Scottish Sheriffs fear revelations of their past may come back to haunt them ..

Scottish Sheriffs certainly do fear for revelations of their past .. so much so that their Association intervened in the Justice 1 Committee "Regulation of the Legal Profession" inquiry back in 2001 and demanded .. or perhaps .. required .. that the Justice 1 Committee withdraw from any inquiries into Sheriffs .. and you can read Sheriff Lockhart's intimidating letter to the Justice 1 Committee informing the Parliament they might be taken to Court on ECHR grounds if they tried to investigate Sheriffs ..

How's that for fearing transparency ? I'd say ... quite good evidence ... Threaten a Parliamentary Inquiry with Court if they investigate Sheriffs ... quite good evidence of a cover up, by using the threat of Court Action .. which would be judged by one of their colleagues .. no doubt in their favour ...

In Scotland,a Sheriff is a Judge, who is usually assigned to work in a particular local Sheriff Court or who travels around the Sheriff Courts system anywhere in Scotland when they are needed, as a 'floating Sheriff'.

There are now 142 full-time Sheriffs in the various Courts and a number of part-time Sheriffs, all being appointed by a Judicial Appointments Board which is further from transparency than the rules of the Scottish Parliament (a fiddler's charter, one could say).

Sheriff Courts deal with legal cases & procedures which include things like
(1) Solemn and Summary Criminal cases
(2) Large and Small estates upon a death
(3) Fine payments
(4) Civil actions under Ordinary, Summary Cause and Small Claim Procedures
(5) Adoption Cases
(6) Bankruptcy Actions

What & who, are Scottish Sheriffs ?

Well, Scottish Sheriffs are lawyers .. well, former lawyers, and Advocates (fancy name for a lawyer who practices in the Higher Courts of Scotland) .. and so on. So, we shouldn't have any trouble then with them, should we ? Sheriffs, being former lawyers ? .. that should be ok, right ? Not at all ... as events have revealed.

Since Sheriffs come from Scotland's near 10,000 lawyers ... who have about 5000+ complaints made against them each year ... we certainly do need to be concerned about their background ... especially the bits which the Judicial Appointments Board conveniently pass over .. in other words, their regulatory history as a lawyer or advocate .. and in this, lies a problem .. a BIG problem.

A friend of mine, a journalist, has been trying to uncover the history of certain Scottish Sheriffs, and has uncovered some sinister details of the history of certain Sheriffs from when they were lawyers. Nothing of course, which doesn't surprise me ... stuff like, embezzling funds from clients, ruining deceased clients estates & plundering clients wills, overcharging clients for work, intentionally mis-selling clients properties for reduced sums to preferrential clients & personal friends, even, allegations of picking up under age rent boys for sexual adventures ....

How come we never see anything of the complaints histories then, of a lawyer or advocate, who then goes on to be a Sheriff ?

Well, we don't see anything like that, because the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, the Sheriffs Association, and the Judicial Appointments Board .. don't want us to see it .. because if we did .. there would have to be a few resignations from the Bench.

Isn't it about time that some people started asking to see the regulatory histories of these lawyers who are appointed Sheriffs ?

Well, surprise .. that information - their history as a lawyer, how many complaints they had made against them .. etc .. appears not to be subject to FOI Law .. (Freedom Of Information) .. and that is because, the Law Society of Scotland - who collect regulatory data .. even when they don't want to admit it .. got itself an exemption from the FOI Act ... so .. basically, they can do whatever they want .. and if a crooked lawyer refuses to disclose their regulatory history to the public or the Judicial Appointments Board - then we will never know anything about it.

It goes much deaper than that though ... Sheriffs are still lawyers, even though they are Sheriffs ... still lawyers, licensed to practice law .. and they still pay into the sinister, corrupt Master Insurance Policy run by the Law Society of Scotland & Marsh UK ... and that in itself is an interesting point .. as there are a few Sheriffs now on the Bench in Scotland who were subject to long protracted negligence claims by clients .. but the Law Society of Scotland wiped their records of crooked offences clean .. and hid the dirt so they could go on to become Sheriffs.

