Sunday, March 30, 2014

The Judges Ermine Piggy Bank: Scotland’s wealthy judiciary - detached from society and closeted in a rich secretive world of links to big business, undeclared earnings, directorships, offshore trusts & vested interests

Scotland’s rich judges act more like unaccountable directors of a business called justice. SCOTLAND’S judiciary are a group of select, predominantly white, extremely wealthy influential lawyers who have an unelected and almost unchallengeable power to stall or close debate on their own secret vested interests, change any of our lives at the stroke of a pen, or strike down legislation desired by the greater community and voted through by democratically elected politicians in our own Scottish Parliament.

Clearly any group in society which has this almost limitless power, must above all, be as transparent as other branches of government and society to which it applies its rulings. But, as we have found out during a full year of debate at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee, if anything, the judges are even more secret than the secret service itself when it comes to the thorny question of judges pecuniary and other interests.

Their personal, undeclared wealth including extensive family and business links throughout the legal profession, offshore ‘tax efficient’ trusts, ownership of numerous and high value properties through a variety of interesting arrangements, investments, directorships and shareholdings, collectively generate millions of pounds in earnings for the judges and their families each year.

Yet, to-date, not one court user, not one member of the public, not one accused person, nor the media or even our own members of the Scottish parliament have had the chance to scrutinise and question judges about their vested financial interests, as there is no register of judicial interests or any effective method of ensuring the judiciary declare their positions, connections and interests in a publicly available document as called for in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary.

You will never see a judge come out of a food bank, even though at least one judge was charged with cheating the benefits system and others regularly claim poverty when faced with the prospect of investigations into their tax affairs, civil litigation or even seizure of their assets.

You will never see a judge on the homeless register – even though it turns out a good few of them curiously appear to own no property at all – preferring instead to rely on “creative property owning solutions” carefully constructed by their chosen law firms who create tax dodging trusts to get round inheritance taxes & capital gains taxes while the rest of the country are required to pay up, on penalty of the prospect of appearing before these same tax dodging judges who fail to recuse themselves over their own dodgy financial arrangements.

And, its not just the judges. Their families often share in this wealthy backslapping system where spouses, children and relatives end up in law firms, investment houses, banks and other professions and yet nothing, not a hint is ever declared when one of them or their firm ends up in front of their relatives on the bench.

In one example known to journalists, the son of one Scottish judge was given a prestigious job in a London based bank, simply because his father is a judge. Yet this individual, like another famous name who is generally considered to have ruined the UK’s biggest bank, had no qualifications necessary to undertake financial transactions of a scale entrusted to him, and thus went on to lose clients hundreds of thousands of pounds while fiddling his commissions and expenses claims.

Senior staff at this well known bank - which received massive financial bailouts from taxpayers after the banking crash of 2008, felt they could not sack the judge’s son, due to his father’s position on the bench. As losses to clients mounted and he cheated the bank even more, staff just had to wait on him departing of his own accord after “he became bored”.

But, it wasn't all bad news for the bank. In all of the cases in which this bank and other financial institutions linked to it or owned by it have appeared as a litigant in Scotland’s courts, not one recusal by the judge, or a number of his judicial colleagues who also have links to, and investments in the same bank, has ever taken place or been recorded in any document or even in published court opinions on cases which the bank won.

Another Scottish bank, well known for sponsoring events held by the Law Society of Scotland has relied on millions of pounds of business from many of Scotland’s law firms who have banked their client fund accounts there. These same law firms have employed some of our current judges in speaking events and other business.

But whenever questions arise over missing client funds involving solicitors and this same bank or its subsidiaries, and these cases eventually get to court and in front of a judge, don’t expect a recusal or anyone to bother asking, as there have been none.

Renewable energy. Yes. Members of Scotland’s judiciary were quick to spot the earnings potential of windmills, wave power and tree hugging. Yet while many judges have chose to invest in renewables, as well as adding a few of their siblings to the companies they invest in, there have been no recorded recusals when any renewable energy firms or their business ventures have appeared before our judges in Scotland’s highest courts.

Insurance. Members of Scotland’s judiciary on £150K plus a year have always viewed the insurance industry as a great little earner, yet when things go wrong, a few of the judges have suddenly claimed poverty to evade paying out rather than their investments paying them. Ever so dishonest, although it appears no action against any of the judicial dodgers was ever taken.

Its not all just about interests and money. Persons accused of criminal offences and their legal teams are not able to consult any register of interests to decide if the judge hearing the case may be required to recuse themselves.

A high profile case involving William Beck, who was wrongfully convicted of an offence saw Mr Beck appeal against his conviction only to be denied by the son of the judge who sent him to jail in the first place.

And then at a further appeal, Mr Beck encounter another judge who had prosecuted him and sent him to jail. The judge, Lord Osborne, claimed he had forgot and would have recused himself if he had remembered – yet his explanation has been rubbished by papers submitted to the court in which Osborne’s name as prosecutor appeared. Read more on this here: Failure to Recuse : Evidence handed to MSPs in judicial register of interests proposal reveals judges who blocked injustice appeal failed to declare interests in court

It is not so difficult to understand why a register of judicial interests is required.

When taxpayers throw massive £150K-£250K salaries and million pound plus pensions at what is ostensibly a former solicitor who sits in a court for a few hours a day looking old, bored & snored because he knows exactly how he is going to rule from the very outset, it should come as no surprise these same judges make sure their salaries and other undeclared earnings are dealt with in as tax efficient and income generating a way as possible. After all, they are in a position to ensure this, they have the influence to do this and they have written their own rules so no one can view this.

Indeed, such are the scale of the judges financial interests and undeclared earnings, it is little wonder Lord Gill felt safe enough to tell msps on the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee that it would be almost impossible for judges to detail all their interests .. because if they did, there is a good chance hardly any case in Scotland’s courts could ever again be viewed as honest.

And even without all these revelations, the reasons why the judiciary should be required to comply with a register of interests are very simple to understand.

As serving members of the judiciary who claim to be bound by oaths and rules which now appear to have little credibility, these same judges have confirmed there is something to hide. It simply cannot be that the entire class of judiciary are exempt from the same levels of transparency as other branches of government and civil servants are required to follow. There is no excuse, no legitimate exemption.

The judiciary, and the Lord President himself, by opposing transparency to the point of threatening the foundations of the Scottish Parliament itself, have all lost sight of their service to the wider community, their obligations to the same levels of transparency they enforce in their own courts, and the needs of transparency in all branches of government in Scotland and the rest of the country.

If Scotland’s justice system is to be trusted, a fully transparent and detailed register of judicial interests with rules and guidance policed by an independent authority not connected to the judiciary, must be created.

Otherwise, litigants, court users, accused persons and even those solicitors who do try for their clients, are simply attending what is little more than a board meeting of a bunch of directors who more often than not have a vested interest in YOUR access to justice being denied.

