Monday, October 03, 2016

QUESTION TIME, M’LORD: Top judge Lord Carloway to face MSPs on his opposition to judicial transparency & proposal to create a register of judges’ interests

Lord Carloway called to Scottish Parliament on judicial register. SCOTLAND’s top judge – Lord President Lord Carloway has been invited to appear before the Scottish Parliament to face questions on his opposition to proposals requiring the judiciary to declare their interests.

The invitation to the top judge has been issued by the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee - who are conducting a four year investigation on a call for full judicial transparency -  contained in the widely backed petition - Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary.

During last Thursday’s meeting of the Public Petitions Committee - Deputy Convener Angus MacDonald MSP (SNP) led calls to keep the petition open and called for Lord Carloway to face questions on his known opposition to the judicial transparency proposals.

Deputy Convener Mr MacDonald – who also chaired the meeting - said “I would be interested to ask if he [Lord Carloway] would be keen to come in and give oral evidence to back up his earlier submission.”

Speaking on the background of the petition, the Deputy Convener said: “I have some background to the issue. There was a debate in the chamber on the matter in the previous session, and the petition received quite a lot of support from members. Also in the previous session, the former Lord President, Lord Gill, appeared before the Public Petitions Committee.”

Mr MacDonald continued: “We have received a submission from the current Lord President, Lord Carloway, who is basically opposed to the suggestion, and I would be interested in asking whether he would be keen to come in and give us oral evidence to back up his earlier submission.”

Angus MacDonald also reiterated his support for the idea of a judicial register – keenly expressed by the SNP MSP during the earlier Holyrood debate in 2014.

The Deputy Convener also called for legal academic Professor Alan Paterson to be invited to give evidence before the committee.

Mr MacDonald said: “I note Professor Alan Paterson’s comments and criticisms in relation to the perceived inadequacies of the current recusals register. It could be helpful to take oral evidence from him, too.”

Earlier this year Professor Paterson – of the University of Strathclyde – provided written evidence to MSPs in which the legal academic issued stinging criticisms of the current “Recusal Register” – set up by Lord Gill as a result of a private meeting with MSPs.

Writing in a letter to the Petitions Committee - Professor Paterson said: “The Public Register of Judicial Recusals is indeed to be welcomed but it only records the cases in which Scottish judges have actually recused themselves, not the cases in which they have been asked to recuse themselves and have declined to do so, far less those in which they might reasonably have been asked to recuse themselves but were not.”

“In short, we cannot always tell if judges are recusing themselves or declining to recuse themselves in the right cases. One measure which might assist with that issue is to ask whether the decision as to recusal should be left to the judge who has been challenged.”

As the meeting continued - Brian Whittle MSP (Scottish Conservatives) added: “I think the petition is not unreasonable. I would be quite keen.”

The committee had earlier heard from MSP Maurice Corry (Scottish Conservatives) - who initially said the judicial register “would be no bad thing” - then moved an unsuccessful motion to close the petition.

After the session ended, the Public Petitions Committee published their decision to call in further witnesses: “PE1458 by Peter Cherbi on register of interests for members of Scotland's judiciary. The Committee agreed to invite the Lord President and Professor Alan Paterson to give oral evidence at a future meeting.”

However, Carloway – who earns £225K a year as Lord President - along with significant pension perks and jet set junkets - is already on record as being against the judicial transparency proposals

Lord Carloway – who succeeded Lord Brian Gill as Lord President - claimed in written evidence earlier this year to the Petitions Committee the justice system could be brought to a halt if judges were forced to declare their wealth and interests.

Lord Carloway (real name: Colin Sutherland) told MSPs: “The proper administration of justice could be inhibited by the disclosure of the judiciary's otherwise confidential financial arrangements. In that connection, there is the possibility that an individual judge may be the subject of misconceived criticism, deriving from the disclosure of personal financial information, where those interests are tangential and de minimis.”

