Friday, April 17, 2015

MY COURT NOT YOURS: Scotland’s top judge slams politicians and government as “insidious” in law conference attack on transparency & calls to reform secretive judiciary & vested legal interests

Top judge Brian Gill attacks calls for judicial reforms. IN a speech to the Commonwealth Law Conference held in Glasgow SECC last weekend, Scotland’s top judge Lord President Lord Brian Gill accused government, legislators and transparency as being “insidious” threats to his way of doing things and the judiciary at large.

The lengthy speech from Gill (73), supposedly on independence of the judiciary & legal profession ended up as a bitter tirade aimed at politicians and those calling for reform of the secretive world of the nation’s judiciary and the vested interests of those at the top of the justice system.

Launching a fierce attack on calls for judicial transparency, the political process and Holyrood MSPs who are investigating accountability and transparency within the judiciary amid calls for a register of judges interests, Lord Gill told his audience: “The threats to judicial independence do not always come with a knock on the door in the middle of the night.  In a society that prides itself on the  independence  of  its  judiciary,  the  threat  may  come  in  insidious ways, even at the hands of well-meaning governments and legislators, in the name of efficiency and, ironically,  in the name of  transparency.”

And, Gill – Scotland’s longest serving judge - went on to tell his audience of lawyers, judges & academics that protesters he encountered standing on the Heart of Midlothian in Edinburgh’s Royal Mile were lucky they were not dragged off by Police.

In a swipe at unidentified persons who were apparently calling for the top judge’s resignation, Gill told his audience: “Two years ago, I was crossing the square outside my court when I noticed two individuals standing, perhaps appropriately, at the Heart of Midlothian, the scene of public executions in Edinburgh in former times. They were holding a large banner. It caught my eye. It said "Lord Gill - Resign!" I never discovered what their reasons were; but I thought what a privilege it was to be a judge in a society where the public could make a constructive suggestion of that nature without being taken away by the police.”

The barbed comments from the ageing judge against all and sundry come as Gill continues to fight a bitter two year battle against Holyrood msps who overwhelmingly support proposals to establish a register of interests for members of the judiciary as called for in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary.

Since early 2013 Lord Gill has refused three invitations to appear before the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee and be questioned on the issue of judges refusing to declare their interests.

The top judge has instead sent several strongly worded letters to msps warning them they cannot compel a judge to appear at Holyrood. Gill used a loophole in the Scotland Act to dodge questions on his hostility to transparency and also implied in a further letter he may have to reconsider allowing judges to cooperate with the Scottish parliament in the future.

The proposals to create a register of judicial interests envisages the creation of a single independently regulated register of interests containing information on judges backgrounds, their personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business & family connections inside & outside of the legal profession, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world.

Faced with investigating the secretive world of judicial vested interests, MSPs who sit on the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee instead took evidence from Scotland’s first Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR) Moi Ali. During questions at the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee, Moi Ali told msps there was little transparency or accountability in Scotland’s judiciary.

And, despite Scottish Ministers attempt to thwart a debate at Holyrood last October 2014, most msps backed a motion urging the Scottish Government to create a register of judicial interests – reported along with video footage & the official record, here: Debating the Judges

Speech given by Lord Gill to Commonwealth Law Conference Glasgow 2015 Continuing his lengthy seventeen page speech, Gill told his audience of legal professionals that judges lead a lonely life and have no support from anyone else except themselves.

He told his listeners: “The highest priority of judicial education is not to teach judges the law, but to teach them about themselves. The life of a judge is a lonely one where the only support network available is that of one's colleagues.”

However, the sad lonely life of a judge - as Gill would have the public believe - does not appear to preclude the judiciary from becoming involved in tax avoidance schemes, huge movements of wealth around the world, investing in companies who benefit from business in the courts and jet setting around the world at taxpayers expense.

Last year for example, Lord Gill flew off to a five day state visit to Qatar – details of which have been kept mainly hidden from prying eyes.

