Monday, March 11, 2013

SILENCE IN COURT : Scotland’s top judge Lord Gill summoned to Parliament over ‘vested interests’ attempt to block Register of Judicial Interests petition

Lord Gill to appear before msps over objections to register of judges interests. SCOTLAND’S Lord President Lord Brian Gill is set to appear before the Scottish Parliament to explain why he is so committed to blocking a register of judicial interests which would reveal judges’ wealth, business connections and other relationships including high earning jobs outside of the court and even criminal records which have so far been kept secret from the public scrutiny.

The move by the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee to summon Lord Gill comes after a candid debate last Tuesday 5 March on the strength of the Lord President’s written opposition to a law journalist’s PUBLIC PETITION calling for a Register of Judicial Interests.

Petition PE01458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary, which calls for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill (as is currently being considered in New Zealand's Parliament) or amend present legislation to require all members of the Judiciary in Scotland to submit their interests & hospitality received to a publicly available Register of Interests.

During last week’s meeting of Holyrood’s Public Petitions Committee, MSPs engaged in a substantive debate on the merits of the petition and gave their reaction to the Lord President’s strongly worded letter to Committee members in which he attacked plans to call for a register of interests for judges. Lord Gill also criticised the petitioner as “naive” and “misguided” over his call to make judges declare their interests in a public register. Lord Gill’s letter followed two others from the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Government’s Justice Department who are also attempting to shut down debate on the issue.

Petition PE1458 Register of Judges Interests 5 March 2013 Scottish Parliament (click image below to watch video footage of Holyrood debate)

Committee member Jackson Carlaw MSP (Scottish Conservative), said “When I first saw this petition I wasn’t terribly impressed. But I’m more impressed as a consequence of the responses we received.The student anarchist in me slightly smells the whiff of vested interests closing doors and backs being slapped in an effort to shut the whole matter down.”

Mr Carlaw continued : “I would very much like us to commission an evidence session and invite the Lord President, if that’s within our competence, and other vested interests who believe we should close this down to justify their position to the committee. Since it’s quite clear no other area is examining this at present, I think that, on behalf of the petitioner, this is an issue that should be aired in public rather than just in writing.”

Committee chairman and Labour MSP David Stewart (Scottish Labour) said: “The petitioner put quite an interesting argument forward to say that there’s no real evidence here. I mean, how many judges are declaring an interest and recusing during the course of a case? Or are there any judges holding a case in which they’ve got an interest and they’re not declaring an interest? Also, lots of other public groups have to have a register of interests – why are judges any different?”

Chic Brodie MSP (SNP) also took issue with some of the terms of Lord Gill’s protestations in which the Lord President claimed judges should be shielded from the media and more public scrutiny. Mr Brodie said: “If you want to take out ‘judges’ and put in ‘politicians’, why are they different?”

Mr Brodie agreed with Jackson Carlaw’s suggestion the Lord President be called to attend Holyrood, and also went further, asking whether the Committee could look at the wider interests of judges and not just pecuniary interests as proposed in the New Zealand bill which is being used as a comparison for the introduction of a similar register for Scottish judges.

Mr Brodie’s suggestion of a wider investigation into judges interests falls in line with proposals made by the New Zealand Law Commission’s discussion paper on a register of judicial interests, which recommends inclusion of court staff in a register of interests. The New Zealand Law Commission proposals can be downloaded here : NZLC IP21 - Towards a New Courts Act: A Register of Judges pecuniary interests? (pdf)

John Wilson MSP (SNP) also agreed with the invite to Lord Gill to attend, and to also seek further information on exactly how the current system functions where judges are supposed to declare their interests if a conflict arises, and for the Lord President to explain why he wrote to the Committee in such opposing terms to the petition.

The Sunday Mail newspaper reported on developments at the Scottish Parliament, here :

Scotland's top judge summoned to appear before MSPs after trying to block register of interestsScotland's top judge summoned to appear before MSPs after trying to block register of interests

M’Lud, you’ve a pleading cheek : MSPs demand top judge explains why he tried to block register of interests

EXCLUSIVE : By Russell Findlay, Sunday Mail 10 Mar 2013

A HOLYROOD committee want the law chief to explain why he tried to halt a register which would reveal judges' business, professional and financial links.

SCOTLAND'S top judge is to appear before MSPs after he tried to block a judicial register of interests. Lord Gill – the £214,000-a-year Lord President – dismissed the need for judges to reveal business, professional and financial links.

The identity of a judge convicted of benefit fraud would also be likely to be revealed if such a register existed.

Holyrood’s petitions committee want Gill, 71, to explain his opposition to the transparency motion by legal reform campaigner Peter Cherbi.

Committee member Jackson Carlaw, Scottish Conservative deputy leader, said: “When I first saw this petition I wasn’t terribly impressed. But I’m more impressed as a consequence of the responses we received.

“The student anarchist in me slightly smells the whiff of vested interests closing doors and backs being slapped in an effort to shut the whole matter down.

“I would very much like us to commission an evidence session and invite the Lord President, if that’s within our competence, and other vested interests who believe we should close this down to justify their position to the committee.

“Since it’s quite clear no other area is examining this at present, I think that, on behalf of the petitioner, this is an issue that should be aired in public rather than just in writing.”

Committee chairman and Labour MSP David Stewart plans to ask Gill how many judges have “recused” themselves – stepped down – from cases in which they have an interest.

Stewart said: “The petitioner put quite an interesting argument forward to say that there’s no real evidence here.

“I mean, how many judges are declaring an interest and recusing during the course of a case? Or are there any judges holding a case in which they’ve got an interest and they’re not declaring an interest?

“Also, lots of other public groups have to have a register of interests – why are judges any different?”

Members of the judiciary, including judges, sheriffs and JPs, adhere to various rules including an oath of office. In his written opposition, Gill said he and his colleagues could be abused by “aggressive media or hostile individuals”.

But the SNP’s Chic Brodie said: “If you want to take out ‘judges’ and put in ‘politicians’, why are they different?”

Last year, we revealed that a judge had been convicted of benefit fraud but his or her identity was kept secret. Cherbi believes that a register would have forced the crooked judge to declare his or her conviction. He was inspired by similar moves in New Zealand which were sparked by a judge failing to declare that he owed money to a lawyer involved in a case.

A register could be created by the Scottish Parliament or by the Judicial Office for Scotland, which incorporates the Lord President’s office. Typically, such registers reveal details of hospitality, gifts, property ownership, shareholdings and personal or financial connections to outside organisations.

Cherbi, from Edinburgh, who campaigns against Scotland’s legal self-regulation and secretive justice, said: “Lord Gill’s style might have worked in 1813 but clearly does not work in 2013.” In a written submission to the committee, Cherbi said: “It is plainly wrong to suggest that, just because someone is a judge, they are above transparency and accountability.”

The Judicial Office for ­Scotland said: “The Lord President has not received any approach from the committee following its consideration of the relevant ­petition, and while the members’ comments are noted it would not be appropriate to comment at this stage.”

Last month, the country’s first Judicial Complaints Reviewer, Moi Ali, accused Gill of blocking access to vital documents. Three years ago, he delivered a damning report on Scotland’s “Victorian” civil courts. That led to last month’s Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill, which it is hoped will make access to justice cheaper and faster.

Lord Gill factfile

BRIAN GILL was raised in Riddrie, Glasgow, and was educated at the fee-paying Jesuit Catholic school St Aloysius’ College. After studying at Glasgow and Edinburgh universities, he became a law lecturer. As a farming law expert, he became a QC in 1981 and a judge 13 years later. He quickly caused controversy by branding Scotland’s civil justice a “relic of a vanished age”. Those views were echoed in his 2009 report which has sparked an overhaul of the civil courts.