If the judicial transparency proposal becomes reality, all members of Scotland’s judiciary - instead of just the elite few who sit on the board of the Scottish Courts - will be required to declare their vast and varied interests including their backgrounds, personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business & family connections inside & outside of the legal profession, membership of organisations, property and land interests, 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.

More on the full debate in Holyrood’s main chamber is reported with video footage and the official record, here: Debating the Judges

A full report on Lord Carloway’s opposition to judicial transparency can be found here: Top judge Lord Carloway hits out at judicial interests register proposal

Video footage of the meeting & transcript follows:

Petition PE1458 Public Petitions Committee Scottish Parliament 29 Sept 2016

Judiciary (Register of Interests) (PE1458)

The Deputy Convener: PE1458, is by Peter Cherbi and calls for the establishment of a register of interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary. Members will have seen the note by the clerk and submissions from the petitioner and Professor Paterson. Members will also be aware of further information that was provided by Mr Cherbi in respect of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and the Judicial Complaints Reviewer.

The action that is called for in Mr Cherbi’s petition received support from a number of MSPs in the previous session of Parliament, but neither the Scottish Government nor the current or former Lord President supports the introduction of such a register.

Do members have any views on what we should do with the petition?

Maurice Corry: I personally do not think that the proposed register would be the worst thing but, since the views of those who decide on the matter are set, the petition should be closed.

Rona Mackay: I have sympathy with Mr Cherbi and agree that there should be a register. However, I am not sure how much further we can take the petition or what road we could go down to progress it.

The Deputy Convener: I have some background to the issue. There was a debate in the chamber on the matter in the previous session, and the petition received quite a lot of support from members. Also in the previous session, the former Lord President, Lord Gill, appeared before the Public Petitions Committee. We have received a submission from the current Lord President, Lord Carloway, who is basically opposed to the suggestion, and I would be interested in asking whether he would be keen to come in and give us oral evidence to back up his earlier submission.

I note Professor Alan Paterson’s comments and criticisms in relation to the perceived inadequacies of the current recusals register. It could be helpful to take oral evidence from him, too.

I also note Mr Cherbi’s suggestion that we should invite the Judicial Complaints Reviewer, Gillian Thompson, to give her thoughts on the proposal to create a register of judicial interests. However, we took evidence from her on the petition in the previous session and I am unsure whether she has changed her view, which was that there should be a register.

Would members be interested in hearing from Lord Carloway and Professor Paterson?

Maurice Corry: That seems pretty fair.

Brian Whittle:The petition is not unreasonable, and I would be keen to explore the issue further.

Rona Mackay: I agree. I would be happy to hear more evidence, as it is a big subject.

Maurice Corry: I am happy with that.

The Deputy Convener: We can ask the Lord President whether he is prepared to give oral evidence to the committee—there was a difficulty with the previous Lord President agreeing to do that. If he does not agree to do that, we will have to refer to his written submission.

Do we agree to that suggested course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

Today, the Judicial Office for Scotland refused to give any comment on their behalf or from Lord Carloway.

The Sunday Herald newspaper reported on latest developments in the long running petition here: MSPs to grill new Lord President on judicial register of interest

And, the Sunday Mail newspaper reported on the invitation to Lord Carloway here:

 Judge Lord Carloway faces demands from MSPs over judges' register

2 Oct 2016 By Mark Aitken

THE Lord President has been asked to appear before Holyrood’s petitions committee, who are considering a submission for a judicial register of interests.

JUDGE Lord Carloway is facing demands from MSPs to explain why his colleagues’ business and financial secrets shouldn’t be made public.

The Lord President has been asked to appear before Holyrood’s petitions committee, who are considering a submission by campaigner Peter Cherbi for a judicial register of interests.

Details could include gifts, property, shares and criminal convictions.

Public petitions committee deputy convener Angus MacDonald said: “We’ve had a submission from the Lord President, who is basically opposed to the suggestion.

“However, I would be interested to ask if he would be keen to come in and give oral evidence to back up his earlier submission.”

A Judicial Office spokesman said: “We’re not in a position to comment as the Lord President has not received any such invitation.”