HOW TOP JUDGE PROTESTED AGAINST TRANSPARENCY REGISTER:

Lord Gill’s first letter to MSPs voiced vociferous opposition to transparency. In Lord Gill’s opening letter to MSPs on the call for a register of judicial interests, the judge claimed “In practical terms it would be impossible for all judicial office holders to identify all the interests that could conceivably arise in any future case. The terms of the Judicial Oath and the Statement of Principles of Judicial Ethics ensure that such a difficulty does not arise and that the onus is on the judicial office holder to declare any interest at the outset.”

In what was surely a hint of the sheer hostility felt by the judiciary against a call to bring transparency to judges interests, Lord Gill went onto accuse the media, press, litigants, court users and just about everyone else with an interest in transparency of being potentially hostile and aggressive, simply because someone may wish to raise questions of judges interests similar to the same kinds of questions which are raised of interests in other public officials and those in public life, politics & government.

Clearly angered by the call for transparency, Lord Gill’s letter to MSPs stated: “The introduction of such a register could also have unintended consequences. Consideration requires to be given to judges' privacy and freedom from harassment by aggressive media or hostile individuals, including dissatisfied litigants. It is possible that the information held on such a register could be abused. These are significant concerns. If publicly criticised or attacked, the judicial office holder cannot publicly defend himself or herself, unlike a politician. The establishment of such a register therefore may have the unintended consequence of eroding public confidence in the Judiciary. It also raises the question whether such a measure would have an adverse impact on the recruitment and retention of the Judiciary.”

Top judge Lord Gill refused to go to Holyrood, by letter. In a second reply to the Convener of the PPC, dated 2 April 2013, Lord Gill refused an invitation to attend the Scottish Parliament and face questions from Committee members on issues raised in the petition and to explain his own opposition to the transparency proposal.

Notably, Gill’s second reply did not contain any answers to questions put to him in writing by the Petitions Committee, nor did the judge provide any statistical or analytical evidence on the numbers of recusals which have been undertaken by judges in Scotland’s courts. However, seeking once again to lobby MSPs against any call for transparency of judges interests, the Lord President again referred to the content of an EU report, itself written by judges, who claimed there was no need for a register of judicial interests.

A further invitation was sent to Lord Gill by the Convener of the Public Petitions Committee, asking for answers to questions and again inviting the Lord President to addend the Scottish Parliament to give evidence on Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary

Third letter from top judge refused Holyrood invitation, used Scotland Act loophole. Having received the third letter containing a second invitation to attend Holyrood, Lord Gill wrote back to the Convener of the Public Petitions Committee on the 28 May 2013, again refusing to appear before MSPs to face questions on judges interests and his own opposition to the petition.

However, this time the top judge added a hint that judicial cooperation with Committees of the Scottish Parliament may suffer and must be limited.

In what appears to have been little short of a veiled threat to refuse further judicial cooperation with, and future Committee appearances at the Scottish Parliament, Gill stated: “Judges have from time to time given evidence to committees of the Scottish Parliament on matters that affect the administration of justice in Scotland. I hope that that has been helpful in the legislative process. Judicial participation in the work of the committees must however be kept within prudent limits.”

And, shockingly, Lord Gill then sought to use deficiencies in the Scotland Act to justify his refusal to attend the Public Petitions Committee and answer question from msps.

Gill’s use of Scotland Act against MSPs was reported in the media. Writing in his third letter, Lord Gill said: “Section 23(7) of the Scotland Act provides inter alia that the Parliament may not require a judge to attend its proceedings for the purposes of giving evidence. This is not a loophole. It is a necessary part of the constitutional settlement by which the Parliament is established. Its purpose is to protect the independence of the judiciary, a vital constitutional principle that is declared in section 1 of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008”

The judge continued: “When a committee invites a judge to give evidence before it, I have to decide whether the subject matter might infringe the principle of judicial independence; and whether the evidence required could be satisfactorily given in writing.”

Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the Sunday Mail newspaper, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee deliberations on Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary can be found here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary

95 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wow Peter you have really got the judges in this register thing!

Anonymous said...

aye you can just see all the bags of money sitting on that bench

Anonymous said...

"You will never see a judge come out of a food bank, even though at least one judge was charged with cheating the benefits system and others regularly claim poverty when faced with the prospect of investigations into their tax affairs, civil litigation or even seizure of their assets."

Corrupt rotten to the core just a bunch of thieves and robbers dressed up in red as you say time we knew all about them this is ridiculous the time it is taking to debate this properly in the parliament

Anonymous said...

Gill's protests are confirmation enough there is a lot going on here we dont know about.If it was just nothing the whole petition and your idea would have been dismissed and nothing written about it.

Time we had this register and all their little deals and investments published for all to see.

Anonymous said...

Directors of the courts yes this is exactly what the judges have now become.

You can just feel the arrogance in the threatening letters to the msps as in dont you dare question us or else.

Anonymous said...

Directors of the courts yes this is exactly what the judges are.
You can just feel the arrogance in the threatening letters to the msps as in dont you dare question us or else.

Anonymous said...

sounds like the son of the judge who is working in the bank should be in jail
no worries his daddy in a wig will make sure nothing happens

Anonymous said...

The cream of the crop are the worst of the crop just like all these bankers who ruined the country and we are told to respect the courts?
They get away with it because are jumped up lawyers with dangerous allies.These judges are getting so corrupt I would not put it past one of them them to order someone murdered to protect their secrets.

Anonymous said...

I can see you only cover legal news from Scotland but I would like to ask if any of this about the judges applies to England and if so what do you make of it all?

Anonymous said...

Lord Gill's snotty letters to holyrood should have been answered with a summons
Much to hide Mr judge when you come over all threatening like that?

Anonymous said...

Courts in Scotland have been known to be corrupt for years this confirms it and all these judges and their sleazy interests are getting backhanders one way or another or a leg up for some of their family to get a ruling in the interests of insurers banks etc

Anonymous said...

The whole setup stinks to high heaven - thank you Messrs McAskill and Salmond.

Anonymous said...

They have unelected and almost unchallengeable power to stall or close debate on their own secret vested interests, change any of our lives at the stroke of a pen, or strike down legislation desired by the greater community and voted through by democratically elected politicians in our own Scottish Parliament.
===================================
Judiciary of Scotland here is what you cannot bear.

“Ask the powerful five questions:

1. What power have you got?.

2 Where did you get in from

3.In whose interest do you exercise it?

4. To whom are you accountable?

5. How can we get rid of you?”

“Only democracy gives us that right, that is why no-one with power likes democracy.

Anthony Neil Wedgwood Benn (3 April 1925 – 14 March 2014)

If we cannot vote you out or diminish dictatorial power we do not live in a democracy. It is an oligarchic plutocracy encompassing secretive links to big business, undeclared earnings, directorships, offshore trusts and vested interests. We have a parliament, we have MSP's, voting rights but that is an illusion. A secret unelected omnipotent mendacious faction are making a mockery of the voting system.

The reality is that the parliament [the voice of the people] is being muted through evolutionary judicial dictatorship. The Judiciary unlimited power in Scotland prove that democracy does not mean freedom, try taking legal action against a lawyer and you will see what I mean.