The dad of six has featured in many high-profile cases. He let the widow of a lung cancer victim pursue a damages claim against a cigarette firm without putting up a penny in security. He ruled that two gay men could not adopt a handicapped boy. He also rejected a compensation claim over a failed vasectomy. Gill presided over the appeal court’s quashing of the convictions of Tommy Campbell and Joe Steele for the Ice Cream Wars murders.

In 2011, then Cardinal Keith O’Brien presented him with the Papal Knighthood for outstanding service to public life”. Gill has a love of church music and his other interests include children’s and youth charities and architecture.

121 comments:

Anonymous said...

Oh well this is Gill's fault for being so abrupt and so unnecessarily offensive in his letter.

After all we are only talking about a relatively easy to draft register of interests here not some complicated plot to end the world as we know it.

Come come Lord Gill.Do the right thing and be transparent for a change.Dare I say practice what you preach and you may find people respect you for doing so.

Anonymous said...

Yes good point.Just why are the judges any different?

Anonymous said...

A cross party consensus achieved by the sounds of it.Gill was a fool to come out with all guns blazing against the register of interests idea.I wonder what the New Zealand lot think of all this?

Anonymous said...

Yes noticable even the msps find Gill's letter over the top and just look at what they said about it.

Now what happens if Gill refuses to show up or comes up with some excuse like he will consider it and nothing happens for months or years?

I'll be keeping an eye on this one for sure and good work all round for getting it this far.

Anonymous said...

Very interesting petition indeed you may end up revealing quite a lot about our judges they prefer to keep secret.

Anonymous said...

I am very surprised there has been no report on BBC Scotland News about what was said at this meeting.Are they even going to bother covering it when it happens?
Anyway good to see your efforts got a positive reaction and looking forward to the next part.Good luck and best wishes for all your work on this idea.

Anonymous said...

Some of your regulars will have to eat humble pie over the video because I think the msps gave the petition a very good hearing.Of course what happens next is what counts but you have made an impact and it is going to be very difficult for Lord Gill or any other judge to show up at Holyrood and argue to keep their details secret from prying eyes and "aggressive media" whatever that means - no wonder Chic Brodie took issue with Gill's remarks.

Anonymous said...

Quite a turn of events from Lord Gill's overbearing letter.Me also thinks the Lord President protests too much!

Anonymous said...

Will The Lord President descend from his ivory tower to attend this committee to be in the same room as the plebs?

Anonymous said...

I want to know more from The Lord Presidents lips how it s possible to have convicted criminals acting as Judges and whether this deceit of the Scottish People is proof of subverting the course of justice?

Ask yourself, if The Lord President, who is asking all of us 'to take his word that Judges are honest' would volunteer an explanation of how crooked Judges is even possible because it is certainly not lawful?

Once the next tranche of over paid and over here Judges retire (Incidentally, they allow themselves to stay-on till they're 75 to continue to fill their boots at the tax-payers expense) who will the next draft of lawyers include, drug dealers, rapists and murderers?

Anonymous said...

It sounds to me as if Lord Gill has boxed himself in to a corner. All that remains to be seen is if the MSPs are prepared to take all he says - and the undemocratic powers which accompany it - 'on trust'.

Anonymous said...

Just incredible really that a judge can be so arrogant over a simply requirement of most public sector employees and politicians.When he does decide to show up if he dares,I hope they dont let him waffle on and on about how great the judiciary and how how no one can interfere with their independence.Now we know what this 'independence' is all about - as in setting their own rules and keeping secrets the rest of us are not allowed to keep.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

A cross party consensus achieved by the sounds of it.Gill was a fool to come out with all guns blazing against the register of interests idea.I wonder what the New Zealand lot think of all this?

11 March 2013 16:55

The New Zealanders are probably having a laugh at ye olde Scottish Victorian judges out to protect their ill gotten gains from a register of interests.

IT IS THAT OBVIOUS FOLKS!

Anonymous said...

“Lord Gill’s style might have worked in 1813 but clearly does not work in 2013.” In a written submission to the committee, Cherbi said: “It is plainly wrong to suggest that, just because someone is a judge, they are above transparency and accountability.”

SPOT ON !!!!

Anonymous said...

heh dont think I would like a medal from ex Cardinal O'Brien after what I've been reading about him!Another let down for Scotland and look at the stuff coming out about the church now http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-21715473

Also O'Brien is alleged to have threatened an abuse victim with the Police http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scotland/cardinal-o-brien-blackmail-threat-to-abuse-victim-1-2820121

kind of the same things we have been getting from the judges right? as in if you discuss our secrets we will take revenge on you etc..

Isn't it curious how the law and the courts saw to it most of the abuse victims didn't get their day in court because it happened too long ago.

also please note I am not getting at anyone's religion in this comment so I hope you publish it because there are parallels here with your issues with the judges.

Anonymous said...

Yes vested interests shutting down the debate is what Gill is attempting to do.

Hope the msps stand up to him and the rest:)

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Yes good point.Just why are the judges any different?

11 March 2013 16:36

They are not and remember they earn nearly five times what politicians do and are in a far more powerful position as Peter already points out.

This is the thing we have to face here that we have an unelected tier of people who are by their rulings ordering all of us to be accountable yet they are not.

This cannot go on.

Anonymous said...

Very good and like the way the msps turned round and made strong points about what thus judge said.You are onto a winner I hope and good luck with it all.

Anonymous said...

Because of this story I ended up buying 3 Sunday Mails so I could hand them out to friends!

Anonymous said...

Judges should be required to declare even more than anyone else on a register of interests due to the nature of their decisions.

Anonymous said...

God bless the Sunday Mail and DOI journalists, superb journalism.

Anonymous said...

“The student anarchist in me slightly smells the whiff of vested interests closing doors and backs being slapped in an effort to shut the whole matter down."

Three cheers for Jackson Carlaw and the others on the Committee speaking out about this scandal!

Looking forward to seeing Gill show up and try to argue his secrets agenda!

Anonymous said...

My preference is for Holyrood to legislate on this as I dont think the judges can be trusted after hearing Lord Gill's very pointed objections.

Just a thought - do all the judges feel the same way about this register of interests idea?If they do there is something pretty rotten inside the judiciary but if some do support it they should speak up.

Anonymous said...

Interesting to read all of this you really have started something here Mr Cherbi and I cannot imagine the judges are going to get away with it now.Keep up the pressure!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Some of your regulars will have to eat humble pie over the video because I think the msps gave the petition a very good hearing.Of course what happens next is what counts but you have made an impact and it is going to be very difficult for Lord Gill or any other judge to show up at Holyrood and argue to keep their details secret from prying eyes and "aggressive media" whatever that means - no wonder Chic Brodie took issue with Gill's remarks.

11 March 2013 19:53
-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:

The real question is, would the MSP's have done anything at all if the DOI wasn't such an influential and trustworthy service?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Quite a turn of events from Lord Gill's overbearing letter.Me also thinks the Lord President protests too much!

11 March 2013 20:39

Yes well that's what happens when people who are used to giving orders have to face music they cannot control..

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Just incredible really that a judge can be so arrogant over a simply requirement of most public sector employees and politicians.When he does decide to show up if he dares,I hope they dont let him waffle on and on about how great the judiciary and how how no one can interfere with their independence.Now we know what this 'independence' is all about - as in setting their own rules and keeping secrets the rest of us are not allowed to keep.