Gill was later criticised in the Scottish Parliament for attending Qatar and giving a speech on judicial ethics, while refusing to answer questions from msps on judicial ethics, accountability and transparency. MSP Jackson Carlaw even joked the Petition Committee should have gone to Qatar to question the top judge after he refused to show up at Holyrood,

Following Lord Gill’s frequent attacks on “aggressive media” over calls for transparency - and the top judge’s subsequent threat to ban journalists from accessing court documents last year in a highly public fit of pique, Gill launched another broadside against the press for their reporting of cases in the courts.

Gill said: “Criticism of one's judgments in the media is never a pleasant experience; but, as Lord Woolf has commented, we must swallow our pride and be thankful for a free press which stands to safeguard our independence.

Independence relies upon public understanding of our courts and the way in which they should expect our courts to operate. Public awareness breeds public confidence. For most people, newspaper accounts of court cases are the source of their knowledge of our justice system. There is inevitably a tension in the relationship between the judiciary and the media. The court adjudicates on matters involving the media fairly frequently. Therefore, as Lord Woolf rightly observes, we should be circumspect about having a relationship with the media that might cast doubt on judicial independence. It is a fine line to tread.

In modern times, our court systems have a dedicated media team, who liaise with the media to ensure that there is an open and accurate flow of information. For, the media are helpful to our cause only if facts are reported with accuracy. Good communication with the media – at arm's length - is a sign that our court system is in touch with the community and. I would argue, is in itself an important aspect of judicial independence.”

Speaking on his two year consultation to change the rules on judicial discipline and complaints – which ended up with much the same rules as before, Gill said: “A related and more obvious aspect of judicial professionalism is judicial discipline. It is immediately obvious that there is a tension between the concepts of accountability and independence. There must be an effective mechanism in place for investigating and sanctioning misconduct without eroding the independence of the judiciary.”

“Appointment to the bench does not confer immunity from discipline. It is therefore usually suggested that judicial discipline should be left in the hands of the judiciary themselves. That excludes the possibility of interference from the executive, but it does not entirely resolve the independence problem. If the judiciary is essentially self-regulating, the perception of a judiciary driven by self-interest and self-protection, and shrouded in mystery, will do us great damage. It does little to ensure that the public have a satisfactory impression of accountability.”

“In Scotland, this difficulty has been overcome by our adopting two distinct processes, namely, a complaints procedure and a 'fitness for office' procedure. If I were to conclude that a judicial office holder was unfit for office, the matter would be referred to an independent tribunal to investigate and report on whether there was unfitness to hold office by reason of inability, neglect, or misbehaviour. I have never had to take such a step. Disciplinary procedures of this nature are rare. We are fortunate to have a professional and dedicated judiciary. Perhaps, that is a reflection of the fact that we now have a comprehensive Statement of Principles of Judicial Ethics that spells out exactly what conduct we expect of our judiciary.”

Gill ended his speech describing his idea of the “ideal judge”, notably leaving out transparency as a requirement for those on the bench.

Gill told his audience: “So, what kind of judge do we wish to have? First and foremost a judge who is appointed fairly and publicly. Every decision to appoint is made ad hoc. Therefore we should not be excessively prescriptive lest we fail to allow for the unforeseen. But certain general priorities are there for your consideration. It is surely desirable that our ideal judge should be one who has experienced the true meaning of an independent profession and who exemplifies excellence allied to good judgment. A judge who is willing to learn and to be accountable. A judge who has self-knowledge, humility, and an understanding of the nobility of the office to which he has been called.”

Judges, lawyers and academics from many Commonwealth nations attended the conference at the Scottish Exhibition & Conference Centre (SECC). Those organising the conference claimed the gathering of legal eagles generated an economic boost in the region of £1.4m for the city.

The conference - last held in 2013 in Cape Town, South Africa – which Lord Gill jetted to at taxpayers expense has been brought to Glasgow in partnership between the Law Society of Scotland, Glasgow City Marketing Bureau (GCMB) and the SECC. It is officially the conference of the Commonwealth Lawyers Association, which works to promote human rights and the rule of law across the Commonwealth, and to support lawyers in countries where their work may incur sanctions from the authorities.

Just prior to the start of the event, it was revealed Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was booked to speak to the conference via video link.

During his speech, Mr Assange suggested communications were being monitored between legal professionals and the wikileaks team.

