Thursday, October 19, 2017

TRIBUNAL INTERESTS: Calls for wealthy, well connected interests & professions who dominate tribunals & appeals system to be brought into line with transparency & declarations in published register of interests

Tribunals are dominated by wealthy, powerful individuals & professional groups. AMID an ongoing media probe into the undeclared, and significant interests of individuals and professional groups who dominate public tribunals, a call has been made for all tribunal members to declare and register their interests.

The manner in which tribunals are created and governed in Scotland, is a familiar model of professionals within the same groups and spheres of influence - awarding jobs to colleagues, the favoured, and vested interests.

A no expenses spared approach for tribunal members who tow the line is often the case, enhanced with office accommodation such as the new tribunals centre being created in Glasgow at 3 Atlantic Quay, a high-quality office development close to the River Clyde in the centre of the city.

Last week, the Scottish Courts & Tribunals Service (SCTS) confirmed they and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) have decided to rationalise their accommodation and move jointly into the new centre – which is being rented out at nearly £2million a year from the Moorfield Group and partners Resonance Capital.

The moves planned to start next year will also mean that accommodation is ready for the tribunals that are going to be devolved to the SCTS.

Members of tribunals are recruited by the Judicial Appointments Board (JAB) during appointments rounds regularly held to fill vacancies in the murky world of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and Judiciary of Scotland.

Applicants face interviews from their peers across the legal, professional, charitable and public service world & industries awash with public cash, junkets, charity interests, coaching, arbitration & consultancy profits.

Successful candidates are subsequently appointed by Scottish Ministers.

An example of a recent appointments round run by the Judicial Appointments Board saw 30 new Legal Members and 19 Ordinary Members appointed by the Scottish Ministers to the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland and assigned to the Housing and Property Chamber by the President of Scottish Tribunals, Lady Smith.

A full report on the appointments can be found here: TRIBUNAL REGISTER: Calls for transparency as legal & wealthy, well connected interests dominate Tribunals system membership - Register of Recusals & Interests should be extended to cover all Tribunals in Scotland

The names of those appointed are:

Legal Members: Yvonne McKenna; Lesley-Anne Mulholland; Nairn Young; Shirley Evans; Alastair Houston; Steven Quither; Petra Hennig McFatridge; Colin Dunipace; Lesley Johnston; Anne Mathie; Kay Springham; Alan Strain; Aidan O’Neill; Jan Todd; Alison Kelly; Valerie Bremner; Eleanor Mannion; Virgil Crawford; Pamela Woodman; Lynsey MacDonald; Karen Kirk; Neil Kinnear; Fiona Watson; Nicola Irvine; Graham Dunlop; Andrew Upton; Joel Conn; Melanie Barbour; Lesley Ward; Andrew McLaughlin.

Ordinary Members: Eileen Shand; Elizabeth Williams; Janine Green; Jennifer Moore; Linda Reid; Angus Lamont; David Fotheringham; David MacIver; David Wilson; Gerard Darroch; Gordon Laurie; James Battye; Leslie Forrest; Tony Cain; Elizabeth Currie; Frances Wood; Jane Heppenstall; Melanie Booth; Sandra Brydon.

Not one of these members  - the thirty lawyers – or the nineteen ‘ordinary’ members - has declared any interests in a publicly available register of interests – as there is currently no requirement to do so.

The Judicial Appointments Board publish a version of a register of interests,- available here: Judicial Appointments Board - Register of Interests

However, the JAB register of interests leaves out any mention of property wealth and many other interests known to be held by those serving on the quango tasked with recruiting Scotland’s judiciary and tribunal members.

A legal insider commenting on the JAB register observed: “It appears as if members are poor souls sitting round a table with little to declare, whereas the undeclared financial wealth and status on this list is significant and ought to be declared”

The world of Disability Living Allowance appeals and PIP appeals has too come under the spotlight - after a study of appeal panels revealed members wealth and property totalling in the millions compared to disabled applicants who were being ‘knocked back’ on applications for a few extra pounds a month.

The tribunal structure which covers benefits appeals are riven with huge, wealthy interests, yet there is no register and no ability for those appearing before them to inspect those who sit in judgement upon their claims.

In one look at a DWP Tribunal comprising a surgeon, a lawyer and a 'disabled' tribunal member - accumulated wealth between the three, their partners and businesses and properties totalled well into the millions, yet claimants, some with no limbs who are struggling to claim an extra £30 a month and get knocked back while tribunal members are paid expenses & remuneration know nothing of it.

