Lord Gill protested against proposal to require judges to declare their interests. SCOTLAND’S Lord President Lord Brian Gill is to be invited to the Scottish Parliament Petitions Committee to explain his ‘robust’ opposition to a proposal put forward in a law journalist’s PUBLIC PETITION calling for a Register of Judicial Interests for all members of Scotland's judiciary.
Diary of Injustice has previously reported on the deliberations which took place at the Petitions Committee on 5th March 2013, along with exclusive coverage from the Sunday Mail newspaper, here : SILENCE IN COURT : Scotland’s top judge Lord Gill summoned to Parliament over ‘vested interests’ attempt to block Register of Judicial Interests petition.
As the verbatim transcript of the Petitions Committee meeting of 5th March has now been published by the Scottish Parliament, it is reprinted today as a natter of record, and for readers convenience. The full account of the 5th March meeting can also be viewed online here : PPC Official Report 5 March 2013
Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary calls for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill (as is currently being considered in New Zealand's Parliament) or to amend present legislation to require all members of the Judiciary in Scotland to submit their interests & hospitality received to a publicly available Register of Interests.
Petition PE1458 Register of Judges Interests 5 March 2013 Scottish Parliament (click image below to watch video footage of Petitions Committee debate)
Transcript of PPC meeting 5th March 2013 : Judiciary (Register of Interests) (PE1458) :
The Convener: The eighth and final current petition is PE1458, by Peter Cherbi, on a register of interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary. Members will have received the clerk’s note and the submissions.
As I am sure other members have, I have looked at this very interesting petition in great detail. Members might be aware that the current position as outlined by the Lord President is that a sheriff or judge who faces a conflict in a case—if, for example, he or she plays golf with the accused or if, as in the case in New Zealand, he or she allegedly owes money to one of the lead defence lawyers, which has triggered one particular issue—is able to recuse themselves, which basically means that they disqualify themselves from presiding in that case.
The Lord President and the Scottish Government have indicated that they have no plans to introduce changes. If they were so minded, the Scottish Government could change the law in this respect—in other words, create the kind of standard register that we, MPs and ministers have to comply with—or the Lord President could introduce administrative changes to the rules but, as I have said, neither is minded to do so.
Interestingly, the petitioner has argued that there is no real evidence on, for example, the number of judges who have declared an interest in a case and recused themselves or on whether any judges are presiding over cases in which they have an interest but have not declared it. He also wonders why, if many other public groups need a register of interests, judges should be any different.
We find ourselves in quite a difficult dilemma.
The people that the petition seeks to change have made it clear that there is not going to be any change. However, as I said earlier, this committee has always had a good tradition of going the extra mile for every single petitioner. Do we need any more information from the Lord President on, for example, the number of judges who have recused themselves and the effectiveness of the system?
We do not actually know that.
There is also a wider issue. Some of the tabloids have reported that, for example, there have been judges with convictions. Future petitions might come to us concerning issues such as whether a judge with a masonic interest has declared it.
There are three areas in which judges already have quite a solid background: the judicial oath; the statement of principles; and the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008. There are some things that judges already have to comply with, which would be set against a registration of interests.
I hope that that is a reasonable summary of the situation.
Jackson Carlaw: When you said that the judge could be playing golf with the accused, convener, I am sure that you did not mean to discriminate. They could be playing darts or five-a-side football or going out clubbing. We should point that out, to be entirely reasonable.
When I first saw the petition, I was not terribly impressed with it, but I am more impressed with it now, as a consequence of the responses that we have received. The student anarchist in me smells the whiff of vested interests closing doors and turning their backs in an effort to shut the matter down.
In fact, the protest was so great that I found myself thinking, “Methinks the Lord resident doth protest too much.”
I would like us to invite the Lord President to give evidence to the committee, if that is within our competence, along with other vested interests who think that we should close the petition, so that we can ask them to justify their position.
Since it is clear that no one else is examining the issue at the moment, it may be that, on behalf of the petitioner, we should ensure that the issue is aired in public rather than just in writing.
The Convener: That is an interesting view. To answer the technical point, it is perfectly competent for us to invite Lord Gill to give evidence.