So, we have situations where, Sheriffs, who have been caught stealing clients money .. stealing their possessions ... embezzling what they could, as a lawyer ... are now sitting in judgement on other fraudsters .. who of course, can't get away with it so easy .. because of course ... the people up before them .. don't serve the law .. or do they ?

What would happen, for instance, if a crooked lawyer who had embezzled their clients funds, stolen assets, looted wills, possessions, ruined clients lives, fitted up complaints so they got off the hook, etc .. came up before a Sheriff .. who had done the same when they were a lawyer ?

Well, guess what ? It's happened .. and the Sheriff certainly didn't dismiss himself from the case .. because of course, he hadn't told anyone he had been a crooked lawyer in the past .. so he didn't really need to.

Now .. if this were America .. probably, the lawyer representing the client who had a negligence claim against the crooked lawyer, would point out that the Judge ... had been a crooked lawyer too in his past .. but no .. that doesn't work in Scotland .. because the Sheriff is also, still, a member of the Law Society of Scotland ... so lawyers never reveal things like that agains their colleagues .. do they ...certainly not to aid their client against a fellow colleague ...

I found it interesting that a Sunday Newspaper recently ran a story about a lawyer who was subject to some 12 negligence claims. TOP LAWYER AT THE CENTRE OF 12 NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS .. well, there are some who are currently sitting on the Sheriffs Bench .. which the Scottish Executive know all about ... who were also embroiled in negligence claims from clients

Of course, the Scottish Executive, the Judiciary, and the Law Society of Scotland, would prefer this information never got out, and would certainly prefer the public not to ask such questions of their Sheriffs .. even to the point of threatening a newspaper and a journalist's career (or more than his career) .. if word got out .. but I think it's time, people started asking for more of the background of these Sheriffs ... because they are certainly NOT what they seem to be ... as some of us well know. Be nice to see the story eventually break though ...

Here's a little unrelated article from last weeks Scotsman on the rising number of Sheriffs ...

Now go and ask some questions everyone on the appointment of Sheriffs... and just what they have been up to in their past

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1447502006

Number of Scottish sheriffs reaches record levels

NINE appointments have taken the total of Scotland's sheriffs to a record 142, it was announced yesterday.

The appointment of the seven men and two women was approved by the Queen after they were nominated by Jack McConnell, the First Minister.

He did so on the basis of a report to him by the independent judicial appointments board that was set up in 2001.

The appointment of a part-time sheriff was also announced and Mr McConnell said he has asked the board to recommend more part-timers.

The nine sheriffs will serve in some of Scotland's 49 sheriff courts. Some of the newcomers will serve in specific areas where help is most needed.

Mr McConnell said: "These appointments will bring the complement of sheriffs up to a record level of 142. I am sure that they will make an early impact in reducing delays in criminal trials and civil cases being heard."

The new sheriffs are Ruth Anderson QC, 59; solicitor Maxwell Hendry, 50; Martin Jones QC, 50; solicitor Desmond Leslie, 51; solicitor Elizabeth McFarlane, 45; solicitor advocate Alan Mackenzie, 50; Charles Macnair QC, 51; solicitor Thomas Millar, 52, and advocate Nigel Ross, 43.

Crooked ex lawyer & Conservative Politician gets off lightly with 27 month sentence for fraud against disabled client

A case I was very interested in, of course, because Iain Catto did the same to his client, Francis Fleming, systematically robbing his vulnerable client of his funds, as a crooked sick Borders Accountant Norman Howitt of Welchs Accountants Hawick & Galashiels did to my mother, even taking her pension book & bank books.

You can read about what crooked Borders accountant Norman Howitt did to my mother, along with plenty evidence, here :
http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2006/03/norman-howitt-crooked-borders.html
and you can read my previous coverage of the Catto fraud case here :
http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2006/08/dont-trust-your-lawyer-or-accountant.html

Ian Catto only got 27 months for his crimes though - a pitiful sentence, which many are wondering was influenced by his political & legal connections. I certainly wonder about that .. because here we have Catto - a self-professed big wig with the Scottish Tories, with many connections within the Scottish Tory party, and with connections to the legal profession & it's allies, getting a very light sentence, for an obviously pre meditated and well thought out robbery of his client's funds.

