it is difficult to satisfy myself, let alone complainers, as to the fairness of the process. "I have continued to complete reviews but have made it clear to complainers that I have not had access to all documentation in their complaint file."

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill defied judicial opposition to create the part-time job to monitor how complaints against judges, sheriffs and justices of the peace are handled.

And Ali fears there is still resistance from within the judiciary to her role as an independent investigator.

She said: "With any profession, there's a feeling that regulation should come from within. "But this is the first time that the judiciary have been exposed to this kind of scrutiny, which other professional groups are more used to. "Most have accepted there is some kind of mechanism to scrutinise their conduct. That doesn't mean that we don't have a free and independent judiciary."

Ali also revealed that she has still not met 70-year-old Lord Gill, who was appointed to his £214,165-a-year post last June, and did not meet his predecessor Lord Hamilton.

She said: "I'm not overly concerned but I'm slightly surprised that the Lord President did not proactively suggest a meeting. I don't need to meet him but I think it would have sent out a positive message."

Ali is more concerned at the decision to block her access to documents.

She said: "This came to light because in review number one I was sent all the documents but then I didn't get the same ones for the second review. "At that point I discovered that I had been given them in error the first time. "I can't see any reason why and that worries me because I can't understand it."

Ali also voiced concerns that judges being investigated could evade punishment by quitting before the probe is complete. And she found there has been a breach in the rules in the way one of the four complaints she reviewed had been handled. Ali also urged the judiciary staff to use plain English when dealing with the public.

Her lack of administrative support was also highlighted - on her first day, she did not have a computer, printer, phone, email address or stationery - and she said it meant she was "unable to give the level of service that I would like to provide".

A Judicial Office for Scotland spokeswoman said: "In the short time the JCR has been in the post, we have worked very closely with Ms Ali in implementing, developing and reviewing the rules and how they are applied.

"With any new system, there is always a period of adaptation and adjustment and we are grateful to Ms Ali for the helpful suggestions and recommendations she has put forward and which, for the most part, have been implemented.

"A review of the rules is due to take place shortly and the Lord President is committed to working constructively to ensure the complaints procedure develops effectively."

TOP JUDGE REJECTS REGISTER OF INTERESTS

Lord Gill has rejected calls for judges to register their interests - because he fears they may be harassed by "aggressive media".

A petition lodged with the Scottish Parliament is calling on the judiciary to reveal any commercial, business or legal links in case they raise possible conflicts with their cases.

But in a letter to the public petitions committee, Scotland's most senior judge said current safeguards are enough.

Lord Gill said: "In practical terms, it would be impossible for all judicial office holders to identify all the interests that could conceivably arise in any future case.

"The terms of the judicial oath and the statement of principles of judicial ethics ensure that such a difficulty does not arise and that the onus is on the judicial office holder to declare any interest at the outset."

He said details held on a register could be abused by "aggressive media or hostile individuals, including dissatisfied litigants".

The call for a register has also been rejected by the Law Society of Scotland.

126 comments:

  1. All the more reason we need a register of interests for these judges who have become far too big for their publicly funded boots!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm not surprised about this as the judges always argue they have to remain independent (to cover up their own fiddles) also never heard of this judicial complaints reviewer until now so not well publicised probably for a reason.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As many suspected the appointment of a Judicial Complaints Reviewer was just a piece of window dressing - you only have to read of the administrative 'support' and the budget which was allocated to see that.

    Most disappointing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. How did this Moi Ali get the job?I ask this as I haven't seen anything in the Scottish Parliament about this.If she is so upset about how her position is being treated by the judges why hasn't she appeared at Holyrood at the Justice Committee to vent her anger?

    Lord Gill also comes out of this very badly.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ali also voiced concerns that judges being investigated could evade punishment by quitting before the probe is complete.

    DUH!

    Doctors,Civil Servants,Police,just about anyone who works in the public sector gets away with this all the time so not really as big a deal as Ali makes out (even though it should be a big deal of course)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Not good news and you are correct 100% about the civil justice system being rubbish in Scotland.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So,the last time judges went against the MacAskill line (HMA v Cadder and the Nat Fraser case) we had Salmond,MacAskill & co slating the judiciary to spectators at the Edinburgh Festival but I dont see any outraged MacAskill this time around.

    Could it be this is an SNP plot to remind the judiciary they are in charge and rule in favour of wee MacHaggis pretendy Government policy all the time?

    Even with the lack of reforms from the Civil Courts Review and you are correct to constantly hammer away at this point,surely you have to admit there is something overtly political about all of this and perhaps Gill is right not to let Moi Ali and the rest of the SNP clan in on the inner workings of the judiciary.

    All that aside I like your idea of a register of interests for judges!

    ReplyDelete
  8. http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2011/08/old-pals-act-macaskill-appoints-snp.html

    I knew it - The position is an SNP political appointment!

    Perhaps if the whole thing had been done above board and with a wider remit,staff and appointments this Judicial Complaints Reviewer will sound the part but no and to make matters worse she is sharing office space with that other walking abortion of a regulator the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission!

    This could stir up a real hornets nest!Carry on!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Interesting the Scottish Government have been boycotting your fois and this is probably due to the amount of damage you have/are are inflicting on the legal establishment.Someone must have realised if all this got out earlier than planned the judges and MacAskill would be having it out in open hence the lack of any announcement to go with Moi Ali's report.

    Incidentally there was a great debate on another law blog about this story yesterday although no one had the text version.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Had to laugh at the quote about the Lord President revoking a decision and putting it back to the disciplinary judge who then dismissed it all.

    Is this really the way we want our courts and judges to act? Pretty disgusting really

    ReplyDelete
  11. Good story from the Sunday Mail pleased to see this kind of stuff in the papers again well at least the papers who dont fear the lawyers and wigs!

    ReplyDelete
  12. "For the record, Rosemary Agnew, the Scottish Information Commissioner was made aware of the Scottish Government’s refusal to answer any Freedom of Information requests relating to the Judicial Complaints Reviewer during 2012 and the SIC were copied in on the relevant FOI requests made to the Scottish Government at the time."

    and she intends to do something about it or not?

    Clearly an organised Scottish Gov abuse of Freedom of Information going on here and nothing from the Scottish Information Commissioner?