Chic Brodie: I could not agree more with Jackson Carlaw. The letter from the Lord President says: “The introduction of such a register could also have unintended consequences. Consideration requires to be given to judges’ privacy and freedom from harassment by aggressive media or hostile individuals”.
We could replace “judges” with “politicians”. Why should judges be any different from politicians? I agree that we should invite the Lord President, the Lord Advocate and others to speak to us.
John Wilson: I agree with Jackson Carlaw’s suggestion that we invite Lord Gill to the committee to explain why he has written what he has.
In fairness, the petitioner has responded in a strong manner, and the response to the petitioner would encourage me to write again to the Scottish Government and to the Lord President to seek clarification about how confident they are that the current system is above reproach and that judges and others recuse themselves when they know someone who is appearing before them, either as a solicitor, advocate, Queen’s counsel or an accused person.
It would be extremely useful for the petitioner, this committee and the Parliament to have Lord Gill and others give their account of why they think that there is no need for any action at the present moment.
Angus MacDonald: When I came to the committee this morning, I did not expect the debate to go down this route. However, having heard Jackson Carlaw’s suggestion that Lord Gill and others should appear before the committee, I think that that is an excellent course of action. It would be helpful if we could get further information on the legislation that has been proposed in New Zealand.
The Convener: I think that 10 useful points were set out in New Zealand to weigh up whether it was necessary to introduce any further controls—I would put “controls” in inverted commas.
I suggest that members familiarise themselves with those 10 points before we speak to Lord Gill at any future meeting.
Anne McTaggart: I agree with Jackson Carlaw’s suggestion
Chic Brodie: I know that the petitioner called for a register of judges’ pecuniary interests. However, I am not sure that the investigation should be limited just to that. Perhaps we should consider the issue of a register of judges’ total interests. I do not know whether that would be competent.
The Convener: That is a fair point that we could raise with Lord Gill. However, as I said, I suggest that members examine closely what is happening in New Zealand. The petitioner makes the point that there is more to the situation than what is happening in New Zealand, but I think that that is a useful point to focus on.
Do we agree to continue the petition and to invite the Lord President, and any colleagues that he wishes, to speak to us at a future meeting?
Members indicated agreement.
I have no faith at all in the Judiciary. I would not want representation from a Law Society member is it was for free. Experience has taught me to stay well clear.
ReplyDeleteDifficult to tell how it will end up but.. it sounds like Gill sank his own battleship with that letter
ReplyDeleteKeep it up Pete
The Lord Advocate and the Crown Office liars team is also going to give evidence?
ReplyDeleteWhere did they publish it?I've been looking on the Scottish Parliament website for the text version of what was said for the past two weeks!
ReplyDeleteThe people that the petition seeks to change have made it clear that there is not going to be any change.
ReplyDelete==================================
Yes they are people not God's and clients are people, we ask for a level playing field because members of the public for example are asked when called for jury duty if they know the accused and they cannot be jurors if they have criminal records. How can the judiciary adopt the attitude they are above questioning where a benefits cheat judge can sit in court? How can a system the purports to stand for justice be so asymmetrical in power to allow actors who are lawyers, judges be above questioning? These are fair legitimate questions and every member of the public has a right to a fair hearing, without a biased Judge for example trying to swing a case in favour of an insurance company he or she has a financial interest in. It is wrong, corrupt and unsustainable in the 21st century. They don't want a register of interests because they have much to hide and it would damage them financially and ruin their reputations if the truth emerged.
Citizens Advice is to receive £9.5 million of "sorely needed" additional funding as it prepares to take on a greater role from next month.
ReplyDeleteConsumer minister Jo Swinson will announce the package during a visit to Renfrewshire Citizens Advice Bureau in Paisley ahead of the service becoming a "one-stop shop" for information and advice about general consumer issues.
She said: "We are committed to supporting the Citizens Advice Service whose work is crucial to providing consumers with fair and impartial advice. I will be seeing this work in action in Paisley today. Offices here and around the country have worked hard to help consumers despite tough times, and that is why I am thrilled we are providing more funding.
===============================
Well Jo I can ask them about the bedroom tax you support and I wont ask them about crooked lawyers because they are bought and paid for by the Law Society's of the United Kingdom.
The transcript provided by the parliament is not exactly to the letter.