An adviser who assists those facing benefits appeal tribunals gave an example of a benefits tribunal membership:

A surgeon tribunal member - of 25 years experience as a medical practitioner owned several properties, has several positions on public bodies, has a long history of advising Government departments on medical legislation, has appeared as an expert witness on many occasions for NHS trusts and assisted Medical Defence Unions in the UK against hospital negligence claims.

His partner has a similar level of interests in terms of wealth and property, has a wide variety of positions in advising and acting for quangos,public bodies, professions, local and central government.

A solicitor member of the tribunal, who has over 20 years experience of a solicitor owns numerous properties, holds several other positions on tribunals and has made a lucrative career of advising and representing quangos, public bodies and has fought and won cases for professional groups.

However, the third member – the disability member of the tribunal – proved to be the most interesting.

The disability member, who is in receipt of DLA – holds significant assets and property well out of the reach of any typical DLA or PIP claimant.

This same disability member appears to hold several positions on public bodies and has frequently travelled on publicly funded junkets.

And, the same disability member has been the author of written reports on individuals – one which was described by a former local Government employee as “a personal vendetta” against a claimant from the same town in which the tribunal was held.

The former benefits adviser also recalled a recorded hearing – in which the same disability member became aggressive during a benefits appeal hearing - and demanded an assisted blind claimant remove their black glasses.

The net worth of the three members of this particular DLA tribunal was estimated at around £5.2m – taking into account the tribunal members partners, whose interests often coincided with public bodies, professions, local and central government.

It has also been alleged remuneration and expenses for benefits appeal tribunal members include payments for “knocking back applicants”.

A former Local Government employee who worked in the benefits section of a council told of how he had been part of a discussion at his former workplace where a senior member of staff claimed DLA tribunal members had on occasion been paid hundreds of pounds more for throwing out DLA applications.

Clearly, those before such a tribunal have the right to know who they face, and the interests of those who judge them.

The National reports further:

Call for change to tribunals - Legal campaigner says recusal register myst be extended

Martin Hannan Journalist 14 October 2017 The National

THE man who is leading the transparency campaign for Scotland’s judges to register their interests now says the idea should be extended to everyone who sits on a public tribunal.

Peter Cherbi will shortly pass the five-year mark in his campaign via the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee for there to be a judicial register of interests, similar to those registers already in existence to which all elected politicians and police officers must conform.

The register proposal has been strongly resisted by senior judges and other top lawyers, but is supported by politicians from all parties – the Petitions Committee has taken considerable amounts of evidence and is due to debate the plan again shortly.

Now Cherbi, who is well-known in Scottish legal circles for his blogging and campaigning for reform of the Scots law system, says that tribunal members should also have to declare their interests.

Under the present system of appointments to tribunals it is up to members themselves to declare an interest if, for example, they have personal relationships with those appearing before them, and step aside from a case – known as recusal.

There has been considerable re-organisation of the tribunal system in Scotland since the Tribunals (Scotland) Act 2014 simplified the statutory framework.

The First-tier Tribunal is organised into a series of chambers. From December 1, 2016, the Housing and Property Chamber was established and took on the functions of the former Home Owner and Housing Panel and the Private Rented Housing Panel.

From April 24 this year, the Tax Chamber was established and took on the functions of the former Tax Tribunals for Scotland.

The Upper Tribunal hears appeals from the First-tier Tribunals and the head of the whole system is Scotland’s most senior judge, the Lord President, Lord Carloway, with the Rt Hon Lady Smith as president of the Scottish Tribunals.

Others tribunals include the Mental Health Tribunal, the Additional Support Needs Tribunal, the Council Tax Reduction Review Panel and the Lands Tribunal. More tribunals will come with greater devolved powers but employment tribunals are still under the control of the Westminster Government.

Cherbi says all such public tribunals should be open and transparent about their members’ interests and points out that there is no register of recusals for any of the tribunals.

He said: “As should the judiciary now declare their interests in a publicly available register, members of tribunals who are engaged in the business of judging others should declare their full interests and any instances of recusals in a publicly available register.

“The business of judging others – for it surely has become a business over the years – must now be subject to the same public expectation of transparency and accountability as tribunals apply to those appearing before them.

