Consumer Focus Scotland will continue to make sure Scots consumers get a fair deal until Tory-Libdem axe falls in 2012

Consumer Focus Scotland helped Scots consumers on many issues, including access to justice. CONSUMER FOCUS SCOTLAND staff have been told by their Chairman Douglas Sinclair, the organisation will continue to make sure Scots consumers get a fair deal in both private markets & public services until the Westminster coalition’s very anti-consumer decision to scrap the organisation takes effect sometime in 2012. I previously reported on the UK Government’s decision to scrap Consumer Focus & Consumer Focus Scotland HERE & HERE.

There is of course to be a “consultation” on the closure of Consumer Focus & Consumer Focus Scotland, details of which will follow in further reports, so there’s still time to try and save what is certainly a much needed voice for consumers all across the UK, and especially in Scotland.

Scots will also have a chance to voice their opinion at the ballot box next May 2011 on which Scottish political party is doing the most to protect Scots consumers, so use your vote wisely when the time comes, and make your voice heard against those who would strip us of much needed consumer protection, especially in these perilous times of financial hardship where a lack of consumer advocacy will assist those professions who seek to rip-off consumers when no one is around to do anything about it.

Consumer Focus Scotland’s Chairman, Douglas Sinclair told his staff in a letter released to the media : “I am writing to you in the light of the announcement last week that the UK Government has decided to transfer Consumer Focus’ functions to Citizens Advice and Citizens Advice Scotland. Subject to the approval of the UK Parliament, it is proposed that the work of Consumer Focus Scotland will transfer to Citizens Advice Scotland in 2012, and at that point, it is planned that Consumer Focus will be abolished.”

“As it is expected that the necessary legislative measures, if passed by the UK Parliament, will not take effect until sometime in 2012, we will continue our work in making sure that consumers get a fair deal in both private markets and public services. We will be issuing a draft work plan for 2011/12 and look forward to working with you to deliver more benefits for consumers.”

“We will be working with the Scottish Government to ensure the best future management arrangements for the Scottish Government funded national development projects – healthy living award, Community Food and Health (Scotland), Scottish Accessible Information Forum and Health Rights Information Scotland. We will also continue to work with the Scottish Government on the planned transfer of Waterwatch Scotland’s advocacy powers to find a solution that works effectively for consumers.”

“I am immensely proud of everything which Consumer Focus Scotland, formed by the merger of the Scottish Consumer Council, Energywatch and Postwatch, has achieved in the first two years of its life, and of the legacy of over thirty years of work by these bodies in bringing about real benefits for consumers in Scotland. Consumer Focus and Consumer Focus Scotland have achieved a huge amount for consumers. Earlier this month, Consumer Focus obtained a £70 million energy bill refund for consumers across the UK.”

Consumer Focus Scotland’s achievements have included:

* Establishing the Scotland-based Extra Help Unit to support vulnerable consumers across Great Britain with their energy and post complaints. Since beginning work, the Extra Help Unit has dealt with thousands of complaints and enquiries and obtained over £1.4 million in compensation for vulnerable consumers.

* Following years of campaigning and influencing work, helping to secure the passage of the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill which will widen choice for users of legal services and increase access to justice.

* Securing the inclusion of a new duty on scrutiny bodies to continuously improve user focus in the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act.

* Playing a key role in the establishment of the Post Office Challenge Fund for Scotland to support the development of Scotland’s post offices.

Considering some of their achievements, and their work as the former Scottish Consumer Council, they’ve done pretty well for us Scots, in many areas of consumer interest, particularly on issues relating to legal services, access to justice & regulation of the legal profession – my specialist areas of reporting. For what it costs to run Consumer Focus as an organisation, well, we’d be better saving it, than handing millions from the taxpayer over to those negligent bankers who have caused the cuts now facing public services & jobs in the UK.

'Self regulation' system which destroyed Westminster reputation must now end for all professions, industry & public services

Westminster Parliament used self regulation for decades to protect members unacceptable conduct on expenses. SELF REGULATION, the infamous liars charter which many professions and public services use to protect themselves against complaints from the general public, and even the law itself, is to end at Westminster, according to the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, and the leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown speaks about the end of self regulation at Westminster after politicians from all parties were caught looting taxpayers money for personal expenses.

Conservative leader David Cameron also speaks about the end of self regulation at Westminster.

Yes, self regulation must now be ended in the UK political system, as it had utterly destroyed the public's faith & trust in the Westminster Parliament.

However, self regulation as we all know is a popular facility which many professions & industries and public services within the UK also use to protect themselves against public complaints of bad conduct, poor service, lack of honesty, theft & embezzlement of client & public funds, and in the case of Doctors, even negligent medical decisions which lead to the deaths of patients.

