Showing posts with label Christine Grahame. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christine Grahame. Show all posts

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Simon San Murder : Not so fast Lord Advocate, We need full explanations, may be independent inquiry says Justice Committee Convener Christine Grahame

Christine GrahameHolyrood Justice Committee Convener Christine Grahame wants explanations from Lord Advocate, Police over failures in Simon San murder case. FOR ONCE in its long history of appearing to operate without any oversight, the Crown Office & Lord Advocate may not escape so easily with the usual excuses in a murder case so appallingly handled it generated an apology from the Police Force which investigated it as CHRISTINE GRAHAME msp, the Convener of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee tells BBC News there may be room for an independent public inquiry into the authorities handling of the investigation & prosecution of the racially motivated murder in August last year of Simon San.

Christine Grahame talks to BBC News : Full explanation is needed, there might be room indeed for an independent inquiry (Click image to watch video)


Christine Grahame spoke to BBC News, saying a "full explanation" was needed from the Lord Advocate, who had said in a statement the media were told was ‘attributed to a spokesperson’ on Tuesday that an inquiry would not be held by the Crown Office.

Ms Grahame told BBC Scotland: "I think we need full explanations from the constabularies about what their processes are following on from this case and we need a full explanation from the Lord Advocate.Once these are in the public domain then we can see where we go from there. If these explanations are not satisfactory then there might be room indeed for an independent inquiry."

Simon SanSimon San, murdered in a racist attack by thugs in Edinburgh. The Daily Record newspaper reported on the failures by Police & the Crown Office in the murder of Mr San, saying : Simon, a shy, gentle man who hated violence, was ambushed outside his family's Yong Hua Garden takeaway in Lochend, Edinburgh, in August last year. A pack of feral youths surrounded his Smart car and began rocking it back and forth. Simon phoned police and got out of the car.

Witnesses saw the gang force Simon back towards a wall. Reid then punched him in the face while he was on the phone. Simon hit his head on the pavement and suffered fatal brain injuries. The scum went through his pockets and stole his car keys and phone as he lay dying. Locals then heard the neds calling their victim a "Chinky".

Simon's family told the cops he was a victim of racial hatred but their warnings fell on deaf ears. Instead, the police focused on the idea that Simon was the victim of a robbery gone wrong - a theory the force's own report into the failed investigation calls "misguided".

The report says "little emphasis" was placed on the gang's racist language. The "interview strategy" for the four accused included "a number of questions relating to robbery, but none regarding any racist element or language". The cops also failed to properly look at possible racial incidents in the gang's records. Police papers said one was "racially prejudiced" and had previously been reported for a racist offence.

The prosecution of those involved in the death of Mr San earlier this year saw the conviction of a 16 year old youth, John Reid, who admitted the culpable homicide of Mr San and was sentenced to five years for the killing. Two other 16-year-olds pleaded guilty to assault charges in connection with the case, however in April, Michael Roberts, had his original 42-month sentence cut to 26 months and Keir Rodger had his 34-month term cut to 24 months by appeal judges. A 14-year-old, who cannot be identified, who also faced an assault charge in connection with the death of Mr San, had his not guilty plea accepted by the Crown but admitted breaching bail conditions.

Full report on calls for an independent inquiry the Simon San murder case from BBC Scotland (click image to watch video)


Deputy Chief Constable Steve Allen’s apology to the family of Simon San was reported throughout the media in which the Capital’s Police Force admitted failures to treat the murder of Mr San as a racially motivated incident.

Lothian & Borders Police Deputy Chief Constable Steve Allen said: "There is no doubt that Simon's family have not had the service from my force that we would hope to give any family or any victim of crime. I have apologised privately to the family for that failure and would like to repeat that apology publicly."

Aamer Anwar, the San family solicitor, said: “Simon San's family lost faith and trust in police because of the actions of these officers. They feel had they not complained about their treatment, they would have never found out about the mistakes made by the officers. The officers may well be disciplined but for Simon's family they have played a role in lack of justice which they should have been entitled to as a grieving family.”

“Simon's father believes his son lost his life and is convinced that the accused received a lesser sentence because the officers failed to investigate the racial motivation of this case. They also feel that they were treated in this manner because they were Chinese.”