Anonymous said...

The judge continued: “When a committee invites a judge to give evidence before it, I have to decide whether the subject matter might infringe the principle of judicial independence; and whether the evidence required could be satisfactorily given in writing.”
-------------------------------------------
A smokescreen Judicial Independence, this means we don't want anyone delving into our secret masonic mafia. The masons control Scotland.

Anonymous said...

Scotland’s wealthy judiciary - detached from society and closeted in a rich secretive world of links to big business, undeclared earnings, directorships, offshore trusts & vested interests.
===================================
CRIMINALS THESE PEOPLE HAVE PRE REFORMATION POWER. THEY ARE FROM THE DARK AGES TOTALLY FANATICALLY SECRETIVE AND ABSOLUTELY CORRUPT. WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO JAIL ALL OF THEM.

Anonymous said...

Too much power has corrupted the judges and all that talk about judicial independence is an excuse to keep the shutters down on what they are really up to.

This Lord Gill likes to throw around threats and intimidation in his letters even though he claims judges cannot defend themselves and he is accusing everyone over all these questions about their interests.Well it is time we had full openness with these judges instead of having to put up with their threats against us.

Anonymous said...

The Neo-liberals use the private sector to bypass the NHS, The judiciary use so called democracy as a cover for domination of the public when it serves their interests. The reason the judiciary are out of touch is because they have never been constrained. They govern Scotland and lets face it Westminster turn a blind eye too.

The greater their power the more they must be scrutinized. They are a mafia who dominate through bureaucracy. Just as the neo-liberals are starving the vulnerable to try cast them aside destitute these judicial gangsters do the same by self regulation, cutting off legal representation when it suits them. Make no mistake in these circumstances democracy is an illusion. Imagine is everyone in work thought like the ConDems, what rights would the poor have then?

Anonymous said...

We need a reformation against the Judiciary and it has commenced. These Judicial people don't have power, they have criminal power because there is no test for evaluating their fitness for the positions they hold and their activities in these roles.

We have a legal system that should be declared illegal. The economically powerful outside the judiciary have these Judicial imposters in our courts. This is the reason secrecy is critical to them. Scotland's legal system is a betrayal of us all.

Anonymous said...

The judge continued: “When a committee invites a judge to give evidence before it, I have to decide whether the subject matter might infringe the principle of judicial independence; and whether the evidence required could be satisfactorily given in writing.”

Surely, for any right thinking person, the fact that the Judges are opposed to transparency and accountability is the biggest infringement of the principle of Judicial Independence?

Anonymous said...

Lord Gill said: “Section 23(7) of the Scotland Act provides inter alia that the Parliament may not require a judge to attend its proceedings for the purposes of giving evidence (WHO QUESTIONS YOUR FACTION THEN LORD GILL)? This is not a loophole. (YOU DON'T NEED LOOPHOLES YOU INTERESTS ARE INVISIBLE TO THE PUBLIC YOUR FACTION SERVES THEN).It is a necessary part of the constitutional settlement by which the Parliament is established. Its purpose is to protect the independence of the judiciary, a vital constitutional principle that is declared in section 1 of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008” (THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO PREVENT PEOPLE LOCKED UP FOR THEIR POLITICAL VIEWS. THIS IS ABOUT THE INVISIBILITY OF THE JUDICIARY A SPACE WHERE THE JUDICIARY ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO THEMSELVES. THERE ARE NO CHECKS AND BALANCES FOR THE PUBLIC, WHICH MEANS SIMPLY THE SYSTEM IS OPEN TO SERIOUS ABUSES. THOMAS HOBBES SAID "WHERE THERE ARE NO LAWS THERE IS NO INJUSTICE". BASICALLY THE JUDICIARY CAN ENGINEER ANY OUTCOME IT WANTS. DANGEROUS.

Anonymous said...

Basically the public have no insight into the system that administers justice and there is no way of knowing if a judge has financial interests in a company a member of the public may be in litigation against. These judges are not fit to be in court especially when they want everything kept secret in their sinister world of corruption. Power without constraint is corrupt and these people cannot remain detached from the society they are there to serve. This is an outrageous situation indeed.

Anonymous said...

The way the rich keep rich is to buy off those in a position of power to swing cases. The Judiciary may as well be directors of large corporations because they want secrecy and obedience. Perhaps if the truth came out many of them would be guilty of crimes against the Scottish people.

Anonymous said...

The judge continued: “When a committee invites a judge to give evidence before it, I have to decide whether the subject matter might infringe the principle of judicial independence; and whether the evidence required could be satisfactorily given in writing.”
==================================
Interesting he states "I have to decide". The question is why should one man who heads a detached faction of omnipotent people be allowed to decide this issue of critical importance.

Judicial independence is the concept that the judiciary needs to be kept away from the other branches of government. That is, courts should not be subject to improper influence from the other branches of government, or from private or partisan interests. Judicial Independence is vital and important to the idea of separation of powers.

I can agree with him that politicians should not be able to influence judicial decisions but this man wants no outside checks and balances of the judiciary's conduct. This is as prone to corruption as the principle he defends. That is, courts should not be subject to improper influence from private or partisan interests. Your argument Lord Gill is a weak one, any excuse to keep judicial interests secret. He is defending the indefensible.

Anonymous said...

"Governments do not govern, but merely control the machinery of government,being themselves controlled by the hidden hand."

Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881) Prime Minister of England, British statesman, novelist.

Anonymous said...

Tyranny naturally arises out of democracy. Plato

Democracy passes into despotism.
Plato.


Anonymous said...

People live with the illusion that we have a democratic system, but it's only the outward form of one. It is a plutocracy control by the rich.

Anonymous said...

This has the potential to dislodge the entire judicial system in Scotland however I can see the usual pattern of a cover up going on already.

Anyone who has ever had a case in front of a Scottish judge and lost because of these vested interests should now be standing up and demanding appeals or retrials and a proper public inquiry into what happened and not the usual cosy club inquiry led by one of the judges friends or business partners

Anonymous said...

Who judges the judiciary. Their power is anachronistic from a bygone era. We have legalized thieves masquerading as legal professionals. In the judicial world there are no laws because there is no enforcement.

If we abolished the police tomorrow there would be no enforcement on the streets. It would be a situation where each individual would decide what is just and unjust. Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan argued we need the state to "keep people in awe" and the state would administer justice to maintain social order. The Judiciary do not have any power to keep them in awe so they can do as they please. This criminal situation must be challenged at all costs because they are not fit to do hold the positions they have. There is nothing in place to evaluate whether or not these people are criminals because in the secretive detached power they have they can do as they please. They are clearly a cartel of the judiciary, big business, profit from secretive earnings and avoid tax.

Anonymous said...

What I find most disturbing about this entire debate is the lack of denials from the judges against all the headlines in the papers and everything you have exposed about what they get up to.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense is going to reach the same conclusion I have that the judges are into some seriously big money big conflicts of interest and can only get away with it if everything is kept under wraps from your petition.