11 March 2013 22:29
++++++++++++++++++++

I could almost write the diatribe now, not in the Public Interest......laddeyda.........the independence of the judiciary.......twaddle......piffle.....poffle......?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
heh dont think I would like a medal from ex Cardinal O'Brien after what I've been reading about him!Another let down for Scotland and look at the stuff coming out about the church now http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-21715473

Also O'Brien is alleged to have threatened an abuse victim with the Police http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scotland/cardinal-o-brien-blackmail-threat-to-abuse-victim-1-2820121

kind of the same things we have been getting from the judges right? as in if you discuss our secrets we will take revenge on you etc..

Isn't it curious how the law and the courts saw to it most of the abuse victims didn't get their day in court because it happened too long ago.

also please note I am not getting at anyone's religion in this comment so I hope you publish it because there are parallels here with your issues with the judges.

12 March 2013 00:32
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Only Scotland could allow an exposed Cardinal to flee....?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Judges should be required to declare even more than anyone else on a register of interests due to the nature of their decisions.

12 March 2013 17:00
ymeymeymeymeymeyme

I agree 100%

Anonymous said...

In a democracy public servants are just that. This chap Gill is only a man and his attitude quite frankly stinks. The greater an individual or groups power they greater must be the power to balance it. Her cannot be above scrutiny because of the nature of his judicial decisions.

It is most refreshing to read your investigations DOI and read people's comments. Dissent renews politics, it will drag the judiciary out of the stone age too.

Anonymous said...

What if this Lord Gill refuses to show up or comes up with some inane excuse to avoid the grilling he deserves?

This is a matter of huge public interest here and I hope the Scottish politicians stick to their guns as came out at this meeting which you must be very pleased with after all your efforts.

Anonymous said...

This HAS to be made into law and not only in Scotland!Well done and that is a fantastic report in the newspaper!

Anonymous said...

You'll need to keep up the pressure to get this one through because the back slapping and vested interests will be going all out to kill it off.The msps already said so - so you know what you are up against.I can imagine every dirty trick in the book being pulled out by the judges and their friends to avoid this one BUT the good thing about this is it will show everyone just what a bunch of crooks they really are.

Anonymous said...

I was over in Scotland a couple of years ago on holiday and looked in on your High Court in Edinburgh. To my amazement I saw a man dressed like Santa Claus playing the judge. I now know from your blog Santa is a bully and not happy when people ask him questions.
If you do go independent I hope you do away with all this colonial garbage and join the rest of us in the real world!
PS If you are wondering why I was in the court I am an attorney in Atlanta, Georgia.I just wanted to see what your courts were like.Was not impressed!

Anonymous said...

Committee chairman and Labour MSP David Stewart (Scottish Labour) said: “The petitioner put quite an interesting argument forward to say that there’s no real evidence here. I mean, how many judges are declaring an interest and recusing during the course of a case? Or are there any judges holding a case in which they’ve got an interest and they’re not declaring an interest? Also, lots of other public groups have to have a register of interests – why are judges any different?”

WELL SAID !!

Anonymous said...

Under contributory negligence laws, will every single Scottish judge, the whole Crown Office and MacAskill be found guilty of subverting the course of justice by allowing convicted criminals to pass themselves off as judges?

Anonymous said...

If Scottish judges are paid civil servants then presumably if they refuse to uphold the standards required of them to prove that they are honest then surely their pay could be docked and or they could be sacked?

Anonymous said...

I was wondering......have the Crown Office prevented the police from carrying out their normal duties with respect to the convicted Judges, who are apparently still taking the Queen's good pounds under false pretences?

Or have these convicted criminal Judges been effectively recusing themselves as unfit to sit and preside on cases ever since their convictions and are intending to do so for the rest of their lengthy careers and picking up their rich-pickings in the process?

It is utterly incomprehensible that this massive story has been neutered so far and it is incredulous that either Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dumb haven't intervened as they are ultimately responsible?

Is this because they have been caught out with their nickers round their ankles, whilst listening to their pay-masters at the Law Society of Scotland, who advised, If we keep this a secret from the Scottish People then the fools will never find out and we can easily continue to get away with it.......?

To hell with the Law, we are the Law Society of Scotland and WE will decide which laws we can break with impunity....?

Enter stage left - The DOI Team?

A game changer...........?

Anonymous said...

I wonder if The Lord President will subject himself to the wit of the Committee or whether he will simply send them to Coventry like he did with Ms Moi?

Or maybe he will go there all guns blazing like the Law Society of Scotland's notorious former Chief Executive Douglas Mill who was caught stone-cold by good cop, John Swinney SNP MSP, telling fibberoonies?

Watch out grannies, hold on tight, there may be some serious spinning coming your way pretty soon.....?

Anonymous said...

What exactly are the character traits required to be a Scottish Judge?

A career of working as a Scottish lawyer under the Law Society of Scotland corrupt regime drums into them that it is OK to become a professional lier and to protect your pals first before the parties before the court?

Add in a bit of intransigence, a shake or two of huffiness, a superiority complex and a burgeoning desire to do exactly as you please?

Would somebody please answer my questions?

When did Scotland go so completely off the rails?

Anonymous said...

I want you to think about this for one moment......

You have been mistakenly arrested by the police after a complete misidentification on a charge of murder?

You are remanded in prison and wait there until your trial and just before you climb the stairs to reach the court room on day one of your trial your lawyer lets you know that the judge presiding on your case is a convicted criminal?

How do you feel?

When is the State going to hand out their bright orange jump-suits that they have for us before they push us into despair?

Anonymous said...

Holy mother of Jesus

What has become of our Society?

Anonymous said...

I think Gill owes the entire country an explanation why he blocks the register of interests and anyway it should be made law as is being said in other comments.

Anonymous said...

Bottom line here is there are judges with criminal records EVEN A BENEFITS CHEAT running around in the judiciary and it is all being kept secret.

TOTALLY WRONG AND GOES AGAINST EVERYTHING JUDGES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE

Now I have no doubt there is even worse to come out about these judges and anyway who can believe a judge who wants to keep the crimes of his colleagues from the rest of us.

Anonymous said...

It was very interesting to read the informed comment from the Atlanta Attorney about the Scottish justice System, not least because it is completely at odds with what the Justice Secretary and the Law Society of Scotland keep telling us, namely that the Scottish system is respected and admired the world over.....(well with the exception of Libya perhaps).

Anonymous said...

Too bad the judge's attitude to transparency is from 1813 and not today no wonder there is no justice in Scotland and we are a laughing stock around the world.

Anonymous said...

The letter from Gill to the msps in your other post is shocking and no wonder the committee reacted in this way.Now they have to ask the right kind of questions when he shows up and I hope you are consulted on this because you clearly have a handle on what these judges are up to in their time out of court.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Oh well this is Gill's fault for being so abrupt and so unnecessarily offensive in his letter.

After all we are only talking about a relatively easy to draft register of interests here not some complicated plot to end the world as we know it.

Come come Lord Gill.Do the right thing and be transparent for a change.Dare I say practice what you preach and you may find people respect you for doing so.

11 March 2013 16:23

But we are dealing here with judges who follow the DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO policy

Anonymous said...

What about poor Mr Gordon from Perth who was dumped at the doors of the court of session by his lawyer Sally McCartney & Counsel Lisa Henderson who he caught botching his personal injury case and was lied to by court staff and was asked to appear UNREPRESENTED at two different sessions personally.