“The public, the media and our democratically elected politicians in our Parliament, as well as those who are judged, have the right to view, be informed about, and inspect those who judge society with unchallenged power in equal light.

“And this is not just about Scottish Tribunals. Take for instance DLA appeals and PIP appeals. The tribunal structure which covers those are riven with huge, wealthy interests, yet there is no register and no ability for those appearing before them to inspect those who sit in judgement upon their claims.

“I looked at a Department of Work and Pensions Tribunal comprising a surgeon, a lawyer and a ‘disabled’ tribunal member – accumulated wealth between the three, their partners and businesses and properties totalled well into the millions, yet claimants, some with no limbs who are struggling to claim an extra £30 a month, get knocked back while tribunal members are paid expenses and remuneration and we know nothing of it.”

A Scottish Government spokesman said: “We consider that a specific register of interests is not needed. Existing safeguards, including the Judicial Oath, the Statement of Principles of Judicial Interests and the system of complaints against the judiciary, are sufficient to ensure the impartiality of the judiciary in Scotland.”

YOUR TRIBUNAL: A publicly funded adversarial environment full of vested interests:

Next year, tribunals will move to an expensive new home in the centre of Glasgow.

The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) are to rationalise accommodation in Glasgow and the new Tribunals Centre will be located at 3 Atlantic Quay. 

The SCTS claim the 34 hearing rooms for cases to be heard, the design of the centre will provide excellent facilities for all tribunal users, and specific  support for young users with additional support needs.  Additionally, the centre will provide facilities for vulnerable witnesses to give evidence to both Glasgow Sheriff Court and the High Court.

During 2018, the SCTS-supported Housing and Property and Health and Education Tribunal Chambers will move into the new Centre. The HMCTS-operated social security tribunal will move at a similar time with other tribunals HMCTS services to follow at a later date.

The SCTS provides support to many of Scotland’s devolved tribunals and is making preparations for the future transfer of the UK reserved tribunals operations in Scotland, currently provided by HMCTS.

Lady Smith, President of Scottish Tribunals – who is in charge of the £7.8million Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry – claimed:  “The creation of the new Tribunals Centre in Glasgow is the latest important development in the evolution of the Scottish Tribunals. The premises will act as a hub for tribunals supported by SCTS, providing a range of modern facilities and services for tribunals users. They will also offer a separate, appropriately designed space, for vulnerable witnesses and users, including for witnesses providing evidence for Sheriff and High Court cases in Glasgow. This co-located approach to provision for the tribunals should be regarded as a flagship for the administration of justice in Scotland in the 21st century.”

Eric McQueen, Chief Executive, SCTS said: "This has been an exciting opportunity with SCTS and HMCTS working together to create a bespoke tribunals centre, improving the services we provide for tribunals, while reducing costs.  It also provides an early opportunity to bring together SCTS and HMCTS staff to prepare for forthcoming tribunal reforms.”

Kevin Sadler, Deputy Chief Executive, HMCTS said: “We are committed to improving people’s experience of the justice system by providing facilities that are modern, comfortable and accessible.We have worked collaboratively with SCTS on this opportunity and we look forward to creating a joint tribunals centre with them in the heart of Glasgow.”

If you have any experience before any of these Tribunals, or information in relation to cases, Diary of Injustice journalists would like to hear about it. All information and sources will be treated in strict confidence, contact us at

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.

Previous reports on moves to publish judicial recusals in Scotland and a media investigation which prompted further reforms of the Scottish Register of Judicial Recusals can be found here: Judicial Recusals in Scotland - Cases where judges have stood down over conflicts of interest


Anonymous said...

Of particular concern to read about the disability qualified member and the dwp rigging appeal hearings with nothing shoot of bungs to tribunal members.

Good on you and the press for getting this into the public eye.

Anonymous said...

Aidan O'Neil as in Aidan O'Neil QC is on the Housing and Property Chamber?

Have you gone through the names of the others?Some real monsters right there!

Anonymous said...

The disability member, who is in receipt of DLA – holds significant assets and property well out of the reach of any typical DLA or PIP claimant.

This same disability member appears to hold several positions on public bodies and has frequently travelled on publicly funded junkets.

And, the same disability member has been the author of written reports on individuals – one which was described by a former local Government employee as “a personal vendetta” against a claimant from the same town in which the tribunal was held.