However, when judges discovered the Assange booking, several judicial figures including Lord Gill and also Lord Neuberger & Lord Hodge of the UK Supreme Court among others - walked out of the conference.

A spokesperson for the Judicial Office for Scotland said: “The conference programme was changed to include Mr Assange’s participation at short notice and without consultation. Mr Assange is, as a matter of law, currently a fugitive from justice and it would therefore not be appropriate for judges to be addressed by him.Under these circumstances the Lord President, Lord Gill and the other Scottish judicial office holders in attendance have withdrawn from the conference.”

A spokesman for the UK Supreme Court said: “Lord Neuberger and Lord Hodge share the concerns expressed by Lord Gill and his fellow senior Scottish judges regarding the late addition of Mr Assange to the conference programme. As a result of this unfortunate development, they trust that delegates will understand their decision to withdraw from the conference.The justices took this action regretfully, as they value greatly the work of the Commonwealth Lawyers Association and the role of the conference as an important forum for sharing experiences and good practice across the legal profession.”

The Judicial Office have offered no further comment on Lord Gill’s remarks.

Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the media, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee can be found here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary

68 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well look at it this way..at least he is thinking about you!

I'd say this is a big success.If it bothers a top judge so much he has to attack anyone and everyone calling for transparency then you have won already.

Anonymous said...

When I read the part about the judges running out of the conference because of Julian Assange I had to laugh a little :)

Anonymous said...

Little doubt now Gill has finally lost the plot.

Time to replace him before he replaces all of us.

Anonymous said...

Gill's shallow sarcasm on executions and people exercising their right to protest is outrageous.

Anonymous said...

Keep digging why dont you Brian.
what a clown!

Anonymous said...

Gill told his audience: “So, what kind of judge do we wish to have? First and foremost a judge who is appointed fairly and publicly. Every decision to appoint is made ad hoc. Therefore we should not be excessively prescriptive lest we fail to allow for the unforeseen. But certain general priorities are there for your consideration. It is surely desirable that our ideal judge should be one who has experienced the true meaning of an independent profession and who exemplifies excellence allied to good judgment. A judge who is willing to learn and to be accountable. A judge who has self-knowledge, humility, and an understanding of the nobility of the office to which he has been called.”

blah blah

ideal judge for a judge is someone crooked probably with plenty dirt on them and up to their necks in money and all kinds of sleaze!

Anonymous said...

Some top judge - he sounds like he is going off the deep end about your register thing.

Does anyone dare tell him he is on the wrong track or is it a case of the old Berlin bunker and anyone who speaks out is hanged on the Heart of Midlothian.

How do you stand it all?

Anonymous said...

Well because we pay him £200K or whatever a year and hundreds of millions to fit a door knob to his knobness office it is our court NOT his

Seriously this judge is in need of a reality check

Anonymous said...

Time to retire Lord Grumpy Grandpa!

Anonymous said...

So anyone not agreeing with Gill is insidious and could be dragged away by cops!

Not a very pleasant attitude is it!

Anonymous said...

"I noticed two individuals standing, perhaps appropriately, at the Heart of Midlothian, the scene of public executions in Edinburgh in former times. They were holding a large banner. It caught my eye. It said "Lord Gill - Resign!"

Why, Mr Gill, was it so appropriate two people with a banner calling on a judge to resign were standing on the scene of public executions in former times?

So is it now the case anyone who dares speak out against something should face the "former times" wrath of a judge?

Looks like some is very ticked off the judicial scams and corruption is finally blown open in public eh

Anonymous said...

OUR COURT NOT HIS!

Anonymous said...

On listening to his speech at least a few of the 700 or so in attendance must be wondering if Lord Gill is becoming one fruit short of a nut.

Anonymous said...

“The threats to judicial independence do not always come with a knock on the door in the middle of the night. In a society that prides itself on the independence of its judiciary, the threat may come in insidious ways, even at the hands of well-meaning governments and legislators, in the name of efficiency and, ironically, in the name of transparency.”

This rant from a judge just because you asked for a register of interests?

Lord Gill's attitude confirms there is a significant degree of corruption going on in the judiciary and legal profession.