The man has suffered the longest mental abuse in the hospitals history and has forwarded a claim for negligence to the Marsh UK.

So the least you can do is put right the wrong as the man has suffered enough.

Lord Gill the man has a mental illness for christ sake??

Anonymous said...

Scottish judges look like Santa Claus lol!

Anonymous said...

So, Chris Hune and his wife are hammered with sizeable jail terms for what?

Yes, that's right......Perverting The Course Of Justice By Misleading The Court....?

Effectively a contempt of court?

Now, consider those Scottish Judges that have passed themselves off as Judges, even though they and their bosses know that they doing so whilst being unfit to do so?

Is this not an alarming contempt of court?

Given that Judges & their employers are best placed to know the law, then this becomes an even more serious corruption of the law?

So, who did the deal to allow these crims to continue passing themselves off as Judges?

Was it the Crown Office who said it was OK?

Or was it Kenny MacRoadkill?

Wo did the deal?

When was the deal done?

And How The Hell Did They Think They Would Get Away With It?

If they are doing this? What else have they been getting up to in our name?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Yes good point.Just why are the judges any different?

11 March 2013 16:36

Because THEY say so and because they regulate themselves so no one can do anything about it!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Bottom line here is there are judges with criminal records EVEN A BENEFITS CHEAT running around in the judiciary and it is all being kept secret.
==================================
If you are called for Jury service you cannot have a criminal record. The man directing a trial can have a criminal record and the Jury and public have no right to know. The system is not fit for purpose.

Anonymous said...

Where the powerful set up their own systems be it law medicine accountancy or religion they in many cases will be their own judges. This has been tradition for centuries and it only is justified in a dictatorship because the latter by its nature rules by force in terms of controlling structures like an army to control the population. But secret bureaucracy is another form of domination and it must end.

Self regulation in my opinion is a crime against the people in a democratic country because it hides criminality behind a veil of secrecy. Lord Brian Gill is only a man, and he and his profession are accountable to the people of this country. No more secrecy Lord Gill, it is long overdue for the Judiciary to be brought into the modern world. Oh and the register, we want a genuine one not a fake register like the fake SLCC who have done nothing to protect clients since the Law Society infested it when it was created.

All you people out there tell your friends about this blog so that they are aware of all the other issues since it was set up by Peter and his colleagues. It is a revelation into the corruption perpetrated against the citizens of Scotland by the legal profession who for far too long have used secrecy as their weapon of domination. NO MORE.

Anonymous said...

Yes the judge protested too much because there is something fishy going on they dont want us to know about

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Bottom line here is there are judges with criminal records EVEN A BENEFITS CHEAT running around in the judiciary and it is all being kept secret.

TOTALLY WRONG AND GOES AGAINST EVERYTHING JUDGES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Secrecy their weapon of domination. As long as they have this weapon the public can never know which members of the judiciary are honest and which are dishonest.

In fact secrecy blurs the line between legality and illegality because they are only accountable to themselves, and make their own rules. How can the public have confidence in a system set up and run on these principles? It is corrupt, out of date and thoroughly against the democratic principles of equality before the law and the right of the citizens access to legal services. It cannot continue in its present form. The fact the judiciary want it to stay in its present secret form tells us a lot about the kind of people we are dealing with.

Oh Lordy! said...

The only reasonable outcome of this is going to be the register of interests becoming law as soon as possible for if either side back down after what has already been said neither will ever be trustworthy again.

Anonymous said...

Impressive!

I think the judge has bitten off a wee bit more than he can chew althogh I dare say the backslapping as Jackson Carlaw calls it will now be in full swing to try and kill this issue dead.

Keep up the pressure Peter

Anonymous said...

Clearly the msps saw right through the judge's cheeky pleadings!

Anonymous said...

Finally the msps seem to be getting it about the justice system.Now lets wait and see what the questions are like when Gill pops up periscope at the parliament with a well rehearsed rant about independence of judges to do as they please as they have clearly been doing!

Anonymous said...

I had to watch the video clip twice to take in what actually happened!

Anyway good work and all down to your dogged determination as usual.I hope the msps dont let Gill drone on and on about things completely irrelevant to this debate on a register of interests just as the Lord President and his colleagues on the bench have silenced people in court when they allegedly deviated from what m'lordships wanted to hear or be made aware of.

Anonymous said...

How does a papal knighthood square up for someone who attacks a plan to include him and his fellow judges in a register of interests?

Shocking really.Little wonder no one has any faith in anything any more.

Diary of Injustice said...

Regarding an unpublished comment at 14:16 14 March 2013 and another at 10:13 15 March 2013 identifying particular members of the judiciary and alleged financial & other interests could the author please email further details to scottishlawreporters@gmail.com

Anonymous said...

Very good to see this kind of stuff in the papers and also with the video clip of it all.Wonder what the judge is feeling now?

Anonymous said...

I read about how the Law Society treated you Peter when you were dealing with them. Yes I am sure they have your guts because you are removing the veil they have hidden behind to repeatedly rob clients of justice after their membership has robbed the client of their money. I have no doubt whatsoever that is clients got together en masse this criminals would be damaged further and that is what they want to stop. They are simply abusers of people's human rights and their day or reckoning is catching up with them but as I am sure you will agree they will be the last to see it. I have the unshakable conviction from my own experience of self regulators and your and other readers of your blog know that there is no complaints system in Scotland. This is my view anyway and as you said the Law Society SLCC etc don't want to deal with or strike off crooked lawyers, indeed that is why none of them can be trusted.

Anonymous said...

“I mean, how many judges are declaring an interest and recusing during the course of a case? Or are there any judges holding a case in which they’ve got an interest and they’re not declaring an interest?

In other words are there any judges perverting the course of justice? And a system that allows a benefits cheat judge to remain anonymous is a system built of a perversion of justice, when the man in the street would be named. Secrecy and justice are mutually exclusive.

Anonymous said...

Great story on the judge and the committee well done Sunday Mail:)

Anonymous said...

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-splash-out-300000-survey-1767420

SNP splash out £300,000 on a survey to ask the public: Do you like us?
16 Mar 2013 10:03

THE First Minister and his Cabinet claim it will help them give taxpayers value for money but critics claim it is a waste of cash and predict questions will be loaded to suit the ­Government.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No Alex, I don't like you or your party. The SNP and Law Society are the same, your judicial brotherhood are in the background with you and MacAskill their master puppets.

Anonymous said...

SILENCE IN COURT especially about asking Judges for a register of their interests. If I said to a Judge, "do you have a criminal record" I would be taken to the cells. Contempt of court, how can this stand when we are subjected to a Judiciary of secrecy who require Jurors not to have interests in cases or criminal records but the public cannot know about the Judiciary overseeing the trial?

Anonymous said...

SILENCE IN COURT especially about the benefits cheat Judge. Any other mortal's name and photo would be all over the papers but not the judiciary, oh no they want their corruption hidden. If they think this is balanced they are not.

Anonymous said...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-21809081

Not a mention of A Diary of Injustice.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Where the powerful set up their own systems be it law medicine accountancy or religion they in many cases will be their own judges. This has been tradition for centuries and it only is justified in a dictatorship because the latter by its nature rules by force in terms of controlling structures like an army to control the population. But secret bureaucracy is another form of domination and it must end.

Self regulation in my opinion is a crime against the people in a democratic country because it hides criminality behind a veil of secrecy. Lord Brian Gill is only a man, and he and his profession are accountable to the people of this country. No more secrecy Lord Gill, it is long overdue for the Judiciary to be brought into the modern world. Oh and the register, we want a genuine one not a fake register like the fake SLCC who have done nothing to protect clients since the Law Society infested it when it was created.