Lord Advocate Frank MulhollandLord Advocate Frank Mulholland – ‘will not be instructing an inquiry’. However, in stark contrast to the apology from the Police and demands for an inquiry from the victim’s family, the Crown Office in what many will see as a now typical reaction to the call for an investigation by the Lord Advocate, issued a blunt statement denying there was any evidence to treat the case as racially motivated or that an inquiry was needed. A spokesperson for the Crown Office adding to their original statement : "We can confirm the Lord Advocate will not be instructing an inquiry and is satisfied with the Crown's prosecution of the case. Mr John Logue, the Area Procurator Fiscal for Lothian & Borders, has offered to meet with Mr San's family to discuss any questions which they might now have."

There has been no reaction today from the Crown Office to Ms Grahame’s welcome comments on the matter, however clearly in the interests of justice, there must be a full inquiry into the murder of Simon San to establish how the authorities have let down his family, the justice system, and Scotland.

Friday, July 23, 2010

Row over Lockerbie bomber’s release & Ministerial attendance to Washington hearings leave questions over trial & justice in the shadows

Scottish GovernmentThe Scottish Government refused invite to senate investigation. THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT have, as we all now know, refused an invitation to attend a US Senate investigation of Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill’s decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, who was tried & convicted under Scots Law of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988. Mr Megrahi was diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer, and allegedly given three months to live after his release in August 2009.

While there is considerable furore on Scottish Minister’s refusal to attend the US investigation into the release of Mr Al-Megrahi, it shouldn’t come as much surprise that Ministers of State of one nation refuse to be questioned on live television over their own decisions by politicians of another nation’s elected assembly, no matter what the case at hand is. Would any other Scottish Government have done different ? I think not .. but then again, perhaps any other Scottish Government may not have released Mr Megrahi … or would they ?

However, while the Scottish Government say they will not attend the Washington Senate investigation, the Scottish Parliament could send over a team, as Holyrood has already investigated the Justice Secretary’s decision to release Mr Al-Megrahi.

To this end, Bill Aitken, the Convener of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee for one, could travel across to the US and give testimony over the Justice Committee’s investigation into the release of Mr Al-Megrahi. Another MSP, Christine Grahame, who has questioned the validity of Mr Al-Megrahi’s conviction and the evidence it was based on, could also follow across the Atlantic to give her public account of issues she believes must be ‘put right’.

Viewers in the UK may be familiar with BBC Newsnight Scotland, who ran one of the most informative reports on the recent row over the release of Mr Al-Megrahi, and highlighted issues surrounding the actual conviction & trial, earlier this week. You can watch that show if you are in the UK, by clicking on the image below.

BBC Newsnight Scotland’s Wednesday 21 July 2010 report on the Lockerbie case (click on image to view video)

BBC Newsnight Scotland cap

The Scottish Government have made two media releases this week, reporting a letter from Alex Salmond to US Senator John Kerry and an offer to answer any more questions which senators may ask

Readers can visit the Scottish Government’s information on the Lockerbie bomber’s release here : Lockerbie - Information relating to decision on Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi

Missing from all of the public arguments between politicians over the decision to release Mr Al-Megrahi however, is the question over the way in which the Lockerbie Trial was conducted, and the safety of Mr Al-Megrahi’s conviction, which was due to be tested in an appeal, backed up by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which was as we all know, suddenly dropped by Mr Al-Megrahi, and apparently to the great relief of the Scottish legal establishment, thus enabling Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to decide swiftly on Mr Megrahi’s release, apparently ensuring no further repercussions which may have resulted in the Scots Justice system being made to look even more corrupt than it actually is, if indeed such a conclusion is possible these days …

Of course, while Mr Salmond & Mr MacAskill wont go to Washington, this shouldn’t prevent us having our own independent inquiry to establish the true facts of the Lockerbie trial because make no mistake, Scots deserve an inquiry into the Lockerbie case to establish just how honest the investigation & trial actually was, given the many questions over the evidence, testimony and how the conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi was arrived at by a jury-less Scottish courtroom set up at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands.