ReplyDeleteJackson Carlaw : "The student anarchist in me smells the whiff of vested interests closing doors and turning their backs in an effort to shut the matter down."
If you watch and listen to the video clip from about 3min32sec Jackson Carlaw actually said "The student anarchist in me slightly..smells the whiff of vested interests closing doors and backs being slapped in an effort to shut the matter down."
Backs being slapped not turned! Anyhoo I thought you'd like to know your readers such as this delicious law student fangirl on her lunch break can pick out these points!
xx
Presumably Lord Gill will be amassing a war party during this hiatus, made up from the Law Society of Scotland, the Lord Advocate and no doubt big hitting QC's to back him up until his nose bleeds?
ReplyDeleteAll vested interests absolutely desperate to protect their vested interests?
Scotland is not a third world country, neither is it a lawless or failed State (yet) but if these polluters of the waters of justice remain in place without being able to show that they are representing the people of Scotland then they should not be surprised if there is a backlash?
Scotland deserves better than she has been getting?
Any chance of asking the convener for a copy of the pre-prepared and circulated questions to be put to Lord Gill by the Committee?
ReplyDeleteGill did you a big favour with that bitter letter didn't he
ReplyDeleteLord Gill is an intelligent man and he must surely realize his attitude does not inspire public confidence in the Legal Profession. You cannot remain a public servant Lord Gill in the 21st century and hide your pecuniary interests, it is just not acceptable. The civil law processes are not only Victorian, you are Victorian due to the attitudes that you have adopted from centuries of self protective ideology.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the point of having a Scottish judiciary when it is impossible to have any trust in them?
ReplyDeleteIs the eminent Lord Gill attempting to make a fool out of the Scottish People by asking them to take his 'Word' that everything is kosher and above board, nothing to see here, please move along......?
ReplyDeleteHow irritating it must be to have to act in the interests of The People?
FAMILIES bereaved by the 2009 Super Puma helicopter disaster in which 16 men were killed have condemned a Crown Office decision to rule out criminal prosecutions over the tragedy.Read more...
ReplyDeleteMust have been piloted by a Scottish lawyer.......?
Are we expecting too much of our Scottish Judges?
ReplyDeleteIs it plausible to expect them to have characters above reproach like in all other jurisdictions when they have come from a background of a corrupt regime created by the Law Society of Scotland?
After all, it is perfectly OK for Scottish lawyers to be compulsive liers as evidenced by the SSDT & the SLCC both wet dreams of the Law Society of Scotland?
Plus, the Law Society of Scotland are not above hiring their own lawyers to lie on their behalf to defeat the ends of justice - and these lawyers think it is just a function of their job to lie for cash on behalf of the Law Society of Scotland to get them out of a hole?
They have zero interest in the rule of law and moral behaviour because traditionally they do not have to as they continue to be above the law?
So, Scottish judges are former Scottish lawyers, so should we expect them to have characters above reproach out of the blue or do leopards never change their spots?
So what do those in power do when the system is broken, corrupt and beneath contempt?
Yes, that is right.......change nothing and preserve the status quo and continue to stuff as much cash as possible into their already over-full bank accounts and comtinue to f#ck the People of Scotland?
So, if you ask those in power they will say it is the stupid Scottish Public's fault for allowing them to pervert the course of justice because they cannot be expected to change their habits of a whole career?
With the dramatic reduction in the numbers of the Scottish Public using Scottish lawyers because of their complete revulsion at how Scottish lawyers are allowed to be above the law, the Law Society of Scotland have reacted by asking the health secretary to issue a public health announcement due to the problem of now having an over supply of Scottish lawyers?
ReplyDeleteThe Law Society of Scotland have apparently asked that a full page advertisement should be taken out in every Scottish newspaper (paid for by the Scottish Government of course) with this simple message in double bold black letters.....?
YOU MUST STOP HAVING ANAL SEX - AS WE ALREADY HAVE TOO MANY SCOTTISH LAWYERS
Me thinks you are spot on!
ReplyDeleteIs it possible that the reason for trying to avoid compliance on this matter is because if they do the police may want to initiate an investigation and because they may be very worried indeed about the Scottish Public finding out their business?
