Scottish Parliament debate mentions of crooked lawyers & LPLA Bill to be restricted ?

The heat is certainly on for tomorrow's debate on future legislation at the Scottish Parliament, with allegations abouncing today that party whips & Parliamentary staff are attempting to restrict msp's mentions of constituents's problems with the Scottish legal profession.

Today, I have fielded all sorts of emails, phone calls, meetings & more on this very subject.

What on earth is going on, when some newspaper journalists have to run round to an internet cafe to email me, from pcs outside their own job network .. or email me from their mobile phones .. for fear that the newspaper lawyers will see the email correspondence and threaten their jobs ?

Is the legal profession in Scotland so powerful they are telling journalists - print anything from Peter Cherbi and you are sacked ? - and not just on my case - it seems to be ... print anything detrimental to the legal profession - and you are sacked.

I thought we were living in Scotland ? not the old Soviet Union ? Goodness .. it seems journalists might have more freedom in China than Scotland these days ... considering the comments & phone calls I have had today .. and it doesn't stop there either ... now, because of fears that emails between myself and some [unnamed] politicians .. the same is happening in such correspondence as with my press associates.

A little bit over the top ... but sadly it seems to be a reflection on what is going on with regard to the LPLA Bill .. with the legal profession pulling out all the stops to kill it.

I'm glad to see there has been support for my call for people to ask their msps to speak tomorrrow.

It is a duty - an obligation, for all politicians to speak out on the issue of problems with the legal profession - and with every single msp in the Scottish Parliament having had many letters from constituents who have encountered difficulties and scandals with the likes of the Law Society of Scotland, Faculty of Advocates, Crown Office, and the rest ... there should be no shortage of msps standing up to tell horror stories of constituents - THE ELECTORATE - who have had their lives ruined due to the actions of some crooked lawyer who enrolled the Law Society of Scotland to get them off the hook.

To keep up the pressure on the forthcoming debate, there was an interesting article in Tuesday's Scotsman, reporting on the 'fears' of the Scottish legal profession that they were going to lose their 'independence'.

The so-called 'fears' are being dressed up as lawyers concern of political interference in judicial independence and the interests of the public .. but such concerns are nothing other than the fact the legal profession will probably suffer under independent regulation - yes, they will suffer because they won't be ab le to rip their clients off and get away with it in the knowledge the Law Society of Scotland will be able to fiddle the thousands of client complaints which come in each year.

Most solicitors think of clients who complain as being vexatious complainers .. but there would be no vexatious complainers if the Law Society of Scotland had done it's job in the first place. Simple as that.

Peter Cherbi's message to lawyers :

Want to avoid client complaints running for years ?

Then settle the matter quickly (a month at most) and pay proper & deserving compensation for ALL the ruined lives of clients, ruined businesses, ruined livelihoods,looted possessions of deceased clients .. etc .. and don't fake up evidence and files to try and get yourself off the hook from complaints, don't enroll crooked Law Society officials, the likes of James Ness & his friends, to get you off the hook on false claims of stress or personal importance outweighing the client's right to exist - because that's what you've all been doing over the years.

How long has all this been going on ?

Long enough to the time when Jedburgh Solicitor David Sturrock's grandfather, who was also a solicitor, went off and killed himself because he was about to face charges for looting a deceased client's estate .. and he was also the then local Procurator Fiscal ! .. the evidence ... being discovered in the rubbish round the back of the offices of Turnbull Simpson & Sturrock in Jedburgh, in the mid 1930's.

So that's how long it has been going on for ... think about that ... lawyers have always been crooked - it's just that they have got a little more inventive over the years ... and when the Law Society of Scotland came along a few years later - they made sure complaints against lawyers was one of the most least talked about issues in Scottish political life .. and that continues to today .. where we now even have the spectacle of newspaper being used against newspaper by elements of the legal profession to debunk reports on the antics of senior Law Society officials.

Even the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates has been wheeled out to defend the legal profession's right to self-regulate it's members, since as many who have tried to make complaints against Advocates & QCs know - this is one of the most corrupt parts of the legal profession when it comes to fiddling complaints ...

Roy Martin QC's letter in the Scotsman the day after the article, tags on all manners of excuses as to his concerns of the proposals surrounding the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission ... but really, Mr Martin - it really comes down to stifling complaints against your Faculty members for poor or negligent service, and to make sure clients are never compensated for wrongdoings which can never be admitted to, doesn't it ?

Why don't you just be honest about that ? instead of dusting off old chestnuts of concern for the taxpayer's wealth ?

Your Advocate colleagues have no concern for the taxpayer's pocket, other than to fill their own from it's trough of legal aid, exhorbitant client fees, and the rest.. and to make sure their colleagues in the legal profession are protected from any threatening legal action.

Read on for the following article from the Scotsman, and the Dean's letter, links following :

This article: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/letters.cfm?id=1314662006

Opinion - Letters
Wed 6 Sep 2006
Fears of independent law

In your report, "Scots law fears for its independence" (5 September), there is a reference to my having branded the proposed new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission a waste of money. I am certainly concerned about the cost to the taxpayer and the increase in bureaucracy and complexity that will inevitably result from the setting up of the commission.