The only problems we have to overcome for such a project, would be finding someone independent enough to chair it, and of course, trying to reach an independent, fully transparent unqualified conclusion which honestly, I don't think any UK or Scottish public enquiry ever in existence has ever managed to do in any matter being investigated to the present day … especially when it comes to issues of justice …

There is little on the subject I can write more than what has already been covered by the mass media, and Scottish Law Reporter in their coverage of the Lockerbie case, here : The Lockerbie Trial

Tuesday, July 06, 2010

What do you do when the Law becomes an invasive weapon ? Suggestions for repeal, asks Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg

RIPSA cctvRegulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000 : a good case for repealing an invasive law which is abused daily by local authorities. DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER Nick Clegg has called for suggestions from the public on which laws we think invade our freedom too much, to the point they should be considered for repeal. An excellent suggestion from Mr Clegg I urge everyone to take up, considering the raft of anti-terror spying measures implemented over the years which have mostly been used by local councils to spy on residents or indeed in some cases, journalists onto a Council-scandal-scoop …

Feeling some of those laws passed over the years are a little too invasive ? Well, don’t just sit there moaning about it, make your voice heard on the new “Your Freedom” website – before the professions get their oar in ahead of the rest of us :

Your Freedom - Your ideas for your freedom

From the “Your Freedom” website :

“We're working to create a more open and less intrusive society. We want to restore Britain’s traditions of freedom and fairness, and free our society of unnecessary laws and regulations – both for individuals and businesses.

This site gives you the chance to suggest how we can do this. Your ideas will inform government policy and some of your proposals could end up making it into bills we bring before Parliament to change the law.

So if there are any laws or regulations you'd like us to do away with, then first, check if there are any similar ideas here already and then add your comments to it and rate it to move it up the list. If it's not here, then add it! And remember - we want you to suggest ideas for removing laws and regulations, rather than ideas for creating them.”

There are so many invasive laws (passed in the past 13 years) which come to mind personally, one of the most prominent being the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000 – you know, the one your local council uses to spy on you when it feels like it or if you have criticised or complained against your local council, its staff or inadequate public services.

Yes, out of experience of investigating cases along the years, I’d say RIP(S)A is definitely one to nominate for the dustbin, because why should local councils have anti-terror spying powers they regularly abuse more often to protect themselves from revelations of scandals or public criticism than actually revealing the imminent terror threat of someone’s pet West Highland White Terrier (wee Jock) cocking his leg against a tree in a public park.

However, as I was saying the use of RIP(S)A has not just been limited to spying on the antics of ‘wee Jock’ … as cases over the years such as the infamous Scottish Borders Miss X rape scandal have shown, where a local authority who did nothing to stop an abuse ordeal of a handicapped victim went onto spy on journalists & [then] opposition politicians who were writing about the case, which you can read more about here : Miss X report passed to procurator-fiscal , here : Vital Miss X file removed, claims MSP and here : Borders social work chief quits ..

You’d have to wonder just how bad a local authority really is when they spend more time targeting journalists & critics than trying to save an abuse victim just a few yards away from Council HQ ….

RIP(S)A is that kind of law where some council official with a chip on their shoulder after being complained against, can .. well .. lie about a member of the public, and have their colleagues in the spying department try to get something on the person who made the complaint in the first place …

For example, a crooked building control official obviously on the take who just passed a plan which financially benefits a local councillor while sweeping planning objections aside, he runs off to his colleagues to use RIP(S)A to spy on the objectors, to keep an eye out for any adverse publicity coming his way … its that kind of law that just begs to be repealed …

So, visit the Your Freedom website, wherever you are in the UK, and put forward some ideas of laws you think should be repealed … after all, if an invasive law in England & Wales gets the chop through Mr Clegg’s campaign, yet the Scottish Government keeps the ‘Scottish version’ of it intact … well, wouldn’t that be a turn up for the books …

Sunday, June 07, 2009

First Minister Alex Salmond admits he's not 'whiter than white' over Westminster expenses scandal as questions arise over £800 food allowance claims

Alex_Salmond smileScotland's First Minister Alex Salmond blamed expensive food allowance claims on William Wallace events. Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond who is also an MP at Westminster, been sucked into the expenses scandal at the House of Commons in London, with revelations Mr Salmond had claimed £800 for food expenses for two months, while the Parliament was actually in summer recess.

Mr Salmond, speaking on BBC radio last week, did not give specifics to callers on his expenses claims, choosing to blame attending William Wallace commemoration events as one of the reasons for the large food claims. Mr Salmond continued, saying he was "quite happy to go before an independent audit" but admitted no one including himself could claim they were "whiter than white" in the expenses scandal.