    Very poor show all round no wonder there are stories beginning to appear in the press about Scots not being popular around the world due to the way we allow our politicos and lawyers to run and ruin us as well as all this independence crap hey ho the rest of the word have discovered Scotland is NOT the best wee country in the world after all http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/bloggers/have-the-scots-become-unpopular-or-is-it-just-me.2013022111

    ReplyDelete
  13. Had a look at this Judicial Complaints website looks very cheap, also dont see any Press Release for the report and suspiciously nothing from MacAskill who gave her the job!

    Something fishy or more to it?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think Lord Gill will be sending a few tons of Findus Lasagna to MacAskill's office!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Just like the Law Society then?

    Now that I've read the comments I'm not too sure about her either

    ReplyDelete
  16. Her lack of administrative support was also highlighted - on her first day, she did not have a computer, printer, phone, email address or stationery - and she said it meant she was "unable to give the level of service that I would like to provide".

    How did Ms Ali feel about her lack of admin support from the man who gave her the job?

    What a joke!

    ReplyDelete
  17. No wonder they didn't want to give it to you via foi but anyway not to worry as the story is a lot bigger now!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thanks to the earlier comment I found this - http://petercherbi.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/old-pals-act-macaskill-appoints-snp.html

    "This is a new appointment, established by the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 to review, when asked, the handling of a complaints investigation into members of the judiciary, to ensure that it has been dealt with in accordance with the Complaints about the Judiciary (Scotland) Rules 2011. The Reviewer has no powers to consider the merits of any complaint or the disposal of the complaint. The appointment will be for a period of three years from 1 September 2011 to 31 August 2014, and will be paid a daily fee of £209. The appointment has been made with the approval of the Lord President."

    Why create a job at £209 a day with the approval of the Lord President when the position "has no powers to consider the merits of any complaint or the disposal of the complaint."

    Bit of a waste of public funds surely and even worse it unfairly raises the expectations of people making complaints..

    ReplyDelete
  19. Clearly Scotland’s judiciary have operated in a closed world for too long, and have become used to writing their own rules, and living above expectations of transparency which the rest of us – even the Prime Minister, have to adhere to.

    Good point and also good luck for your register of interests petition.This should be made law immediately and stuff the judges worries about the media getting hold of their financial interests!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Lord Gill said: "In practical terms, it would be impossible for all judicial office holders to identify all the interests that could conceivably arise in any future case"

    Wow!They are so rich they dont know how much money they have OR they are afraid to disclose how much money and what they own or get involved in!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous said...

    Ali also voiced concerns that judges being investigated could evade punishment by quitting before the probe is complete.

    DUH!

    Doctors,Civil Servants,Police,just about anyone who works in the public sector gets away with this all the time so not really as big a deal as Ali makes out (even though it should be a big deal of course)

    11 February 2013 22:10

    Got it in one.Why the shock horror from someone who knows the score we all know to be the case?

    ReplyDelete
  22. 11 February 2013 21:29

    Not paying attention?

    "This is a new appointment, established by the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 to review, when asked, the handling of a complaints investigation into members of the judiciary, to ensure that it has been dealt with in accordance with the Complaints about the Judiciary (Scotland) Rules 2011"

    Welcome to the world of badly written SNP legislation voted through by clueless people who are not fit to be local councillors or elected representatives to a 'national' parliament.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Very poor show all round no wonder there are stories beginning to appear in the press about Scots not being popular around the world due to the way we allow our politicos and lawyers to run and ruin us as well as all this independence crap hey ho the rest of the word have discovered Scotland is NOT the best wee country in the world after all http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/bloggers/have-the-scots-become-unpopular-or-is-it-just-me.2013022111

    Couldn't have said it better myself!

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Ali also revealed that she has still not met 70-year-old Lord Gill, who was appointed to his £214,165-a-year post last June, and did not meet his predecessor Lord Hamilton.

    She said: "I'm not overly concerned but I'm slightly surprised that the Lord President did not proactively suggest a meeting. I don't need to meet him but I think it would have sent out a positive message."

    Funny attitude for a pretendy regulator - she doesn't think she needs to meet the people she is reviewing complaints into..

    ReplyDelete
  25. "Ali also revealed that she has still not met 70-year-old Lord Gill, who was appointed to his £214,165-a-year post last June, and did not meet his predecessor Lord Hamilton.

    She said: "I'm not overly concerned but I'm slightly surprised that the Lord President did not proactively suggest a meeting. I don't need to meet him but I think it would have sent out a positive message."

    Funny attitude for a pretend regulator - she doesn't think she needs to meet the people she is reviewing complaints into..

    ReplyDelete
  26. A Judicial Office for Scotland spokeswoman said: "In the short time the JCR has been in the post, we have worked very closely with Ms Ali in implementing, developing and reviewing the rules and how they are applied.

    "With any new system, there is always a period of adaptation and adjustment and we are grateful to Ms Ali for the helpful suggestions and recommendations she has put forward and which, for the most part, have been implemented.

    "A review of the rules is due to take place shortly and the Lord President is committed to working constructively to ensure the complaints procedure develops effectively."

    Another review of the review of the review of the review?

    Come off it Lord Gill you said years ago about all this victorian justice system and we are no further forward today

    ReplyDelete
  27. Not much information in her report is there?

    Surely we are entitled to know what these "complaints" or requests for reviews are all about?

    For instance if they relate to civil cases like divorce or damages claims or if there are complaints about criminal cases.

    I'm saying this because I cant help wondering if Moi Ali's office is being misused by criminals banged up by the courts who feel a bit miffed at what the judge said to them after they were found properly guilty of committing crimes or if it involves the time waster fantasist brigade out to have a pop at anyone who does not comply with their own agenda.

    Also if you look at the numbers of complaints received by her office it is very small compared to the numbers of cases in the system.Is this all really worth £209 a day to taxpayers?You decide!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Regarding an unpublished comment at 11:53am naming a judge involved in a complaint can the author contact DOI via scottishlawreporters@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  29. I'm saying this because I cant help wondering if Moi Ali's office is being misused by criminals banged up by the courts who feel a bit miffed at what the judge said to them after they were found properly guilty of committing crimes or if it involves the time waster fantasist brigade out to have a pop at anyone who does not comply with their own agenda.

    Also if you look at the numbers of complaints received by her office it is very small compared to the numbers of cases in the system.Is this all really worth £209 a day to taxpayers?You decide!