There will be some serious arm twisting going on in the background to close this down but with the public debate you have started this is not going to go away and the judges have to come clean about what they have and what they have been doing all these years we never knew about it.

Anonymous said...

Well done for lifting the lid on the judiciary!

Anonymous said...

If its a secret worth protecting its worth threatening to protect - so there it is confirmed the judges are up to dodgy dealings.

Anonymous said...

Indeed, such are the scale of the judges financial interests and undeclared earnings, it is little wonder Lord Gill felt safe enough to tell msps on the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee that it would be almost impossible for judges to detail all their interests .. because if they did, there is a good chance hardly any case in Scotland’s courts could ever again be viewed as honest.

Obviously why Gill felt he had to go the mile extra and threaten the msps to stop them looking into their interests!

Anonymous said...

Very good article Peter although one thing I'd like to ask you.

What is your mission here regarding this petition.
Lord Gill seems to be portraying it as some kind of wrecking ball although I can see from the video clips that the msps are having none of this.

What is your own reaction to this and what would you like to see out of it all?

Anonymous said...

M'luds are carrying big bags of loot around with them!

Anonymous said...

When is the petition heard again?Isnt it time we had that debate in the chamber?
Because all the delay allows these lying judges to hide even more of their wealth and connections etc

Anonymous said...

I quote from a letter without naming anyone. It concerned a litigation case against my employer. This letter was from the defenders law firm.

You V Bloggs of Anywhere.

"We refer to the calling of this case in Court XYZ in 14th January 2004. As you did not appear in Court on that date the Sheriff dismissed the your case and awarded expenses in favour of the defenders".

Here are the facts do not try any sue any company. They will use you for legal aid and no one ever wins damages.

All lawyers, the Sheriff, Court Staff, Doctors GP's and Medical Consultants who gave their opinions were insured by Royal Sun Alliance as is the complaints unions, Law Society, General Medical Council and the NHS. Your lawyer is on the defendents side, he just makes an arse of you for money.

This is one of many reasons the Judiciary want secrecy. YOU CANNOT WIN. DON'T TRY. HOW CAN YOU WIN WHEN THEIR PREMIUMS WILL INCREASE?

Anonymous said...

I will read this blog and spread the word about it until the human condition ends my ability to do so. Lawyers are the enemies of all their clients simply because they will turn on any client as soon as another lawyer is at risk of having their career ruined. In truth lawyers I would pray to the earth that eventually you lie in. One of you taught me all of you are my enemies to the extent trust is wrecked forever.

Anonymous said...

Scotland’s wealthy judiciary - detached from being prosecuted.

Anonymous said...

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/apr/01/solicitors-no-new-cases-legal-aid-protest

Solicitors are threatening to turn away new criminal cases destined for the crown court in an escalation of protests over cuts to legal aid. The boycott – intended to gridlock the criminal justice system – was announced at the end of a two-day walkout in England and Wales in conjunction with probation officers, who are protesting against Ministry of Justice plans to privatise offender rehabilitation services.
================================
These dirty scumbags withdraw legal representation for two reasons. If a colleague has ruined a client or lawyers fees are at risk. Pure scum they don't care about civil or criminal cases in any country, they love protecting each other and money. They are pure scum, don't trust any of them.

Anonymous said...

Legal aid, the provision of advice and representation in court to those who cannot afford to hire a lawyer, was established by Clement Attlee's Labour government in 1949. Supporters revere it as one of the principal pillars of the post-war welfare state. However, over the years, costs have escalated as the UK became an increasingly litigious society.

The Ministry of Justice estimates that legal aid in England and Wales now costs the taxpayer around £2bn a year and describes it as the most expensive system of its kind in the world. Lawyers dispute the figures,[OF COURSE THEY DO] maintaining that costs are falling as crime rates decline and that many other countries' criminal-justice systems, which rely on investigating magistrates, are more costly [COMPARATIVE POLITICS AGAIN].

Lawyers the world over don't give a toss about clients [civil or criminal] they care about money. Lawyers of the Earth. I love seeing you all get shafted, less taxpayers money in the piggybank. Poetic Justice.

Anonymous said...

If Lawyers can strike over Legal Aid why should the Police not be allowed to strike over their salaries? Same thing protecting rights of the public.

Anonymous said...

Labour MPs will be banned from receiving any income from corporations after 2015, one of Ed Miliband's key advisers has said.

Shadow cabinet minister Jon Trickett, a member of Miliband's inner circle, revealed Labour would legislate to apply this to MPs from all parties should it win the next election.

In an interview with The Huffington Post UK's Mehdi Hasan, Trickett said Labour wanted "to stop people from working for corporations, receiving money from corporations, as members of parliament."

Trickett, who is also the deputy chair of the Labour Party, said: "If you stand as a Labour candidate at the next election you will not be allowed after that election to continue receiving money as an employee of a corporation."

The Institute of Directors (IoD) condemned the plan as "ill-thought-through" and warned it would alienate MPs from the owners of small, medium-sized and family owned businesses.

Trickett told HuffPost that there was "a danger of parliament becoming an instrument of the corporate world". Under the plan the crackdown would apply to company directors, employees of corporations or consultants to corporations. There could be exemptions for professionals such as doctors and lawyers - in order for them to retain their qualifications.

"I felt that if you’re a member of parliament your primary function must be, demonstrably, to represent the people who elected you," he said.
==========================================================
They all have conflicts of interests especially the Judiciary, which is the reason they want secrecy and obedience.

Anonymous said...

Before the enlightenment the clergy used to execute people for blasphemy. But the condemned did not offend God, he offended the clergy and their blasphemy laws were used to kill of the dissenter before the dissent triggered others to defy the church. Why should I believe clergy who make their living out of Christianity? Furthermore clergy do not have to believe in God themselves. They have an employment contract to teach what the church says, like a teacher teaching in schools follow the education agreed by contract.

Like the church the the Judges want obedience because of the threat to their power and wealth but they cannot condemn people to death to silence them. I wonder what would happen if a Judge was asked to disclose his vested interests during a trial? No doubt contempt of court rules would be instigated for the same reasons the church condemned dissidents. What is power if there is no transparency? Domination is the answer and as DOI stated detachment from the people they have Judicial power over. The Judiciary have no power to keep them in check and they want it kept that way. Sinister indeed.

Anonymous said...

Scotland’s rich judges act more like unaccountable directors of a business called justice. SCOTLAND’S judiciary are a group of select, predominantly white, extremely wealthy influential lawyers who have an unelected and almost unchallengeable power to stall or close debate on their own secret vested interests, change any of our lives at the stroke of a pen, or strike down legislation desired by the greater community and voted through by democratically elected politicians in our own Scottish Parliament.
============================================================
A dictatorship, what else can it be called? 'Secrecy, being an instrument of conspiracy, ought never to be the system of a regular government'.
Jeremy Bentham.

The above situation is nothing short of criminal when these unelected crooks run the country for their own benefit. Totally criminal.





Anonymous said...