Lets make no mistake about this here, this was robbery. Catto knew exactly what he was doing, and to show just how depraved, sick & evil he was, he preyed on a vunerable disabled client, stealing all he could from Mr Flemming.

Why then should Catto just get 27 months ? when all he will serve will be half that at the most ? let's say .. maybe 12 months at most ? for stealing over £70,000 from a disabled person who depended on him as a friend ? I think that's a disgrace. Catto should have got 5 years for what he did.

Where are the cries from politicians asking for an increased sentence ? I don't hear any ... but certainly Catto deserves a LOT more than 27 months if there is to be any deterent aspect to the sentence ...

Why is the Crown Office not announcing an appeal to the sentence to get it increased ? Shouldn't it be in the public interest that the likes of Catto get a LOT more than 27 months ? or is it because, of course, Catto comes from the legal profession and has his political pals to pull strings for him ...

If you want to email the Crown Office to urge them to appeal for an increase in Catto's sentence, the Crown Office email is : COPFS@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

If you want to write to the Crown Office on this case, their address is :
The Crown Office, 25 Chamber Street, Edinburgh EH1 1LA

If you want to email the Scottish Parliament Justice 2 Committee (who are currently handling the LPLA Bill on lawyers regulation) and ask why they aren't paying attention to lenient sentences of crooked lawyers, the Justice 2 Committee's email is : justice.committee@scottish.parliament.uk

What's Catto going to do when he comes out ? Stand again as an MP for the Tories ? With the likes of Lord Archer and a few others within their ranks .. that would be just grand for the Tories to have another like Catto in their midst .. and he will probably have every assistance he wants to get there .. because the likes of Catto don't care a damn about people like poor Mr Flemming .. or for that, any client .. because in the psychology of many lawyers - the client is just a nuisance - and deserves to be ripped off as much as possible.

I've still to hear whether Mr Flemming actually did get the money returned to him ... the Scotsman stories on the case report that Catto makes great hay of selling a flat to pay back the money .. but there is no definite mention of whether Mr Flemming actually received it yet ... and even so, giving back the money doesn't undo the sick twisted crime which Catto committed against his client - and that is why Catto should get much more than 27 months.

However, while at least Catto is going to jail, crooked Norman Howitt escaped any punishment whatsoever - because of course, he is a crooked accountant, and could rely on the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland to get him off the hook - which they did, with the most senior staff at ICAS, such as Director of Legal Services Tom McMorrow, and the ICAS President & plenty other goons from ICAS spinning a web of lies & deception to get their crooked colleague Howitt off the hook from his theft of my mothers pension book, bank books, and even his fiddling of a secret trust to keep all the money under his own control.

I wonder what's up with the Crown Office, and why they are so protective of those in the legal profession who are either charged with criminal offences, or get found guilty in criminal cases ...

The Crown Office were recently asked under Freedom of Information laws to disclose how many criminal cases & successful prosecutions there had been against members of the legal profession.

The first reaction from the Lord Advocate's office was a demand to know why the information was requied and for what purpose it would be used .. The Crown Office, then came out & said it held no such statistics on criminal cases & successful prosecutions against members of the legal profession.

Why exactly is that ? Why do the Crown Office come out with a big fanfare when it suits them with barrels of statistics on other types of criminal cases, to prove they are doing a good job of sweeping up the crooks, but when it comes to criminal cases against members of the legal profession - they keep silent .. even refusing, well, actually, lying, that they don't know how many prosecutions or criminal cases there have been against members of the legal profession in Scotland.

Even the Law Society of Scotland, of course, won't disclose how many lawyers it has within it's ranks who have criminal convictions .. and since there is around 10,000 solicitors in Scotland these days - it's anyone's guess how many of them are criminals .... certainly there have been a few cases in the papers recently, where lawyers were convicted of criminal offences ... some of them were even Procurator Fiscals .. but no statistics to be released ... what a sinister silence we have here then ... and to think the Police were forced to admit only a few weeks ago, the numbers of officers in Scotland who have criminal convictions ... but the same rule of disclosure isn't to be applied to lawyers ... how unfair .. how ... sinister ...