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

54 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yes saw the reports in yesterday's papers and wondered when you would be covering it.Very good!Will be interesting to see if Carloway shows up or does a Lord Gill!

Anonymous said...

recusals are a con I say this because I asked my solicitor to ask the sheriff recuse himself because he has a relative in a situation relating to my case and he told me back the Law Society told him not to raise it in court so they are onto this even before a lawyer asks for a recusal he also told me to read your blog!

Anonymous said...

Don't think Carloway would do very well on bbc question time unless they stuffed the audience with judges!

Just imagine if us mere plebs were allowed to quiz this guy minus his legal minder thugs on what judges dont declare or get up to in their spare time!

Anonymous said...

How about MSPs save some time and write this into law NOW

Anonymous said...

Read this part starts at 0:55 on the video clip and watch the body language of Maurice Corry.

Maurice Corry "I personally do not think that the proposed register would be the worst thing but, since the views of those who decide on the matter are set, the petition should be closed."

Not much point him or anyone being an msp then is there if every time the views of those who decide on matters are set he is going to side with the government or whoever is set in their view.

Shocking to put it bluntly.

Anonymous said...

As a mark of how rotten and corrupt the judiciary are anyone else by now would smell the way the wind is blowing on this and start declaring their interests.Only the judiciary using their position are allowed to get away with this disgraceful abuse of power.

If anyone wants to debate me name someone or some organisation who are not a crook or shady in some way and also get away with not declaring their wealth interests or whatever.

Right!Now we have the answer so msps register all the judges please!

Anonymous said...

Lord Lord Lord what a daft title to give anyone in 2016

So daft they obviously think and act like they ARE the LORD.

Call a person Lord or God and they act like one!Question a God about what they do and you are going to hell!

You Scots should start your journey into the 21st century by dumping all the daft titles and gowns.

Anyway I thought Scotland wanted independence so why all the wigs and gown rubbish from the Jurassic period!

Cant do without your symbols of power eh!Need to hang onto them to keep the local population (aka the poor) down!!

Anonymous said...

Hmm spot the Tory msp who says register good then wants it closed!

Anonymous said...

Good coverage wonder how Carloway will jump?Yes or NONO?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14777121.MSPs_to_grill_new_Lord_President_on_judicial_register_of_interest/

MSPs to grill new Lord President on judicial register of interest
Paul Hutcheon, Investigations Editor

A HOLYROOD committee is to call Scotland’s top judge to give evidence on whether members of the judiciary should disclose their outside financial interests.

MSPs want to hear from Lord Carloway, the Lord President, on why he believes it would be “inappropriate” for his colleagues to reveal details of shareholdings and other items.

The Public Petitions Committee has for four years considered a proposal by campaigner Peter Cherbi for legislation to require judges and sheriffs to publish their financial interests and any hospitality received.

Unlike politicians and board members of quangos, judges do not have to make these details known on a public register.

Lord Gill, the previous Lord President, opposed the plan and argued that the privacy of judicial office holders could be affected by "aggressive media or hostile individuals".

He wrote: “The establishment of such a register therefore may have the unintended consequence of eroding public confidence in the judiciary."

Gill created a standoff between the judiciary and the Parliament after he twice refused to give oral evidence in front of the Committee.

The legislation that set up the Scottish Parliament gives judges an exemption from giving evidence. He eventually agreed to attend in person, but only after he retired.

His successor, Lord Carloway, is also against the introduction of a register and explained his position in a letter to MSPs in February: “The proposal for a public register of the judiciary’s interests, gifts and hospitality is both unnecessary and undesirable.

“It is inappropriate for judges to make public comment beyond their judicial opinions in relation to individual cases. Therefore, unlike an elected representative or a member of the Government, a judge enjoys no right of reply.”

The Government is also opposed to the move and Ministers made their views known in a Holyrood debate in the last parliamentary term.

However, the petition is still live and SNP MSP Angus MacDonald, the committee deputy convener, said last week: “I would be interested to ask if he [Lord Carloway] would be keen to come in and give oral evidence to back up his earlier submission.”