'A lawyer with his briefcase can steal more than a hundred men with guns'.
Mario Puzo



Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
The judge continued: “When a committee invites a judge to give evidence before it, I have to decide whether the subject matter might infringe the principle of judicial independence; and whether the evidence required could be satisfactorily given in writing.”
==================================
Interesting he states "I have to decide". The question is why should one man who heads a detached faction of omnipotent people be allowed to decide this issue of critical importance.

Judicial independence is the concept that the judiciary needs to be kept away from the other branches of government. That is, courts should not be subject to improper influence from the other branches of government, or from private or partisan interests. Judicial Independence is vital and important to the idea of separation of powers.

I can agree with him that politicians should not be able to influence judicial decisions but this man wants no outside checks and balances of the judiciary's conduct. This is as prone to corruption as the principle he defends. That is, courts should not be subject to improper influence from private or partisan interests. Your argument Lord Gill is a weak one, any excuse to keep judicial interests secret. He is defending the indefensible.

31 March 2014 11:12
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Judicial Independence has a hollow ring in Scotland when you consider cases where Scottish Judges have blended to political pressure as in the Lockerbie Case, Robert Green & Timothy Rustige?

Anonymous said...

Their tax evasion and links with big business may be one thing but the real criminality is where cases are ruined where Judges sit on a case so as to damage it, when they should have recused themselves?

How often does this happen?

Anonymous said...

The reason all of these crooked Judges were let off because their crimes were considered not to be in the interests of the Public to prosecute was because they believe that a Scottish Judge should not have to preside over one of their fellow judges and so in order to maintain this artificial gentleman's agreement, they see it preferable to see Scottish Judges as being above the law?

This twisting of the law to suit perverted self interest has now spread like an insidious disease to Scottish lawyers, where they are also considered to be above the law for the same reason (that they believe that it is not 'fair' for them to have to act against one of their own), so they consider it agreeable for Scottish lawyers to be let-off Scot-Free as evidenced by the Scottish Crown Office letting 14 Scottish lawyers of with crime, after the Scottish Legal Aid Board had confirmed to the Crown Office that they had paper evidence that these Scottish lawyers were all guilty?

Anonymous said...

The terms of the Judicial Oath and the Statement of Principles of Judicial Ethics ensure that such a difficulty does not arise and that the onus is on the judicial office holder to declare any interest at the outset.” Pure bullshit.
==================================
Ethics right and wrong. , Judicial Oaths meaningless, Statements of principles spin.

There is one fundamental principle.
Pecuniary reward buys a lot of friendship, and the latter demands obedience.

Ethics Oaths, principles. Who enforces them? They are platitudes nothing more. He wants to convince us that the court users will be safe and receive fairness from the judiciary, dream on Mr Gill, we live in the harsh real world. Onus on Judicial officer to declare any interest at the outset. There is no onus on judicial officers because as Thomas Hobbes argued in Leviathan men ]devoid of government] have no power to keep them in awe. This means the litigant can be stitched up in court because vested interests dominate. Locke agreed with Hobbes to some extent but disagreed in that total power in government needed a way of removing vested interests. Mr Gill is the Leviathan, there is no power to keep him in awe, only platitudes. How do we arrange society in the absence of a spiritual God where all men are meant to be equal in terms of justice?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

What I find most disturbing about this entire debate is the lack of denials from the judges against all the headlines in the papers and everything you have exposed about what they get up to.
==================================
How can they deny when they cannot prove they are fit to be in the offices they are in. Criminals are only friends when they share the booty. The question is twofold, can we remove them and can they be replaced?

Anonymous said...

In the broader context of the United Kingdom government condemns certain groups as shirkers and scroungers. Christian organizations who are meant to help the poor and involved in workfare. But those in the so called upper echelons of society, are immune from these labels. How many bankers have been jailed. Judges involved in benefit fraud who have their identities hidden. Those at the top run the system for themselves, and because they control it they avoid prosecution because the massive amounts of money fraud are not regarded as real crimes.

Anonymous said...

Scotland’s rich judges act more like unaccountable directors of a business called justice.
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Yes but customers have rights and their customers only have rights when they decide it is in their vested interests. Anyone who is reasonable would agree with me but power without control makes them have a distorted sense of their own importance. In truth they are not fit to be in their jobs. Furthermore none of them deny the accusations directed at them because they are corrupt and unaccountable. Scotland's Judiciary are the Scottish Governments hidden hand, Salmond and all MSP's are not kidding us, they are Gill's puppets on a string.

Anonymous said...

The judges must hate these headlines and all the knowledge you are putting out about them we never knew until now!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Basically the public have no insight into the system that administers justice and there is no way of knowing if a judge has financial interests in a company a member of the public may be in litigation against. These judges are not fit to be in court especially when they want everything kept secret in their sinister world of corruption. Power without constraint is corrupt and these people cannot remain detached from the society they are there to serve. This is an outrageous situation indeed.

31 March 2014 10:28
%%%%%%%%%%%

Who said that a Scottish Court administers justice?

How do you know?

Is it because they tell you they do?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Who judges the judiciary. Their power is anachronistic from a bygone era. We have legalized thieves masquerading as legal professionals. In the judicial world there are no laws because there is no enforcement.

If we abolished the police tomorrow there would be no enforcement on the streets. It would be a situation where each individual would decide what is just and unjust. Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan argued we need the state to "keep people in awe" and the state would administer justice to maintain social order. The Judiciary do not have any power to keep them in awe so they can do as they please. This criminal situation must be challenged at all costs because they are not fit to do hold the positions they have. There is nothing in place to evaluate whether or not these people are criminals because in the secretive detached power they have they can do as they please. They are clearly a cartel of the judiciary, big business, profit from secretive earnings and avoid tax.

31 March 2014 13:44
[]{}{][]{}{][]{}{][]{}{][]{}{][]{}{][

I think the moral of the story is that Judges and Sheriffs are supposed to have a 'CHARACTER ABOVE REPROACH' i.e. They should have the discipline and self control and sense of moral standards so that they do not break the law and therefore they are fit to be able to Judge others of a lesser standard of morals?

Ironically, they should portray a Victorian conservative ideal, where they conduct themselves in Victorian value system, where Judges were visible bastions of Society who commanded respect through their position and through their actions?

Some would say that Scotland is now stuffed full of Borrow-Without-Consenters, who are more likely to break all manner of laws and involve themselves in all manner of tawdry behaviour on the understanding that as a Judge or Sheriff the law in Scotland does not apply to them?

This is the future of Salmond & MacAskill's Scotland, where lawyers and there pals are the ruling class and are allowed to trample and Lord it over the rest of us with impunity?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/apr/01/solicitors-no-new-cases-legal-aid-protest

Solicitors are threatening to turn away new criminal cases destined for the crown court in an escalation of protests over cuts to legal aid. The boycott – intended to gridlock the criminal justice system – was announced at the end of a two-day walkout in England and Wales in conjunction with probation officers, who are protesting against Ministry of Justice plans to privatise offender rehabilitation services.
================================
These dirty scumbags withdraw legal representation for two reasons. If a colleague has ruined a client or lawyers fees are at risk. Pure scum they don't care about civil or criminal cases in any country, they love protecting each other and money. They are pure scum, don't trust any of them.