First Minister Alex Salmond on £800 food claims admits "I'm not whiter than white" in expenses scandal.

nigel_donThe SNP's Nigel Don embarked on a series of property deals to get Holyrood to pay his mortgage. While the First Minister claimed on BBC Radio that no one within the SNP had been 'house flipping' to claim thousands of pounds from the taxpayer on second homes, recent revelations over Nigel Don's property deals to secure £688 a month from the taxpayer to pay his mortgage, despite receiving a salary of £55,381. It is worth noting that Mr Don is also Parliamentary assistant to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, and is also a member of Holyrood’s Petitions Committee, where recently Mr Don’s remarks on an access to justice petition ‘constituted disinformation’ as some pointed out at the time.

I wrote about Mr Don’s mortgage arrangements and work on the Petitions Committee in an earlier article here : Influencing Justice reforms in Scotland worth ‘price of a mortgage allowance’ as MacAskill's ministerial aide gets £688 a month to fund capital flat

christine_grahameChristine Grahame, the SNP’s MSP for South Scotland claimed a staggering £26,465 for ‘stationery’. Another example of huge expenses claims at Holyrood surfaced recently with revelations the SNP’s Christine Grahame claimed a staggering £26,465 for postage and stationery, while other politicians from the Tories and Liberal Democrats representing the same area claimed ‘significantly less’ sums. You can read more about MSPs stationery claims here : Scottish Parliament : Christine Grahame’s £26k stationery expenses claim on 'consultations'

Currently, up to 28 MSPs at the Scottish Parliament, 12 of that number being SNP MSPs and 6 of those being Cabinet Ministers in the Scottish Government, including the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, John Swinney, are claiming mortgage interest payments of up to £1000 a month from the Scottish taxpayer to pay for their second homes in Edinburgh. This state of affairs could hardly be described as being ‘whiter than white’ – Scottish MSPs collectively claiming millions of pounds from the taxpayer in expenses while themselves claiming they are a model for transparency & accountability compared to their colleagues caught up in the Westminster expenses scandal.

You can read more about the Scottish Parliament’s own expenses milking scandal here : An extra £2m for MSPs at Holyrood while Westminster’s reputation withers in expenses scandal

Many MSPs have ensured they have not been outdone by their Westminster counterparts in expenses claims, in examples I have previously covered here : Scottish MSPs get in on the act of expenses milking too

david_mcletchieEx Tory leader & lawyer David McLetchie was brought down over huge taxi expenses claims. The Scottish Conservatives, who have raised the issue of the First Minister’s food expenses, have themselves suffered expenses scandals, which led to the resignation of David McLetchie as the Scottish Conservative Party leader, after revelations he claimed more than £11,500 for taxi journeys ‘into the unknown’, some of the destinations being revealed later as his law office at Tods Murray, and a few trips to Morningside …. You can read more of the McLetchie scandal here : McLetchie taxi details revealed

It is also worth noting that while the Liberal Democrats in England have been told to pay back any Capital Gains Tax on profits made by selling properties funded by taxpayers, the Scottish end of the party, seems to have a different policy for its members, as has been covered in the media here : LibDems leader Tavish Scott refuses to reveal capital gains tax payments on property profits

Lets also not forget that Scottish politicians were also recently caught for even claiming wreaths from the taxpayer, reported last month here : Scottish Parliament MSPs 'as crooked Westminster' claimed expenses for funeral wreaths

What is so disgusting to me, is that while there are people including children literally begging for cancer or other medical treatments to their local NHS Trusts throughout the country, only to be told there is either no money to pay for it, or that they are in the wrong postcode, politicians from all political parties, including the SNP are able to basically claim for what they want. A thoroughly disgusting situation which no honest decent person can defend.

How could a politician, already being paid over £70,000 plus, justify they deserve £800 for food, or £14,000 to clean moss off the front of their house, while, say, a 14 year old child cannot get a life saving course of medication simply because they live in the wrong area or their own health board has run out of money. That HAS to be an affront to humanity, politicians putting money and self gain before the lives of constituents while having such a huge salary for allegedly representing our interests.