    12 February 2013 12:15

    You mean the "I didn't do it" mob?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hmm this sounds like SNP gerrymandering!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Simply put this is Ministerial interference in the running of the judiciary.MacAskill should resign immediately.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I cannot find the story on the Sunday Mail/Daily Record website so will have to make my point here.

    The article is very good and illustrates the problem we have here which is the [not unexpected] arrogance of the judiciary versus the stupidity or perhaps more aptly false promises of the Scottish Government with regard to complaints made against the judiciary.

    I will explain what I am trying to get at;

    Here we have Scotland's judges (who anyone who has ever had anything to do with the courts knows are a law unto themselves) resisting outside scrutiny of complaints and on the other hand the Scottish Government who as someone said earlier are unfairly raising the hopes of people with complaints against a judge by creating a "Complaints Reviewer" (note MacAskill cant even be bothered to call the JCR a regulator) with no powers at all.Zero.

    This is most probably just a position created by the Justice Secretary to tell people who write to him there is another lawyer of bureaucracy in the complaints scam which offers people a tantalising prospect of having decisions changed.Guess what?Moi Ali has not had one complaint turned around yet and by the sounds of the Sunday Mail story she isn't likely to anytime soon.

    No doubt some of you are thinking Lord Gill should resign.Well what is the point really?If Gill were to stand outside Parliament Square and hand out fivers to passers by we'd think he was doing it for personal gain, in short we expect judges to be arrogant,secretive, unaccountable and only to come out of the woodwork to voice their opinions or do something in their own favour because this is their nature.On the other hand,politicians need our votes,promise the earth,never deliver and instead give us false hopes via all these Ombudsmen or statutory regulators that have no powers at all.

    My conclusion is both are as bad as each other and they know it.

    Lastly,I see Gill rejects your Register of Interests petition.I am not surprised.They have something to hide yet force us to tell all in court.If we lie about our finances it could be a prison term yet they have no need to tell us what they do to earn money in their spare time.

    Go for it Peter and get that petition into the law books!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Well Gill is a lot better off than most pensioners I know.He is 70 and getting £214,165 a year,probably owns his own home and more so what is he complaining about and why so much resistance to your petition of interests?

    You just need to turn on the news or read the papers to see pensioners dying in their own homes because no money to use the heating or buy food and no one who cares about them at all.Shocking isnt it and if you ask me he is more worried about your petition than the complaint review.


    ReplyDelete
  34. Look who’s Victorian now – Lord Gill criticised over conduct towards Judicial Complaints.

    Just what we expected from a man who's inaction on his own Civil Courts Review nails his anti client prejudice to the mast. Protecting the public would destroy their ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££ mother-lode.

    Government's sole purpose is safeguarding the family and their inherent, inalienable rights; each societal institution that does not benefit the nation is illegitimate — especially monarchy and aristocracy. And we now add the judiciary who use us as they see fit. Who do you think you are Brian Gill? You have not been elected so how can you have legitimacy? John Locke argued government that abused the people must be removed. You are a judicial oligarch secretive and unaccountable. Your group are a product of judicial evolution who decided to build in protection systems, Plato called them secret societies to cover your crimes [your Law Society], your Judicial anachronism cannot and will not continue.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Having read your post I now have the feeling that if you had not made the FOI requests we would know nothing of Moi Ali's report

    ReplyDelete
  36. The call for a register has also been rejected by the Law Society of Scotland.

    Well what a surprise there!

    The top organisation of ratsh*t in Scotland rejects a register of interests for judges who usually hold lifetime membership of the Law Society.Just imagine if a judge has to declare he is or was a member of the Law Society every time someone has to sue a lawyer in court!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anonymous said...

    http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2011/08/old-pals-act-macaskill-appoints-snp.html

    I knew it - The position is an SNP political appointment!

    Perhaps if the whole thing had been done above board and with a wider remit,staff and appointments this Judicial Complaints Reviewer will sound the part but no and to make matters worse she is sharing office space with that other walking abortion of a regulator the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission!

    This could stir up a real hornets nest!Carry on!

    11 February 2013 22:50

    I agree,deffo something odd about all this and no MacBuckfast supporting his Judicial Complaints Reviewer almost like she's been left out in the cold with no typewriter or office chair!

    Sure shows the other side of the SNP how they treat their supposed friends!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Well Lord Gill you sound an arrogant twit in your opposition to Peter Cherbi's petition in view of what I've just read on BBC NEWS

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21429171

    Police corruption: Gifts and second jobs to go on register

    Chief constables in England and Wales will have to declare all gifts and hospitality on a public register under new anti-corruption measures.

    The move is part of a package of measures aimed at rooting out police corruption and misconduct announced by Home Secretary Theresa May.

    All officers will have to declare any second jobs they do.

    The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) will also be expanded to investigate all serious complaints.

    And there will also be a national register of officers who have been struck off in a bid to stop dismissed officers being recruited by other forces.

    SO IF CHIEF CONSTABLES AND POLICE HAVE TO BE ON A REGISTER OF INTERESTS SO SHOULD THE JUDGES

    ReplyDelete
  39. Lets face it,the lawyers are basically not regulated at all so we shouldn't expect any different with the judges.This is what we get when we allow professions to self regulate or bully us into believing they are above the people who pay their salaries and the laws they claim to serve.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I don't think there is any doubt that the SNP made a political appointment when it chose Ms. Ali to be the Judicial Reviewer.

    However that alone is not reason for the Lord President to be obstructive. Rather, as there is no guarantee that the SNP will be voted back into office next time around, the motivation seems to be clear as is the message to all - Hands Off!

    ReplyDelete
  41. Yes it would be interesting to find out more about these complaints and what the judges were really up to.
    Any chance of this getting out or is it up there with state secrets and a 1000 year rule or something like that?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Lord Gill wants to protect the lawyers, that is his only objective.

    ReplyDelete
  43. He said details held on a register could be abused by "aggressive media or hostile individuals, including dissatisfied litigants".

    He is insured by RSA and some litigants are in litigation against Gill's and the lawyers insurers.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Scotland's Judges have secret criminal records, massive wealth, unchecked influence, & murky investments along with connections to offshore tax havens, all of which go undeclared as there is no register of interests for the judiciary.

    Gill is horrified because he knows they are criminals and uses secrecy to hide their criminal activities.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Gill must be in the pocket of big business and he wants the conflict of interest kept secret.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Great stuff get it all exposed about these crooked judges and their secret wealth.Its about time we all knew the same about them they demand to know about us!