You raise a good point about the disabled member being the more interesting of the three panel members.From experience often the most difficult to deal with and they react aggressively to any comments they perceive to be an attack on their role.

I recall a dla hearing several years back where the disabled panel member demanded I be removed from the room as she was of the opinion my presence as a retired solicitor gave an unfair advantage to the claimant, who took a stroke three weeks later and died.

A thoroughly nasty experience.The individual representing the Government was equally abrasive and I would not be surprised if he picked up a pound or two for ensuring all appeals that day were refused.

Anonymous said...

Lady Smith again..if this were the 90's the 'other' story about AS would be front page news

yours sincerely

scts rumour mill

Anonymous said...

I wondered why began advertising for Disability Members of the First-tier Tribunal with such urgency.

Check out their creepy twitter advertising - sounds like a knighthood is on offer for any disabled person willing to throw their fellow disabled citizens to the dwp hyenas for a brown envelope and expenses claim.

Anonymous said...

"The former benefits adviser also recalled a recorded hearing – in which the same disability member became aggressive during a benefits appeal hearing - and demanded an assisted blind claimant remove their black glass"

Disability member? Sounds like the kind of person who would have voluntarily joined the SS to gas their neighbours in return for their belongings.

Anonymous said...

I see your point! they should have to make their register of interests if they want to judge anyone!

Anonymous said...

Shocking or what
cant trust a tribunal under those conditions they are only in it for the money and power

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

"Moorfield Group and partners Resonance Capital"

Not many conflicts of interest there right!

Anonymous said...

A Scottish Government spokesman said: “We consider that a specific register of interests is not needed. Existing safeguards, including the Judicial Oath, the Statement of Principles of Judicial Interests and the system of complaints against the judiciary, are sufficient to ensure the impartiality of the judiciary in Scotland.”

Yes I'm sure they did.Herr Nikler does like her oaths and principles written by her boss the tub of Lard President Carlobabble

Your answer much better "
YOUR TRIBUNAL: A publicly funded adversarial environment full of vested interests"

Nice one Pete.Always get to the truth and publish no matter what.

Anonymous said...

What is it about the British who like to go after their own in this way?
A really disgusting brand the union jack bathed in the blood of your own countrymen even today!

Anonymous said...

The disability member who told the blind claimant to take their glasses off - Can you name this person or at least clarify their gender and if possible location of the tribunal as a similar chain of events unfolded at a dla hearing I attended where the disabled tribunal member ordered my friend to walk without his crutches he got up and collapsed because his leg below the knee was amputated because of an infection caught in hospital during surgery.He also lost his appeal because they terminated the hearing due to him bleeding over the carpet disabled member looked chuffed with himself looking forward to his payoff no doubt.I am putting a link to your post on a forum and will ask anyone with similar experience to write to you.

Anonymous said...

Terrifying thought going into benefits tribunals I always thought they must be being paid to stop appeals thanks for confirming I was right to think so!

Anonymous said...

What is Sturgeon going to do when her own tribunals stuffed with her lawyer friends begin cancelling everyone's benefits?Her core voters are all on the dole or unemployable!Swapping votes for bribes to your your legal pals wont win elections Mrs Murrell!!

Anonymous said...

Very good I like your investigation and power to publish also read more here how corrupt the dwp and tribunals are
The tactics the DWP uses to stack the odds against benefit claimants
"A new appeal process was introduced in 2013 and was beset by problems from the start"
Natalie Bloomer By Natalie Bloomer
Friday, 12 August 2016 8:58 AM

Ministers always assure critics of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) that their appeal process is fair. After all, the press is full of stories of people who have been declared fit for work even though their disability plainly makes it impossible for them. Given the quality of decision-making, there needs to be a thorough system in place for rejected applicants to appeal the ruling.

But scratch beneath the surface of the appeals system and you find a mess of confusing and inconsistent legal practice, which stack the odds in the department's favour.

Cath said...

The disability qualified panel member is the most argumentative panel member.They appear to be an expert at everything except common sense or the truth and I can confirm from personal experience they hold people with illnesses in pure contempt.The panel member my mum was in front of has a serious chip on his shoulder about women with breast cancer and he even let out a laugh during the hearing when my mum burst into tears while she was reading out a statement what happened to her and why she was claiming DLA for extra help.I really want to say the people on that panel are pure scum and I hope you publish my comment because I was there with my mum and saw it for myself along with a benefits support officer from our council and he had plenty to say when we left the hearing.Hope they rot in hell thanks for giving me the chance to speak about it again and yes they should register their interests because the one claiming to be a doctor is very rich the council guy told me all about him.