ReplyDeleteHence claims of not in the public interest, which is in itself an oxymoron?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-21898679
ReplyDeleteA Welsh barrister has warned that lawyers could go on strike against the UK government's latest plan to cut the legal aid bill in England and Wales.
Andrew Taylor says introducing competitive tendering for legal work could close smaller firms and hit poorer people's access to justice.
The Westminster coalition is trying to cut the £2bn it spends on legal aid.
=================================
Access to justice for victims of crooked lawyers? They all go on strike worldwide when one of their brothers is at risk of being sued by a client. Access to justice Andrew is always conditional, if a lawyer will be ruined the client is robbed of legal rights.
To all those lawyer people standing outside the courts recently with your save "justice message" I have one message to tell every lawyer in this country.
ReplyDeleteI would never accept legal representation from any one of you for free. A member of my family had her money cut off for five months by a Glasgow lawyer who received a slap on the wrist from the SSDT [not for the starving of my family member) the Law Society refused to investigate her case because starving clients is standard practice in litigation cases.
Her doctor, employer, lawyer medical consultants and Law Society all shared the same insurer, the exact same situation as Mr Gordon of Perth and Peter Cherbi's family robbed by Penman who the Law Society then refused to prosecute. The Law Society protecting their "much admired master policy" as Douglas Mill referred to it, and Peter found out it never paid out. We all know what "save justice" means, saving Legal Aid flowing into law firms bank accounts.
Here is the reality folks. The Legal Profession are a cleverly managed facade, they purport to have clients as their primary interest when they stitch them up, block them from compensation, protect the crooked lawyer and then look for their next victim. Don't be their next victim. Listen to us. My message to readers of your blog Peter is don't trust them for free, better avoiding snakes than being ruined by their venom. Great work again DOI team, you are a credit to the people of Scotland and we are proud of you all.
The Law Society and Scottish Legal Complaints Commission are not there to deal with crooked lawyers. Their remit is simple, delay complaints for years if necessary, allow corrupt lawyers to keep working, and keep it all secret. Yes secrecy is their weapon of domination because they stop clients getting together.
ReplyDeleteThey thought years ago, we can protect ourselves and our lawyers by avoiding the courts and setting up a complaints system where bureaucrats not public jury's assess our lawyers crimes against the public. There is no complaints system, it does no exist, but they want to convince you it does and that it is a fair system. You are a Lamb to their bureaucratic slaughterhouse which rewards lawyers who steal your money and other crimes, and in some cases drives clients to suicide. Try it and you will find out I am right.
Hmm yes also I have spotted differences in the video and the typed parliament version so now we cannot rely on the written stuff have to watch it live?Why and who wanted the words "Backs being slapped" changed?Vested interests or sloppy translator?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteThe transcript provided by the parliament is not exactly to the letter.
Jackson Carlaw : "The student anarchist in me smells the whiff of vested interests closing doors and turning their backs in an effort to shut the matter down."
If you watch and listen to the video clip from about 3min32sec Jackson Carlaw actually said "The student anarchist in me slightly..smells the whiff of vested interests closing doors and backs being slapped in an effort to shut the matter down."
Backs being slapped not turned! Anyhoo I thought you'd like to know your readers such as this delicious law student fangirl on her lunch break can pick out these points!
xx
22 March 2013 14:00
&£&£&£&£&£&££&£&£&£&&£&&£&£
How novel. A Scottish lawyer with a conscience?
Good of you to point out that the 'real' version is far worse than the stated version?
After all, a turning of backs means that they were pretending to ignore the facts of the matter whilst the slapping of backs is a far more accurate description of how their is great satisfaction and reward for cheating the Scottish Public?
I like it?
Keep up the good work and with your analytical and honest appraisal skills it would be good to see you replace some of the criminals acting as Scottish lawyers in your (I almost said profession)?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteCitizens Advice is to receive £9.5 million of "sorely needed" additional funding as it prepares to take on a greater role from next month.
Consumer minister Jo Swinson will announce the package during a visit to Renfrewshire Citizens Advice Bureau in Paisley ahead of the service becoming a "one-stop shop" for information and advice about general consumer issues.