    ReplyDelete
  47. Yes the message from Gill is very clear as in GET LOST YOU ARE NOT GETTING A LOOK IN!

    Just imagine what this lot will be getting up to if any daftie votes for an independent Scotland!

    ReplyDelete
  48. So, The Lord President is a bold liar and the Judicial Office for Scotland crew are also liars?

    There are ZERO reasons to prevent a register of interests of judges coming into fruition and the very fact they are trying to delay its adoption is at best dishonest and at worst potentially a criminal act?

    Get rid of them all in one foul swoop and banish them from ever holding a Public position again and without the big fat pension pay-off to boot?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Wonderful journalism from Mr Cherbi and all of his hard working and truthful team.

    ReplyDelete
  50. MacAskill to Gill, 'Yes, I will arrange for a wee girl to be a judicial complaints reviewer but we will stick her out of the way, give her no support and basically just ignore her and undermine her at every opportunity. That way the heat will be taken of you guys and you can still continue on as per normal and nobody needs to know any different. Sound like a plan?'

    ReplyDelete
  51. Anonymous said...
    Ali also voiced concerns that judges being investigated could evade punishment by quitting before the probe is complete.

    DUH!

    Doctors,Civil Servants,Police,just about anyone who works in the public sector gets away with this all the time so not really as big a deal as Ali makes out (even though it should be a big deal of course)

    11 February 2013 22:10
    \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

    You are obviously joking aren't you?

    There is one MASSIVE difference between doctors, civil servants, police (not any more after today) and other workers in the civil service getting away with it?

    That is, that Judges MUST maintain the HIGHEST STANDARD OF CONDUCT POSSIBLE (i.e Above Reproach) at all times and that this is deliberately set at such a high standard, so that it is higher than anyone else in Society?

    The burning question has to be when did the standards slip to such an extent that Scottish Judges cannot be trusted to submit to a Registers of Their Interests on a voluntary basis without doing so by scratching, kicking and protesting?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Anonymous said...
    Had to laugh at the quote about the Lord President revoking a decision and putting it back to the disciplinary judge who then dismissed it all.

    Is this really the way we want our courts and judges to act? Pretty disgusting really

    11 February 2013 23:07
    ;( ;( ;( ;( ;( ;( ;( ;( ;( ;( ;(

    So, you noticed the humiliation aspect of this too?


    How dare YOU think that you can presume to look into OUR affairs as after all you are nothing but a Plebian?

    What are the chances this action was taken in order to save the Judges job (i.e. above the law)

    ReplyDelete

  53. Anonymous said...
    Not good news and you are correct 100% about the civil justice system being rubbish in Scotland.

    11 February 2013 22:21
    jjjjjjjjjjjjjeeeeeeeessssssssseeeeee

    I truly wish it WAS rubbish?

    Unfortunately, it is irrevocably corrupt as evidenced by these judges intransigence and their inability to exercise moral judgement?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Anonymous said...
    So,the last time judges went against the MacAskill line (HMA v Cadder and the Nat Fraser case) we had Salmond,MacAskill & co slating the judiciary to spectators at the Edinburgh Festival but I dont see any outraged MacAskill this time around.

    Could it be this is an SNP plot to remind the judiciary they are in charge and rule in favour of wee MacHaggis pretendy Government policy all the time?

    Even with the lack of reforms from the Civil Courts Review and you are correct to constantly hammer away at this point,surely you have to admit there is something overtly political about all of this and perhaps Gill is right not to let Moi Ali and the rest of the SNP clan in on the inner workings of the judiciary.

    All that aside I like your idea of a register of interests for judges!

    11 February 2013 22:39
    ----------------------------------

    Bullshit.

    Reason Gill has been transformed from a Scottish Lion to a scabby moggy is that he is still recovering from the wedgy he got from his judgy pals after submitting his judicial recommendations to improve things?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Anonymous said...
    http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2011/08/old-pals-act-macaskill-appoints-snp.html

    I knew it - The position is an SNP political appointment!

    Perhaps if the whole thing had been done above board and with a wider remit,staff and appointments this Judicial Complaints Reviewer will sound the part but no and to make matters worse she is sharing office space with that other walking abortion of a regulator the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission!

    This could stir up a real hornets nest!Carry on!

    11 February 2013 22:50
    ???????????????????

    So, technically Ms Moi is under the direct control of the Law Society of Scotland (SLCC?)

    ReplyDelete
  56. Anonymous said...
    Thanks to the earlier comment I found this - http://petercherbi.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/old-pals-act-macaskill-appoints-snp.html

    "This is a new appointment, established by the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 to review, when asked, the handling of a complaints investigation into members of the judiciary, to ensure that it has been dealt with in accordance with the Complaints about the Judiciary (Scotland) Rules 2011. The Reviewer has no powers to consider the merits of any complaint or the disposal of the complaint. The appointment will be for a period of three years from 1 September 2011 to 31 August 2014, and will be paid a daily fee of £209. The appointment has been made with the approval of the Lord President."

    Why create a job at £209 a day with the approval of the Lord President when the position "has no powers to consider the merits of any complaint or the disposal of the complaint."

    Bit of a waste of public funds surely and even worse it unfairly raises the expectations of people making complaints..

    12 February 2013 09:45
    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

    This is what is referred to by civil servants as a BUM STEER?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Anonymous said...
    "For the record, Rosemary Agnew, the Scottish Information Commissioner was made aware of the Scottish Government’s refusal to answer any Freedom of Information requests relating to the Judicial Complaints Reviewer during 2012 and the SIC were copied in on the relevant FOI requests made to the Scottish Government at the time."

    and she intends to do something about it or not?

    Clearly an organised Scottish Gov abuse of Freedom of Information going on here and nothing from the Scottish Information Commissioner?

    Very poor show all round no wonder there are stories beginning to appear in the press about Scots not being popular around the world due to the way we allow our politicos and lawyers to run and ruin us as well as all this independence crap hey ho the rest of the word have discovered Scotland is NOT the best wee country in the world after all http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/bloggers/have-the-scots-become-unpopular-or-is-it-just-me.2013022111

    11 February 2013 23:31
    ()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()

    Scotland - Probably the most corrupt small country in the World?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Anonymous said...
    Her lack of administrative support was also highlighted - on her first day, she did not have a computer, printer, phone, email address or stationery - and she said it meant she was "unable to give the level of service that I would like to provide".

    How did Ms Ali feel about her lack of admin support from the man who gave her the job?