Anonymous said...

Ha what a bunch of crooks on tribunals

Anonymous said...

snouts in the trough dont want to register their interests because they are trying to keep the money for themselves

Anonymous said...

The employment tribunals are just as bad - rigged by the courts service to give employers the upper hand although I must admit after reading your post this is the first time I thought about asking tribunal members to register their interests until now I thought they did so you have opened my eyes!

Anonymous said...

Scotland = Banana republic

Anonymous said...

Congratulations to you and the National for exposing these vile tribunals and their paid thugs who have put an end to many lives for the government.

Clearly this has been going on for a long time but now you have been looking into the business of judging a fantastic phrase you said in the National piece we are now beginning to find out the true extent of corruption and injustice in courts and the so-called independent tribunals.

Anonymous said...

Excellent report, with all the facts to back it up.

Given members of tribunals are recruited by the Judicial Appointments Board this is clearly yet one more quango to feather the nests of 'yes-men'.

So called "safeguards" such as the Judicial Oath and the Statement of Principles of Judicial Interests have been shown repeatedly to be ineffective - just reading the facts of cases on this blog confirms that - while we all now know, courtesy of the DOI's reporting on the testimony of not one but 2 Judicial Complaints Reviewer that the system of complaints against the judiciary is most certainly NOT "sufficient to ensure the impartiality of the judiciary in Scotland".

Just who do these people think they are kidding?

Disability Living Allowance and PIP appeal panels behaviour is another farce and has been recognized as such across party lines in Westminster, moreover the British Medical Association has even advised members not to participate. That says it all.

But then, perhaps the surgeon mentioned in your report is either stubbornly ignorant of this advice or chooses to ignore it - FOR PROFIT.

Anonymous said...

I looked at the DWP tribunal network some time ago and was able to speak to a disability qualified member put forward for an interview.

I was told to be at an office by 10am however I was curious to see how he was brought to the meeting so I waited across the street and surely enough at around 9.20am a brand new volvo estate pulled up at the office he was helped into a wheelchair and taken into the building.

I walked into the building at around 10am and was kept waiting for half an hour.

First off two claiming to be DWP employees said they would be sitting in on the interview and would intervene if necessary then the disability member told me to "be careful of my manners and not interrupt him"

I found the man in his late fifty's to be very bitter in his answers and little doubt he and the other two lurking in the background were hostile to my questions.

He said in a very angry tone I should have provided a list of questions weeks in advance as how could he be expected to answer anything in his 'condition' and then went on to read a prepared speech he obviously did not write as he couldnt even manage some of the words.

The part you will be most interested is when I asked him about what else he did and what his qualifications were for being on a tribunal.He said you have no right to ask me that and "I am calling the Police to get you arrested".He was very angry and moved towards me in a threatening manner yet all I asked was a question in what was clearly a controlled interview.

The two in the background stood up and said the meeting was over and I was escorted out of the building.

I worked on a local newspaper at the time and when I returned to the office my boss wouldn't believe me until this supposedly disabled man in a poor health condition began calling our office night and day even leaving messages saying I should be sacked and that he was going to get the Police on us.

Unfortunately my boss at the time chose not to publish the interview as other news took up the pages that week however I will send you my notes and the details of what happened.

Feel free to publish my comment as I no longer live in the UK.

Anonymous said...

Everyone on that list you published will now be your enemy if they werent already!
No one in the legal world likes exposure for doing something they wont want people to know their interests because everyone in the legal profession has something to hide - a solicitor told me that himself!

Anonymous said...

Yes I firmly agree with you Peter when people set themselves up to be the judge of others and make the public or anyone else pay for it they have to register all their interests and that means everything no excuses!

Anonymous said...

Also to say I like many of the comments today very good happy to see people understand this as a big issue!!

Anonymous said...

Big story on your petition in the National today Peter fantastic! newsagent kept it aside for me as all have gone!!

Anonymous said...

The worst of the worst are on tribunals just look at the history of some of those names and what they get up to as lawyers who has any chance against a mafia gang of like minds bent on protecting their own interests

Anonymous said...

good point yes if anyone is judging others they should be declaring their interests and everything else! obviously they are too corrupt to declare otherwise this would all be out in the open by now! and where are the lying cheating bbc in all this?must be some kind of news blackout the bbc must rely on crooked tribunals just as much to get out of their own dodges

Anonymous said...

