Secretive judge : Lord Gill snubs Holyrood over questions on register of judicial interests. SCOTLAND’S most senior judge Lord President Lord Brian Gill has abruptly REFUSED an invitation to appear before the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee to give evidence on why he is trying to block a proposal to create a register of interests for all members of the Scots judiciary.
Lord Gill had been invited to give evidence at Holyrood on Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary after msps raised serious questions over the strength of the Lord President’s protestations against declaring judges financial & other interests.
During the 5th March meeting of the Petitions Committee which saw intense debate about the register of judicial interests idea, Jackson Carlaw MSP told colleagues : “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 President 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.”
Several MSPs on the Petitions Committee raised further key points regarding Lord Gill’s furious opposition to the register of interests proposal, reported in full HERE, and an invitation was sent out to the Lord President to attend Holyrood, an invitation Lord Gill has now pointedly refused.
Lord Gill’s letter to MSPs refusing to attend Parliament. In Lord Gill’s letter to MSPs dated 2 April 2013, the Lord President said : “Thank you for your invitation to attend the committee to provide oral evidence. I hope that you will not think it discourteous of me to decline your invitation. As your fellow members noted in their discussion, I have provided a detailed response. On reflection, I think that I could not add any material points to the terms of my response.”
Lord Gill went on to provide references to a European report on corruption within the judiciary, a report which itself has been prepared and written by judges. The report, available here : GRECO FOURTH EVALUATION ROUND Corruption prevention in respect of members of Parliament, Judges and Prosecutors unsurprisingly claims there is no need for a register of interests and Lord Gill used its vague, unspecific findings to back up his opposition to Petition 1458.
However, what Lord Gill DID NOT tell msps on the Public Petitions Committee was that the same EU report contains references to claims their investigative team interviewed members of Scotland’s judiciary and the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), although no identities of those in Scotland allegedly interviewed were disclosed.
In a written response from the petitioner to Lord Gill’s refusal to attend the Scottish Parliament, and the revelations that members of the Scots legal establishment had spoken to an EU body, law journalist Peter Cherbi told msps : “I am somewhat surprised Lord Gill, the Lord President chooses not to attend the Scottish Parliament to give evidence on a register of interests for the judiciary, while he is apparently content for his colleagues in the judiciary and others in the legal system speak to an European body on the subject of transparency and corruption within the judiciary, and then uses the resulting, if flawed, GRECO report to justify his stance against the petition.”
Peter continued : “Respectfully, if members of the judiciary and prosecution service of Scotland (Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service) have made themselves available to be interviewed by GRECO, a European body, these same members of the judiciary and prosecution service, including the Lord President should come forward and make themselves available to attend Scotland's democratically elected Parliament and give testimony on this petition, as well as share with MSPs and the PPC any evidence, submissions interviews or material disclosed to the GRECO Evaluation Team.”
The petitioner’s response also cited the failure of Lord Gill to address or answer questions seeking clarification regarding precisely how the current system of rules & oaths relating to Scottish judges recusing themselves operates.
Drawing attention to the fact there is currently no statistical or analytical information published or made available by the Judiciary of Scotland to document whether such declarations of conflict of interest are being made or can be independently verified to assure their authenticity the petitioner asked the Petitions Committee to again request this information from the Lord President and in the light of any shared information, consider matters further.
Diary of Injustice reported on the Petitions Committee’s meeting of 5th March where Petition 1458 was discussed, here : SILENCE IN COURT : Scotland’s top judge Lord Gill summoned to Parliament over ‘vested interests’ attempt to block Register of Judicial Interests petition.
Video footage of the Petitions Committee meeting is also available online here : Petition PE1458 Register of Judges Interests 5 March 2013 Scottish Parliament and Petition 1458 will again be debated at the Scottish Parliament on Tuesday 16 April 2013.
The Sunday Mail newspaper has reported on Lord Gill’s refusal to attend the Scottish Parliament, here :
Scotland's top judge has refused to appear before MSPs to explain why he attempted to block a register of his legal colleagues' financial interests
Me, Scotland’s most senior judge turn up to be questioned by MSPs about why I won’t entertain a register of interests? GOOD LORD, NO
EXCLUSIVE By Mark Aitken 14 Apr 2013 Sunday Mail
SCOTLAND'S top judge has refused to answer MSPs’ questions on why he tried to block a register of interests for his legal colleagues.
The Lord President, Lord Gill, was asked to attend a Holyrood hearing on the matter. But he refused and the Parliament will not be able to insist on his attendance – because a loophole makes judges exempt from being forced to attend.
Holyrood’s petitions committee wanted to question the Lord President on his opposition to judges having to reveal business, professional and financial links.
MSPs expected the £214,000-a-year judge to appear in person to explain why he was opposed to the transparency motion. But the 71 year-old rejected their request, insisting he had given a full written response and had nothing more to add.
Peter Cherbi, the campaigner who brought the petition, was angry at the snub. He said: “Surely it cannot be correct that the most senior member of the Scottish judiciary can refuse to appear before the democratically elected Parliament’s perfectly proper inquiries into issues which directly concern and involve the judiciary.”