All you people out there tell your friends about this blog so that they are aware of all the other issues since it was set up by Peter and his colleagues. It is a revelation into the corruption perpetrated against the citizens of Scotland by the legal profession who for far too long have used secrecy as their weapon of domination. NO MORE.

13 March 2013 22:34
/////////////////////////////////////

The SLCC is a SHAM organisation set up to cause misery to victims of crooked lawyers?

As stated in evidence to the J2 Committee, the object was not to change the system of self regulation of lawyers but instead to change the perception of the Scottish People to make them THINK that things were being changed for the better, when in actual fact they were being changed to make things worse as a punishment for having the temerity of bringing the Law Society's criminal activity to the attention of the whole of Scottish Society?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
I read about how the Law Society treated you Peter when you were dealing with them. Yes I am sure they have your guts because you are removing the veil they have hidden behind to repeatedly rob clients of justice after their membership has robbed the client of their money. I have no doubt whatsoever that is clients got together en masse this criminals would be damaged further and that is what they want to stop. They are simply abusers of people's human rights and their day or reckoning is catching up with them but as I am sure you will agree they will be the last to see it. I have the unshakable conviction from my own experience of self regulators and your and other readers of your blog know that there is no complaints system in Scotland. This is my view anyway and as you said the Law Society SLCC etc don't want to deal with or strike off crooked lawyers, indeed that is why none of them can be trusted.

16 March 2013 19:14
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

So bold are they that they even describe THEFT by a Scottish lawyer as 'BORROWING WITHOUT CONSENT'

(Ref: SSDT Chairman's Yearly Report of 2010, page 7)

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
SILENCE IN COURT especially about asking Judges for a register of their interests. If I said to a Judge, "do you have a criminal record" I would be taken to the cells. Contempt of court, how can this stand when we are subjected to a Judiciary of secrecy who require Jurors not to have interests in cases or criminal records but the public cannot know about the Judiciary overseeing the trial?

17 March 2013 10:19
.,.,.,.,,.,.,.,.,,.,.,.,.,.,.,.?

The point is WHO can we as a Society trust to decide if a Judge is in contempt of Court?

Should we continue to take their word for it, which is what they are asking us to do?

Or should We, The Scottish People, be ENTITLED to expect our Judges to prove that they have sound judgement, are honest and are acting in the best interests of the People of Scotland, rather then their own interests and those of their pals?

Anonymous said...

The most shocking thing as far as I am concerned is the fact any references to this parliamentary committee meeting and the Lord President's letter attacking the reg of interests matter have apparently escaped every other newspaper and television.

This is not right at all and I am sure readers are going to pick up on what seems to be an inescapable conclusion that much of Scotland's press is unable or unwilling to report the fact the head of Scotland's justice system has said "No" in such a hostile manner to something the rest of us have to accept as a fact of life and the law.

Anonymous said...

Looking forward to the judge arguing they have to separate themselves out from the rest of us and not be accountable.No wonder the Scottish justice system is full of INJUSTICE

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

The most shocking thing as far as I am concerned is the fact any references to this parliamentary committee meeting and the Lord President's letter attacking the reg of interests matter have apparently escaped every other newspaper and television.

This is not right at all and I am sure readers are going to pick up on what seems to be an inescapable conclusion that much of Scotland's press is unable or unwilling to report the fact the head of Scotland's justice system has said "No" in such a hostile manner to something the rest of us have to accept as a fact of life and the law.

18 March 2013 12:26

Who cares?

The important thing is one paper is covering it and it is here for all time so anyone who needs to refer to it or who is worried about the justice system can come and see exactly what is going on!

Anyway to be honest I stopped buying newspapers ages ago and dont bother with bbc news because it covers everywhere else on the planet except Scotland.But because of these kinds of stories I started buying the Sunday Mail so am quite happy thanks and it seems to get a better coverage there than any of the other rags dare or care doing!

Anonymous said...

So bold are they that they even describe THEFT by a Scottish lawyer as 'BORROWING WITHOUT CONSENT'.
sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
Yes indeed which indicates twisted minds because if a client stole a law firms money they would say, oh you borrowed without consent? Not a chance in hell. And as someone pointed out they want to create the perception they are honest and that the SLCC will deal with crooked lawyers. But the fact any client knows who has tried their complaints system is that it does not exist. The Law Society and SLCC are lawyer protectors, I would not complain to them, so remember when you go into a lawyers office. If he or she steals your assets you have no protection. The SLCC and Law Society reward their criminals so they keep working and the client is pushed to the side. Clients are maggots, that is their perception of us.

Remember there is no protection for clients against crooked lawyers because the Law Society SLCC complaints system is a myth. Trust no lawyer or learn the hard way.

Anonymous said...

The Law Society and SLCC, bureaucratic torture chambers. The ladies have left to do the opening scenes of Macbeth and the SLCC has a new captain.

But I promise you all, there is no complaints system. Law Society have a new name the SLCC and the old dog is up to the same old tricks, burying client complaints and exonerating lawyers. If any reader expects the complaints system to protect them they have not been through the grinder yet.

Report your lawyer to the SLCC and Law Society and you will think the staff have all fell into a permanent coma because of the length of time it takes to get complaints resolved. You the client will die of old age before you get justice. Self regulation was designed to ensure that.

Anonymous said...

Found a link to this on another website and just have to say your idea is great to make judges register stuff like politicians are supposed to do

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

The most shocking thing as far as I am concerned is the fact any references to this parliamentary committee meeting and the Lord President's letter attacking the reg of interests matter have apparently escaped every other newspaper and television.
=================================
Masonic links, lawyers embedded in most newspapers, it is sinister the way they control the media or the media are afraid of them which I think is incorrect. And they have shut down many web sites that criticize lawyers. I think it is all Masonic secret society members who are implanted or bought over to the lawyers cause. It is not therefore surprising that they believe they should not be questioned. But the fact is that power without the ability to question leads to domination and the latter is the reality because no client ever gets their complaints dealt with. You could say they are an organized crime gang purporting to be a profession. This sums them up perfectly. And the media silence in these crimes against the Scottish people means in effect they are part of the organized crime.

The only paper I buy is the Sunday Mail who like the DOI team tell us the way it really is. Plato said the measure of a man is what he does with power. This man [that is all he is] and this profession want to maintain power structures embedded in secrecy. Draw your own conclusions my friend.

Anonymous said...

William Penn (1644-1718) Helps Establish the Right to a Jury Trial

In the United States prisoners enjoy the right to trial by a jury if they choose it. On paper, William Penn also had that right. In actuality, the Stuart government bullied or tampered with juries to force them to return verdicts pleasing to its officials. When Penn and William Mead were arrested in 1670 for preaching, the mayor and magistrate attempted to coerce their jury. In the end, Penn and Mead prevailed on the sturdy jury to stand with them, and a higher court ruled that magistrates might no longer coerce juries. Penn had helped establish a major civil right for accused prisoners in English-speaking lands.

At worst, William Penn’s “crimes” were misdemeanors. He preached in public when it was against the law to do so. He refused to remove his hat as a sign of respect to any man. He published a book without obtaining a license—a rule generally neglected at that time by authors and publishers, and only selectively enforced by the government. Nonetheless, he paid the full penalty for his civil disobedience, often going to prison.
=================================
The DOI Team will push the boundaries too with their excellent work and make the Judiciary accountable to the people they oppress as they see fit by withdrawing representation when it does not suit their interests, and hide behind secrecy and think they have the right to do so. No more.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Some of your regulars will have to eat humble pie..........be glad to if Lord Gill has to do what is right and make Judges accountable to the people of this country by agreeing secrecy is a cover for corruption.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-21809081

Not a mention of A Diary of Injustice.