It could be the case that if Catto ever came back as a lawyer no one would know about this conviction if they weren't aware of it and since the Crown Office refuses to disclose statistics on numbers of criminal cases or convictions against the legal profession, even Catto's conviction might not come to light if he doesn't tell anyone about it - which he obviously wont.

I think it's time for it to be made mandatory that lawyers disclose their regulatory & criminal history to clients .. and the Lord Advocate Colin Boyd should get his underlings to appeal Catto's sentence for something much more substantial than a mere 27 months, of which he wont serve much.

Read on for the article, from The Scotsman, at :
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1427092006

27 months for lawyer who robbed 'friend' of £70,000
VALERIE MACGREGOR

HE was once a successful and well- connected lawyer, a city councillor and a man tipped to be a future Westminster MP.

But yesterday, the political aspirations of Iain Catto were ended forever when he was jailed for 27 months for stealing £70,000 from a disabled client, who depended upon him as a close friend.

Catto took the money over two years from December 2002 to maintain his lifestyle of foreign travel and exclusive restaurants after losing his job as a solicitor. He now faces a hearing before the independent Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal, where he could be struck off.

Edinburgh Sheriff Court heard yesterday how the 41-year-old - a leading member and secretary of the right-wing Scottish dining club the Tuesday Club - befriended Francis Fleming, 59, who had been partially paralysed in an assault, and offered to look after his finances.

But Catto, a Conservative member of Lothian Regional Council from 1990 to 1994, was regularly withdrawing sums of up to £11,000 from the large criminal injuries payout his client had received. He also sold some of his victim's shares to get more cash.

To cover up his scam, he had all Mr Fleming's bank statements sent to his own home address. Mr Fleming, who was left partially paralysed and impaired following an attempt on his life in 1968, trusted the solicitor so completely that he even gave him a key to his home in Craigentinny Road, Edinburgh.

Meanwhile, Catto was buying himself airline and train tickets for the UK and abroad, hotel rooms, restaurant meals, software, goods from Oddbins and expensive haircuts.

Mr Fleming, who separated from his wife and lost touch with his son, had gone to the legal firm where Catto was a trainee to get financial help. The former councillor befriended him and took over power of attorney in 1996.

Alison Innes, fiscal depute, told Edinburgh Sheriff Court that Catto lost his job as a solicitor in 2002 and turned to stealing from Mr Fleming for his own use between December 2002 and December, 2004. She said: "He became very close to Mr Fleming and used to come and go as he pleased. Mr Fleming, being the trusting soul that he was, did not have any problems with that."

Catto carried on with the scam until Mr Fleming was reunited with his son, Frank MacLennan, who first became suspicious about Catto when he tried to help them buy a home in Spain during a holiday.

"Had it not been for the son arriving, we can only speculate if the accused would have stopped at all," Mrs Innes told Sheriff Kathrine Mackie.

Mr MacLennan realised £4,000 had gone missing and arranged to take over the power of attorney from Catto.

In November 2005, Catto, of Edinburgh,pleaded guilty to the theft and has sold a flat to repay the stolen cash.

Fiona MacDonald, the defence agent, said Catto had forged a promising career but when he was sacked could not admit the shame of it to family and friends.

The sheriff told him: "You callously took funds from Mr Fleming to support yourself when you knew that he depended on that money and you. It was a gross breach of trust."

Mr MacLennan, 42, criticised the sentence as too short. He said:
"He bled my father dry. We had been planning to move to Spain, but now that idea is gone. He lied to my dad and me from the start."

The Law Society of Scotland confirmed it would be looking into Catto's case.

Amendments to Scottish Executive LPLA Bill reveal possibility of contempt charges against Law Society officials.

The Amendments to the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill have finally been put forward to the Scottish Parliament, awaiting discussion by the Justice 2 Committee later this week.