A roll call of self regulation and how it has affected all our lives :

Self regulation of bankers ensured lack of independent scrutiny of Sir Fred Goodwin's actions at Royal Bank of Scotland. Self regulation of the Banking & Finance sector has cost the UK dearly, and virtually brought public finances to the brink of bankruptcy, as bankers such as Sir Fred Goodwin's over zealous takeovers while in charge of the Royal Bank of Scotland have plunged the UK Banking sector into collapse and worldwide disrepute.

Doctors are self regulated by the General Medial Council, where complaints get less than a fair hearing according to many patients. If you have ever tried to complain against a Doctor, or medical facility such as a hospital, you will find that self regulation plays an extensive part in ensuring patients complaints are kept within the medical profession, and never really achieve a fair hearing. For instance, many medical decisions which could be called negligent, resulting in the deaths of patients, for example, either through lack of treatment or administering of the wrong medicine, are also covered up by self regulation.

Just look how self regulation of the UK medical profession has protected those who allowed the use of contaminated blood products which infected many haemophiliacs with Hepatitis C and even HIV infections, killing many and leaving thousands suffering from incurable diseases. I have reported on those matters here : Scottish blood infections inquiry will be 'another whitewash' as documents expected to be withheld to cover up public liability

Former Scottish Conservative leader David McLetchie lied over taxi expenses & journeys. Scottish Parliament has its own share of expenses scandals and self regulation has seen that no MSPs get prosecuted. Our dearly beloved Scottish Parliament at Holyrood, which some have been holding up as a model of expenses reform against the recent scandals at Westminster, has also had its fair share of expenses fiddling, with MSPs milking their expenses accounts to pay off mortgages, non existent travel, and even taxi fares.

No prosecutions or de-selections of MSPs have ever taken place at Holyrood despite all the expenses fiddling there, because of course, self regulation has allowed the Parliament to keep decisions on punishment and standards to itself. You can read some of my earlier articles on expenses scandals in Scottish politics, here: Scottish Parliament expenses scandals

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission was an attempt at independent regulation but was 'taken over’ by legal profession before it even existed. Despite attempts to create an independent regulator of the legal profession in Scotland by the previous Scottish Executive, the current Scottish Government stood by and allowed the legal profession to take over the 'independent' Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, ensuring once again, that 'virtual self regulation', as some at the Law Society of Scotland now call the SLCC remains the order of the day for complaints against solicitors in Scotland, and that even today, complaints by the public against crooked lawyers do not get a fair hearing, because too many lawyers and Law Society members were parachuted into the 'independent' SLCC via deals between the Law Society and the Scottish Government

Scottish accountants have used self regulation to hide corruption complaints against members. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS) is one of a number of organisations which self regulate its members, however the style of self regulation at ICAS has led to the cover up of some of the worst conduct of accountants in the UK, where fraud, embezzlement of client funds, even criminal activity by members, and many other types of complaints have been swept under the carpet of self regulation by the body which prides itself in having extensive political connections throughout the UK, including even members of the Privy Council which ICAS have used to prevent changes to independent regulation of accountants from taking place.

An example of how accountants self regulation affected my own family (in complaints which are common to many ICAS investigate) :

Norman Howitt, Borders Accountant with JRW Group was protected by self regulation of accountants. Norman Howitt, a Borders Accountant ruined my family's life, and got away with it because of self regulation at ICAS which even covered up the fact he gave false statements to Lothian & Borders Police to cover up his embezzlement of money into his accounting firm's accounts, from the sale of my late father's assets.

You can read more about what Norman Howitt and several lawyers in the Scottish Borders did to my family in the name of greed and taking money for themselves, here : A picture is worth a thousand words - Images of fraud reveal corruption & deceit by lawyers & accountants in the Scottish Borders

Scotsman newspaper led a campaign in the 90’s to end self regulation of Scots lawyers. The Scotsman newspaper reported on many occasions, the corruption of self regulation at the Law Society of Scotland which protected complaints against crooked Borders lawyer Andrew Penman of Stormonth Darling Solicitors, Kelso. No effort was spared by the Law Society of Scotland’s most senior officials to corrupt the investigation and derail any prosecution against Penman who also deceived the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Inland Revenue.

Philip Yelland, Law Society’s self regulation chief ordered solicitors to ignore clients instructions in cases against crooked lawyers. You can read more about the way self regulation of the legal profession was used by the Law Society of Scotland to protect crooked lawyers in my own case, here : The Scotsman reports : Andrew Penman, self regulation and the Law Society of Scotland and you can read about some of the lengths individuals at the Law Society of Scotland were prepared to go to defeat complaints against the legal profession as a whole, here : Law Society intervention in claims 'commonplace' as ex Chief admits Master Policy protects solicitors against clients

What we as the public have had to endure for far too long in Scotland, England & Wales, is a Crooked Curtain of self regulation that has been held firmly in place by the professions, many UK industries, public services, politics and Government (local & national), simply to protect those same professions, industries, public services and politicians from public accountability and transparency, which can only be achieved through fully independent regulation.