18 March 2013 00:05

Why would it?That story seems to be more about drumming up business for lawyers than anything else.You dont get the truth about how the legal profession behave from the established media that much is evidence just look at the huge silence on the Lord Gill stuff and the judges charged with criminal offences.btw the established media are losing sales all the time so dont buy into them if they keep churning out the stories from crackpots within the legal industry praising their fellow lawyers!

Anonymous said...

Very good,I read the earlier one on Moi Ali - what a cracker of a story and then this on top of it.

Surely the politicians have now twigged there is a deep seated problem with the legal system and the judges who are at the head/root of it.

Keep up the good work Peter.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
SILENCE IN COURT especially about the benefits cheat Judge. Any other mortal's name and photo would be all over the papers but not the judiciary, oh no they want their corruption hidden. If they think this is balanced they are not.

17 March 2013 23:59
...................................

Is Scotland the only regime on the planet who have Judges employed who are convicted criminals?

This sounds like a plot line from a movie set in the distant future, where the Society of a country has been allowed to become totally corrupt and has long since lost all understanding of morality and the rule of law?

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...
So, Chris Hune and his wife are hammered with sizeable jail terms for what?

Yes, that's right......Perverting The Course Of Justice By Misleading The Court....?

Effectively a contempt of court?

Now, consider those Scottish Judges that have passed themselves off as Judges, even though they and their bosses know that they doing so whilst being unfit to do so?

Is this not an alarming contempt of court?

Given that Judges & their employers are best placed to know the law, then this becomes an even more serious corruption of the law?

So, who did the deal to allow these crims to continue passing themselves off as Judges?

Was it the Crown Office who said it was OK?

Or was it Kenny MacRoadkill?

Wo did the deal?

When was the deal done?

And How The Hell Did They Think They Would Get Away With It?

If they are doing this? What else have they been getting up to in our name?

13 March 2013 17:50
ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttty

Is this really what our brave men and women are fighting in a foreign land to protect?

This is a real slap in the face to our armed forces?

What must they be thinking of our crooked politicians and crooked judiciary?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...

Bottom line here is there are judges with criminal records EVEN A BENEFITS CHEAT running around in the judiciary and it is all being kept secret.
==================================
If you are called for Jury service you cannot have a criminal record. The man directing a trial can have a criminal record and the Jury and public have no right to know. The system is not fit for purpose.

13 March 2013 20:18
Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Whoever is in the chain of people involved in covering this up should be charged with perverting the course of justice and jailed for deliberately and wilfully deceiving the people of Scotland?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
The most shocking thing as far as I am concerned is the fact any references to this parliamentary committee meeting and the Lord President's letter attacking the reg of interests matter have apparently escaped every other newspaper and television.

This is not right at all and I am sure readers are going to pick up on what seems to be an inescapable conclusion that much of Scotland's press is unable or unwilling to report the fact the head of Scotland's justice system has said "No" in such a hostile manner to something the rest of us have to accept as a fact of life and the law.

18 March 2013 12:26
=================

Everyone knows that the Law Society of Scotland dictate what the Scottish Press can and cannot write?

Anonymous said...

This lack of will to comply with the most basic requirement of a safe judiciary has raised some serious questions which must now be asked?

If judges are unfit to sit as a judge by demonstrating that they do not have characters above reproach and indeed that their judgement has been so compromised to the extent that they:

a) Break the law in the first place?

b) Hide the fact that they are law breakers, presumably because by admitting to it they all know that this will hit them in the pocket as they will be incapable of continuing to practise as a judge?

c) See nothing wrong with them continuing to sit in judgement of the people they are supposed to serve whilst being a criminal?

This whole scandal draws into sharp relief whether or not the Summary Justice System (Courts without a Jury) is therefore unlawful if one of these judges have presided?

As, there becomes a real risk that a Judge who has an established warped sense of justice (recorded in law by their own prosecution) is the sole arbiter of deciding the fate in another's case or prosecution?

And again, should the Jury that has been sworn in on a case, their first act be to require the Judge to swear an oath to make sure that the Judge presiding in the case is not a criminal?

Indeed, it may be required for the Judge to give a written oath to swear that they are not a criminal, as it can no longer be taken on faith that a Scottish Judge is verbally telling the truth, as evidenced by this enormous scandal?

Bye the way, just because the rest of the Scottish Press are too weak and scared stiff to tell the truth about this saga, does not mean that this is not a massive and serious story and they should hold their heads in shame for letting down the people of Scotland?

Anonymous said...

I do not understand what the big deal is here.....

Surely, The Lord President should be falling over himself to show the Scottish People that they can rest assured that the Scottish Judiciary is clean, reliable, honest and transparent?

Unless of course it is not?

Anonymous said...

Will The Lord President snub this committee, show up with a battery of lawyers or appear on his own and tuff it out like the infamous Law Society of Scotland's chief Douglas Mill tried to do? (And was caught out and humiliated)?

The first question he should be required to answer is how many convicted criminals have been passing themselves off as judges in the past ten years?

The answer to this question should generate an enormous amount of follow-up questions?

OR, will the questions and answers be carefully scrutinised and rehearsed for the watching closed circuit TV production in a cynical attempt to try to prevent the Fukushima Reactor like lid from being blown off?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
So bold are they that they even describe THEFT by a Scottish lawyer as 'BORROWING WITHOUT CONSENT'.
sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
Yes indeed which indicates twisted minds because if a client stole a law firms money they would say, oh you borrowed without consent? Not a chance in hell. And as someone pointed out they want to create the perception they are honest and that the SLCC will deal with crooked lawyers. But the fact any client knows who has tried their complaints system is that it does not exist. The Law Society and SLCC are lawyer protectors, I would not complain to them, so remember when you go into a lawyers office. If he or she steals your assets you have no protection. The SLCC and Law Society reward their criminals so they keep working and the client is pushed to the side. Clients are maggots, that is their perception of us.

Remember there is no protection for clients against crooked lawyers because the Law Society SLCC complaints system is a myth. Trust no lawyer or learn the hard way.

18 March 2013 18:57
££££££££££££££££££

The SSDT & the SLCC ARE the Law Society Of Scotland, albeit they are effectively outsourced to give the impression (that they are required to do so under legislation) that they are independent of the Law Society of Scotland?

The game is a bogey?

Your RUSE is a busted flush?

As your former Chief now mockingly taunts that now is the RUBICON for the Law Society of Scotland?

They have even lost the trust of their own membership and it is only a matter of time before the police decide enough is enough and they will move in to SHUT THEM DOWN for running a thinly disguised racket in an open flouting of the law?

Anonymous said...

The issue of fitness to practise as a Scottish Judge in the legislation is concerned with a person of good character who must be fit to practise?

If there are Scottish Judges who have criminal records, then by no sane measure could they be considered to be fit to practise as a Judge or have anything remotely close to having good character. in fact they would have the exact opposite of good character?

Ergo, for these instances that DOI have managed to squeeze out of them and an untold number of others, there must have been a Tribunal convened by either the First Minister and or The Lord President in the knowledge of the First Minister, with the written conclusion placed before the Scottish Parliament?

Has this been done?

Has the First Minister been made aware of these unfit Judges and if not, why not?

What on Earth is going on here?

Do the police need to be called in to investigate?

Anonymous said...