However, not to be outdone by myselt & other campaigners, the Law Society of Scotland have put around 40 amendments forward to the LPLA Bill via Bill Aitken MSP , the Conservative MSP and former District Court Judge who was also a Glasgow City Councillor & has long ties to the Insurance Industry .. so he must have been a tame msp for the Law Society to try and get their point over.

Funny thing is, Bill Aitken was quoted on the Lord Mike Watson fireraising conviction saying .. "Nobody should make a profit as a result of a criminal act." .. I wonder how that fits in with how the Scottish legal profession makes profits over ripping off the Scottish public & companies who have to use legal services ?

There has been a spate of lawyers in the media recently, convicted of criminal acts .. and plenty more to come ... bu the Law Society of Scotland have let them keep their jobs as solicitors ... even some at the Law Society have been asking journalists to "go easy" on stories relating to crooked lawyers and criminal cases ...

I wonder how Bill Aitken feels about that then ? All those crooked lawyers keeping their loot from poor clients or even from tax & benefit frauds against the Country ?

Bill Aitken must feel just fine, as he has put forward some 40 amendments to the LPLA Bill .. .on behalf of the very same people who have fiddled client complaints against crooked lawyers for decades .. to the point where some have even killed themselves through stress. Bill Aitken then, must be fine with that too, as I can't think of anyone who could defend such an organisation, other than someone from within it. Remember, he's a Conservative ... not a party which would ever be likely to give us independent regulation of the legal profession then ... as we have seen from the antics of some of the Conservative party members at Holyrood recently, with regard to issues concerning the legal profession.

John Swinney MSP & Colin Fox MSP have come forward with amendments reflecting the public's concern of crooked lawyers and lax regulation .. good for them, I congratulate their understanding of this important issue.

The Scottish Executive have also submitted some 300 amendments to the LPLA Bill, and one of the most powerful amendments they have put forward, reported by today's Herald newspaper, is that the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission should have the power to bring the Law Society or Faculty of Advocates before the Court of Session on a contempt charge if they failed to implement the watchdog's recommendations. Sanctions include fines and imprisonment.

Quite an amendment, that one .. makes me think the Executive have finally read all the correspondence people have been sending to them over the years about how crooked & corrupt the Law Society of Scotland really is when it comes to dealing with complaints against Scottish solicitors.

You can read these amendments, in Acrobat file format on the Parliament's website here : 1st Marshalled List of Amendments for Stage 2 & 1st Groupings of Amendments for Stage 2

Progress of the LPLA Bill can also be viewed at :
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/bills/56-legalProfession/index.htm

However, while the LPLA Bill sails through the Parliamentary process, the agents of darkness - aka - members of the legal mafia opposed to pro consumer reforms, are warning in other newspapers the LPLA Bill will probably be challenged under ECHR laws - because it will be against the Human Rights of the legal profession to have itself subject to outside scrutiny which would reveal just how crooked, corrupt & evil it is.

Brian Fitzpatrick, an Advocate & former Labour MSP claims in today's Scotsman newspaper, the creation of an independent legal complaints commission will be successfully challenged in court because it does not fit with human rights laws. Sounds like he will be leading the charge then, against the consumer. Better watch out for Mr Fitzpatrick and the rest of the gang then.

Just think about that for a second ... lawyers arguing it is against their Human Rights to limit their power to overcharge clients, embezzle client's money, sweet talk elderly & vulnerable clients out of their properties & prized posessions, fake up papers in complaints investigations & fiddle evidence, ... even, that it would be against lawyers Human Rights to not be able to fiddle complaints against themselves so no one gets compensation. Some arguement, isn't it ? No wonder we desperately need independent regulation of the legal profession in Scotland.

Another thing of course that we need in this situation, is a review commission to look at the legal profession's sins of the past.

Potentially, tens of thousands of complaints have been fiddled against crooked lawyers over the years, by the Law Society of Scotland and it's crooked Client Relations Office - which many would rather refer to as the Client Destruction Office .. which sports a vast array of dirty tricks to use against those who dare complain against their obviously crooked lawyer.