Tory MSP Brian Whittle said: “I think the petition is not unreasonable. I would be quite keen.”

The Committee then agreed to ask Lord Carloway if he would be prepared to give oral evidence.

Cherbi said: “It cannot be right that such a highly-salaried group of all-powerful judges with significant assets, who can themselves alter the course of public life with their decisions, can exempt themselves from the same expectations of transparency which apply to the rest of us, including other public servants and even the Prime Minister.”

As a way of furthering transparency, the Judicial Office for Scotland (JOFS) introduced a register of recusals, which lists cases in which a judge or sheriff has absented himself due to a potential conflict of interest. Fourteen recusals have so far been declared this year.

A spokesperson for the JOFS said: “We are not in a position to comment as the Lord President has not received any such invitation.”

Anonymous said...

Where is Jackson Carlaw and why is Maurice Corry who has never debated this petition in his lifetime before now so determined to do the judiciary a big favour and shut you down

Like Jackson Carlaw said in one of the Sunday Herald articles here http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13107463.Scotland_s_top_judge_snubs_Holyrood_inquiry_into_register_of_interests/

"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'."

Me thinks Jackson Carlaw's excellent quote now applies to Mr Corry!

Anonymous said...

Not bad although I hope more msps pile into any hearing so Carloway is not let off the hook on this one!

Diary of Injustice said...

Comment @ 3 October 2016 at 18:25

Would be interested to hear more of your case and info on what happened with the recusal.Email the blog with more details.

Anonymous said...

I am still amazed there is no law forcing judges to declare their interests.The whole thing about judges not declaring and all the rubbish they wrote about why they refuse to declare sounds utterly corrupt and full of contempt.

Anonymous said...

Lord Carloway (real name: Colin Sutherland) told MSPs: “The proper administration of justice could be inhibited by the disclosure of the judiciary's otherwise confidential financial arrangements. In that connection, there is the possibility that an individual judge may be the subject of misconceived criticism, deriving from the disclosure of personal financial information, where those interests are tangential and de minimis.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They are not interested in justice if they want to keep everything secret. These people have had their way for far too long and it is because of this fact they detest anyone demanding transparency. Oh poor judges imagine all that power and they are afraid of criticism. They are inviting criticism by their preposterous intransigence. Power goes to the head, these judges are living proof of that fact.

Anonymous said...

I dont care who they are.Whoever says the law does not apply to them because they are in a higher position and better than us they are hiding something and are crooked in one way or another.This is nothing to do with cynicism or anything else this is a natural suspicion in all humans about those who go around saying DO AS WE SAY NOT AS WE DO and this is EXACTLY what Carloway Gill and the judges are saying to us and the parliament!

Anonymous said...


Cherbi said: “It cannot be right that such a highly-salaried group of all-powerful judges with significant assets, who can themselves alter the course of public life with their decisions, can exempt themselves from the same expectations of transparency which apply to the rest of us, including other public servants and even the Prime Minister.”

So even the Prime Minister but not a judge.

This is corruption and everyone knows it.Corruption and Contempt!Judges are power mad power crazy.Time to reign them in.

Anonymous said...

Just like lawyers torture their victims by collectively withdrawing representation and then have their Law Society cover it all up when people complain, these judges can ride rough shod over any member of the public. Like those mentioned they are a law unto themselves. I can understand why they want to reject the register it's not rocket science to believe they are crooks.

Anonymous said...

All lawyers are clones, in that when you are fighting one you fight the system. These people prove one thing our courts are nothing short of corrupt and they intent to keep it that way for their pecuniary gain. It's like Carloway has Gill's brain, they don't want a register.

Anonymous said...

Vested interests must not be allowed to design their own system but they have.

Anonymous said...

Jackson Carlaw was bang on when he said that about vested interests and now look who shows up to shut down your petition!Some investigation warranted here folks!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

recusals are a con I say this because I asked my solicitor to ask the sheriff recuse himself because he has a relative in a situation relating to my case and he told me back the Law Society told him not to raise it in court so they are onto this even before a lawyer asks for a recusal he also told me to read your blog!