No one reacts in such a way if they have nothing to hide.Clearly Lord Gill does have something to hide.

Anonymous said...

For someone of Lord Gill's status to give a journalist 17 pages of airtime at his own conference your work has got to him big time no question about it.

Anonymous said...

Your "top judge" appears to be describing his own kind:

insidious
[in-sid-ee-uh s]
adjective
1.
intended to entrap or beguile:
an insidious plan.
2.
stealthily treacherous or deceitful:
an insidious enemy.
3.
operating or proceeding in an inconspicuous or seemingly harmless way but actually with grave effect:
an insidious disease.

Anonymous said...

“The threats to judicial independence do not always come with a knock on the door in the middle of the night. In a society that prides itself on the independence of its judiciary, the threat may come in insidious ways, even at the hands of well-meaning governments and legislators, in the name of efficiency and, ironically, in the name of transparency.”
-----------------------------------
Mr Gill the first law of civilisation is those with vested interests are all for looking at others while wanting no scrutiny of themselves. This system was designed by the judiciary for the judiciary and clearly the judiciary want to be seen as hiding their vested interests otherwise those calling for a register would be no threat to the judiciary. Your judicial houses must be reeking of conflicts of interest otherwise what have you to fear? This is the man who called Scotland's system failing clients who have legitimate claims, beggars belief.

Anonymous said...

A law firm I work for hired some guy from Scotland who presented his CV full of Law Society references two judges and a sheriff he explained to us is a judge in Scotland.This lazy rat was with us for over six months then it became clear he did not have a clue what he was supposed to be doing he was constantly in touch with some nationalist mob back home and NYPD were onto him for narcotics.He cleared out to Scotland from what I heard.Will attach names in separate comment not to be made public.The interesting part for you is this - When we checked out his Scotland references the people who work with your judges refused to give us any access to the names on his CV.Guess who.
Any law firms stateside with Scottish staff on their books check out credentials properly as all refs we looked at failed scrutiny.I guess Scotland's legal community is full of shit not like the movies huh.
LH

PS great blog!

Anonymous said...

Obviously a speech written in anger.
I can imagine this ancient judge sitting there typing away and cursing your ever word.

Good work mate keep rattling their cages!

Anonymous said...

Who does Emperor Gill think pays his salary and pays for all this court crap to go on and constantly ruin lives for profit to lawyers and judges.

What a rotten bunch of dictators!

Anonymous said...

So Lord Gill thinks politicians and government are causing harm in a way that is gradual or not easily noticed.
-------------------------------------
The judiciary cause great harm to the people of Scotland and then block them from access to justice because what is really insidious is the cancer of self regulation. These judges must have an awful lot to hide, they are terrified of the public finding out how crooked they are. They have no power to keep them in awe. I would never trust lawyer maggots, I know what out of touch crooks they really are.

Anonymous said...

And, Gill – Scotland’s longest serving judge - went on to tell his audience of lawyers, judges & academics that protesters he encountered standing on the Heart of Midlothian in Edinburgh’s Royal Mile were lucky they were not dragged off by Police.
=====================================
So he has contempt for legitimate dissent. Unbelievable.

Anonymous said...

Secrecy and justice are mutually exclusive Mr Gill. Nothing reviles me more that lawyers.

Anonymous said...

If the judge is so right about everything then why does he keep avoiding going to the Scottish Parliament and being questioned about all of this?

Anonymous said...

Would you say this speech given by Lord Gill has any political intent especially at this time with an election too close to call?

Anonymous said...

Carloway also gave a speech at same conference accusing lawyers of grubby financial interests in their support to keep corroboration

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/crime-courts/qc-reforming-judge-wrong-to-accuse-reactionary-lawyers-of-self-interest.123397881

Lawyer: reforming judge wrong to accuse "reactionary lawyers" of self-interest

Published on 17 April 2015

David Leask

One of Scotland's most senior judges has come under fire from a leading lawyer for accusing his critics of having "transparent self-interest".

Lord Carloway, the Lord Justice Clerk, had said his proposed abolition of corroboration had sparked "real hostility" from his fellow legal professionals.