Indeed the caller in the radio show who questioned Mr Salmond on his food expenss may well be right when he said “All you politicians are in it to line your own pockets”.That much is true – they certainly do, but it must now stop, and we the electorate must hold all politicians to account for their actions of lining their own pockets, no matter which party they are from.

The Sunday Herald reports :

Fresh challenge to Salmond over London meals claims

By Tom Gordon, Scottish Political Editor

ALEX SALMOND is facing fresh accusations over his expenses as an MP, after the Conservatives proved he was out of London for several weeks during the whole period for which he submitted maximum claims for meals from the House of Commons.

The first minister claimed the monthly £400 maximum for both August and September 2005, despite Westminster being in summer recess.

Salmond has repeatedly refused to publish his diaries for the months, dismissing suggestions the claims were unjustified as "laughable".

Last week, he told a BBC Radio Scotland phone-in: "I was in London in recess in 2005. MPs often go to London. They were all legitimate Parliamentary claims."

But the Scottish Tories last night produced a list culled from SNP press releases and newspapers showing Salmond was in Scotland on at least 22 of the 61 days in question. His eight August engagements included Robin Cook's funeral, a cricket match in Edinburgh, a gala in Rhynie, an art exhibition in Banff, and a constituent's 100th birthday in Portsoy.

The following month he was in Scotland for at least a fortnight, campaigning in the Livingston and Cathcart by-elections, and attending the SNP conference in Aviemore.

Salmond's spokesman said the first minister had never stated he was in London all the time, and suggested some of the claims might refer to days when parliament was sitting.

Besides claiming £400 for food in August and September, Salmond also claimed the maximum for six other months in 2005-06, a total of £3200. He also claimed £1751 for food in 2007-08, when he was first minister, despite voting on only six days in the Commons.

Annabel Goldie, the Scots Tory leader, last night wrote to Salmond urging him to publish his diaries. She said: "I am asking him to be open and transparent with the taxpayers about his Westminster expenses. He claimed the maximum food allowance of £800 for August and September 2005, but there are doubts over how much time he actually spent in London during that period that would justify such a large claim.

"I hope for the sake of the Scottish Parliament he takes this opportunity to clear up any lingering doubt."

Salmond has been the MP for Banff and Buchan since 1987 and is also the MSP for Gordon.

The continuing row over his Commons expenses comes as a fresh review of the MSP expenses system begins at Holyrood.

Sir Neil McIntosh is to examine whether "key elements of the scheme could be expected to continue to command public confidence".

Although praised as more transparent than Westminster, the Holyrood scheme still allows MSPs to keep all profit from the sale of second homes funded by the taxpayer.

Last month, the Sunday Herald revealed 28 MSPs currently claiming mortgage interest would make around £2 million profit if they sold up.

A Holyrood source said the McIntosh review, which will report by December, was aimed squarely at closing the second homes loophole. Tavish Scott, the Scottish LibDems leader, who would make a £120,000 profit on his second home, is under fresh attack over "despicable" expense claims by his MSPs.

Peter Nield, a LibDem councillor in Angus, resigned from the party in disgust at Scott's failure to discipline four LibDems who claimed for Remembrance Day poppy wreaths.

Although all agreed to repay the money after the claims were publicised, Nield said that was "irrelevant".

Now sitting as an independent, he said of Scott: "When a party leader is so out of touch with society he does nothing to reprimand those responsible, it is a step too far for me. It is despicable MSPs on good salaries and generous expenses claim back Remembrance Day poppies as expenses."

A LibDem spokesman described Nield's decision as "disappointing".

In a statement, Salmond said he was "entirely confident" about his expenses. "I was in London in both August and September, securing an unfurnished rented flat and other engagements, and during that period also paid bills from the Commons refreshment department incurred during the parliamentary session."

***

Council expenses cost taxpayer £3m Argyll and Bute Scotland's most expensive authority By Tom Gordon, Scottish Political Editor

SCOTLAND'S councillors claimed more than £3 million in expenses last year on top of £22.4m in salaries, according to new official figures. In recent days, all 32 local authorities were forced by law to publish councillors' salaries and expenses for 2008-09, showing spending on travel, accommodation, meals, phones and IT.

Analysis by the Sunday Herald shows that the average expenses claimed per councillor ranged from £325 in the country's smallest authority, Clackmannanshire, to £6004 per head in the largest, Argyll and Bute. The Scottish average was £2486.