You can tell how vile a country has become when it's doctors and teachers start leaving it under the Sturgeon dictatorship.

And I am not surprised.In a country where lawyers and the judiciary are treating everyone like sh*t and asset stripping for their own pockets who has any respect left for Scotland except the crooked.

'Save our surgeries' Almost 3000 doctors leave Scotland in less than a decade

The Scottish Tories have published data they say exposes the extent of Scottish-trained medics moving abroad.

David Clegg 06:00, 23 OCT 2017

Almost 3000 doctors may have left Scotland in less than a decade as part of a “brain drain” hammering the NHS, it was claimed yesterday.

The Scottish Tories published data exposing the extent of Scottish-trained medics moving abroad as they launched a campaign to “Save Our Surgeries”.

Local surgeries are said to be particularly hit by doctor shortages, with the Royal College of GPs recently warning that Scotland will soon be short of 850 GPs.

The General Medical Council figures show the number of doctors who have requested a Certificate of Current Professional Status – the document required by medics who choose to work abroad under a new employer.

A total of 5044 have done so since 2008, with the two highest years being the two most recent. In 2015 663 doctors requested a CCPS and a 2016 the figure was 612.

But of those that applied, 2,149 are connected to a “designated body” – meaning they are likely to still be practicing in Scotland.

The Tories believe the remaining 2895 Scottish trained doctors are almost certain to be working overseas.

Scottish Conservative shadow health secretary Miles Briggs said: “These figures show that as many as 3,000 Scottish trained doctors are currently working abroad - setting out starkly the brain drain we have seen in Scotland over the last decade.

“Of course every part of the UK has lost doctors to countries like Australia and New Zealand in recent years. But rather than point the finger elsewhere, the SNP must act on these figures and do more encourage doctors to come back – or not leave in the first place.

“A Scottish Conservative government would prioritise GP spending, so that 11% of all NHS spending went direct to the local practice, helping to boost working conditions, recruitment and retention.

“Scotland’s GP’s are at the forefront of our NHS - if we as a country can’t get General Practice right and working to deliver health services across Scotland then the rest of our NHS will continue to be destabilised.

“That’s why, this week, our Save our Surgeries campaign will shine a spotlight on the problems we face – and suggest a better way of doing things. The SNP needs to wake up and deliver.”

But Health Secretary Shona Robison said: “The Scottish Government has increased investment in GP services every year since 2007 and we are committed to increasing the share of the NHS budget going to primary care in each year of this parliament.

“Funding in direct support of general practice will increase by £250 million by the end of this parliament – as part of our overall commitment to increase primary care funding by £500 million.

“In the current year, £71.6 million is being invested in direct support of general practice, which includes increasing funding for GP recruitment and retention fivefold to £5 million.

“We are also working with the British Medical Association to deliver a new GP contract which will provide a strengthened and clarified role for Scotland’s GPs.”

Anonymous said...

I am familiar with a name in that list, a well known lawyer who rigs cases to go on for years just to keep himself in fees.
Thoroughly nasty piece of work.Dishonest in everything he touches.

Anonymous said...

Spot the crooks!

No wonder they are worried about your register of interests most of the names on this list have plenty to hide and proves the entire tribunal system is a sham especially the dwp appeals what a disgrace

Anonymous said...

As you said on your twitter all these jobs or appointments should be made by the Scottish Parliament not useless quango organisations such as the "Judicial Appointments Board" dreamed up as some so-called independent entity to give jobs to lawyers their families and friends of the judiciary we know nothing of these people other than they were slotted onto some panel that will hold lives and homes in the balance.What kind of transparency is this? more like pocket lining and jobs for the boys!

Anonymous said...

I am glad you published this Peter and very grateful to the National for featuring your investigation.

I was once before a tribunal assisted by my union rep and was immediately told by him to break off my attempt to ask the chair what his interests were with my employer as I discovered he was a shareholder in the company I worked for.

The tribunal rejected my case and my union rep ditched me however I went on to find a solicitor who took the case on and won a settlement for me on the basis I sign a non disclosure agreement which I insisted be given a time limit of 5 years and has now expired.

I will send on the details for you.

Regards and a big thanks for giving people a fighting chance against the jutsice system.