    What a joke!

    12 February 2013 09:10
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Something not quite right about this story...

    Ms Moi works at the Office of the SLCC right?

    Well surely there must be loads of free desk space, free computers and umpteen phones who no longer have an owner, due to the massive slump in the number of cases being reported to the SLCC now as the penny has finally dropped that they are a bunch of crooks?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Anonymous said...
    Clearly Scotland’s judiciary have operated in a closed world for too long, and have become used to writing their own rules, and living above expectations of transparency which the rest of us – even the Prime Minister, have to adhere to.

    Good point and also good luck for your register of interests petition.This should be made law immediately and stuff the judges worries about the media getting hold of their financial interests!

    12 February 2013 10:16
    @@@@@@@@@@@@

    Why on earth would the Judges be worried about the press finding out about where their financial interests lie?

    Are we talking brothels & pedophile dens or just common fraud?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Anonymous said...
    11 February 2013 21:29

    Not paying attention?

    "This is a new appointment, established by the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 to review, when asked, the handling of a complaints investigation into members of the judiciary, to ensure that it has been dealt with in accordance with the Complaints about the Judiciary (Scotland) Rules 2011"

    Welcome to the world of badly written SNP legislation voted through by clueless people who are not fit to be local councillors or elected representatives to a 'national' parliament.

    12 February 2013 10:56
    ££££££££££££££££££££

    Watch the magicians other hand.....

    Could this be a set-up to take away from the corruption at the Crown Office's Director of National Casework Division, who is normally tasked with getting Judges/ Sheriff's off Scot-Free (err investigating complaints against Judges/ Sheriffs)?

    ReplyDelete
  61. Anonymous said...
    I'm saying this because I cant help wondering if Moi Ali's office is being misused by criminals banged up by the courts who feel a bit miffed at what the judge said to them after they were found properly guilty of committing crimes or if it involves the time waster fantasist brigade out to have a pop at anyone who does not comply with their own agenda.

    Also if you look at the numbers of complaints received by her office it is very small compared to the numbers of cases in the system.Is this all really worth £209 a day to taxpayers?You decide!

    12 February 2013 12:15

    You mean the "I didn't do it" mob?

    12 February 2013 12:59


    Yes, the Judges?

    ReplyDelete
  62. Anonymous said...
    Simply put this is Ministerial interference in the running of the judiciary.MacAskill should resign immediately.

    12 February 2013 13:21

    BOLLOCKS!

    We need to know if Scotland's true heart (It's Judges) are fit to do their job?

    'Take our word for it son, we are honest' is no longer acceptable especially with the recent revelations surrounding criminals being allowed to be Judges?

    ReplyDelete

  63. Anonymous said...
    I cannot find the story on the Sunday Mail/Daily Record website so will have to make my point here.

    The article is very good and illustrates the problem we have here which is the [not unexpected] arrogance of the judiciary versus the stupidity or perhaps more aptly false promises of the Scottish Government with regard to complaints made against the judiciary.

    I will explain what I am trying to get at;

    Here we have Scotland's judges (who anyone who has ever had anything to do with the courts knows are a law unto themselves) resisting outside scrutiny of complaints and on the other hand the Scottish Government who as someone said earlier are unfairly raising the hopes of people with complaints against a judge by creating a "Complaints Reviewer" (note MacAskill cant even be bothered to call the JCR a regulator) with no powers at all.Zero.

    This is most probably just a position created by the Justice Secretary to tell people who write to him there is another lawyer of bureaucracy in the complaints scam which offers people a tantalising prospect of having decisions changed.Guess what?Moi Ali has not had one complaint turned around yet and by the sounds of the Sunday Mail story she isn't likely to anytime soon.

    No doubt some of you are thinking Lord Gill should resign.Well what is the point really?If Gill were to stand outside Parliament Square and hand out fivers to passers by we'd think he was doing it for personal gain, in short we expect judges to be arrogant,secretive, unaccountable and only to come out of the woodwork to voice their opinions or do something in their own favour because this is their nature.On the other hand,politicians need our votes,promise the earth,never deliver and instead give us false hopes via all these Ombudsmen or statutory regulators that have no powers at all.

    My conclusion is both are as bad as each other and they know it.

    Lastly,I see Gill rejects your Register of Interests petition.I am not surprised.They have something to hide yet force us to tell all in court.If we lie about our finances it could be a prison term yet they have no need to tell us what they do to earn money in their spare time.

    Go for it Peter and get that petition into the law books!

    12 February 2013 14:07
    ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

    Wake up and smell the haggis?

    This IS a cosy wee arrangement between MacAskill & Lord Gill precisely to ensure that exactly NOTHING is done to scrutinise the Judges?

    It is a phoney bone of contention that the Judges are at odds with the politicians...?

    They want you to believe there is tension between them, that they are at opposite ends of the spectrum and that the politicians are seeking to erode the independence of the Judiciary...?

    Piffle.

    They are both as thick as thieves and and the Scottish Judiciary can be made to act as a tool for the Government when circumstances permit (Lockerbie springs to mind, Hollie Grieg etc)

    ReplyDelete
  64. Anonymous said...
    Well Gill is a lot better off than most pensioners I know.He is 70 and getting £214,165 a year,probably owns his own home and more so what is he complaining about and why so much resistance to your petition of interests?

    You just need to turn on the news or read the papers to see pensioners dying in their own homes because no money to use the heating or buy food and no one who cares about them at all.Shocking isnt it and if you ask me he is more worried about your petition than the complaint review.



    12 February 2013 16:30
    £££££££££££££££££££££

    Possibly more shocking if it came into the Public Domain that our Judges have been at it behind the scenes?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Basically, to hold an Office of the Highest Esteem you must act always in the Interest of the Public before your own pecuniary interest?

    On this most fundamental job specification Lord Gill has failed miserably and the evidence of his actions has been to act partially to protect the interests of himself and his fellow Judges and in doing so has completely ignored his duty to the Public by demonstrating questionable judgement?

    His position as Lord President is now untenable and if he was any sort of an honourable man he should demit Office with immediate effect, without picking up a windfall as he passes GO?

    Scotland could do with less TAKERS and with more people who are willing to serve the Public?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Great professional reporting of the facts DOI Team.

    Thank you for being so honest and diligent and for providing us with Public Service Journalism.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Scotland's Lord President and it's Judges & Sheriffs acting Ultra Vires?