Committee chairman and Labour MSP David Stewart said: “We’re disappointed as Lord Gill would have been the key individual to cast some light on the pros and cons of a register for judges. “It is a setback for us but I’m sure the committee will look at all other aspects to give the petitioner the full rub of the green.”
He added: “Scottish Parliament committees can effectively compel witnesses to attend before them. “My experience is that you don’t normally need to use these powers because ministers, other MSPs and public bodies attend out of courtesy when you invite them. We’ve never had any difficulty there. “However, I’ve had our officials check the Scotland Act and there is a clause that judges can’t be compelled to attend. We have no legal powers to insist judges appear before us.”
Mr Cherbi believes that a register would have forced crooked judges into the open. Similar moves in New Zealand were sparked by a judge failing to declare he owed money to a lawyer involved in a case.
Lord Gill said he objected to the register because he and his colleagues could be abused by “aggressive media or hostile individuals”.
In his letter to the petitions committee, he wrote: “I hope that you will not think it discourteous to decline your invitation. As your members noted in their discussion, I have provided a detailed response.”
Two months ago, the Sunday Mail revealed how a watchdog looking into complaints against Scotland’s judges feared she was not being given enough help by Lord Gill.
Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali accused him of undermining her work by blocking access to vital documents. She said she was only seeing the correspondence between the Judicial Office, who act for the judges, and the complainers. She said she was not allowed to see the internal memos and reports between the office and the judges.
You couldnt make this one up could you - Lord Gill cites in evidence a report written by judges they dont need a register of interests as his defence for his defiance of the Scottish Parliament.
ReplyDeleteWell Lord Gill as far as I am concerned our elected Parliament must have the power to call unelected judges before it when needs must and in this case needs must!
The Lord President, Lord Gill, was asked to attend a Holyrood hearing on the matter. But he refused and the Parliament will not be able to insist on his attendance – because a loophole makes judges exempt from being forced to attend.
ReplyDeleteA loophole too far?
Too much to hide Lord Gill?
ReplyDeletethe Lord President said : “Thank you for your invitation to attend the committee to provide oral evidence. I hope that you will not think it discourteous of me to decline your invitation. As your fellow members noted in their discussion, I have provided a detailed response. On reflection, I think that I could not add any material points to the terms of my response.”
ReplyDeleteWonder what would happen in the event someone says this back to Lord Gill in a courtroom!
Oh yes,I remember it's JAIL FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT M'LUD!!!
You certainly do your homework!
ReplyDeleteJust been looking through your links and the documents.Very well put together and also nails him bang to rights over this EU report!
As you say if the judges can talk to the Europeans they can show up at our very own Scottish Parliament or is it they are too afraid they will be asked the right questions instead of the wrong questions asked by this greco (and who pays for greco?is it us again?)
just shows how much the judges fear having to tell the truth
ReplyDeleteare they all tax dodgers like Maggie et all their friends in big business?
Two months ago, the Sunday Mail revealed how a watchdog looking into complaints against Scotland’s judges feared she was not being given enough help by Lord Gill.
ReplyDeleteJudicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali accused him of undermining her work by blocking access to vital documents. She said she was only seeing the correspondence between the Judicial Office, who act for the judges, and the complainers. She said she was not allowed to see the internal memos and reports between the office and the judges.
SOUNDS LIKE SAME KIND OF THING THE LAW SOCIETY AND SLCC GET UP TO!
He is not doing himself any favours with that kind of attitude and now everyone is going to think he and the rest of the judges are at it even if they are not.
ReplyDeleteI'm willing to bet there are a few bent judges trying to hide their fiddles before they have to declare all.
Lord Snub should be made to appear before parly!
ReplyDeleteGood Lord resign mister judge you are damaging the public trust in the judiciary with all your secretive interests!
ReplyDeleteoh haha I forgot sorry the public dont really trust judges these days anyway because some of them are in cahoots with bankers gangsters bent politicos etc
Like most grumpy old men when you ask them to tell you where they have been all day you get an "at the bowling green with friends" reply instead of the truth which is "at the bookies and the pub"
ReplyDeleteJudges must be exactly the same!
Just saying!
Dont you think it is a little bit creepy the other rags are missing out on this story or more probably have been censored by the Law Society?
ReplyDeleteNot that I'm complaining one bit!I buy the record/sunday mail anyway and delight in seeing these kinds of stories in the paper because at some point we always need to turn to courts or some snooty lawyer and this way we get to see what is really going on rather than a glossed up story written by some lawyer and fronted by a paper.
Keep up the good work Sunday Mail and Peter Cherbi!
Yes Lord Gill I think you are very discourteous for not showing up to justify all your protests about Peter's petition.
ReplyDeleteAll you judges keep telling us if we have nothing to hide we have nothing to fear so what is it you really fear about a register of judges interests Lord Gill???