She said: "We are committed to supporting the Citizens Advice Service whose work is crucial to providing consumers with fair and impartial advice. I will be seeing this work in action in Paisley today. Offices here and around the country have worked hard to help consumers despite tough times, and that is why I am thrilled we are providing more funding.
===============================
Well Jo I can ask them about the bedroom tax you support and I wont ask them about crooked lawyers because they are bought and paid for by the Law Society's of the United Kingdom.
22 March 2013 12:00
@@@@@@@@@@@@
Nobody in the right mind uses the Scottish CAB anymore after the revelations about their cover-up over employing the crook who was involved in defrauding the poor Mrs Elizabeth Campbell, where her lawyer was actually a suspended crook impersonating a dead colleague?
It was not hidden that they got into league with the Law Society's own lawyer and fixer Elaine Motion, where allegations of impropriety and criminality seem to hang around like a bad smell?
In this day and age and with the dramatic collapse in Scotland's prosecutorial & judicial systems, surely it is possible to do away with all of the crooked Scottish lawyers and other hangers-on parasitic creeps and replace them with Polygraph Truth Engineers who undertake testing of people to see if they are telling the truth and thereby cutting the budget by 1000 000 % and at the same time achieving far higher accuracy rates than any court could achieve, never mind a Scottish court?
ReplyDeleteThis would have the downside of making lots of Scottish lawyers more idle, with a corresponding spike in crime but on the plus side these deviants would be found out by the PTE's easily as these creeps would arrogantly think that they could beat the PT test and would fall egotistically into their own downfall?
What a uniquely delicious system?
Any reason that this system could not replace the current failed system within say 3 months?
Is the next evidence hearing of this committee to be heard in secret?
ReplyDeleteWill there be space for 17 coaches coming up from London?
Such a good idea!
ReplyDeleteJust require them to comply with a register of interests as politicians have to do and be done at that rather than allowing windbag judges who put themselves on a pedestal to duck the law to cover up what is going on in their own lives.
Ta for upping my comment xx
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect to everyone concerned I don't see why there is even a need to debate this register of interests for judges - it should be made law immediately whether they like it or not!
ReplyDeleteAlso make it retrospective because I have been reading through your links to other news stories about this and probably the judges will try to duck and dive their scheming before a register becomes law.
Lord Gill having power is not the issue, the issue is how he uses that power and the rights of the public to unbiased judgements in court. There is no place for secrecy in these matters and these judges must be held to account. Secret power by that definition is always corrupt. Secrecy and honesty are mutually exclusive.
ReplyDeleteDaily Record
ReplyDeleteTaxpayer sent bill for Salmond's stay at luxury hotel during Open golf trip 27 Mar 2013 07:40
ALEX Salmond has been slammed for billing the taxpayer for a five-night stay in a posh hotel while attending a golf tournament.
The First Minister, a keen golfer, stayed in Culloden House, near Inverness, during the Scottish Open at Castle Stuart last year.
Scottish Government officials have refused to say how much the trip cost or if Salmond’s wife, Moira, was also in attendance.
Scottish Labour MSP Patricia Ferguson yesterday wrote to the head of the Scottish civil service, Sir Peter Housden, to question the expense of the trip.
The row follows revelations that Salmond’s trip to the Ryder Cup in Chicago with a delegation of government officials last September cost almost half a million pounds.
Ferguson said: “At a time when families all over the country are tightening their belts, the idea that the First Minister of Scotland is charging them thousands of pounds so he can enjoy the best part of a week at the golf is unbelievable.
“Given the outrageous expense incurred by him and his entourage at the Ryder Cup last year, and the efforts he went to hide it, Alex Salmond is completely out of touch with ordinary Scots facing unemployment, rising energy costs and cuts to services.
“When the First Minister isn’t using his office to run a full-time referendum campaign, it would appear he is using it to fund his lavish hobby as a golf fan. What he clearly isn’t doing is the job he was elected to do, which is protect the people of Scotland from the Tory cuts.”
A spokesman for Salmond said he chose to stay at the hotel during the tournament rather than make a four-and-a-half hour daily round trip from his home in Strichen, Aberdeenshire.
And he stressed that the First Minister had six ministerial meetings with leading business figures during the event.
A Government spokeswoman added: “The First Minister undertook Government business at Castle Stuart and nearby, including business meetings to discuss employment and investment.