    They should all be stripped-out now and sacked in disgrace?

    They only exist in the job as long as they continue to abide by the law of the land like everyone else?

    A moratorium is required to arrest the declining standards in Scotland's Judiciary?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Anonymous said...

    He said details held on a register could be abused by "aggressive media or hostile individuals, including dissatisfied litigants".
    ==================================
    "Dissatisfied litigants" and this man said his profession was failing society, your review implied people were dissatisfied with the civil legal system. You will never implement your review Mr Gill, but we know what you all are, committed to protecting yourselves and you are totally blind to the long term consequences of spreading public mistrust. The judiciary are not fit for purpose because through secrecy judicial crimes are covered up. I do not trust you Mr Gill.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Are these people guilty of hate crime against clients? I believe they are. The freezing of Mr Gordon of Perth's disability benefits certainly was intended to starve him. This must be violating human rights. Care to comment Lord Gill, how would you like to be treated in this way? Starving clients is routine and you know it.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Staggering this is allowed to go on

    ReplyDelete
  71. Report reveals Lord President Lord Gill ‘froze out’ Judicial Complaints Reviewer. As secret as SOE during WWII. Well he and his profession are masters of freezing victims of judicial crime out of the courts. Total domination through secrecy is what this man wants. Where is your money hidden Lord President? Offshore accounts, linked to big business. I think you have a lot to hide.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Anonymous said...

    The call for a register has also been rejected by the Law Society of Scotland.

    Well what a surprise there!

    DICTATORSHIP IN ACTION. NEVER TRUST THOSE WHO OPERATE IN SECRECY.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Revoked findings, secret unshared memos & dismissed complaints, add redacted documents.

    They clearly have much to hide.

    ReplyDelete
  74. I wonder how many times he was reported to the secrecy obsessed Law Society on his way to the top job?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Lets face it, the lawyers are basically not regulated at all so we shouldn't expect any different with the judges.

    Yes 100% correct, criminals with a remit to do what they want, when they want.

    Like the great train robbers if there was no police force.

    ReplyDelete
  76. With an attitude to complaints like this are our courts really safe to use or can these judges decisions be relied on to be truthful or honest?

    We have a serious problem when judges are going around acting like this

    ReplyDelete
  77. These people are the law, does not matter what is written in books. They bend everything to suit themselves. I could not take legal action against any lawyer because the law means nothing because no lawyer would take my case [enforce my rights] against the profession. This arrangement lawyers made [not the public] and their festering protection [so called complaints system] ensures repeatedly ruined clients.

    If a member of the public had their car stolen and the Police protected the thief private property could be taken from the owners at any time. This analogy is what the Law Society stand for. Their job is to protect lawyers. Self regulation is no policing, your lawyer will ruin and keep his job.

    ReplyDelete
  78. 'The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness'.

    Niels Bohr

    'They work in secrecy. I can't get any information. You can't find out anything. They're a closed corporation. When they stick together, you can't obtain legal rights. Secrecy is the foundation of their corrupt self regulating power.


    Adapted from John William McCormack



    ReplyDelete
  79. The Government is taking emergency action after the Court of Appeal ruled that flagship back-to-work schemes are legally flawed.

    Three judges quashed regulations underpinning the schemes, which are condemned by critics as "slave labour" because they involve work without pay - but are seen by supporters as a good way of getting the unemployed back into the world of work.
    [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
    The judiciary and government are meant to be seperate. But if judges stop ministers eg David Blunkett's policy of holding lorry drivers responsible for illegal immigrants who polices the judiciary. Who polices the activities of the UK Law Societies? Lawyers enforce rights but they are selective. This corruption must stop.

    ReplyDelete
  80. The judicial oath Lord Gill is talking about is to be quite frank,a lot of bollocks.

    Politicians,Police,just about everyone who is anyone has to sign something or adhere to a set of rules and at the same time declare what interests they may have in any given scenario (you only need to look at what was and still is happening in Edinburgh City Council to see what the failures to declare have done in the property depts such as staff basically being on the payroll of crooked builders & other contract bidders) so Lord Gill if you want to give the appearance of being honest as well as actually being honest I suggest you act on Mr Cherbi's register of interests instead of hiding behind an oath no one outside your judicial bubble believes in.

    ReplyDelete
  81. A Judicial Office for Scotland spokeswoman said: "In the short time the JCR has been in the post, we have worked very closely with Ms Ali in implementing, developing and reviewing the rules and how they are applied.

    "With any new system, there is always a period of adaptation and adjustment and we are grateful to Ms Ali for the helpful suggestions and recommendations she has put forward and which, for the most part, have been implemented.

    "A review of the rules is due to take place shortly and the Lord President is committed to working constructively to ensure the complaints procedure develops effectively."

    So,nothing will change.Bravo Herr judges.Way to go to make the Scots justice system even more Victorian than you already said it is!

    ReplyDelete
  82. She said: "With any profession, there's a feeling that regulation should come from within. "But this is the first time that the judiciary have been exposed to this kind of scrutiny, which other professional groups are more used to. "Most have accepted there is some kind of mechanism to scrutinise their conduct. That doesn't mean that we don't have a free and independent judiciary."

    The Lord President and his pals in the judiciary clearly don't agree with you.

    So for starters how about asking the man who gave you the job (Kenny MacAskill) to give you statutory powers and ones you can actually use to enforce decisions rather than having no powers like present?

    ReplyDelete
  83. Lord Gill doesn't come out of this looking very good does he?

    Hardly the reformer to bring the Scottish Justice System into the 21st century.

    ReplyDelete
  84. A judge who opposes transparency and registering their interests is not in in line with the rest of today's world of accountability.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Gill has no credibility and neither do any of the other judges in Scotland.Outside Scotland we all know it now you are beginning to find out via the press.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Anonymous said...

    Lord Gill doesn't come out of this looking very good does he?

    Hardly the reformer to bring the Scottish Justice System into the 21st century.
    ================================
    He is a lawyer and reforms for clients means less money for his secret network. Lord Gill high protector of Scotland's mendacious self regulating corrupt legal profession. We knew he was never going to help clients, he can but will not reform such a protected band of thieves. Shame on you Brian.

    Trust no lawyer.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Anonymous said...
    The judicial oath Lord Gill is talking about is to be quite frank,a lot of bollocks.