So how many times has a sitting Lord President refused to attend the Scottish Parliament or is this the first?
ReplyDeleteSurely this is top headline stuff so where is Reporting Norfolk *sorry I mean Reporting Scotland*
Good old legal mafia doing another news blackout again in case people get wind there is something rotten in the courts
The Lord President, Lord Gill, was asked to attend a Holyrood hearing on the matter. But he refused and the Parliament will not be able to insist on his attendance – because a loophole makes judges exempt from being forced to attend............Legislate to close the loophole then. Who made these loopholes up then?
ReplyDeleteYou see Lord president to give you your archaic title, you want to lord it over others but don't want anyone questioning you. You may have a great legal mind but you have no credibility. This is no accident, the lawyers are slipperier than Conger eels, always able to get out of the wreckage they leave behind when they ruin lives. It really beggars and I mean beggars belief than a human being with his judicial power can just say no and that's it. Unbelievable there is never any balance of power with this unethical ruthless crass profession. Dirt operating behind a veil of mendacity and corruption.
Surely this is a deliberate mistake in the Scotland Act so judges escape being called to account?The Scottish Parliament should fix this now so it never happens again and call back Lord Gill to testify why he wants to bury the register of interests.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the judge is playing for time so his pals on the bench he knows or suspects are up to no good get their house in order before this register of interests comes into force?
ReplyDelete19:40 If a judge in Scotland throttled someone in court you'd stand a better chance of the top headline being about a new rabbit species in Canada than what the judge did!It's THAT obvious!
ReplyDeleteIf this is your 'top judge' in Scotland its no wonder everyone questions the Lockerbie trial verdict and countless other injustices incurred against people to keep a broken system going.
ReplyDeleteSo its being heard again tomorrow?Oh well it will be interesting to hear what the msps have to say about this now this judge has effectively told them to close the debate down just as the msps said last month.
ReplyDeleteI think the Convener of the Committee pretty much confirms this is the first time ever they have had an invite refused by someone of Gill's standing.
ReplyDeleteIt is most unfortunate to the point of suspicion that requiring members of the judiciary to appear before msps was omitted from the Scotland Act.
Needless to say the culprits may well be the judiciary themselves who have a vested interest in not accounting for their decisions to anyone and that vested interest is now on display in Lord Gill's refusal to answer questions at the parliament.
Astounding arrogance from a public servant; educated by public money, prosperous career by pubic money, elevated to the elite by public money, and will retire very comfortably on public money.
ReplyDeleteThere will be no end to this establishment corruption until our public servants are made to answer questions regarding accountability, conflicts of interest and allegiances to other groups.
Expect his resignation and probably a few others, in the not to distant future. They know, or are told, when to get out the game effectively avoiding public scrutiny.
Jim Graham
This joker, Gill thinks he is being cute by not fulfilling his duty as Lord President and it is obvious he is on the WRONG side of the argument and this is the real reason he does not want to be exposed in a Public forum?
ReplyDeleteQ. Who Judges the Judges in Scotland?
A. Why of course, in Scotland, they Judge in their own Cause?
"The petitioner’s response also cited the failure of Lord Gill to address or answer questions seeking clarification regarding precisely how the current system of rules & oaths relating to Scottish judges recusing themselves operates."
ReplyDeleteIn other words, Gill on behalf of the rest of his mob are happy to tell Scotland's politicians to go an' bile their heed?
We are above the law and there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it?
WE decide the law and WE decide that WE are above-the-law and WE are all-powerful and WE decide what is in the 'Public Interest' and WE will look after each other before acting in the Public Interest and anything WE are getting-up-to and all of our interests and relationships are OUR business and you cannot make US divulge them, so, BUT-OUT of OUR domain and just take OUR 'WORD' for it from now on that WE are not all corrupt?
As for Mrs MOI. She was just employed as window dressing to make it look as if she was protecting the Public Interest. What a fool for believing that clap-trap. She should BUT-OUT of OUR business too and let US continue acting just exactly as WE want to without any further interference?
Who do you people (plebs) think you are?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteYou couldnt make this one up could you - Lord Gill cites in evidence a report written by judges they dont need a register of interests as his defence for his defiance of the Scottish Parliament.
Well Lord Gill as far as I am concerned our elected Parliament must have the power to call unelected judges before it when needs must and in this case needs must!
15 April 2013 15:34
--------------------------------------
I have the perfect solution to this deepening scandal?
Sack the f**ker before he can resign and collect his big fat pension before he passes GO and then summon him to appear before the Committee as a common member of the public to explain his ridiculous stance? (Albeit with no pension)?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeletethe Lord President said : “Thank you for your invitation to attend the committee to provide oral evidence. I hope that you will not think it discourteous of me to decline your invitation. As your fellow members noted in their discussion, I have provided a detailed response. On reflection, I think that I could not add any material points to the terms of my response.”
Wonder what would happen in the event someone says this back to Lord Gill in a courtroom!
Oh yes,I remember it's JAIL FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT M'LUD!!!