4 April 2014 23:47
..................................

Call their bluff?

They only use Society's victims as a way to undermine Society even more and to rape the Country's finances so that we have to pay more taxes, leading to poverty and the increase in crime?

A lot of Society's ill's would be solved if half of Scotland's lawyers were culled and our Justice System was stopped being an industry taking advantage of the poor and oppressed?

Anonymous said...

"SCOTLAND’S judiciary are a group of select, predominantly white, extremely wealthy influential lawyers who have an unelected and almost unchallengeable power to stall or close debate on their own secret vested interests, change any of our lives at the stroke of a pen, or strike down legislation desired by the greater community and voted through by democratically elected politicians in our own Scottish Parliament."

"Clearly any group in society which has this almost limitless power, must above all, be as transparent as other branches of government and society to which it applies its rulings"

Your entire argument for a reg of interests is made in these two paras and spot on at that.Anyone who does not see this understands nothing about transparency or how democracy works.

Gill is totally out of touch with reality.

Anonymous said...

Clearly angered by the call for transparency, Lord Gill’s letter to MSPs stated: “The introduction of such a register could also have unintended consequences.
====================================
Resignation, position untenable, disgrace, cases presided over where rulings seen as biased, the Scottish Legal system destroyed, this my friend is your real fear and your credibility is in tatters. Excuse my language but they are a bunch of corrupt wankers.

Anonymous said...

Oath. A swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, which would subject the oath-taker to a prosecution for the crime of perjury if he/she knowingly lies in a statement either orally in a trial or deposition or in writing. Traditionally, the oath concludes "so help me God," but the approval of a supreme being is often omitted. However, criminal perjury charges are rare, since the person stating the untruth will almost always claim error, mistake, loss of memory, or opinion. At the beginning of any testimony by a witness, the clerk or court reporter administers an oath to the witness. 2) The "swearing in" of a person assuming a public office, sometimes called the "oath of office." 3) sworn commitment of allegiance, as to one's country.
=======================================================
How then can we be sure Judges do not lie and adhere to secret oaths, not like witnesses in a Court of law. Oaths mean nothing Lord Gill, they simply mean the public should take Judges word that they are honest. With the exposing of corrupt lawyers on web sites from their former clients Oaths are pure Bull. Any form of secrecy and justice are mutually exclusive. Judges omnipotence is corrupt in itself and therefore untenable. No reasonable man could argue it is just.

Anonymous said...

http://money.aol.co.uk/2014/04/12/overseas-tax-evaders-jail-threat/

People who avoid paying tax by hiding their money overseas could face jail under sweeping new regulations being planned by the Government.

Chancellor George Osborne is consulting on the creation of a new criminal offence to make it easier to prosecute British citizens who hold undisclosed money in offshore accounts.

The changes would give HM Revenue & Customs the power to prosecute people who do not declare their foreign income, even if they did not deliberately intend to avoid payment.

The new legislation would be a move away from current laws, which demand that prosecutors show that individuals intended to avoid paying tax on foreign income.

Speaking from the International Monetary Fund meeting in Washington, Mr Osborne told the Financial Times: "We are changing the balance of the law so the burden of proof falls on those who are hiding their money offshore and we don't have to prove that they intended to do so."
==================================
I wonder if this will apply to the legal mafia too? Lawyers and politicians are utter scum.

Anonymous said...

No wonder nobody can get anywhere in the courts with these thugs in charge of justice along with their lawyer pals all making money for each other.

Its about time the courts were broken up too because the judges as you say have just turned it into a business for themselves and no one else gets a look in.

Anonymous said...

The question we should be asking is, "Are there any decisions made in a Scottish Court that can be trusted"

What a carve up.

This is Scottish Judges doing the 'Scottish Breast-stroke' by sweeping all the money towards themselves?

Anonymous said...

Kenny MacRaskill is the person in charge of this fraudulent shambles - he should be impeached?

Anonymous said...

The judge continued: “When a committee invites a judge to give evidence before it, I have to decide whether the subject matter might infringe the principle of judicial independence; and whether the evidence required could be satisfactorily given in writing.”

So, what is the difference between appearing in front of a Parliamentary Committee and writing to the Committee, in terms of Judicial Independence?

Nothing?

This is nothing other than two fingers up to the Committee and the Judge saying that there is no way he is going to put himself into a position where searching questions could be asked about the widespread corruption and criminality being committed by Scotland's Judges, where presumably he would be shown up as a liar?

Given what the Diary of Injustice journalists have discovered, Lord Gill should be brought to the Public Petitions Committee in hand-cuffs and forced to give evidence?

Anonymous said...

The Scottish Judges say take our word for it, you can trust us to tell the truth because we have taken a judicial oath...

Meanwhile, they are fixing-cases to order, failing to recuse themselves and are cheating the tax man and the rest of society with their criminal conduct?

Instead of the Scottish Justice System it should be called the Scottish Fix-Up System?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
If Lawyers can strike over Legal Aid why should the Police not be allowed to strike over their salaries? Same thing protecting rights of the public.

4 April 2014 23:58
££££££££££££££££

Maybe the police should arrest more Scottish crooked lawyers instead of the Law Society keeping it in-house, where they defeat the ends of justice?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
This has the potential to dislodge the entire judicial system in Scotland however I can see the usual pattern of a cover up going on already.

Anyone who has ever had a case in front of a Scottish judge and lost because of these vested interests should now be standing up and demanding appeals or retrials and a proper public inquiry into what happened and not the usual cosy club inquiry led by one of the judges friends or business partners

31 March 2014 12:45
#################

What has MacAskill being doing with all of this criminality going on?

Nothing............NOTHING!

Anonymous said...

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/david-torrance-possibility-independent-scotland-3408086

Now if they would only promise to clean up the justice system and get rid of all these corrupt offshore tax dodging judges I'd vote independence NOW!

Anonymous said...

So what will the judges do with George Osborne's plan to go after offshore tax dodgers?

Will the judges be exempt or exempt themselves from the new law?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26998208

Offshore tax evasion: Osborne sets out new penalties

People who hide their money overseas to avoid paying tax face bigger fines and could be jailed more easily under government plans to fight tax evasion.

To prosecute at present, tax officials must prove a person holding income offshore has intended to evade tax.

But under a new criminal standard officials would only have to show money was taxable and undeclared.

Chancellor George Osborne said the changes would mean there was "no safe haven" for those evading tax.

But Labour said the government was "failing to tackle tax avoidance and evasion".

A consultation will be held to let the public have their say on the plans.
Whistleblowers' bonus

In recent months, the UK has joined other G20 countries in focusing on moves to share information about tax evasion.

Now, Mr Osborne says the government will consult on a new criminal standard, harsher fines and increased jail sentences.

At present, offshore tax evaders can be fined twice the amount they owe, and can face criminal prosecution and a possible prison sentence.