3 October 2016 at 18:25

Very interesting here we have a lawyer telling their client to read the Cherbi blog because the Law Society told the lawyer to ignore his client about a recusal.

This sounds like the Law Society were plugged into your case long before you suggested a recusal because they may have known about the sheriff and how did they find this out in the first place?

Some sneak of a court clerk will be phoning up the Law Society telling them your lawyer put in a recusal motion or whatever the term is they use and your lawyer gets the dreaded call from the Law Society telling him not to go through with it.

A bloody scandal.This is interference in the courts!

Anonymous said...

That guy who wants your petition closed is well out of order.Can I sign your petition or support it please?I honestly believe judges must declare their interests and fully support your brilliant blog and campaign!!Great to have you around Peter!!Good journalist!!

Anonymous said...

Firstly let me say congratulations to Angus MacDonald for standing up for your petition and all things decent.My heartfelt thanks to you dear sir! and to the other msps who want this debate kept open.

Now on to what I really want to say.

Maurice Corry is entitled to 'his' view.

If this is 'his' view.

Or perhaps he arrived at 'his' view after being well 'briefed'.

Mr Corry says in the video clip he read up about your petition.

Mr Corry must have done an awful lot of reading yet he manages only one sentence and stares at the committee for three seconds awaiting they agree with his move to close your petition.He was determined to close it.You can tell.

The silence after his single sentence is deafening.

Now compare the statements of Maurice Corry with Jackson Carlaw.

Maurice Corry: "I personally do not think that the proposed register would be the worst thing but, since the views of those who decide on the matter are set, the petition should be closed."

Now Jackson Carlaw from your article of the 2015 hearing where they interviewed Gillian Thompson.

http://petercherbi.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/register-mlord-former-top-judge-brian.html

Jackson Carlaw "The clerk has advised me that it is not competent for the committee to initiate a bill of its own. Of course, it is open to any member of the Parliament to do so, in this session or the next."

"As Ms Thompson has said, there seems to be a clear public interest in the issue, which has found expression. In the absence of a more substantive argument than the impression that it is not something that people want, the committee should be reluctant to allow the petition to run into the sand. We should do all that we can to sustain it and pursue its objectives for as long as we feel able to do so."

The difference is night and day.

Jackson Carlaw wants your petition kept open and to go on.

And the quote from Jackson Carlaw in the Sunday Herald story of 2013 is as true today as it was then.

The whiff of vested interests closing doors and turning their backs in an effort to shut the matter down is upon us once again.

I rest my case!

Anonymous said...

Sorry to say another of the ignorant masses here who always thought judges register their interests.Just goes to show how they hoodwink all of us to believe they do when they dont!

Anonymous said...

Its a racket run by vested interests and any MSP who rejects this register in my opinion is a traitor.

Anonymous said...

Anyone in public office who decrees they are above the law and do not need to declare their interests is unfit to hold public office.End of.

Anonymous said...

Really had enough of this!Just go ahead and make the register law!If the judges dont like it you know where they can go!If judges walk out of their jobs because they have to register their assets and whatever then you know they were corrupt anyway!No one walks out a £225K job with all those perks over some point of principle!They walk out because they were caught with their fingers in the tilL!Plenty more judges out there and look on it this way if the judges who are so resistant to your petition walk because of it this is a big chance to clean up the judiciary and about time too!

Anonymous said...

These MSP's blabber away round the desk and really most of them are on the judiciaries side not the people. I utterly despise politicians even more than lawyers because they are not weak, they are biased. I don't vote anymore, it's bloody pointless.

Anonymous said...

Yes very interesting.The Tories should swap out Corry and replace him with Carlaw or someone more enthusiastic about questioning those who are bound to appear before this Petitions Committee who are set in their decisions.

As someone said earlier no use having an msp on committee if all he is going to do is say close it down because the powers that be have already decided nothing will be done.

To be honest I did not think anything else would shock me in this debate however Corry did and not in a good way.