15 April 2013 16:01
====================
Have I missed something here.......?
Where is this detailed response?
It does not even exist?
And reference to some 'management speak psycho-babble clause in a couple of pieces of legislation does not describe and explain how The Lord President himself manages this requirement to satisfy this legislation and in fact there is NOTHING which satisfies the methodology for compliance, no measurement of standards or reporting, recording or assessing......Absolutely NOTHING.....?
Are we just to take Lord Gill's 'Word' that he has management methodologies in place to satisfy compliance and that he is being diligent in applying them?
OR has Lord Gill just sent out a memo to all of Scotland's Judges & Sheriffs and asked them to remember to 'do-the-right-thing' and then because HE trusts them then that is fine by him?
What an utter crock-of-gilt edged and ermine covered SHITE?
This is the 'MORAL CONSCIENCE OF SCOTLAND' we are talking about........the very moral fibre of the nation......what our brave young soldiers are fighting to defend.........it is not some whim of an out of touch dinosaur who tells us, it's all right jack, take my Word for it?
I don't tell lies, and that's the TRUTH?
JUDGEMENT!
ReplyDeleteAnd this is coming from the Top Honcho who we are to put all of our trust in?
The World really has gone crazy.......?
Godfather Gill says no and that's it.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteYou certainly do your homework!
Just been looking through your links and the documents.Very well put together and also nails him bang to rights over this EU report!
As you say if the judges can talk to the Europeans they can show up at our very own Scottish Parliament or is it they are too afraid they will be asked the right questions instead of the wrong questions asked by this greco (and who pays for greco?is it us again?)
15 April 2013 16:13
++++++++++++++++++++
Does anyone else think that it is counter-intuitive that a body looking into the propriety of Scotland's Judiciary to ask Scotland's CPS and Judiciary if Scotland's Judiciary are acting in the Public Interest?
Sounds like this GRECO were doing precisely what they were supposed to do?
To give the Status Quo a glibly delivered opportunity to offer up a silkily written platitude to 'prove' that they have a clean bill of health?
Nothing to see here, please move along?
These Goons must really think we are stupid and do not know their silly little parlour tricks.....?
71......
ReplyDeleteRidiculous & obscene pension pot.....
A long and distinguished career of protecting vested interests......?
I think we can see where this is going?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteTwo months ago, the Sunday Mail revealed how a watchdog looking into complaints against Scotland’s judges feared she was not being given enough help by Lord Gill.
Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali accused him of undermining her work by blocking access to vital documents. She said she was only seeing the correspondence between the Judicial Office, who act for the judges, and the complainers. She said she was not allowed to see the internal memos and reports between the office and the judges.
SOUNDS LIKE SAME KIND OF THING THE LAW SOCIETY AND SLCC GET UP TO!
15 April 2013 16:48
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Is this not a sacking offence of itself?
Says it all about our Justice Minister and Alex Salmond?
The circulation to their hands must have been cut-off by now.........because they sit on them all the time......?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteThe Lord President, Lord Gill, was asked to attend a Holyrood hearing on the matter. But he refused and the Parliament will not be able to insist on his attendance – because a loophole makes judges exempt from being forced to attend............Legislate to close the loophole then. Who made these loopholes up then?
You see Lord president to give you your archaic title, you want to lord it over others but don't want anyone questioning you. You may have a great legal mind but you have no credibility. This is no accident, the lawyers are slipperier than Conger eels, always able to get out of the wreckage they leave behind when they ruin lives. It really beggars and I mean beggars belief than a human being with his judicial power can just say no and that's it. Unbelievable there is never any balance of power with this unethical ruthless crass profession. Dirt operating behind a veil of mendacity and corruption.
15 April 2013 21:00
mrTmrTmrTmrTmrTmrTmrTmrT
Does this incendiary scandal not highlight one thing?
JUDGEMENT!
Where is the good Judgement?
Where is the always acting with propriety, transparency and honesty consistent with someone of good character and in the interest of the public?
Ooooot the windae?
Well done to the Sunday Mail and all of the DOI investigative journalists.
ReplyDeleteSterling job.
Put's all of the other (so-called) newspapers into shame?
Maybe Gill couldn't afford the bus fare?
ReplyDeleteWhy has Mr Gill allowed this to become a massive scandal?
ReplyDeleteSurely Mr Gill should be falling over himself and be only too happy to clarify what his duties and responsibilities on this issue are?
Should he not portray a collaborative, proactive and transparent way of dealing with what is a perfectly sensible and well reasoned enquiry?
His modus operandi seems to be to shuffle around the bush to such an extent that smoke is the result?
And you know what they say about smoke and fire.....?
Lord Gill said he objected to the register because he and his colleagues could be abused by “aggressive media or hostile individuals”.
ReplyDelete---------------------------------
I am worried about this statement?
Just exactly what does this mean?
Under what circumstances exactly could a Register of Judges Interests lead to judges being abused by "aggressive media or hostile individuals"?