Over the years, the likes of Philip Yelland, the Director of the Client Relations Office, and even his boss, Douglas Mill, Chief Executive of the Law Society itself, have directly intervened in many cases, fiddling their outcome, so a crooked lawyer or legal firm can go on practising, while a poor client gets nothing ... and the most evil & twisted of dirty tricks have been authorised by the Law Society to be used against those very same clients, who have lost every penny, and many years of their lives fighting the corruption & deviousness of Scotland's legal mafia.

Yes, there are many sins to answer for, Mr Mill, Mr Yelland, and all your colleagues .. who have fiddled complaints to the nth degree over the years ..

.. and these sins, just like in the Shirley McKie case, require intervention by the Scottish Executive & Parliament so that cases can be cleared up, finally addressing the wrongs against clients which were buried by the legal profession, so that those victims of crooked lawyers, whose lives & livelihoods were ruined, even, laid asunder so that crooked lawyers could go on practising, can finally get some justice & deserving compensation payouts for all the harm & hurt which has been caused to them for decades ... akin to a lingering abuse, sanctioned by those who stood by for years & did nothing to stop it.

Read on for the article, from the Herald, at : http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/70806.html

Lawyers plan to give watchdog bite
PAUL ROGERSON September 26 2006

The leaders of Scotland's 10,000 lawyers could be called before the courts for contempt if they snub the recommendations of the new independent watchdog being established to oversee the profession.

Deputy justice minister Hugh Henry has opened a new round in the Scottish Executive's battle to remove control of complaints- handling from governing bodies, the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates.

Mr Henry has proposed a legislative amendment which would give the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission the power to bring the society or faculty before the Court of Session on a contempt charge if they failed to implement the watchdog's recommendations. Sanctions include fines and imprisonment, although it is unclear whether individual executives and office-bearers would be in the line of fire.

The proposed commission will comprise a majority of non-lawyers and end centuries of self-regulation by the two governing bodies. Under the bill, Scots who receive poor service from their lawyers will be able to claim up to £20,000 in compensation, which is four times the present maximum.

Mr Henry's amendment to the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill is one of 300 being brought forward by the executive and will be discussed this week by Parliament's Justice 2 committee.

The minister was spurred to act by criticism of the legislation from Linda Costelloe Baker, who held the soon-to-be-defunct post of Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman for six years before she stepped down earlier this year.

She condemned the bill as a recipe for confusion and conflict, partly because the commission's powers are limited to complaints of poor service by a lawyer. Complaints alleging outright misconduct remain to be dealt with by the society and faculty. Since many complaints concern service and conduct, Ms Costelloe Baker argued, the commission and society would end up probing the same complaint and ending up at loggerheads over their conclusions.

Now the commission will be able to impose its will on the handling of conduct complaints too – in sharp contrast with the ombudsman's position.

Since 2001 complaints to the ombudsman have risen five-fold, but at present she has no powers to impose her findings on the professional bodies and they can and do sometimes ignore them. As the predecessor Justice 1 Committee pointed out some years ago, the lack of such powers undermines consumer confidence.

An executive spokesman said: "When the executive consulted last summer on reform of complaints handling, an overwhelming majority [88%] of those who commented on the powers of the ombudsman believed these powers should be increased. The bill enables the commission to direct a professional body to comply with its recommendations on the handling of conduct complaints and [the amendment] provides a sanction in the event of non-compliance."

A spokesperson for the Law Society said: "This amendment looks unnecessary as courts have always had oversight of professional bodies such as the society. What is unusual is this power is proposed for the commission without any prior consultation and any opportunity for the Justice 2 Committee to scrutinise."

A faculty spokesman said: "In the case of the proposed sanction for failure to comply with a recommendation of the commission, it would be unusual to regard failure to comply with the requirements of an administrative body as being the equivalent of a contempt of court."