But in an unusually strongly worded speech the judge had suggested some of this hostility stemmed from lawyers with a financial motive for keeping the age-old Scots Law Safeguard.

Lord Carloway - whose real name is Colin Sutherland - said: "Reactionary or excessively defensive forces among the legal profession can, and often do, behave in a manner obstructive to progressive law reform, especially where there is transparent perceived financial self-interest."

This remark sparked an equally robust response from Thomas Ross, who chairs the Criminal Bar Association.

Ross argued lawyers opposed to ending the safeguard - under which two pieces of evidence are required to secure a conviction - were acting against their own financial interests.

This, the theory goes, is because without corroboration more cases would go to court, creating more business for defence agents.

Mr Ross said: "Every single defence lawyer I know is against a measure that would increase his or her cash flow. Self interest?

"Let us be honest, those who represent accused people for a living are not highly thought of in polite society.

"Many believe that we are 'in bed' with the accused, working on a bonus system like Premier league footballers, cash for results.

"The suggestion that we would stand in the way of law reform to serve the interests of those same accused does not help."

Lord Carloway came up with proposals to end corroboration as he examined the fall-out of the 2011 Cadder case, when the UK Supreme Court said detained suspects had a right to legal advice if they wish it.

His proposals are now subject to another Government review in to their implication.

Lord Carloway - in a speech to a conference of Commonwealth Law Reform Agencies in Edinburgh - also criticised the Supreme Court, as "remote" and "far removed from realities of Scots Law". That line has already provoked a rebuke from Lord McCluskey, a former solicitor general and senior judge himself.

The 85-year-old the court's London location was "unimportant" and stressed Edinburgh was also remote for people in the Highlands.

Lord McCluskey added: "What is important is that the Scottish judges who sit in the Supreme Court are invariably two of the very best Scots lawyers of their entire generation."

Mr Ross, in turn, said he thought the London court ensured human rights of all UK citizens wherever they lived. The lawyer added that he agreed with most of Lord Carloway's reform proposals and most of his speech.

But he added: "Will Lord Carloway clarify who he means when he talks of 'reactionary lawyers', or are all of those who have publicly disagreed with him to be tarred with the same brush.

"If so, will his use of this pejorative term encourage or discourage lawyers of future generations to become involved in the process of law reform?"

Anonymous said...

A spokesperson for the Judicial Office for Scotland said: “The conference programme was changed to include Mr Assange’s participation at short notice and without consultation. Mr Assange is, as a matter of law, currently a fugitive from justice and it would therefore not be appropriate for judges to be addressed by him.Under these circumstances the Lord President, Lord Gill and the other Scottish judicial office holders in attendance have withdrawn from the conference.”

Gill is being a little unkind to Julian Assange given some of the judges have their own criminal records and convictions.

Anonymous said...

I also recall the investigation of judges with criminal prosecutions and/or charges pending against them as reported at;

https://petercherbi.wordpress.com/2014/03/14/nothing-to-declare-investigation-reveals-two-scottish-judges-escaped-prosecution-for-criminal-charges-as-debate-heats-up-on-transparency-in-the-judiciary/

And elsewhere at;

http://scottishlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/one-of-our-judges-is-benefits-cheat.html

We might all know the kind of person we would want to sitting in judgement on others, but that is clearly not what we are given - regardless of anything Lord Gill might have us believe

Diary of Injustice said...

@17 April 2015 at 18:17

It's fun ...

@ 17 April 2015 at 20:51

A case of too much power given to one institution and individual.

Trust and transparency go together ... Lord Gill cannot chose one and spin it out as a substitute for the other.

@ 17 April 2015 at 23:02

The Lord President knows the score with regards to conflicts of interests and undeclared interests of the judiciary, one of the reasons he is keeping away from an appearance at the Public Petitions Committee.

@ 17 April 2015 at 23:52

Similar incidents have occurred at law firms in London along with information on bids, contracts and inner workings of firms sent home to competitors in Edinburgh.

Check out prospective recruits more thoroughly especially when hiring from a pool of questionable legal talent and those with a phone home for financial or political gain habit.

Thanks re names, will look into this.