Does this statement not imply that if the Judges complied with a Register of their interests, then matters relating to those declared interests would or could lead to trouble for them if the media or interested members of the public were disapproving of what had been declared?
This certainly seems to be being backed-up by Lord Gill's desperation for secrecy and for maintaining the status quo, especially as he is on record already as the judicial expert who criticised the system for being stuck in the status quo past and that urgent change is required to save the system?
He cannot have his cake and eat it?
Can he?
Maybe he can?
I am sure the Committee could ask Scotland's new Police Service to intervene in the interests of justice and fair play?
ReplyDeleteApparently, they are already going to be investigating Scotland's Crown Office members past and present for their part in the Lockerbie cover-up?
The judges presumably will be next?
Not sure if these questions can be side-stepped?
So what if the judge doesn't show up?The Committee and the msps should take this as a sign of guilt just as the judge would pontificate about in the courts and they should make the register of interests law immediately!
ReplyDeleteThe Sunday Mail the only paper I buy, worth every penny.
ReplyDeleteHad a look through this European GRECO report and it reads as very self serving,very pat on the back etc
ReplyDeleteLord Gill must be clutching at straws to invoke such rubbish and you are right to hammer home the point his colleagues have been speaking to the EU while avoiding our own elected Scottish Parliament.
I hope the msps have a real go at this now and demand the judges show up!
JUST MAKE IT LAW DAMMIT!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteLord Gill said he objected to the register because he and his colleagues could be abused by “aggressive media or hostile individuals”.
---------------------------------
Yes why would the media and individuals be aggressive and hostile. The answer is simple, his answer demonstrates they would be hostile and aggressive because they would have reason to be when they find out what he and his colleagues are really up to.
Gill is an oligarch, he cannot be removed like a politician, he has awesome uncontrolled power, he cannot be challenged except by the media. Put it this way could a member of the public sue Mr Gill? No chance, could a member of the public secure a fair complaint against Mr Gill? Impossible, he sits on this bench and he knows the man in the street has zero rights to challenge him. This country is becoming more dictatorial every day. Leaders of political parties are mostly millionaires, policy is shaped an undermining the poor, corporate giants control policy destroying workers rights, and the lawyers, business, and politicians sharing the same neo liberal ideologies claim we have a democracy which is really an Oligarchy which rewards the rich and Gill and his cronies are in on the act. These are the reasons Gill does not want the Register. Hitler dominated by violence so he did not need to share his interests. The current Oligarchs in the UK dominate by ideology, and secrecy. Voting wont change a thing because the political class favour policies of the right, and Gill and his entourage cannot be removed, legal dictatorship and neo liberal economic domination. Gill is answerable to himself. An outrage.
And I will go further they are attempting to label the poor as [Untermenchen] subhuman useless feeders. One day as Hannah Arendt pointed out totalitarian solutions will survive German totalitarianism with the reconstruction of the Gas Factories.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteSo how many times has a sitting Lord President refused to attend the Scottish Parliament or is this the first?
Surely this is top headline stuff so where is Reporting Norfolk *sorry I mean Reporting Scotland*
Good old legal mafia doing another news blackout again in case people get wind there is something rotten in the courts
15 April 2013 19:40
-------------------------------
We live in a country whose media is strictly censored to keep the Scottish People in the dark?
Never mind the enlightenment........we are back living in the DARK AGES, where partial interests look out for each other, all against the Public Interest?
Where is the always acting with propriety, transparency and honesty consistent with someone of good character and in the interest of the public?
ReplyDelete====================================
Yes indeed these factors and secrecy are mutually exclusive.
"JUDGE SNUB TO HOLYROOD : Scotland’s top judge Lord Gill refuses to attend Scottish Parliament to face questions over opposition to register of judicial interests". Oh Brian the architect of the impotent Civil Courts Review, you were insincere about this and now you can be accused of blocking transparency. I say the Judge lacks good judgement. You only have yourself to blame.
ReplyDeleteThe reality is simple. Fairness and accountability will cost the lawyers millions. The legal establishment simply don't stand for justice.
This is just plain wrong a judge can defy the Scottish Parliament in this way.
ReplyDeleteRead the letter of Lord Gill,sounds lame,they should call him up as you say.Good work!
ReplyDeleteAs far as I am concerned anyone who argues against a register of interests either has something to hide or is a crook.I think most people will feel the same and also I would like to add I always thought judges had some kind of register of interests.Thanks to you we all know they dont and for the excuses the Lord Gill provides against it this must be brought to law immediately.
ReplyDeleteWhat about the judges with criminal convictions and the one convicted of benefits cheating?
ReplyDeleteLord Gill's letter makes no mention of this.Is he trying to blank it out?
We all have a right to know their interests and also the ones who are criminals!
In that GRECO report you refer to they claim also to have spoken to Transparency International whoever they are and some academics yet here we have Scotland's chief judge telling OUR elected parliament to bugger off over what is clearly an issue of transparency.