I think people in powerful positions in society become deluded in their power in that they think people have no right to question them. They enter professions which have been set up on the principle that they have the right to secrecy and then baulk when their authority and integrity is called into question. It is because of the role they play in society those subjected to their power must question that power. Secrecy has no place in a democratic country with the exception of national security.

Anonymous said...

No doubt Lord Gill will follow the example of his predecessor Lord Hamilton who, when appearing before the Committee, basically said 'trust me, I know all these judges personally'.

Next will be the old line of 'the independence of the judiciary' . Let's hope that soemone points out to Lord Gill that independence and transparency and accountability are not mutually exclusive.

Anonymous said...

Ever since Lockerbie and before a lot of our judges have been at it in one way or another.Now its time to see what has really been going on behind the scenes and it must be so big the judge reacted so badly when suggested he declare his interests..

Anonymous said...

Who cares?

The important thing is one paper is covering it and it is here for all time so anyone who needs to refer to it or who is worried about the justice system can come and see exactly what is going on!

Anyway to be honest I stopped buying newspapers ages ago and dont bother with bbc news because it covers everywhere else on the planet except Scotland.But because of these kinds of stories I started buying the Sunday Mail so am quite happy thanks and it seems to get a better coverage there than any of the other rags dare or care doing!

18 March 2013 18:25

feel the same here and swapped the Sunday hootsmon for the Sunday Mail

funny I bet Gill did the same this weekend hahahaha

Anonymous said...

William Penn (1644-1718) Helps Establish the Right to a Jury Trial

In the United States prisoners enjoy the right to trial by a jury if they choose it. On paper, William Penn also had that right. In actuality, the Stuart government bullied or tampered with juries to force them to return verdicts pleasing to its officials. (JUST LIKE THE LAW SOCIETY RIGG COMPLAINTS AGAINST CLIENTS) When Penn and William Mead were arrested in 1670 for preaching, the mayor and magistrate attempted to coerce their jury. (THE MODERN LAWYER DOES NOT GET ARRESTED BECAUSE THE COMPLAINT ABOUT HIM IS KEPT IN HOUSE) In the end, Penn and Mead prevailed on the sturdy jury to stand with them, and a higher court ruled that magistrates might no longer coerce juries. (AND NEITHER CAN LORD GILL EXPECT THE PUBLIC TO TRUST LAWYERS) Penn had helped establish a major civil right for accused prisoners in English-speaking lands. (BUT IN THE 21st CENTURY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW IF A JUDGE HAS A CRIMINAL RECORD, BENEFIT FRAUDSTER, AND THEY TRY TO AVOID SCRUTINY BY CLAIMING THEY WILL BE HARASSED BY PARTY LITIGANTS AND THE MEDIA. AND EXCUSE TO HIDE THEIR SECRET PECUNIARY INTERESTS AND CONFLICT OF INTERESTS.

Anonymous said...

Oh yes politicians get jailed from time to time for perverting the course of justice. While lawyers and Judges judge the politicians no one judges the Judges and their lawyers, the secretive Crown Office, Law Society and SLCC deal with complaints in house so the create a perception of a complaints system. The Judges are at the top of the tree, no one except them are their to police their activities. hence Judges with criminal records overseeing court proceedings and covering up their vested interests. And old Lord Gill I assume he appoints judges now he has the top job. It is all a closed shop where they look after their Masonic brotherhood and cover each others backs from scandals. Hardly what the rational person could call a justice system.

Anonymous said...

What percentage of Scottish Judges have a criminal record?

Anonymous said...

How is it possible for Scottish judges to be found guilty and for nobody to know about it?

We're they convicted in a SECRET court?

What action did The Lord Advocate take to report these convicts to The Lord President?

How can it be possible for ZERO press to report on these crimes by the judiciary when they were convicted?

Was the Scottish Press served with a 'D' Notice and threatened NOT to bring this to the attention of the Scottish People?

Why no intervention by the Justice Secretary & or the First Minister to protect the Scottish People from these usurpers?

How much money has been erroneously been paid out to these judges as a salary, when they have been in default and so have made themselves ineligible?

How many cases have these convicted Scottish judges presided over when ineligible to do so and now which require to be annulled, compensation paid and possibly retried?

Anonymous said...

What kind of role model does the antics of The Lord President portray?

Why do we have to be satisfied with 'no bad' in Scotland when we should be striving for magnificent, fantastic, amazing and greatness?

Anonymous said...

No mystery why the rest of the press 'failed' to pick up on this. It was down to the Law Society phoning round to make it clear "coverage is not desirable".
Anyway don't moan folks,the story did well in the Sunday Mail and as someone said to me yesterday it far is better a story like this being in a newspaper people actually buy and read than one selling to a select audience and so-called 'professions' who are causing all the problems in the first place. Keep up the good work all.

Anonymous said...

Ironically there is a case currently in the Court of Session where the judge has been told to recuse himself but has refused to do so.I understand several people at high level know about this yet nothing has been done to ensure the parties receive a fair hearing with a different judge.Your register of interests could make all the difference in cases like these.

Anonymous said...

Oaths are bullshit, a promise nothing else. There is a world of difference between an oath and proof. Judges say they have to do the right thing by the oaths they take, that does not mean they do.

Oaths are bullshit. In his book Leviathan Thomas Hobbes wrote "covenants without the sword are covenants". Similarly oaths without proof are oaths. The latter mean nothing. Just an oaf taking an oath. No proof that Judges do what is right and moral.

Anonymous said...

And who is responsible for 'punishing' the judges who might somehow, by chance, have been discovered to break their 'oath'?

Why the Lord President of course - the same person who may very well have appointed the transgresor - hardly a ringing endorsement of either's character or judgement if it ever came to light.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

No mystery why the rest of the press 'failed' to pick up on this. It was down to the Law Society phoning round to make it clear "coverage is not desirable".

20 March 2013 15:55

Ah.Nice to know the Law Society are still clamping down on any news that portrays them in a less than desirable light.

Shame on all those who acquiesce to such blatant corruption.No wonder you have a judge who feels omnipotent enough to write in such vile terms to elected politicians just because someone suggested a register of interests should be brought in for the judiciary.

Anonymous said...

Try posting comments on online newspapers about the Register of Interests for Judges and see how free the press are. They never publish them. Most of them are in the pocket of The Law Societies of the United Kingdom. The Lawyers control everything apart from DOI, other internet blogs and The Sunday Mail. It is not Law Society domination, they have their agents throughout the so called free press. You would think it was Stalinist Russia the way this Law Society control everything.

Anonymous said...

Lord Gill the dictionary definition of an oath. A solemn appeal to witness one's determination to speak the truth, to keep a promise, etc.
----------------------------------
Just words the judicial oath is a promise. With the track record of your profession we have much proof that you are a confederacy of deceivers whose real aim is to dominate the public for your vested interests. No power judges the Judges.

Anonymous said...

The thing about democracy is that power is meant to be in the hands of the people. But this is easily bypassed by bureaucracy so that for example a lawyer ruins you and you stay ruined because there is no separation of powers. You collectively can remove a corrupt MP, or MSP, you cannot remove lawyer power because they are judge and juries of themselves.

Even in a democracy if all those elected to parliament share the same view on Law Society power [maintaining self regulation} domination is the result. Tell all of your friends what this blog is exposing.

Anonymous said...

A magistrate claimed £22,500 in disability benefits but was filmed trying downhill grass skiing during a Channel 4 TV show, a court has heard.