    Politicians,Police,just about everyone who is anyone has to sign something or adhere to a set of rules and at the same time declare what interests they may have in any given scenario (you only need to look at what was and still is happening in Edinburgh City Council to see what the failures to declare have done in the property depts such as staff basically being on the payroll of crooked builders & other contract bidders) so Lord Gill if you want to give the appearance of being honest as well as actually being honest I suggest you act on Mr Cherbi's register of interests instead of hiding behind an oath no one outside your judicial bubble believes in.

    13 February 2013 15:17
    SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

    If Lord Gill was genuine about reforming Scotland's Victorian judicial system then he would employ Peter Cherbi as his reformer and chief and give him the power to hire and fire according to standards?

    Then in one foul swoop Scotland could rid herself of these back biting blood sucking legal parasites?

    ReplyDelete
  88. Someone just told me that Scotland has a Victorian Judicial System?


    Wow!

    And I thought time travel into the future was not possible...

    ReplyDelete
  89. There was an old sod called Gill
    Who lived at the top of a hill
    He said there'd be change
    But instead he reneged
    And now he just looks like a Dil




    B. Conelly

    ReplyDelete
  90. Once Scotland is Independent (the vote will be fixed just like the last one was....) can we finally get rid of Guy Fawkes day on November 5th and instead can a real crooked lawyer be impaled on top of the pyre?

    There must be some justice left?

    ReplyDelete
  91. Q. What is the difference between a serial killer and a Scottish lawyer?

    A. Nothing. They are both harvesters of men's souls...?

    ReplyDelete
  92. What a sinister group lawyers are. Secrecy and justice are not the same. Where secrecy exists justice is twisted and perverted to benefit those who operate in secret. Lord Gill is sending out the wrong message and that is don't trust us.
    The Lord President of Secrecy.

    ReplyDelete
  93. So they can sit on the bench with criminal records, be involved with financial scams and be benefit fraudsters. And this is called a Justice System. Christ it is not fit for purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Hats off to you Peter and DOI team for exposing yet another Scottish Legal scandal.

    ReplyDelete
  95. If the police are not coming to help the People of Scotland should a People's Court not be instituted to deal with crimes and misdemeanours, where judges/sheriffs are ignored and usurped because they have failed to show that they are impartial and that they have failed to act in the interests of the People of Scotland?

    We cannot continue to allow a situation where criminals are passing themselves as judges/sheriffs and where Scottish lawyers are allowed to be totally above the law?

    I would have more confidence in the considered judgement of a man off the street rather than trusting a Scottish judge/sheriff who is only interested in nepotism and filling their boots, who look down on members of the public?

    ReplyDelete
  96. This revelation shows that Lord Gill was deceiving the People of Scotland regarding his platform for change to modernise the judicial system?

    The Courts have had a digital sound and recording system installed in each court room for over a decade but it remains always SWITCHED OFF because they do not want the public (plebs) to know what goes on in a court room and God forbid the public get a recording of what was said and agreed?

    Who judges the criminals?

    ReplyDelete
  97. Is it not hugely ironic that the last time judges commanded the respect of the public (instead of demanding it) was in Victorian times?

    This may have been because in Victorian times, judges were open and honest and had characters above reproach?

    Oh dear, look what we have now....?

    ReplyDelete
  98. These judges need to be brought into the 21st century from their ivory towers and self written rules.

    ReplyDelete
  99. A big thank you to all of the lads and lasses at Diary of Injustice. You are doing a marvellous job for the people of Scotland. Please continue to portray the high standards of integrity and selfless reporting. You are all a credit to yourselves, Scotland and the journalistic profession.

    ReplyDelete
  100. The fact that judges have refused to be open and transparent about their activities means that they are in default and are no longer considered suitable for the job that they are doing and in doing so they have broken their contract of employment and should be sacked on-the-spot?

    It is inconceivable that Scotland could become an independent country when at its core the senators of Justice act in a way that is incompatible with truth and justice?

    ReplyDelete
  101. Hmm the judges will be asking for your head on a platter..

    ReplyDelete
  102. The judicial oath Lord Gill is talking about is to be quite frank,a lot of bollocks.
    ---------------------------------
    Well said does he think we are fools? Oaths are bullshit. Nothing to do with honesty and integrity.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Excellent story in the Sunday Mail

    How are you getting on with the foi part of it?Surely the Info Commissioner must be looking into this along with all the other abuses of foi the Scottish Government are now doing against foi requests (I've had 4 failed to reply in the past year and all relate to legal issues also)

    Keep us posted!

    ReplyDelete
  104. 'What force or guile could not subdue,
    Through many warlike ages,
    Is wrought now by a coward few,
    For hireling traitor's wages'.

    Robert Burns

    Justice goes to the highest bidder, the coward few dominate by bureaucracy. The coward few will lock you out of our courts, for financial reward and protection of reputations. Your motives are for you and your lawyers protection.

    ReplyDelete
  105. The Judicial Office for Scotland spokeswoman should have said "Lord Gill wants no scrutiny of any lawyer in Scotland, especially himself. The legal system is unjust and draconian and we are going to keep it that way because it's worth millions of pounds to us. You should all learn your place. We are not answerable to you plebs.

    This is what they really mean and believe but cannot say that. You are fooling no-one Mr Gill.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Anonymous said...

    'The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness'.

    So the lawyers are a dictatorship.

    ReplyDelete
  107. I just do not understand!

    Why do the police not go in and arrest these crooks?

    If they did so, they would be lauded by the public and their job would be safe for life and at the same time they would be ridding Scotland of the cancer in her bones?

    If Gill is refusing to be part of the solution then he is most definitely part of the problem?

    ReplyDelete
  108. OK, so we all now know there are some Judges / Sheriffs who are convicted criminals?

    This material fact is proof that these convicted criminals have shown that they have a warped sense of judgement and accordingly have disqualified themselves asa fit Judge / Sheriff?

    But wait, their gambit was if they do not tell the Public that they are criminals the Public will never find out and they can continue business as usual (filling their boots)?

    This shows a further remarkable lack of good judgement?

    But their worst nightmare has happened and it has been leaked to the Public that criminals are passing themselves off as Judges / Sheriffs?

    Now we have the unpalatable fact that ALL of the cases presided over by these crooks MUST be ANNULLED?

    So, this deceit will potentially fall upon the tax-payer......but no, the reality these crooks would be sued by the State, which is another reason why the have kept this secret because it would hit them in their pocket as well as hit their salary & fat pension?