ReplyDeleteWell I dont have much trust in the EU mob and also as their report is written by judges it can hardly be said to be impartial.Anyway now we are finding out exactly what these judges think of us think of the parliament and the law itself as in they believe themselves to be above it while taking our money and stuffing it god knows where they dont want us to find out.
Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali accused him of undermining her work by blocking access to vital documents.
ReplyDeleteWell again the strategy is the same block, block, block that is what they specialize in, blocking their ruined clients from Court. It is their passion because they know the Law Society and SLCC will block complaints too. Gill is only doing what he has been trained to do all his professional life eh Brian.
Going to a lawyer is like playing a game of chess. The lawyer has all of the Castles, Knights, Bishops, King and Queen and the client is the opposing little pawn, no other pawns with him and no powerful actors as outlined above. But the consequences for the pawn are far more serious. It was never designed to be a fair game. They ruin and check mate you at the same time. Gill is just the King in the Game who dominates by secrecy and is immune from being check mated. And this arrangement is very lucrative and great for protecting reputations. It is they way they want to keep it.
Funny - the parliament at Westminster was able to make Fred Goodwin appear before them to apologise and answer questions yet the Scottish Parliament lacks the power to call these judges to account.
ReplyDeleteI think that Scotland Act should be changed immediately and a big thing made of it too.
Lord Gill said he objected to the register because he and his colleagues could be abused by “aggressive media or hostile individuals”.
ReplyDeleteWhat contemptuous nonsense, you and your colleagues want your skeletons kept in the cupboard, you are fooling no one old boy. Where there is secrecy there can be no justice. In reality the Judiciary are a closed shop and terrified of the truth coming out about their financial affairs. Nothing this bent can survive, we have Judges in our Courts and we have no way of knowing if they are fit to practice. One day someone will ask a Judge in Court why are you afraid the have a register of your interests? It is not contempt of Court it is a fair question. These people really are out of touch, the system and culture they designed and operate in has convinced them they are a law unto themselves.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteWhat about the judges with criminal convictions and the one convicted of benefits cheating?
Lord Gill's letter makes no mention of this.Is he trying to blank it out?
We all have a right to know their interests and also the ones who are criminals!
16 April 2013 18:52
//////////////////////////////////////
Please be in no doubt. It is not lawful for these convicted Scottish Judges to be allowed to continue practising as a Judge?
The problem that Mr Gill has is, having allowed them to continue to practise as a Judge, to save their career (fat salary) and their fat pension, he is left with the unpalatable truth that he cannot now allow them to be exposed because this would mean the retrying of multiple cases they had presided on (because they would all be considered to be unsafe) and so another offence (keeping it secret) needs to be perpetrated in order to continue with this deception?
Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!
Says it all really......?
I think I am right in saying that the Public Petitions Committee cannot insist upon Mr Gill appearing before them to come clean and answer some very difficult questions.....However, Alex Salmond could use his executive power to insist on Mr Gill attending this committee, so what is he waiting for?
ReplyDeleteAlex Salmond is always waxing lyrical about transparency.....let's see if he means what he says?
Is this the standard of behaviour we have come to put up with from our top judge?
ReplyDeleteI want to know what our new police service are going to do about convicted criminal judges who are pretending to be lawful judges?
ReplyDeleteWho was responsible for this?
Was it a cosy deal between the Scottish Government, the corrupt Crown Office and Mr Gill?
Judges have to appear before the Senate here in the US so wtf is this judge of yours dodging your own national legislature?
ReplyDeleteRead some more here http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/judicial.cfm or http://icon.oxfordjournals.org/content/4/4/652.abstract and ffs please stop giving these judges the title of "Lord" it is so archaic.I really hope Scotland moves on from all this colonial garbage of titled a$$holes if you get independence!
And so, the deafening silence from STV and the BBC continues.
ReplyDeleteHardly a surprise as we have already seen the Beeb down south bend the knee to politicians and effectively ban a song from the airwaves which might offend the Tories.
Michael Moore another great journalist said in his documentary Capitalism a Love Story, that the poor guy always pays for the rich guy's corruption, [if you have not seen it is worth watching] how right he is. As Peter said they all sit on each others committees blocking access to justice to protect vested interests. The difference DOI highlight superbly is mirrored all over the world, and I think Martin Heidegger was right when he spoke of the human race as a whole, here is what he wrote,
ReplyDelete'only a God can save us'.
Yes,arrogance beyond belief and this is a warning to all those idiots who blindly trust the legal system to do the right thing - now it has been revealed here the judges are not doing the right thing at all!
ReplyDeleteThe Government wants to start securing people's homes against their tax bill. And that's a bad thing.
ReplyDeleteTucked away in the Budget was a proposal that could leave some people fearing house repossession.
==================================
Not only do the lawyers want your assets but of course if you cannot pay your tax bill government lawyers will take your house. Cam-Clegg wont lose their homes.
A solicitor has been struck off the Law Society of Scotland's roll by the Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal, for professional misconduct by failing to carry out due diligence in relation to five property transactions of a type which commonly involved mortgage fraud.