Wayne Middleton, 48, also abseiled down a 150ft tower and took part in stilt walking when he appeared on Coach Trip in 2011.

North Somerset Magistrates Court also heard he took up salsa dancing as a hobby and continued to teach despite having told the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) he was 'unable to walk without being in severe pain'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2297027/Magistrate-48-appeared-C4-Coach-Trip-stole-22-500-disability-benefits-working-salsa-instructor.html#ixzz2OCy3OvwQ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
William Penn (1644-1718) Helps Establish the Right to a Jury Trial

In the United States prisoners enjoy the right to trial by a jury if they choose it. On paper, William Penn also had that right. In actuality, the Stuart government bullied or tampered with juries to force them to return verdicts pleasing to its officials. (JUST LIKE THE LAW SOCIETY RIGG COMPLAINTS AGAINST CLIENTS) When Penn and William Mead were arrested in 1670 for preaching, the mayor and magistrate attempted to coerce their jury. (THE MODERN LAWYER DOES NOT GET ARRESTED BECAUSE THE COMPLAINT ABOUT HIM IS KEPT IN HOUSE) In the end, Penn and Mead prevailed on the sturdy jury to stand with them, and a higher court ruled that magistrates might no longer coerce juries. (AND NEITHER CAN LORD GILL EXPECT THE PUBLIC TO TRUST LAWYERS) Penn had helped establish a major civil right for accused prisoners in English-speaking lands. (BUT IN THE 21st CENTURY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW IF A JUDGE HAS A CRIMINAL RECORD, BENEFIT FRAUDSTER, AND THEY TRY TO AVOID SCRUTINY BY CLAIMING THEY WILL BE HARASSED BY PARTY LITIGANTS AND THE MEDIA. AND EXCUSE TO HIDE THEIR SECRET PECUNIARY INTERESTS AND CONFLICT OF INTERESTS.

19 March 2013 14:23
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Scottish Legal Apartheid in action?

Anonymous said...

This kind of thing could only happen in Scotland?

Totally corrupt?

Anonymous said...

This is shocking!

I thought that the judges had to do this already?

Otherwise, how can we tell if they are acting properly or not after all, we've had corrupt cardinals, priests, journalists, police, the BBC, MSPs, MPs, the Crown Office, the Law Society of Scotland, the SSDT & the SLCC caught out lying in recent months, so the judges cannot expect the Scottish Public to believe that any other civil servant is somehow different, when so many of our supposed trusted pillars of society in Scotland are utterly corrupt and rotten to the core?

Anonymous said...

Why don't all cases in Scotland's courts be decided on the pull of a Christmas cracker?

That way, the victimised party in the case would get a statistically better chance of success and it would have the following further benefits:?

a) It would be a fairer system than the current one?

b) It would be vastly cheaper for the victim and would effectively do away with corrupt Scottish lawyers who couldn't give a hoot for their client's case and who are only motivated by enriching themselves in free cash?

c) The case would be dealt with quickly with no built-in delays possible?

d) There would be no case backlogs within the court system?

e) We could therefore employ less judges on a reduced salary?

f) The rigging of cases would cease?

g) The Law Society of Scotland, the SSDT & the SLCC would be put out of business?

h) All that the victims could potentially lose is money, they would be left with their health and soul intact?

i) There would be plenty of new burger flippers looking for a minimum wage job.


This way, everybody wins and the only lot losing are the vested interest Scottish lawyers et al?

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...
Why don't all cases in Scotland's courts be decided on the pull of a Christmas cracker?

That way, the victimised party in the case would get a statistically better chance of success and it would have the following further benefits:?

a) It would be a fairer system than the current one?

b) It would be vastly cheaper for the victim and would effectively do away with corrupt Scottish lawyers who couldn't give a hoot for their client's case and who are only motivated by enriching themselves in free cash?

c) The case would be dealt with quickly with no built-in delays possible?

d) There would be no case backlogs within the court system?

e) We could therefore employ less judges on a reduced salary?

f) The rigging of cases would cease?

g) The Law Society of Scotland, the SSDT & the SLCC would be put out of business?

h) All that the victims could potentially lose is money, they would be left with their health and soul intact?

i) There would be plenty of new burger flippers looking for a minimum wage job.


This way, everybody wins and the only lot losing are the vested interest Scottish lawyers et al?

24 March 2013 02:00
------------------------------—

Great, the end of CASH TREES?

I'll start the mass-manufacturing of the Christmas crackers now.....

Inside each cracker will be a pair of novelty paper hats with £uck Scottish lawyers on it along with two vouchers for a £30 value for a bottle of champagne to be redeemed at all major supermarket chains. So that the winner gets to celebrate winning and the loser can celebrate the downfall of crooked Scottish lawyers and can drown their sorrows at the same time?

What a perfect system?



Dr Who?

Anonymous said...

I know what is under discussion is the propriety of Scottish Judges?

Tell me, is it normal, when your case is called for the 1st time before a judge and you have never been before a judge before (he does not know you - other than the Law Society has whispered in his ear to deliberately blacken your character) but as the judge enters the court room he starts shouting at you and telling you that you have not complied with the court all the way to his bench and then slams all of his papers on his desk, whilst his eyes are virtually popping out of his head and the veins in his kneck are sticking out.......?

Is this normal?

Then when the Clerk of the court tells the Judge that You have complied completely with the requirements of the court, that the judge is out of order but he doesn't apologise for his unfair and rediculous outburst but instead continues to fume and scowl at you?

Is this normal in Scotland's courts?

Then when you are giving your evidence, the judge repeatedly interrupts you and tells you that you cannot say 'that' in his court room even if it is true and that instead you have to agree with his 'version' even if it is false and misleading and untrue?

Is this normal in Scotland and is this what is called 'JUSTICE' in Scotland?

Then when the opposite side admit that they are wrong and that you are right and have told the truth, that the judge then finds in favour of Your opposition and in doing so, he completely disregards the main body of your testimony and instead portrays a position that was the false legal standpoint of the Law Society of Scotland in order that a miscarriage of justice could be perpetrated?

I despair!

If this is common practise then Scotland IS a Banana Republic after all run by crooks and spivs who pay absolutely no regard for the law and instead carry on as if this is the American Wild West where they can simply use the law for their own selfish and corrupt whims?

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...
Why don't all cases in Scotland's courts be decided on the pull of a Christmas cracker?

That way, the victimised party in the case would get a statistically better chance of success and it would have the following further benefits:?

a) It would be a fairer system than the current one?

b) It would be vastly cheaper for the victim and would effectively do away with corrupt Scottish lawyers who couldn't give a hoot for their client's case and who are only motivated by enriching themselves in free cash?

c) The case would be dealt with quickly with no built-in delays possible?

d) There would be no case backlogs within the court system?

e) We could therefore employ less judges on a reduced salary?

f) The rigging of cases would cease?

g) The Law Society of Scotland, the SSDT & the SLCC would be put out of business?

h) All that the victims could potentially lose is money, they would be left with their health and soul intact?

i) There would be plenty of new burger flippers looking for a minimum wage job.


This way, everybody wins and the only lot losing are the vested interest Scottish lawyers et al?

24 March 2013 02:00
£££££££££££££££££££££££

In actual fact this idea really has merit.

At least it would be an improvement on the Banana Split status quo?

Anonymous said...

For a Chief justice to come up with excuses like these because of your petition is pretty lame.It is now obvious there is too much to hide in Scotland's Banana Republic justice system.

Anonymous said...

How can a judge get away with not going to a parliament when anyone not going to a court is found in contempt and jailed.

This Lord Gill must resign.