Under a complicated remuneration formula, all 1222 councillors earned a basic salary of at least £15,000, with more for those in bigger councils and those with special responsibilities, such as committee chairs, and provosts.

The most expensive council in terms of salaries was the City of Edinburgh, with its 58 members taking home an average £21,079 in pay.

The least expensive was Moray, with its 26 members earning an average salary of £17,314. The average across the country was £18,351.

Overall, the most expensive council, including salaries and expenses, was Argyll and Bute, run by a coalition of Independents and the SNP. Its 36 councillors cost an average of £24,088. With 25 inhabited islands covering the largest geographical area of any council, their expense claims included £152,974 on mileage and £10,703 on ferry fares.

The least expensive was Labour-run Inverclyde, whose 20 members each cost £18,128 overall. Across Scotland, the average councillor cost £20,837.

Despite outnumbering them 10 to one, the councillors expense claims came to less than a third of those made by MSPs.

The highest expenses claim was made by the SNP's Donald Manford, chairman of the transportation committee in the Western Isles, whose £20,081 claim was larger than his £17,819 salary - it included £11,740 in travel and £5300 in subsistence claims.

In contrast, several dozen councillors around the country claimed no expenses at all.

Argyll and Bute said its unique geography contributed to high costs. A spokeswoman said: "We have very strict controls on what can be claimed as expenses, and in what circumstances claims can be authorised.

"Receipts are required not only for subsistence or accommodation claims, but also for fuel ...

"Councillor remuneration is fixed by the government by statutory order, not by councils themselves. Mileage rate is also fixed by government."

Robert McGill, the deputy leader of Labour-run Clackmannanshire council, said: "We are looking to offer value for money to our constituents. It's important that local people trust their council and the expenses are all itemised and accounted for."

The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the umbrella body which represents all of the country's 32 councils, said: "Scotland's democratically elected councillors offer extremely good value for money.

"Councils put a real value on the public pound and therefore operate extremely well controlled systems around expenses for councillors.

"All expenditure rightly needs to be proven and would include things like the cost of mobile phone calls, IT and the sort of other businesslike necessities being a democratically elected member committed to representing communities entails."

Monday, April 03, 2006

Peter Cherbi & the Justice 1 Committee of the Scottish Parliament duel for rights of audience & transparency ...

With all the recent items in the media about "Public Inquiries" - I would have thought people would have noticed something about the outcomes of such investigations by supposed 'independent' people .... they never really get to the truth, critisise who they should, and at the end of it, no real action or improvement ever comes from them .....

Take for instance, the Deepcut Inquiry into the deaths of soldiers in the British Army at a Training Base. Are the parents of the dead recruits happy at the outcome of the inquiry ? no. With tales of recruits bullied, sexually assauted, possibly murdered, etc ..., I'm not surprised that recruitment to the army is down, and the parents of the dead are still campaigning for a full inquiry - but they won't get, or at least if they do, nothing will ever come of it, and whatever happened to those who died will remain unanswered just the same as what happened in many other such inquirues'

We have many to compare, such as Lord Cullen's 'inquiry' into the Dunblane Massacre, which examined why a close friend of senior political figures and policemen went out with an array of firearms allowed to him by his Police & political friends, and murdered a class of young children along with their teacher. This 'inquiry' kept much of the documentation secret for 100 years, finally with the Crown Office fiddling plenty of it for early release just to please some and grab some headlines ...

... or, just the same as when the Government stuffed the entire top brass of the intelligence services in Northern Ireland into a Chinook Helicopter which crashed on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994 (Government had to blame pilot error to take the heat off the idiot decision to slap everyone into one unreliable helicopter meant for troop & materiel transport, on a foggy day) more here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinook_crash_on_Mull_of_Kintyre....

... there's more - McKie fingerprint scandal, The Lockerbie Case, Sky Bridge Tolls, Scottish Haemophiliacs poisoned by tainted blood everyone knew about, My own mum's death, and hundreds of others .... will I name more such failed "inquiries" ? better not, I will be here all week writing one article ...