ReplyDeleteJohn Lints, who formerly traded as the Lints Partnership in Edinburgh, admitted undertaking five conveyancing transactions in which he failed to comply with his obligations in terms of the Money Laundering Regulations, the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts etc Fund Rules 2001 and Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Each one involved large percentages of the free proceeds being paid to finance companies, a type of payment which the Society had warned in a Journal article (August 2009) gave rise to a suspicion of mortgage fraud and should have resulted in him carrying out due diligence.
===============================
I don't believe the Law Society, normally when a lawyer is struck off like the one from Hamilton it is because he is stealing from his own colleagues. The Law Society will only really turn on their own when the public realize it is not a complaints system, I still tell people there is no complaints system. They can engineer any outcome they want in an office.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteWhat about the judges with criminal convictions and the one convicted of benefits cheating?
Lord Gill's letter makes no mention of this.Is he trying to blank it out?
We all have a right to know their interests and also the ones who are criminals!
16 April 2013 18:52
________________________
They cannot reveal the names to the public be ause if they did so, ALL of the cases they presided over since their convictions would be NULL & VOID because it is a simple FACT that in any Democracy you cannot have criminals as Judges?
If criminal judges were allowed, it would show that the Empire has mortally injured itself by it's own corruption, nepotism & greed and a Fundamental hatred of the Scottish People (who they protest that they serve)?
Wo is going to be the hero who puts their head above the parapet and make the necessary changes to unmask the crooks amongst us and make the first step towards curing the country of this Scottish legal cancer?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteLord Gill said he objected to the register because he and his colleagues could be abused by “aggressive media or hostile individuals”.
What contemptuous nonsense, you and your colleagues want your skeletons kept in the cupboard, you are fooling no one old boy. Where there is secrecy there can be no justice. In reality the Judiciary are a closed shop and terrified of the truth coming out about their financial affairs. Nothing this bent can survive, we have Judges in our Courts and we have no way of knowing if they are fit to practice. One day someone will ask a Judge in Court why are you afraid the have a register of your interests? It is not contempt of Court it is a fair question. These people really are out of touch, the system and culture they designed and operate in has convinced them they are a law unto themselves.
16 April 2013 22:13
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They consistently moan about & claim that they must be independent and impartial and then the Lockerbie Lynching came along and they are only too happy to line up to commit treason by bending to the political will of their controllers?
What a sham?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteJudges have to appear before the Senate here in the US so wtf is this judge of yours dodging your own national legislature?
Read some more here http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/judicial.cfm or http://icon.oxfordjournals.org/content/4/4/652.abstract and ffs please stop giving these judges the title of "Lord" it is so archaic.I really hope Scotland moves on from all this colonial garbage of titled a$$holes if you get independence!
17 April 2013 00:49
XxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxX
The reality is that Scotland will be Independent (the hand-shakes have already happened) and that they will have the Scotland of their own design....A haven for pedophiles and crooks for the 'above-the-law class?
So the unelected oligarch says no to the elected representatives of the people of Scotland. If he can get away with it there is no link of accountability and his judicial power is illegitimate. The unelected oligarch makes decisions in the Scottish taxpayers courts and we have not got a clue what he is other than the image he portrays.
ReplyDeleteWhat are you apart from a man Lord President? Imagine if he was born in Paris and said no the French.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteThe Government wants to start securing people's homes against their tax bill. And that's a bad thing.
Tucked away in the Budget was a proposal that could leave some people fearing house repossession.
==================================
Not only do the lawyers want your assets but of course if you cannot pay your tax bill government lawyers will take your house. Cam-Clegg wont lose their homes.
17 April 2013 15:36
--------------------------------
It is worse than that......I know of someone in Scotland, whose legal team went to Court without their knowledge or consent to try to seize this persons assets (with the intention of sharing the funds between them despite this person receiving legal aid), all under the direction of the Law Society of Scotland's own lawyer?
Fortunately, this criminal conduct was noticed by the judge and they were repelled from the court in disgrace......?
However, they were not reported to the police???
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteA solicitor has been struck off the Law Society of Scotland's roll by the Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal, for professional misconduct by failing to carry out due diligence in relation to five property transactions of a type which commonly involved mortgage fraud.
John Lints, who formerly traded as the Lints Partnership in Edinburgh, admitted undertaking five conveyancing transactions in which he failed to comply with his obligations in terms of the Money Laundering Regulations, the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts etc Fund Rules 2001 and Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Each one involved large percentages of the free proceeds being paid to finance companies, a type of payment which the Society had warned in a Journal article (August 2009) gave rise to a suspicion of mortgage fraud and should have resulted in him carrying out due diligence.
===============================
I don't believe the Law Society, normally when a lawyer is struck off like the one from Hamilton it is because he is stealing from his own colleagues. The Law Society will only really turn on their own when the public realize it is not a complaints system, I still tell people there is no complaints system. They can engineer any outcome they want in an office.
17 April 2013 17:27
/////(/(/)/)////)/)/)/(/(///(/(/)/)/)/
The SSDT do not do ANYTHING without Instruction by the Law Society of Scotland?