“We expect a major jobs announcement soon as a result of these talks.”
=============================
Fat belly Jones Salmond eating our taxes again.
Nobody in the right mind uses the Scottish CAB anymore after the revelations about their cover-up over employing the crook who was involved in defrauding the poor Mrs Elizabeth Campbell, where her lawyer was actually a suspended crook impersonating a dead colleague?
ReplyDelete---------------------------------
Exactly another bureaucracy infested with Law Society filth. I have said many times only clients can expose crooked lawyers. They control most structures of the state.
This blog is weh cool, exposing those who think they should not be exposed.
ReplyDeleteThese people think the public have no right to question them. They are a disturbingly out of tune profession.
ReplyDeleteScottish Labour MSP Jackie Baillie called on the Scottish government to pass emergency legislation to ensure no tenants are evicted as a result of arrears brought on by the so-called "bedroom tax", in an emergency question on 27 March 2013.
ReplyDeleteThe benefit change will be introduced from 1 April, with families on housing benefit being assessed for the number of bedrooms they are deemed to need.
The UK government argues the changes will help cut the £23bn annual bill for housing benefit, free up more living space for overcrowded families and encourage people to get jobs.
Ms Baillie accused the Scottish government of "politicking" over the issue, adding it was not enough to shift the responsibility to individual councils and people needed help now.
Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon accused Labour of being "shamelessly hypocritical" over the issue with some Labour councils voting against a no evictions policy.
Ms Sturgeon said no SNP-led councils would evict tenants because of arrears caused by the tax and she called on Labour to stop belatedly "grandstanding" over the issue and get behind the Scottish government's efforts to protect the vulnerable.
Scottish Conservative MSP Alex Johnstone asked what the Scottish government would do to help those in overcrowded flats or housing.
===============================
In Westminster or Edinburgh I do not trust any of these people. All they do is blame each other with the SNP wanting more power, but what will they do with that power is they succeed on 18th September 2014. I don't trust any politicians. We see how they love the Law Society, they don't care about the bedroom tax payers, only their political skins.
Old Gill will want Peter taken to the Law Society dungeon and put on the Rack.
ReplyDeleteIs Mr Gills heated letter of protestation and intransigence at risk of bringing his Office into disrepute?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteThe transcript provided by the parliament is not exactly to the letter.
Jackson Carlaw : "The student anarchist in me smells the whiff of vested interests closing doors and turning their backs in an effort to shut the matter down."
If you watch and listen to the video clip from about 3min32sec Jackson Carlaw actually said "The student anarchist in me slightly..smells the whiff of vested interests closing doors and backs being slapped in an effort to shut the matter down."
Backs being slapped not turned! Anyhoo I thought you'd like to know your readers such as this delicious law student fangirl on her lunch break can pick out these points!
xx
22 March 2013 14:00
/////////////////////////////////////
Good spot.
This shows malice of forethought because there is no other explanation for not being word perfect as the whole thing is televised and recorded?
In addition, there are simple computer programmes that can turn the spoken word into text, so the stated record WAS changed to deliberately soften the effect of what was said and is symptomatic of the power the Law Society of Scotland has in attempting to rewrite history all of the time by gerrymandering the facts?
Victims of crooked Scottish lawyers will recognise this fascist agenda which is universally employed by the Law Society of Scotland's SLCC, where they try to change the wording of the victims complaint to deliberately change the severity of the charges at the outset of the complaint, in favour of the rotten lawyer and to the detriment of the victims health and wealth?
It is called Scottish Legal Apartheid?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/andrea-mann/duncan-smith-welfare-reform-common-people_b_3001507.html
ReplyDeleteAndrea Mann
Comedy Editor, The Huffington Post UK
GET UPDATES FROM Andrea Mann
As a wise Roman once said: beware the IDS of April.
After saying that he could live on £53 a week - the same amount that benefit claimants receive - Iain Duncan Smith has, unsurprisingly, failed to pick up the gauntlet that wasn't so much thrown down to him as shoved in his hand as he walked into a trap of his own making. If you'll excuse the mixing of metaphors.
The gauntlet, of course, came in the form of an online petition asking him to do exactly that - live on £53 a week, for a year - and at the time of writing it has over 315,000 signatures.