As we can see from the above examples, it is time to end self regulation for anyone & all public services, industry and professions in the UK, now.

UK Bill of Rights idea by Conservative Party not in the best interests of the public I fear

Reading the latest news reporting the Conservatives latest political idea ... a UK Bill of rights to replace ECHR, makes me wonder just which think tank or spin doctors they are listening to these days .. is it the `crash and burn brigade`, perhaps ?, because that about sums up David Cameron`s idea so far.

Have we ever had an actual Bill of Rights in the UK ? well, no we haven`t, so it took European legislation to actually give us something similar to it, in the form of European Commission Human Rights Legislation (ECHR).

ECHR has been condemned much recently by politicians (when it suits them to do so), and by sections of the media ... but it is not the all conquering legislation that it is portayed to be.

Take for example ... the treatment of paying clients by the legal profession, or for that customers of Banks.

Write a letter to a Bank or a lawyer claiming they are breaching your ECHR rights by not addressing a complaint properly, by denying you a fair hearing in respect of your Article 6 rights ... and they will laugh at you.

Write a letter to the Law Society of Scotland when you are complaining about one of their crooked solicitors who has ripped you off - they will laugh at you too and they will make sure that every lawyer you use after that, will rip you off again and again and again - and nothing will ever be done about it - one of the reasons there are 5000 + complaints a year against Scottish lawyers.

In cases of complaints against lawyers which have been brought to my attention, I have seen letters written to the likes of Douglas Mill - the Law Society of Scotland Chief Executive, telling him that he and his colleagues are breaking the ECHR rights of clients.

How does Mill respond ? Usually, he writes an "I note your comments" letter, then writes internal memos to colleagues, has meetings - with the author of the letter as the subject - and at the end of it, the client who has complained against their solicitor gets the full force of hell against them ... while Mill and his pals have a jolly good laugh back at Drumsheugh Gardens.

Actually, in the case of Gordon Coutts Thompson, the famous lawyer from Edinburgh whom the Law Society hated so much, they got rid of his business which was conveniently taken over by Law Society favourites - Alex Morison & Co, now Morrisons Solicitors. According to memos and an account heard in Court over what happened, Mill actually invited out senior Law Society officials to drink to the success of the operation ... some way they treat their own then .. little wonder they throw clients to the dogs !

Okay, so we are back to what does all this have to do with ECHR. Well, a lot actually.

What you have read above, is how the Law Society of Scotland treat people, under the terms of ECHR.

Fair hearing ? No chance of that ... after all, you have already read in this blog and in the press how the Law Society of Scotland has treated me .. and remember ... not just me .. many thousands of other clients have fell the same way at the hands of the Law Society of Scotland when it comes to self-regulation of crooked Scottish lawyers.

Ah ... Peter Cherbi is nagging about lawyers again ... well, not actually .. care for another example ?

Complain against a Police raid in Scotland to your home or complain against the conduct by Police Officers, and say they violated your ECHR rights ... the Chief Constable will write back to you and say "I note your comments" ... try and get a lawyer to take the case on .. no chance .. and with the self-regulatory complaints procedure of the Police making sure you don`t actually get a fair hearing, then .. forget it .. ECHR flies right out the window again. Honestly, you`d be better taping and filming the Police presence, and getting the media to spread it across the papers and television ...and internet ... much more effective I think.

Plenty more examples I could think of ... Benefits Agency, Complaints against the Medical profession, Accountants, etc ....

Basically, any form of self-regulation, I think, from crooked lawyers, to bent cops, to bent Judges (who aren`t really regulated at all) .. is incompatible with ECHR and should be abolished .. after all, who ever gets a fair hearing when they complain against any of this lot ? Has anyone ever tried complaining about a Sheriff in the Scottish Courts ?

How far did they get ? ... I know of a few cases - and believe me, the complainer`s lives were made a living Hell after they had done so ...
So, would the Tories latest idea of a Bill of Rights do anything more for us than ECHR is already doing ? - Probably not.

I fear that if the Conservatives go ahead with their idea, there will be so many exclusions of the professions, corporations, vested interests, government agencies, etc in adherence to the suppsed "Bill of Rights", ... that any such Bill would be utterly useless when it comes to a member of the public trying to do something about they way they have been treated at the hands of any of the above - after all, it`s hard enough just now to actually get an ECHR case into the Courts on such a matter, unless it takes the interest of lawyers, the legal profession, and their own motives to actually progress the case to full court hearings .. so would a new UK Bill of Rights make any difference to matters as they currently stand ? I think not.