    Now, finally we come to the rest of the Judges & Sheriff's who have wilfully kept silent and not reported their colleagues fraud to the Police and the prosecutorial service who knew exactly who was convicted and that they continued unabated.

    All should be sued, as they have committed treason against the State, should be jailed and a new group of Public Spirited people with morals should be drafted in?

    ReplyDelete
  109. This is a very interesting blog and I have to say even though you are writing about events in Scotland the information here is very much relevant here in the U.S. and probably many other countries.For example the register of interests idea should be made compulsory for all judicial members and their co-workers.
    Keep up the good work Mister Diary of Injustice in Scotland!

    ReplyDelete
  110. We are expecting the judiciary to go against their self interest. They are all crooks.

    ReplyDelete
  111. FYI there is an unwritten rule if a member of the judiciary is stopped by Police the most senior of the two have to call the station on their own phone and obtain advice

    In the three cases of this I am aware of (all drunk driving) none of the judges were charged.The one who was three times over the limit was driven home in his own car by a colleague after being told to do so by an Inspector.Perhaps your friends at the newspaper will be able to track this one down if you leave my comment up.

    ReplyDelete
  112. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/02/14/fake-marriage-scammers-jail_n_2687009.html


    Members of a solicitor's firm face jail today for their part in a £20 million fake marriage scam.

    Solicitor Tevfick Souleiman, 39, immigration advisers Cenk Guclu, 41, and Furrah Kosimov, 29, were found guilty of conspiracy to breach immigration law.

    Souleiman, from Hatfield, Hertfordshire, and Guclu, from Enfield, north London, were also found guilty at the Old Bailey of receiving proceeds of crime.

    ReplyDelete
  113. The lawyers detest the public, and they are drunk on power. The problem of power is how to achieve its responsible use rather than its irresponsible and indulgent use - of how to get men of power to live for the public rather than off the public.

    Sums up Lord Gill's Law Society secretive group.

    ReplyDelete
  114. How do the public legally act against Lord Gill? Through the Scottish Parliament? Pointless. Ask a lawyer to challenge him? Pointless. Through the press, good on the Sunday Mail and DOI.

    This man [that's all he is] has a mind brainwashed with self regulating ideology, in that he will not consider his public image. He is also an affront to power because he believes he has every right to keep his interests [which affect the public, secret]. He is wrong. Their hidden interests affects court users so the latter have the right to know. Is he a hidden director of business, [ie a shareholder] acting against party litigants with "legitimate claims" his words not mine. Power devoid of scrutiny corrupts. This profession who shut those they see as a threat out of the courts, by this act are criminals. When Gill was climbing the ladder he would have repudiated clients ruined by other lawyers. They are all the same dictators operating in secrecy.

    ReplyDelete
  115. # Anonymous @ 14 February 2013 21:47

    More information please to scottishlawreporters@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  116. I bet Lrd gill is so chuffed with these headlines lol

    ReplyDelete
  117. Cherbi for Lord President!

    ReplyDelete
  118. Anonymous said...
    The Judicial Office for Scotland spokeswoman should have said "Lord Gill wants no scrutiny of any lawyer in Scotland, especially himself. The legal system is unjust and draconian and we are going to keep it that way because it's worth millions of pounds to us. You should all learn your place. We are not answerable to you plebs.

    This is what they really mean and believe but cannot say that. You are fooling no-one Mr Gill.

    14 February 2013 17:04
    ---------------------------------

    Errr....I think you mean £Billions?

    ReplyDelete
  119. Anonymous said...
    I wonder how many times he was reported to the secrecy obsessed Law Society on his way to the top job?

    13 February 2013 12:04
    Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzss

    How do you think the Law Society call in favours?

    ReplyDelete
  120. Anonymous said...
    How do the public legally act against Lord Gill? Through the Scottish Parliament? Pointless. Ask a lawyer to challenge him? Pointless. Through the press, good on the Sunday Mail and DOI.

    This man [that's all he is] has a mind brainwashed with self regulating ideology, in that he will not consider his public image. He is also an affront to power because he believes he has every right to keep his interests [which affect the public, secret]. He is wrong. Their hidden interests affects court users so the latter have the right to know. Is he a hidden director of business, [ie a shareholder] acting against party litigants with "legitimate claims" his words not mine. Power devoid of scrutiny corrupts. This profession who shut those they see as a threat out of the courts, by this act are criminals. When Gill was climbing the ladder he would have repudiated clients ruined by other lawyers. They are all the same dictators operating in secrecy.

    15 February 2013 13:48
    nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmn

    Good point, well made.

    These 'BORROWING WITHOUT CONSENT' brigade feel as though they stand OUTWITH THE LAW....that the Law is for the plebs not for them?

    The sanity and decision making judgement of these loons must be terrible if they thought for one single minute that in the 21st century that they could say to the General Public, look it is alright, you can trust us because we are Judges?

    Especially, when the lid is being lifted in all aspects of Society as a result of the inability of criminals to keep their secrets safe in the climate of Social Media Networks, which are exposing criminals in positions of authority and power in all areas of Society?

    Why else do they want to curtail free speech (they claim it is to protect others), which has the effect of turning the tables on them and calling them out of their criminal regimes?

    ReplyDelete
  121. Why is Scotland such a corrupt country?

    Is it because the Law Society have inveigled themselves to interfere in all aspects of our lives with their criminal ways?

    ReplyDelete
  122. How can we trust a Lord President who said he would change and update Scotland's Judiciary, then when the first glaring instance of endemic intransigence comes to light, he immediately defaults to protect the status quo and battens down the hatches in their bunker at even the slightest criticism of this antiquated regime?

    ReplyDelete
  123. What's the difference between the Scottish judiciary and an Ostrich?

    Nothing, they both have their heads stuck in the sand?

    ReplyDelete
  124. Amazing after reading this that Gill has any credibility left!

    ReplyDelete
  125. Anonymous said...

    Amazing after reading this that Gill has any credibility left!

    28 February 2013 21:19


    am left thinking the same

    ReplyDelete

Comments should encourage & promote an acceptable & respectful level of public debate on law & legal issues, the judiciary, courts & justice system.

All comments are subject to moderation. Anonymous comments are enabled.
Abusive or unacceptable comments will not be published.
Comments & links to material may not always be published but will be noted and investigated.

Sourced information, news leaks, or cases with verifiable documentation for investigation should be emailed to blog journalists.