Duncan Smith has called the petition a "complete stunt", and once you've moved past your instinct to turn that into rhyming slang, I urge you to listen to the rest of what he had to say:
"This is a complete stunt which distracts attention from the welfare reforms which are much more important and which I have been working hard to get done", Duncan Smith told the Wanstead and Woodford Guardian. "I have been unemployed twice in my life so I have already done this. I know what it is like to live on the breadline."
Except that - guess what? A little digging shows that Mr Duncan Smith is being as economical with the truth about "living on the breadline" as he was about his education.
Here are the facts:
1. Iain Duncan Smith left the army (he was a lieutenant in the Scots Guards) in 1981, after which he did, indeed, sign on. But he started working for the defence contractor GEC-Marconi in the same year.
2. In 1982, he married Betsy Fremantle, daughter of the 5th Baron Cottesloe. Meaning his in-laws were now Lord and Lady Cottesloe - who own not just a £2m Tudor mansion in Buckinghamshire (which Iain and Betsy now live in, rent-free) but also pretty much all of Swanbourne village, including most of the houses in it, as well as its surrounding 2,500 acres.
3. IDS claimed unemployment benefit for a second time in 1988. He'd left his job at GEC-Marconi to become marketing director of the property firm Bellwinch - but was made redundant just six months later. According to the Daily Mail, he signed on for five months, and recalling this time, he once told an interviewer: "It was a shock - absolutely awful... I remember telling my wife. We looked at each other and she said: 'God, what are we going to do for money?'."
So, in conclusion: the first time our work and pensions secretary signed on, he didn't do so for very long, and he did so during a time when he was dating (or courting, as I imagine the upper classes did, especially back then) the daughter of a millionaire. And the second time he claimed benefits, he was married to said millionaire's daughter.
Now, I don't have anything against rich people. Some of my best friends are rich people, or at least I'd like them to be. What I do have something against is rich people thinking that their situation is remotely comparable to those of the poorest, weakest and most vulnerable in society. That we're somehow "all in this together". That Iain Duncan Smith - son of a military man, son-in-law of a Baron, and earner of an estimated £1m a year from public speaking - somehow knows what it's like to live on the breadline.
Because you don't, Mr Duncan Smith. You're the middle class girl Jarvis Cocker sings about in Pulp's Common People. You may complain and worry about your lot, and think your situation is comparable to others who are less fortunate, but it's not. Because - to paraphrase Jarvis - if you called, Betsy's father could have stopped it all.
You'll never live like common people, IDS. To act like you ever did is disingenuous at best, immoral at worst - and somewhere between the two, a complete stunt.
================================
Typical Tory Hypocrite.
With the truth now out about the state cover-up of the Hillsborough Tragedy (including involvement of the Judiciary) does this not encapsulate the dilemma and false legal position that Lord Gill now finds himself in?
ReplyDeleteThe People of Scotland know that the whole system of public authorities is totally corrupt and incestuous, where vested interests are jeleously safeguarded at the expense of the Public?
If we can no longer TRUST polititions, police, the press and the church then we are certainly not going to accept the 'WORD' of the head of the judges because he says that it's OK the Public can trust him, honest?
This viewpoint to maintain the status quo is not only long outdated, it is borderline insanity to continue to hold this attitude, when the Public have cottoned-on to the evil perpetrated by people who are fortunate to be holding Public Office?
The People are watching your every move...?
These people think the public have no right to question them. They are a disturbingly out of tune profession.
ReplyDelete30 March 2013 11:12
Anonymous said...
Scottish Labour MSP Jackie Baillie called on the Scottish government to pass emergency legislation to ensure no tenants are evicted as a result of arrears brought on by the so-called "bedroom tax", in an emergency question on 27 March 2013.
The benefit change will be introduced from 1 April, with families on housing benefit being assessed for the number of bedrooms they are deemed to need.
The UK government argues the changes will help cut the £23bn annual bill for housing benefit, free up more living space for overcrowded families and encourage people to get jobs.
Ms Baillie accused the Scottish government of "politicking" over the issue, adding it was not enough to shift the responsibility to individual councils and people needed help now.
Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon accused Labour of being "shamelessly hypocritical" over the issue with some Labour councils voting against a no evictions policy.
Ms Sturgeon said no SNP-led councils would evict tenants because of arrears caused by the tax and she called on Labour to stop belatedly "grandstanding" over the issue and get behind the Scottish government's efforts to protect the vulnerable.
Scottish Conservative MSP Alex Johnstone asked what the Scottish government would do to help those in overcrowded flats or housing.
===============================
In Westminster or Edinburgh I do not trust any of these people. All they do is blame each other with the SNP wanting more power, but what will they do with that power is they succeed on 18th September 2014. I don't trust any politicians. We see how they love the Law Society, they don't care about the bedroom tax payers, only their political skins.
30 March 2013 21:52
------------------------------
What the hell has this got to do with DOI and the massive criminality perpetrated by vested interests by the Scottish Legal Mafia?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
The transcript provided by the parliament is not exactly to the letter.
Jackson Carlaw : "The student anarchist in me smells the whiff of vested interests closing doors and turning their backs in an effort to shut the matter down."
If you watch and listen to the video clip from about 3min32sec Jackson Carlaw actually said "The student anarchist in me slightly..smells the whiff of vested interests closing doors and backs being slapped in an effort to shut the matter down."
Backs being slapped not turned! Anyhoo I thought you'd like to know your readers such as this delicious law student fangirl on her lunch break can pick out these points!
xx
22 March 2013 14:00
/////////////////////////////////////
Good spot.
This shows malice of forethought because there is no other explanation for not being word perfect as the whole thing is televised and recorded?
In addition, there are simple computer programmes that can turn the spoken word into text, so the stated record WAS changed to deliberately soften the effect of what was said and is symptomatic of the power the Law Society of Scotland has in attempting to rewrite history all of the time by gerrymandering the facts?
Victims of crooked Scottish lawyers will recognise this fascist agenda which is universally employed by the Law Society of Scotland's SLCC, where they try to change the wording of the victims complaint to deliberately change the severity of the charges at the outset of the complaint, in favour of the rotten lawyer and to the detriment of the victims health and wealth?
It is called Scottish Legal Apartheid?
2 April 2013 10:28
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bloody Scottish crooked lawyer back-slappers!
Will the Committee's evidence session with Lord Gill be open to the Scottish public or will it be heard in secret to keep the Scottish public in the dark about the reasons Lord Gill wants to object to this really good idea?
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the MSP's will be seeking an explanation from Lord Gill as to how he can allow convicted judges to continue to pass themselves off as judges when they are clearly NOT of suitable character and whether this decision to allow this corrupt practice demeans the Judiciary and makes a mockery of Judicial fairness in Scotland?
ReplyDeleteAfteral, the crooked judges showed that their judgement is corruptible by committing offences in the first place and then by failing to resign from their post as a result and that Lord Gill's judgment is also plain wrong for trying to keep this from the Scottish Public's attention and to keep rotten judges who have ceased to be competent in a public Office slurping up tax-payers cash?
I have just read Lord Gill's arrogant response to the Public Petitions Committee invitation to attend to support his stance, where he has basically told them to 'GO FISH'?
ReplyDeleteWhat are we paying this buffoon for?
It is a dereliction of his duty to fail to back-up what he has stated to a Parliamentary Committee?
He should be compelled to appear before the Committee and if he refuses he should be sacked on-the-spot?
Why has Scotland to put up with people pushed into positions of authority who display no back-bone and shy away from their duty of care and responsibilities?
This whole matter sticks to high heaven and it may be appropriate for Scotland's new Police Service to intervene and investigate how it can be possible for convicted judges to pass themselves off as legitimate when they clearly are not?
This would be a good first test for them?
Looks like The Lord President has treated the PPC with the utmost contempt and just brushed them aside as an irritating irrelevance?
ReplyDeleteHis refusal to attend the Committee to explain himself shows that once again his JUDGEMENT has been corrupted with self serving attitude where he believes that himself & the Scottish Judiciary are above being questioned and that they should be allowed to continue to do as they please regardless of any rules?
This rampant arrogance is part of the problem and is definitely NOT part of any solution?
After all, ones actions command respect and HE cannot DEMAND respect?