Scottish Parliament calls for freeze on Commissioners amid fears of excessive accountability

MSPs have lurched from scandal to scandal over at the Scottish Parliament since it was born in 1999. From fiddling expenses, to undeclared wee bits on the side, to lavish offices for their own personal benefit while doing .. not very much, to rampant rises in the building costs of the Parliament itself, there has scarcely been a week gone by, where another new scandal hasn't emerged from the Parliament which we voted for all those years ago.

It stands to reason, then, that those whose activities, corrupt, crooked, or shall we say, less than honest, absolutely hate it when legislation comes along to make them accountable for their failings ... and since the Parliament is full of fiddles & corruption itself, some examples such as .. Raffan's travelling expenses .. Mcletchie's undeclared taxi rides .... and a lot more .. the occasional MSP caught on the Parliament's security cameras indulging in sex acts with staff, all those undeclared meetings with interested parties, businesses & other special interests with regard to particular legislation to be passed ... with all that in mind, MSPs have now decided to attack plans for public sector commissioners to oversee public services, which badly need oversight of an independent nature - which those services & professions have failed to provide since their own existence.

The proposed commissioners are :
Road Works Commissioner
Scottish Commissioner for Human Rights
Scottish Legal Enforcement Commission
Legal Complaints Commissioner
Police Complaints Commissioner

Now, there are those who say, oh, the present gang of Commissioners are spending too much money and are almost unaccountable ... indeed, Linda Costelloe Baker, the former Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman, has stated publicly her office was never audited during her 5 years as SLSO .. but whose fault is that ? not the Commissioners .. it's the fault of the Executive .. and with Scotland having a 1 in 4 public sector workforce, one would have thought the Scottish Executive could have found someone to audit Ms Costelloe Baker's office !

However, the reality of the situation, has at least, been picked up by one of the Finance Committee members - Green MSP Mark Ballard, who said :
"I am concerned that these proposals are part of a backlash from those unhappy with commissioners who have done their job and spoken out on issues and, in the process, made life a little uncomfortable for the powers that be ..."
"...To have robust and effective scrutiny by watchdogs, we must ensure they operate at arm's length from politicians - any moves to direct spending will undermine their ability to act in the public interest."

Mark Ballard is correct. Simply, there are many who are ticked off by what the present Commissioners have done so far in their areas - those being, the :
Scottish Public Services Ombudsman
Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner
Commissioner for Children and Young People
Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland
Scottish Information Commissioner

Why are the MSPs at Holyrood so dead against these proposals ?

Well, just look at what has been revealed over the years regarding the Parliament and it's members .. by using, for instance, the Freedom of Information Act .. where several MSPs have been caught with their fingers in the till ... and a lot of what was eventually dragged out of the Parliament's Corporate body, after many refusals, came with the assistance of the Scottish Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion.

Another interesting point in this debate is the types of Commissioners proposed, which are generating so much fuss. Just look at the public sector services affected ... Law, Lawyers, Police, the Courts, Human Rights, even Road Works ... a list of public sector services which badly need oversight in the form of an independent Commissioner (known to some as Ombudsmen) free from political meddling.

Anyone tried to make a complaint that their Human Rights were breeched by a public sector service recently ? The answer from whoever they complained against would be something like .. drop dead .. after a long paper chase coming to nothing .. but a lot more persecution against the complainant simply because there was no one to oversee & safeguard the Human Rights issue in the first place.

Anyone tried to make complaints against the Police ? and then at the end of a long trek through even the HMIC, have to go through equally crooked Police Boards, whose members are just as good at fighting each other as covering up for the deeds of the Police Force they are there to keep an eye on in yet another self regulatory cartel which should have died long ago ?

With at least 5000 complaints a year against Scotlands internationally renowned crooked legal profession, we certainly need a Legal Complaints Commissioner to oversee that gang of criminals .. and even though there is supposed to be independence in complaints against lawyers when the LPLA Bill finally comes into law .. we all know lawyers will only become more inventive in their crooked schemes ... so oversight will certainly be needed of the new complaints procedures, which will doubtless, suffer from time to time of a lack of transparency or common sense, as everything does.