Okay, back to my case - and surprise surprise - the Scottish Parliamentary Inquiry into "Reform of the legal profession" by the Justice 1 Committee, which Phil Gallie had struggled to get for us clients of crooked lawyers, had started to run into the severe difficulties I always thought it would - after Phil Gallie was replaced on the Committee by Lord James Douglas Hamilton ... (never a one to dodge transparency .. was he now)

At the outset of the Inquiry - I had thought that members of the public would get the chance to go to the Justice 1 Committee and give testimony on their cases of how they had been treated by crooked lawyers and the Law Society of Scotland - to show how brutal, evil and corrupt the Scottish legal profession really were ....

.... but I was WAY off on that one .... because there had been a flurry of secret meetings between Justice 1 Committee members, Scottish Parliamentary staff, lawyers, and officials of the Law Society of Scotland - to prevent such hearings - because "it is felt a trail of members of the public giving oral testimony on their cases could be most damaging to the Scottish legal profession, the credibility of Scot's Law, and also raise questions about why their politicians had not done anything on their cases in the past" ..... ahhh ... you are going to ask where I got that quote, yes ? .. well, for now, that's a secret ....

So, no members of the public, like me (the one who had probably campaigned the most for the inquiry) would be allowed to attend - quite convenient, yes ? shut up the most prominent campaigners so they can't speak .... makes you wonder how the new inquiry will go by the Justice 2 Committee .... doesn't it ...

Meanwhile of course, the top staff (crooks) from the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish legal profession were appearing before the Justice 1 Committee, seemingly, at-will - and giving glowing testimonials as to how great they were, etc .... (which begs the question why now has the Scottish Executive decided to replace them with an independent regulatory body, as I, and many others, had always asked for) ....

There were many more 'adjustments' to the nature of the inquiry too .. for instance, the Sheriffs Association, had actually written a secret letter [leaked to me when it was received] to the Justice 1 Committee - telling them that if they tried to consider the actions & positions of Sheriffs in Scotland, the Sheriffs Association would sue the Parliament and take legal action to remove themselves from such an Inquiry ! - how about that ! ... (it gave me an idea though ...)

The Justice 1 Committee then had yet another secret meeting, and secretly removed the Sheriffs from their "Regulation of the legal profession" inquiry ... without anyone really noticing - except me and a few campaigners - seems the Press were conned out of the story though by Parliamentary Briefings ...

Anyway, since the Sheriffs were [secretly] threatening the Justice 1 Committee of the Scottish Parliament with legal action to remove themselves from the inquiry - I thought I'd try the same .. but of course, when Peter Cherbi tries to find a legal agent to represent him - it's tough, to say the least ... because of the discrimination against me of course ... and not one advocate would take on the case - because of pressure from their colleagues in the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland - and also their political pals of course ....

Anyway ... I asked Christine Grahame - the Convener of the Justice 1 Committee, an MSP for the Scottish Borders, and member of the Scottish National Party, nicely, to reconsider the position so that members of the public could come in and speak about what happened to them at the hands of crooked lawyers - but, being a member of the Law Society of Scotland herself, she told me to get lost and she could do what she wanted ..... (which, she certainly did)

And, when a friend of mine, Krystyna Ost, went to her own Scottish paliamentarian, (Lord James Douglas Hamilton) to discuss matters, he said any case Peter Cherbi brought against the Scottish Parliament WOULD fail ... which I kind of suspected anyway .. but I had to try of course, because I was fighting for not only myself, but for all those other campaigners and clients of crooked lawyers who had fought so hard to get this inquiry in the first place ...

In the article you are about to read, Christine Grahame's response was this "Christine Grahame who chairs Justice 1, said she did not believe Mr Cherbi’s action would succeed and the committee could call the witnesses it wanted to hear."

Yes, Ms Grahame .. you were right, your committee certainly did only call the witnesses it only wanted to hear, and you shut out transparency and the many victims of the legal profession in Scotland such as me, to give the Law Society and it's crooked membership a few more years of life & robbing their clients ....

Anyway, read on for the story .. and the link to it of course ... and I will update this item again later this week with the second part to this .... good old Scottish Parliament ... likes to sweep things under the carpet, doesn't it .... and it has done the same with plenty of it's so-called Committee inquiries in the past .. and will do so again .. probably with the McKie inquiry too, which so many people are getting themselves worked up for ... but which now, I am told, the McKie case is being used more as a diversion than anything else .... no surprises there then ....

Link at : http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1620662001

article :
Image hosting by Photobucket