@ 18 April 2015 at 10:42

Not really ... just another speech from a judge using the old argument of judicial independence against any proposal to reform any aspect of life in the secret world of the judiciary and it's business, undeclared interests, power and influence used to sustain itself indefinitely.

@ 18 April 2015 at 11:09

More like sour grapes from number two over the failure of MacAskill's plan to remove the safeguard of corroboration.

People should do a little reading and get it into their heads corroboration is a part of Scots law which can affect any criminal case, not just those selected by the Crown Office who are leading the PR campaign to have corroboration removed so inept prosecutors can score guilty verdicts on cases where evidence is flimsy or non existent.

Tinkering with such a key legal protection by an organisation described by one Scottish Minister as "the most corrupt in Scotland" should tell you there is nothing for the public to gain in the removal of corroboration.

@ 18 April 2015 at 11:28

It is much worse than that .. some members of the judiciary have used their positions to avoid criminal charges, prosecutions and manipulate criminal investigations ... for them and their associates.

And, some of these senior judges are travelling round Asia giving speeches and doing favours for companies back home in the UK who are bidding for contracts abroad ... and making plenty on the side for doing it.

Anonymous said...

What you say about the judiciary is alarming if not surprising given their obvious connections to big business and bankers.

Gill going around giving these keep off our turn speeches is not doing him or the judiciary any real good and in time your register of interests will come along.

Anonymous said...

"It is much worse than that .. some members of the judiciary have used their positions to avoid criminal charges, prosecutions and manipulate criminal investigations ... for them and their associates."

Much like some powerful London based politicians who are close friends of judicial figures and recently avoided prosecutions for child abuse.

Anonymous said...

Foreign companies who hire Scottish lawyers must be fools.If they are stealing at home they are going to steal wherever or whoever they work for and feather their own nest at the same time.If you hire a trained crook dont expect them to change.

Anonymous said...

You must be winding Lord Gill up to bursting point!
Amazing to watch this play out a judge in his position fall down at the first question when he is asked about his/his colleagues interests.

Anonymous said...

The judges will be off to Bahrain this weekend to watch F1 and see the protesters being hosed and shot at.

Anonymous said...

A very spirited defence of corroboration.It is a pity others in the media are unable to see through the Crown Office blurb and self interest in upping their conviction rates no matter reality of the case at hand.

Anonymous said...

“The threats to judicial independence do not always come with a knock on the door in the middle of the night.In a society that prides itself on the independence of its judiciary, the threat may come in insidious ways, even at the hands of well-meaning governments and legislators, in the name of efficiency and, ironically, in the name of transparency.”

I trust some suitably outraged MSPs will call for Gill to show up at parly and account for his attack on democracy?

Anonymous said...

As someone said above it is OUR court not HIS because we pay for it all and about bloody time there is a full investigation into these judges and what they are up to.

Anonymous said...

I am not hopeful the judiciary will mend their ways however you are giving them one hell of a ride over transparency and the register of interests.

Keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

How many other fugitives were at this gathering of crooked legal thieves?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"I noticed two individuals standing, perhaps appropriately, at the Heart of Midlothian, the scene of public executions in Edinburgh in former times. They were holding a large banner. It caught my eye. It said "Lord Gill - Resign!"

Why, Mr Gill, was it so appropriate two people with a banner calling on a judge to resign were standing on the scene of public executions in former times?

So is it now the case anyone who dares speak out against something should face the "former times" wrath of a judge?

Looks like some is very ticked off the judicial scams and corruption is finally blown open in public eh

17 April 2015 at 19:37
---------------------------------

He is massively pissed off because with each passing day the good citizen journalists of the Diary of Injustice are letting see what Gill and his cohorts are getting away with?

Maybe Gill is now making direct threats?

Afteral, he issued threats already through the Law Society mouth piece Roseanna Cunningham who threatened MSP's in the Chamber speaking up for Peter Cherbi's Petition, by saying that Lord Gill was watching out for those stepping out of line?

Democracy, my big black ass!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Secrecy and justice are mutually exclusive Mr Gill. Nothing reviles me more that lawyers.