So, why the fuss ? Well, the MSPs claim it's all about money .. that the Commissioners aren't accountable to anyone .. but as we have seen in the past .. MSPs have spent over half a billion pounds on their own Parliament, then go on to claim as much as they can from the public purse, on top of earning £1000 (nearly $2000 a week) .. so it can't really be about money, can it.

No, it's not about money, it's about accountability, transparency, & honesty .. and when there's too much of it, that's a bad thing for the crooks and those who want to cook the books over at the Scottish Parliament and in those public sector services which badly need oversight - independent oversight which isn't subject to fiddling from Scottish Ministers & politicians.. and there's plenty of those yet to be revealed for their undeclared secret benefits on the side ..

Funny isn't it ... we just had a big arguement from the legal profession & judiciary, which demanded the Executive put in place amendments to the LPLA Bill to create independent posts of office so there wouldn't be fiddling of Judicial positions & interference in the complaints process by Ministers .. and, guess what ? Hugh Henry announced those amendments in last Thursday's Parliamentary debate on the LPLA Bill, giving a role for the Lord President, to keep out any possibility of Ministerial fiddling of appointments in the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

Howevr, we now have the same politicians arguing they don't want independent Commissioners who can't be fiddled by Ministers ... doesn't that seem a bit backward ? .. or more simply .. a bit crooked ?

Just who are these politicians arguing the case against the planned Commissioners for ? the members of those same public sectors & professions which will be made more accountable by the existence of new oversight ? or, themselves, who fear too much openness is a bad thing for the public ...

I think the Scotsman report by Peter MacMahon, sums up the situation in a sentence at the end of their article :

"The Scotsman, along with other newspapers, was prevented by the parliamentary authorities from seeking a response from the commissioners who were criticised in the MSPs' report."

What does that say for those same parliamentary authorities & MSPs then ? in one breath, calling for Commissioners Offices to be put on hold due to excuses of funding unaccoutability .. and the same Parliamentarians then go and restrict the present Commissioners from making any comment to the media on the msps report & critisisms of expenditure ?

So much for transparency over at the Scottish Parliament then .. it looks more like a nest of vipers every passing day ...

Read on for the article, from the Scotsman newpaper, at : http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1361832006

Cross-party call to put creation of public-sector commissioners on ice
PETER MACMAHON SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT EDITOR

MSPS today demanded a cull of the burgeoning number of public-sector "tsars" in Scotland. A hard-hitting report from Holyrood's finance committee recommends that no more parliamentary commissioners should be created.

It also calls for the downgrading of the post of the children and young people's commissioner, saying the role, which is held by Professor Kathleen Marshall, should be made accountable to ministers, not to Holyrood.

And the committee demands that the Executive puts the creation of five new "tsars" - a roadworks commissioner, a civil enforcement commissioner, a Scottish commissioner for human rights, a legal complaints commissioner and a police complaints commissioner - on hold.

The cross-party committee also calls for the proposed human rights commissioner, a post being created under legislation going through Holyrood, to be incorporated within the office of Professor Alice Brown, the Scottish public service ombudsman.

The MSPs want legislation to allow parliament to control the budgets of the four commissioners - for information, parliamentary standards, children and public appointments - as well as the ombudsman.

They also want Holyrood to have more say over where the "tsars" have their offices.

The report says the MSPs are "very concerned" at the decision of Kevin Dunion, the information commissioner, to set up in Kinburn Castle in St Andrews.

Des McNulty, the Labour convener of the committee, said: "If the Executive and the parliament follows the principles we have outlined, in future people who make proposals for new commissioners will have to justify why they want to go to the expense of doing that.

"Some people might say that this is locking the stable door after the horse has bolted, but we are now actually calling for the stable door to be closed, as there is still pressure for new bodies to be created."

But Mark Ballard, a Green MSP and committee member, warned: "There have to be firm limits on their overall expenditure, but the public will not get value for money from commissioners that cannot speak out and act as they see fit because they fear the repercussions."

• The Scotsman, along with other newspapers, was prevented by the parliamentary authorities from seeking a response from the commissioners who were criticised in the MSPs' report.