Very disappointing and as I read in an earlier comment Mr Corry said he read up about your petition and then comes out with a single sentence to shut it down.

This sounds more like a line from one of the judges than what we expect to hear from an msp.

Anonymous said...

lol can you imagine judges like Gill already did and Carloway and the rest at the parliament telling the msps to shut up every time they ask a question?This is what you get when you ask a judge!

Anonymous said...

3 October 2016 at 22:03 Good to compare the msps attitudes.Personally am now very suspicious of the move to close after reading the comments and watching the clip.Keep up the good work Peter you are getting somewhere with this even the debate educating us all about judges and their bad attitude towards everyone and anyone who does not agree with them.

Anonymous said...

since the views are set you better close it and this guy is supposed to be an opposition msp?! pfft!

Anonymous said...

Can I point something out without people jumping down my throat as I wish to highlight a problem you may want to look into relating to the quality of the meeting transcript.

I watched the video and read the transcript.As far as I can tell in several places they do not match.I regularly transcribe statements for a firm of solicitors and court hearings so I do have some background enabling me to see errors at a glance.

I found the official source of the transcript here http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/report.aspx?r=10557 matching your printed version.I take it this is your source.

Within the video clip you published which I checked matches the Parliament's archive video Maurice Corry begins his statement at 54secs into the video clip stating "Chair can I make a comment on this .. basically having read this I dont think the opening of the register would be the worst thing but I .. but since the views of those who decide are set .. the motion should be closed ...."

This compares to the Parliament's written transcript which states Maurice Corry "I personally do not think that the proposed register would be the worst thing but, since the views of those who decide on the matter are set, the petition should be closed."

What drew my attention to this was the 3 October 2016 22:03 comment referring to Mr Corry "read up about your petition" which is not mentioned in the transcript but does appear in the video clip.

I noticed further omissions on the transcript compared to the video coverage on your petition and on other petitions which I checked this morning against the Parliament's own full length archive video of the hearing lasting 1hr07mins53secs.

Small but easily missed crucial differences and not restricted to your own petition.

Perhaps anyone reading my comment who has an interest in the accuracy of transcripts may wish to take this up further.

Anonymous said...

Bizarre really judges are allowed to keep all this secret.Does no one have any rights against this mob?I hope msps go ahead and make your petition law instead of waiting on the judge talking the hind legs off a donkey for an hour and saying No to everything.

Diary of Injustice said...

Comment @ 4 October 2016 at 09:52

Thanks for pointing this out.

Yes, the source of the transcript you refer to is the one used in the article as the published record of the Scottish Parliament. The video footage is as provided by the Scottish Parliament, solely in relation to Petition PE1458.

Given the omissions appear to exist in the transcribed version, unless this is changed would prefer to leave as is for now until amended by @ScotParl.

Readers are advised to watch the video footage as well as the transcript.

Would be keen to discuss more, please email the blog team.

Anonymous said...

Mr MacDonald continued: “We have received a submission from the current Lord President, Lord Carloway, who is basically opposed to the suggestion, and I would be interested in asking whether he would be keen to come in and give us oral evidence to back up his earlier submission.”
=================================================================================
Oral evidence from a Judge. Spin more like to reject the register. Take action if they reject it MSP's just make it law, after all who has the power the peoples representatives or an old boys club? No waffle we want action.

Anonymous said...

Yes confirmed parts missing from the published transcript compared to all said in the video hope the Scottish Parliament notice and fix this not your error theirs!

Corry does say all the other quotes in the video and the motion should be closed not petition should be closed wonder if this affects other transcripts of meetings at the parliament?

Anonymous said...

Crooks.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps Maurice Corry will be able to move another closure motion when Lord Carloway shows up and demands the petition be closed.

Ridiculous this is still going on when everyone bar the judiciary realise judges should be required to declare their interests.Mad and possibly corrupt to suggest otherwise.

Anonymous said...

A repeat of the Gill performance perhaps slightly less overtly aggressive.

Anonymous said...