The government will look at options to increase these penalties, as well as the possibility of financial rewards for whistleblowers who "help uncover" untaxed offshore assets.

Mr Osborne, who is in Washington DC for the spring meeting of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, said: "A very important part of our economic plan is that everyone makes a fair contribution.

"We've already done a lot to crack down on those who don't pay their taxes, now we're introducing a new criminal offence for people who hide their money offshore.

"And the message is very simple - if you're hiding your money offshore, we are coming to get you and the criminal law is going to come and find you."

Anonymous said...

Sounds like you have the judges pretty much bang to rights on this offshore tax thing and this probably accounts for Gill's over use of threats etc against the parliament.
He knows his colleagues are at it so his policy is attack instead of defence because cant defend judges who are corrupt.

Anonymous said...

So the taxman knows the judges are at it and does nothing while they have a go at everyone else.What the heck is going on in our country when this elite group of people you have exposed as crooks get to write all their own laws and pronounce everyone else guilty of the same things they are doing on the side!

Horrific!

Diary of Injustice said...

@ 12 April 2014 17:00

It is a waste of time, money and effort using Scotland's courts when there are so many with a vested interest against hearing your case. This position also extends to the criminal courts where in recent media coverage we have learned Prosecutors have been involved in bungs to defence lawyers in cases where for instance, rape charges have been dropped .. there are many other examples of a rotten justice system seriously in need of clean up.

@ 13 April 2014 15:09

Since the debate on judicial interests began at the Scottish Parliament, several members of the judiciary including their relatives have altered their financial positions including links to offshore accounts.

However there are still significant offshore interests linked back to the most senior members of the judiciary. HMRC will be as aware of this (in spite of the attempts of judges to delegate the funds to their families and arms length trusts) as members of the media have also been able to establish as well as links to and investments in big business who regularly appear before judges in the courts with out even a cough from anyone or a nod for a recusal ...

Diary of Injustice said...

In response to an unpublished comment,it is the case that some members of the judiciary who have offshore investments and tax avoiding property ownership deals have sat on tax fraud and POCA cases. However, any reporting of such cases will be strictly along the lines of the media and public interest rather than involvement in any specific case.

For the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever it is also the case certain senior members of the judiciary who have heard negligence actions against solicitors, also have undeclared investments in, and family links via employment to insurance firms and law firms in such cases.

Anonymous said...

Diary of Injustice said...

In response to an unpublished comment,it is the case that some members of the judiciary who have offshore investments and tax avoiding property ownership deals have sat on tax fraud and POCA cases. However, any reporting of such cases will be strictly along the lines of the media and public interest rather than involvement in any specific case.

For the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever it is also the case certain senior members of the judiciary who have heard negligence actions against solicitors, also have undeclared investments in, and family links via employment to insurance firms and law firms in such cases.
14 April 2014 12:25
=================================
Yes that is why they want it all secret, they are a crooked cartel.

Anonymous said...

Wisely put.Take no side and stick to the line of journalism and public interest.
I have suspected for some time criminal cases have flawed elements not only in those accused.A journalist we both know who was covering a criminal trial unearthed links by way of a personal relationship between a judge and a prosecutor.Nothing was raised in court and there was no recusal.The case against the accused collapsed due to a lack of evidence.What actually happened was it got out a newspaper had the evidence on the judge and the prosecutor and were going to print after the case concluded.Immediately a decision was taken to let the prosecution slip solely on the matter of the relationship between the trial judge and the prosecutor.The accused walked free on that one.
I am sure anyone in the know who reads this will immediately realise which case I am talking about.Certainly anyone in Strathclyde CID at the time must have wondered what the hell was going on in the High Court.
My point is the judge may not have declared his relationship in this register of interests your petition proposes but if a register had existed along with publicity to the lack of recusals it is likely the judge would have recused himself and the accused would have been convicted.As it turns out a hardened criminal with considerable wealth escaped conviction and a POCA recovery because it was felt certain information not particularly relevant to the accused or the evidence was more important to conceal from the public.Clearly not an acceptable situation for anyone concerned.

Anonymous said...

Senior staff at this well known bank - which received massive financial bailouts from taxpayers after the banking crash of 2008, felt they could not sack the judge’s son, due to his father’s position on the bench. As losses to clients mounted and he cheated the bank even more, staff just had to wait on him departing of his own accord after “he became bored”.

This one I know - his dad sits in the Court of Session.I am surprised you have not had an approach to go quietly before all is revealed..

Anonymous said...

have no doubt the judges are hiding a lot from us you only need to read those letters from the top judge Gill to realise this because he would not be so hostile or go so far out to threaten the parliament if there was no case to answer

keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

Cant be bothered to watch bbc any more after the mess they made of the lawyers behaving badly episode so I'll stick to yours at least you dont spin it out and have all the stuff to hand instead of the beebs censors deciding what goes up or down

Anonymous said...

Lawyers of all levels, for them justice only means ££££££££££££££££££££. They are inhuman and will cover up anything [I believe even murder] to protect each other and their Legal Aid motherlode. The courts are about lawyers enrichment and are nothing to do with justice. There is no enforcement of what lawyers can and cannot do, in their world they destroy lives because there is no power to stop them. I love lawyers who are deceased.

Anonymous said...

Lawyers are public enemy number one. Masters of deception and mendacity, and yes I am talking also about the one who represents you. No lawyer is really on his or her clients side, why do you think they want secrecy for their conduct and obedience from clients. I would never trust any of there vile rats. It is not a case of once bitten twice shy, it is to be bitten once [for life], avoid them like the Black Death. Heed the warnings on this blog, if you don't you are a fool.

Anonymous said...

Democracy, yes that is what they call our system of Government The Hierarchy as follows demonstrates the reality.

The Unelected Omnipotent Secret Corrupt Judges who dominate.

The MSP's who claim to represent the electorate.

The Scottish People the electorate, who vote for said MSP's but are actually governed by the secret guiding hand of the Judiciary and their links, Banks, Financiers, Investors, Law Firms, Insurance Companies.

Democracy is a farce, voting wont change this set up because MSP's are the elected public face of their Judicial and Financial Masters. Who gave them the right to do this? They did.

Democracy does not mean freedom Mr Salmond, and you condone this setup with the MSP's and claim to act in the Scottish People's best interests. How can anyone be free when access to justice is blocked by the vested interests you support. Like the Prime Minister you are all in it together.

Anonymous said...

You must have hit them where it hurts - no denials to any of the headlines and threats to the msps.Proves we need this register sooner rather than later before the judges bury all their interests!

Diary of Injustice said...

@14 April 2014 17:29

Would like to hear more about this case ... email at scottishlawreporters@gmail.com

Anonymous said...

POCA comes up in google as proceeds of crime act so the judge was in on a wee backhander from the hoodlum was he?

The msps should be getting their teeth into this asap and bringing Gill before them willingly or not as it is now clear justice is totally compromised if crooks are in with the judges and the prosecutors are protecting it by losing the cases on purpose.This really is a scandal!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
The judges must hate these headlines and all the knowledge you are putting out about them we never knew until now!