While reading through all the press attention on ECHR today, I was quite happy to see someone point out on the BBC`s Nick Robinson`s web blog, this little titbit of information :

Just had a look at the final section in the Human Rights Act. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80042--j.htm. It basically says judges will have pension contribitions paid for by the Government. Why did the Government include this section? Were the judges "paid off" because they were going to object to problems the Act. Are all the failures of the Act down to a backroom deal between policians and judges?

Yes .. that`s correct - Judges get their pensions paid for them by Government.

What does that have to do with Human Rights ? .. not much really ... and you know, there have been many exemptions with regards to ECHR ... among a host of organisations who gained exemptions, the Law Society of Scotland sought and also won exemptions from the Act until late 2001 ... and of course as we all know, the Law Society and the legal profession in Scotland still don`t treat their fee paying clients with any respect for ECHR up to now ...

To add confusion to the Conservatives latest policy idea, David Cameron says he will be sticking with the European Convention (ECHR). So, why bother adding a UK Bill of Rights, which will only add confusion to the Courts in cases where the rights of the individual have come up for consideration ?

Maybe, as some suggest, it is simply to add another hoop to make people jump through, to prevarricate, delay, or impede a person`s ability to use the probably more effective ECHR European legislation to enforce their rights in Law, which is difficult enough at present, as I have already explained. Sadly, I would have to agree with those who claim this to be the case of this idea.

Read on for the article, from BBC News, at : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5115912.stm

Tory Bill of Rights bid slammed

The Conservatives' plan to replace the Human Rights Act with a US-style Bill of Rights has been described as muddled and dangerous by the government.

Tory leader David Cameron says current legislation is inadequate and hinders the fight against crime and terrorism.

He believes a British Bill of Rights would strike a better balance between rights and responsibilities.

But the Lord Chancellor says Mr Cameron is trying to rewrite human rights because "they seem inconvenient".

In a speech to the Centre for Policy Studies in London, the Tory leader argued that the Human Rights Act had prevented Britain deporting suspected terrorists whatever the circumstances.

It was "practically an invitation for terrorists and would-be terrorists to come to Britain" he said.

The Human Rights Act has made it harder to protect our security and it's done little to protect some of our libertiesDavid Cameron

Q&A: Bill of Rights plan

They knew that whatever crime they had committed or if there was a suspicion they might be planning a terrorist attack in the UK or elsewhere, they would not be sent back to their country of origin "because the process is so complicated and time-consuming for the government".

"I believe it is wrong to undermine public safety, and indeed public confidence in the concept of human rights, by allowing highly dangerous criminals and terrorists to trump the rights of the people of Britain to live in security and peace," he said.

Mr Cameron said a "home grown" document would be based on British traditions, balancing rights with security.

People would still be able to pursue their claims in the European courts but judges would have a British Bill of Rights to base their rulings upon, he said.

Lawyers are locking horns over whether this would change anything
BBC political editor Nick Robinson

Read Nick's thoughts in full at : http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2006/06/human_rights.html

He stressed he did not want to withdraw from the European convention and acknowledged it would be hugely complicated to draft a Bill of Rights.

He is appointing a panel of distinguished lawyers to unravel those challenges for him.

But Lord Falconer, the lord chancellor, dubbed Mr Cameron's plans as unworkable and "a recipe for confusion, not clarity".

"It is utter nonsense to say that you solve the problems about crime and terrorism by introducing an additional layer of rights undefined," he told BBC Radio 4's PM programme.

"David Cameron made absolutely clear he's sticking with the convention. That means he's going to comply with the convention."

'Politically motivated'

Attorney General Lord Goldsmith said the Tory proposal was "muddled, misconceived and dangerous".

"I think it would lead to more, not less, confusion about the best way to strike the balance between protecting the public and individual liberties," he said.

And Human rights lawyer Michael Mansfield QC described the plan as "complete nonsense".

"How is it hindering the investigation and prosecution of crime? No examples whatsoever. It certainly isn't doing that in relation to terrorism or terrorist cases," he said.

"I'm afraid it's totally misconceived and it's tabloid driven."

Lib Dem peer Lord Carlile, the government's independent adviser on terrorist legislation, said he could not see any benefit coming from "these extraordinarily ill-thought out proposals".

The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for a British Bill of Rights and a written British constitution.

But Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell told BBC Radio 4's World at One that the suggestion that the European convention had "stood in the way of dealing with terrorism is frankly unfounded".

'Rights culture'

Ex-Conservative chairman Lord Tebbit warned that any British Bill of Rights could be overridden in Strasbourg as long as the UK remains signed up to the European convention.

The Human Rights Act has come under repeated attack in recent years from critics who say it puts a "rights culture" ahead of a common sense view of cases.

The act came into force in 2000 to install the European Convention on Human Rights into British law so people did not have to take claims to the European courts in Strasbourg.

A US-style Bill of Rights would outline the rights of citizens, while the Human Rights Act incorporates European rules into British law.