18 April 2015 at 09:31
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

There is one thing that causes the most revulsion more then a lawyer and that is a Scottish lawyer - the worst of the kind.

A woman goes to the doctor with her toddler son.

Doctor, I think there is something wrong with my young son. He seems to have shifty eyes, is always telling me lies and he steals cash from my purse behind my back. I do not know what to do. His father and I are so upset because we don't know who he has inherited these evil characteristics from, as we are such good parents.

The Doctor replies, I understand what you are saying. This is a peculiar case but I have a theory that may explain your awful predicament. Tell me, can you remember back to before your son was born. Did you and your husband practise anal sex by any chance.

Why Yes Doctor, as a matter of fact we did.

There you have it then says the Doctor. There is a simple explanation for this after all however, I don't know how to broach this to you without upsetting you and your husband but I am afraid to say that your child is destined to be a Scottish lawyer. I am so sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

The woman leaves totally distraught!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
A spokesperson for the Judicial Office for Scotland said: “The conference programme was changed to include Mr Assange’s participation at short notice and without consultation. Mr Assange is, as a matter of law, currently a fugitive from justice and it would therefore not be appropriate for judges to be addressed by him.Under these circumstances the Lord President, Lord Gill and the other Scottish judicial office holders in attendance have withdrawn from the conference.”

Gill is being a little unkind to Julian Assange given some of the judges have their own criminal records and convictions.

18 April 2015 at 11:28
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

So the Scottish judges have by their actions treated Julian Assange like a guilty person without charge.

How ironic that many of them are convicted felons while Julian Assange has no criminal record.

Show's how unfit for purpose and rotten Scottish judges are

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
“The threats to judicial independence do not always come with a knock on the door in the middle of the night. In a society that prides itself on the independence of its judiciary, the threat may come in insidious ways, even at the hands of well-meaning governments and legislators, in the name of efficiency and, ironically, in the name of transparency.”
-----------------------------------
Mr Gill the first law of civilisation is those with vested interests are all for looking at others while wanting no scrutiny of themselves. This system was designed by the judiciary for the judiciary and clearly the judiciary want to be seen as hiding their vested interests otherwise those calling for a register would be no threat to the judiciary. Your judicial houses must be reeking of conflicts of interest otherwise what have you to fear? This is the man who called Scotland's system failing clients who have legitimate claims, beggars belief.

17 April 2015 at 23:02
()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()

Te judgement of this man is totally corrupted.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
“The threats to judicial independence do not always come with a knock on the door in the middle of the night.In a society that prides itself on the independence of its judiciary, the threat may come in insidious ways, even at the hands of well-meaning governments and legislators, in the name of efficiency and, ironically, in the name of transparency.”

I trust some suitably outraged MSPs will call for Gill to show up at parly and account for his attack on democracy?

18 April 2015 at 13:39
----------------------------------

Come to think of it, why do we allow Scottish Judges to work for decades after they were supposed to retire?

73 year old +
85 year old +

What does this say about the standard and skill of prospective Scottish judges in light of the Law Society of Scotland's decades long campaign to lower the standards and skill of Sottish lawyers by corrupting the regulation system to allow their crooked members to go Scot Free or be let off with a tap on the wrist, given the influence that this strategy has on other Scottish lawyers who have learnt over this same time that there is no barrier to them involving themselves in criminality because the Law Society of Scotland have fixed it for them, akin to Jimmy Savile, to break the law with impunity and with no consequences?

Anonymous said...

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/apr/16/julian-assange-speech-prompts-judges-boycott-legal-conference

Anonymous said...

Beginning to feel sorry for some peeps in Scotland having to live with a loony government saying everyone is out to get them and courts run by power mad men.Where does it all end?

Anonymous said...

Think yourself lucky you do not have an editor.

Anonymous said...

Reading yours and the Herald story about Carloway it should be clear to all why the judge refuses to go to see the msps.If he is asked the wrong question he will start ranting on about hanging and everyone except him is evil!

Anonymous said...

I'm sick of these crooks in ermin, who believe that the own Scotland and that Scotland's People are their serfs to provide them with limitless cash and perquisites and allowing them to make the rules up as they go along?