10 April 2014 21:24
xzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxz

Thank God for the Public Service Journalism carried out by DOI Journalists?

True Patriots?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Senior staff at this well known bank - which received massive financial bailouts from taxpayers after the banking crash of 2008, felt they could not sack the judge’s son, due to his father’s position on the bench. As losses to clients mounted and he cheated the bank even more, staff just had to wait on him departing of his own accord after “he became bored”.

This one I know - his dad sits in the Court of Session.I am surprised you have not had an approach to go quietly before all is revealed..

14 April 2014 18:26
?????????????????

The only way forward from this Hellish den of iniquity with crooked Scottish lawyers, crooked Scottish Prosecutors and crooked Scottish Judiciary is name them and let them be damned (and preferably sent to jail for a very long time)

For Scottish Judges to wilfully and deliberately engage in campaigns of crime, must be the most heinous crime possible and WHEN they are outed and dealt with, they should never see the light of day?

To think that the Crown Office and the Police turn a blind-eye to this widespread corruption at the very Heart of Scotland, just goes to show that Scotland's body is being drained of her blood by these ravenous leaches?

Anonymous said...

This cannot go on any longer!

These Judges have brought the standing of Scotland's Judiciary into the gutter?

Anyone who believes that they go to a Scottish Court thinking that they have a chance are naive in the extreme, when you learn that with the vested interests, lack of recusals and side deals that are going on?.

If you are not the one cutting the deal before you go into a Scottish Court, then I am afraid you are about to lose?

This all stems from the years of corruption at the Law Society of Scotland, where they have been running a training camp for Borrowers Without Consent, who have become reliant on being above the law in Scotland?

What a sickening mess these criminals have made of Scotland?

Even the Banana Republic's are on our case for giving them a bad name?

Anonymous said...

How can The Lord President argue so vehemently against transparency and accountability?

Something here is fishier than a fishmonger's discard bucket?

Anybody using a Scottish Judge to go to a Scottish Court needs to be aff-their-heed?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

You must have hit them where it hurts - no denials to any of the headlines and threats to the msps.Proves we need this register sooner rather than later before the judges bury all their interests!

15 April 2014 12:34

Yes and also the prospect of criminal cases collapsing because of judges failing to declare sounds even worse so it is well past time this register takes effect and also an investigation is now needed into what the judges have been hiding all this time.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Cant be bothered to watch bbc any more after the mess they made of the lawyers behaving badly episode so I'll stick to yours at least you dont spin it out and have all the stuff to hand instead of the beebs censors deciding what goes up or down

15 April 2014 09:20
+++++++++++++++++

You noticed that too?

That the BBC's exposé on Scottish Lawyers Behaving Badly was heavily censored?

This shows you how desperate and fanatical the Law Society of Scotland are that the truth is kept from the Public as to what is really going on?

Strange that this is mirrored by Scotland's Judiciary who are also desperate to keep the Scottish Public blind of all of the robbery and vested interest crimes being perpetrated against them?

Apparently the Law Society of Scotland thout that we The Scottish Public were too thick to notice that they had threatened the BBC with a 'D' Notice to take them to court over their Lawyers Behaving Badly programme, forcing them to bend to the Law Society's threats?

However, the BBC Special Investigations Team were clever in the way they broadcast their programme to make it clear to the Scottish Public that they had been 'Got At' and that the truth was that they had much more damning evidence proving that the Law Society are a criminal organisation?

This is why the Law Society of Scotland were forced to spend tens of thousands of pounds in a failed attempt to try to wipe this BBC programme off of the face of the Earth?

Such is their power and such is their insidiousness that they can even scare the State Broadcaster, the BBC into massive censorship of their own programme?

Anonymous said...

Good thing you have the newspapers on side and they support transparency in the judiciary like any right minded person would because all the bbc can be bothered to report about judges is they are not going to wear wigs in civil cases.

Why do we bother paying for a national broadcaster who siphon off news stories they dont want people to read about like these judges and all their wealth.Even the parliament msps and everyone else gets the argument about judges should declare but not the bbc.I think someone is fiddling about with the news a bit too much for their own good.

Look at what the bbc say today about wigs.Well bbc you should be reporting how much money and no declarations are under all those wigs!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-27066955

Judges ditch wigs and gowns for Scottish civil appeals

Judges will no longer wear formal wigs and gowns when hearing civil appeals at one of Scotland's highest courts from next week.

Scotland's most senior judge Lord Gill, said it "made sense" to dispense with the garments in certain cases.

From 22 April, judges sitting in the Inner House of the Court of Session in Edinburgh will no longer wear robes and wigs when hearing civil appeals.

However, they will still be worn for criminal appeals.

Lord Gill, who proposed the change, said: "In deciding to sit in civil appeals without robes or wigs the judges of the Inner House are in line with the practice of the United Kingdom Supreme Court.

"It makes sense in this day and age."

Advocates may also appear without wigs and gowns, while solicitors with rights of audience, who do not wear wigs, may appear without gowns.

The 11 judges sitting in the Inner House endorsed the change.

The Court of Session is Scotland's highest civil court and is divided into the Inner House and the Outer House.

The Outer House hears cases which have not previously been to court, while the Inner House is primarily the appeal court.

It hears appeals from the Outer House and appeals in civil cases from the sheriff courts, the Court of the Lord Lyon, Scottish Land Court, the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, and other tribunals.

Anonymous said...

yes maybe the bbc is not reporting it but who wants them to anyway?

look at the mess they made of the lawyers complaints show and now I cant even see it to get some clues on what to look out for with bent lawyers

not much use the bbc doing a tv show about crooked lawyers if no one gets to see it again eh?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
yes maybe the bbc is not reporting it but who wants them to anyway?

look at the mess they made of the lawyers complaints show and now I cant even see it to get some clues on what to look out for with bent lawyers

not much use the bbc doing a tv show about crooked lawyers if no one gets to see it again eh?

18 April 2014 15:10
££££££££££££££££

Law Society put paid to that!

Diary of Injustice said...

@ 18 April 2014 15:10

The BBC Lawyers Behaving Badly programme is no longer available, however there may be information in previous articles on this blog which can assist you in identifying warning signs to look out for when solicitors go bad ...

When reporting on legal issues readers may well find it more appropriate to have a written form which they can return to periodically rather than a television programme which has apparently been taken off air.

Please feel free to search the archives of Diary of Injustice or use the labels to find out more about issues of self regulation of the legal profession etc ...

Anonymous said...

As the other person said in their comment it is not much use the bbc coming into an issue (of complaints against solicitors) they appear to have ignored for decades then do a programme and then disappear it so no one else can view what happened.

There are millions of bbc programmes available on the internet - on the bbc website and others so why was this one programme about Scottish lawyers singled out to be taken off air and never shown again.There are a lot more other people in the country who have to fork out for the license fee than just a bunch of lawyers who are interested in keeping their ripping off secrets off the airwaves.

I no longer trust the bbc and I see many similar sentiments online.