The Law Society of Scotland look after all of their crooked membership with only three caveats:
1) If the crooked lawyer fails to abide by the Law Society of Scotland's unfavourable terms for them to get him his get-out-of-jail-free-card and let-off with the usual pat on the back of the hands with a silken glove?
2) Where the heat of publicity is too much for the Law Society of Scotland's clean-up crew(ks) to be able to contain?
3) Where the crooked Scottish lawyer has deceived other crooked Scottish lawyers and they decide that his face doesn't fit anymore?
What has happened to Scotland?
ReplyDeleteIt seems to be the most corrupt small country in the World?
I just don't understand Lord Gill?
ReplyDeleteWhy would he chose to hide behind a hidden away clause in the Scotland Act, when he was the very author of the hyper critical law reform paper, where he championed a modernisation of the judicial system heralding in a new age of honesty, transparency and accountability?
Now that he has the top job with apparently unlimited power, should he not be expected to deliver on these modernisation's?
It's like two different people?
Or was the whole of the Law Reform Report about modernisation of our Judicial System just a cynical ploy to deceive the People of Scotland into believing that GENUINE change was going to be carried out, where in fact ZERO change was ever going to happen?
Just like the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, which was sabotaged by a Law Society of Scotland & Scottish Government cabal at the last minute with the intention of legislation which gave the 'impression' of change to make the Scottish Public think that it would bring an end to the Law Society of Scotland's tyrannical grip of power & their unlawful protection of their known criminal members (A criminal Trick)?
Where their true purpose was to simply allow the Law Society of Scotland to continue in their criminal ways but this time with a level of protection in the form of the SLCC, which was designed to give the impression that the Law Society of Scotland was removed (independent) of the process of law but the truth is that the Law Society of Scotland were reinvigorated in their evil and vindictive pursuit of the victims of their criminal membership and that the SLCC were colluding partners in crime, used to carry out the Law Society of Scotland's tyrannically evil desires?
Have we just entered into a multiverse time slip, whereby we have all been sent down into a hellish version of Scotland where the Law Society of Scotland are evil aliens, hell-bent on the sickly sweet lust for power, domination, cruelty and hatred, where their dark actors at the SSDT & the SLCC are staringly fixed to carry out their masters sick agenda?
ReplyDeleteArthur Dent
And not a peep from McRaskill or wee fatty......what a surprise.
ReplyDeleteTwo more reasons NOT to vote SNP!
Alex Salmond could use his executive power to insist on Mr Gill attending this committee, so what is he waiting for?.................The same as all his other strategies, he is in bed with the lawyers against the people of Scotland, and will use the bedroom tax and he and Sturgeon want 16-17 year old's voting on the independence issue. There are maggots in Edinburgh and London, MSP's and MP's who in their right mind would trust any of these crooks.
ReplyDeleteSalmond and Cameron have a lot more in common than most voters, and the assumption is that things will get better after independence. This is a dangerous assumption because Salmond supports an uncontrolled dictatorial judiciary, neither he or Cameron or the other elected maggots look after the voters, their remit is to big business, the professions and theor goal is to create an illusion of democracy. Bunch of crooks.
Hi DOI I bet Lord Gill has smoke coming out of his ears with anger at Peter's petition to the Scottish Parliament. All that is happened is that he has hidden in his shell just like we expected. It must be difficult for him to allow his pecuniary interests to be made public. But at the end of the day he is just a man as I have said before and an insincere man who has done nothing about the Civil Courts Review.
ReplyDeleteLet's face facts he is not going to change a system which allows lawyers to string out cases, the old delay tactic, and augment their bank balances. He will have done so himself on his way ascending the ladder to the top job. Not very smart to backtrack on reform, bet he wishes he had kept his mouth shut now. How can any system claim to be just when its actors interests are embedded in secret networks? In truth it is not fit for purpose.
How would you be Lord President if you were Peter Cherbi, as one lawyer said "saving private Penman has cost you all" your reputations. As always great work DOI, the champions of Scotland.
Looks like it is time for the cops to go in and sort this mob out?
ReplyDeleteA Public Limited Company is a legal person simply because if the shareholders vote the directors off the board the company still exists. And this is my point, in business directors can be removed, in politics MP's and MSP's can be voted out too. But Lord President Gill, no mechanism to remove him or even check of his integrity. Now surely this cannot be anything other than a legal dictatorship. Wee Salmond and MacAskill underpin this because they could legislate to change it.
ReplyDeleteSo basically this judge puts himself and his chums above the law and above the Scottish Parliament.
ReplyDeleteWell folks if this is not an advert for a big sea change in the justice system I don't know what is!
I see this comment thread mentions John Lints being struck off I'd just like to add that the actions that got him struck off were probably just the tip of the iceberg.
ReplyDeleteI had personal experience of his and his horrible partner Violet's dishonesty at a time when I was too emotionally vulnerable to do anything about it. Leting him bow out into retirement is a scandal!