Gill is having a laugh insinuating that members of the Scottish Public are insidious?

Sounds strangely similar to the words written for David Cameron, when he wasn't getting things all his own way anymore?

Well boys the surprise is coming at the next election and there is about to be a catastrophic fire in Scotland which will burn away all of the dead wood?

Anonymous said...

More nonsense from Gill.
You do realise many in the profession agree he has zero credibility after his performance on your petition..

Anonymous said...

Gollum will do anything to protect his 'Precious'


Anonymous said...

A friend of mine was at the conference and he heard people talking about Gill and you so you did get a mention :)

Anonymous said...

What a lousy speech even though it was to a bunch of lawyers.

Anonymous said...

"It is surely desirable that our ideal judge should be one who has experienced the true meaning of an independent profession and who exemplifies excellence allied to good judgment. A judge who is willing to learn and to be accountable"

Notice that the above is just the desired qualities.

How many Scottish judges have come anywhere near the minimum standard?

Does Scotland have any judges who exemplify excellence and display good judgement?

Is it not an oxymoron for a Scottish judge to be willing to learn and to be accountable when there are apparently sitting Scottish judges who are convicted felons?

Then the phrase "the ideal judge should be one who has experienced the true meaning of an independent profession"

Is this true meaning of experience the true meaning of independent profession that as Scottish lawyers they have experienced the Law Society of Scotland's corrupt regulation practices, under the various co-opted arms of the Law Society, the SSDT and SLCC, whereby Scottish lawyers have been taught that there is no justice for Scottish lawyers and that Scottish lawyers and if they are Law Society of Scotland Yes Men and become judges then the message is that they are above Society and above the law?

Anonymous said...

Call me old fashioned but Lord Gill's flagrant attack on transparency is not much of a vote winner is it

Anonymous said...

Is Gill referring to others as insidious not complete and utter piffle and unbecoming of a Lord President?

Anonymous said...

A very good indication what the judiciary really think of the rest of us - we do not matter but we must pay for their money making adventures around the globe and in the courts.

Anonymous said...

I would have liked to have seen the reaction on Gill's face when he 'learned of' Julian Assange's booking!

Obviously Gill really does have it in for transparency!

Anonymous said...

Judge loses it a bit no!

Anonymous said...

A bit daft of the judge to claim he had to walk out of a conference just because of Assange and then same judge gives a 17 million word speech attacking everybody except his own pals in the judiciary and all the money grabbing lawyers and judges present filling their pockets on expenses tickets from their own countries.

You can just see these judges have way too much power for their own good.

Anonymous said...

I can see why you need a register for the judges - this guy is out of his tree on everything.Also why have they got away with it for so long keeping all these secret wealth funds and stuff and criminal records!How the heck did this get past without something major being done about it?

Anonymous said...

Silly really considering he must bow to the inevitable and make this register happen but of course there is too much to hide and this is why the judge is holding back.

Anonymous said...

Good to see this on Wikileaks who mentioned you and the judicial transparency angle.Great work as always Peter.

Anonymous said...

You must be giving Lord Gill a lot of nightmares for him to aim an entire speech at you.Well done it is about time someone took on the judiciary and cleaned it up.

Anonymous said...

Jail journalists and hang protesters?

Pretty weird speech from a judge no wonder he is uptight about Wikileaks

Anonymous said...

Lord Gill told his audience: “The threats to judicial independence do not always come with a knock on the door in the middle of the night. In a society that prides itself on the independence of its judiciary, the threat may come in insidious ways, even at the hands of well-meaning governments and legislators,in the name of efficiency and, ironically,in the name of transparency.”

Time this judge moved on he is well out of order saying people and transparency is insidious (insidious has a meaning of evil).

Anonymous said...

Speech by the judge sound crazy to everybody else except his own crowd due to the power these people peddle.I imagine they joke about hanging the remainder of us on a regular basis and all sorts of other strange combinations.

Anonymous said...

I was searching for some info on the Scottish justice system and found your a m a z i n g blog.

You are a brave one going up against the judicial mafia and everyone saw what they did and how they reacted to you so now we know it is all true what they get up to and why they fear the register so keep going with it and get to the truth.