I wonder how much of a Judges interests are inspected by the Inland Revenue? I know they will pay tax but they control everything else including the Scottish Government.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

A repeat of the Gill performance perhaps slightly less overtly aggressive. Yes remember Gill's Scottish Courts Review did not happen. And they don't want the Register either. They want to hide the truth that is clear and it is all geared to protect the few at the expense of the many. What do they have to hide?

Anonymous said...

Will be interesting to see what Carloway has to say.I dont need to tell you this is the same guy who wanted to strip rights from accused persons by removing the need for corroboration.

I began reading your blog around 10pm this evening and just went on and on through your archive.Finally ipad batteries giving out so Good night and thanks for a thrilling read and all the detail you put into this blog.A real treasure!

Anonymous said...

Maurice Corry: "I personally do not think that the proposed register would be the worst thing but, since the views of those who decide on the matter are set, the petition should be closed."
======================================================================================
Closing this petition is simply to maintain the anachronistic power of these people who operate with impunity because the system was designed that way. And Mr Corry the judges do not agree with you regarding the proposed register it is the worst thing for them. Put simply if these people have nothing to hide why hide?

Anonymous said...

The judges like and support transparency for others.

Anonymous said...

Another judge to go along and say the same laws applying to everyone else on the planet does not apply to him because....

Anonymous said...

What do you make of Theresa May's speech claiming she is going to make Britain a fairer place?

How can Britain be a fairer place when we have the judges sitting on their fat behinds in court while their sons daughters and relatives appear before them rigging case after case and no one saying a word about it and arrogant judges screaming their heads off when someone asks to declare their interests!

Is this your fair Britain Theresa May?Not likely!

Better start at the top and sort the judges out so we know you mean business no excises no it takes forever and ever because we all know what is going on now get moving Mrs PM!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37556019

Theresa May: I'll use power of state to build fairer Britain

The Conservatives will use the power of government to "restore fairness" in Britain and spread prosperity more widely, Theresa May has said.

The prime minister told the party's conference the UK must change after the "quiet revolution" of the Brexit vote, urging people to "seize the day".

Labour were now seen as the "nasty party" and only the Tories would "stand up for the weak... up to the powerful".

The state should be a "force for good" to help working people, she argued.

In her set-piece speech in Birmingham, less than three months after she became prime minister, Mrs May said her vision was of a country "where everyone plays by the same rules and where every single person, regardless of their background or that of their parents, is given the chance to be all they want to be".

Anonymous said...

Yes shocking.I dont buy Maurice Corry's story he read up on your petition then after a few stutters he demands the committee shut you down.

If he read up on the petition he will be aware of all the support you have.I realise he is a Tory and well they always have ulterior motives but you know what I am getting at right.Something very iffy going on I am sure your readers will pick up on the obvious.

Anonymous said...

Maurice Corry went in there with intent.Your readers can watch the whole 1 hour long Petitions committee video at the following link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v25GQ4qkqx8

He talks plenty about other petitions without claiming to have read all yet he only managed a sentence on yours ending in the motion should be closed.

Clear Intent on his part.No wonder everyone else falls silent.

Anonymous said...

Someone should start a petition to make your register of judges interests petition law!
Any reasonable person must be thinking this should have been on the law books ages ago

Anonymous said...

Very interesting blog you have Mr Cherbi.I always thought judges declared their interests.Silly me maybe silly us allowing them to get away with not declaring all this time.Hope your petition is put on the statute books as soon as possible.

Anonymous said...

Yes very disappointing there are still people out there who want to shut down your petition on behalf of the judiciary.You have to ask yourself what the motives of such a person are and the interests they have in mind..

Anonymous said...

Just watched that clip and the other of Mr MacDonald praising you for taking on the judiciary.Great to see you have support and well done those who back your petition.As for the Tory well everyone already said what I am thinking so will leave it at that.

Anonymous said...

Every time I see a promo report on BBC for the tossers who run our justice system I realise they are sweating because you or one of the papers blew another hole in the courts judges or corrupt cops.