However, my primary concern is that a body appointed by and accountable to the Scottish Executive for the regulation of the legal profession will undermine its independence. That independence is recognised throughout the democratic world as vital for the protection of the citizen, and is one of the hallmarks of a free society.

ROY MARTIN, QC
Dean of the Faculty of Advocates
Parliament Square
Edinburgh

.. and the article which provoked the Dean's comments .. along with plenty interesting comments from readers .. and lawyers alike ...

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1307922006

Scots law fears for its independence
MICHAEL HOWIE HOME AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT

MORE than one-third of lawyers believe the Scottish Executive has no respect for the independence of the legal system, according to a survey which reveals widespread disapproval of the political elite among solicitors.

The survey, conducted by the Law Society of Scotland, also reveals that only one-quarter of lawyers believe legislation passed by MSPs has been of much benefit to the public.

More than one third of those asked (36 per cent) felt that ministers had no respect for the independence of the legal system, with 44 per cent believing independence was only "slightly" respected.

An overwhelming majority of solicitors - 77 per cent - said the independence of the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission will be compromised if appointments are made by ministers, as is proposed under a bill going through parliament.

The survey of more than 500 lawyers found that only 22 per cent thought the Scottish Parliament had been a great benefit to the legal system. Some 38 per cent thought it had been of "slight" benefit, with 39 per cent responding "not at all" to the question.

Of those asked , 27 per cent regarded the parliament as having been of great benefit to the public generally, with 22 per cent believing it had been of no benefit to the public.

Concern has been mounting over ministerial reforms of the legal system and judiciary, which have prompted accusations of political interference and threatening democracy.

Roy Martin QC, the dean of the Faculty of Advocates, has branded the proposed new complaints commission a waste of money.

Meanwhile, advocates and senior judges have voiced alarm at proposals to place the control of all Scotland's courts under one person, the Lord President. Critics claim such a burden would force him to employ vast numbers of civil servants, exposing the judiciary to the risk of Executive interference.

Concern over legal independence has prompted the society to stage a one-day conference tomorrow in Edinburgh on the issue.

The conference comes on the eve of a parliamentary debate on the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill, which controversially proposes to strip the legal profession of much of its powers of self-regulation by creating a separate legal complaints body.

Ruthven Gemmell, the president of the Law Society of Scotland, said: "Democracy sits balanced between the law and politics and that balance can be fragile. That is why the society and its members have raised strong concerns about aspects of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill.

"The concern is that there is inadequate regard paid by the Scottish Executive to the independence of the law in Scotland. That means that we must all be aware that what may seem like a good idea does not in fact diminish Scotland's democracy and why we must work to ensure that independence is safeguarded."

A spokeswoman for the Executive insisted: "The proposed legislation has been informed by an open and thorough consultation that allowed all interested parties to contribute."

She said the Executive had worked "ceaselessly" to create a more efficient criminal justice system. "It is the duty of government to remain independent from the legal process, but also to ensure that the structures within which those processes operate are effective, fair and transparent," she said.

Debate on reform bill against crooked lawyers this week in the Scottish Parliament

MSPs at the Scottish Parliament are going to have a chance to "consider the general principles of the LPLA Bill in the light of the Justice 2 Committee's stage 1 report, during the afternoon of Thursday 7 September 2006" - reports the J2 Committee by email to me

So, if you want to support independent regulation of the legal profession - and bring in reforms which will put the stops on some of those crooked lawyers, you better email or contact your msp to air your support for the LPLA Bill before Thursday of this week.

If the Parliament agrees to the LPLA Bill's principles, it will then proceed to Stage 2 - where amendments may be heard.

As the J2 Committee reports, no amendments can be lodged until the msps of the Parliament agree to the Bill's general principles this coming Thursday... so, who do you think might disagree ?

Maybe an msp who is sympathetic to lawyers, and hates the guts of clients and constituents who write to them about how lawyers ripped them off ?

Maybe even an msp who is a lawyer, or who is affiliated with the Law Society of Scotland or the legal profession in some way .. might just throw in some obstructions .. so the crooked lawyers can keep on robbing the public ?

Who would do such a thing ? - believe me, there are a few candidates who may have some dirty tricks up their sleeves, according to sources in meetings I've had this past weekend ...

It will certainly be an interesting debate .. and only time will tell this week how the LPLA Bill will progress .. when we see the 'friends of the legal profession' come out to try and 'pork out' the LPLA Bill with various seedy twisted corrupt excuses .. just to keep their pals happy over at Drumsheugh Gardens .. and earn perhaps, a wee bit extra on the side for their part in derailing important pro-consumer reforms, just for the sake of a few lawyers filling their pockets some more.

On the subject of amendments .. those of you who read my blog are aware I am opposed to the proposed amendment by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS) - to allow their member accountants to handle wills & probate services - which is currently handled by solicitors.

I reported on my opposition to the ICAS amendment in previous coverage at :
http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2006/07/scottish-accountants-try-to-amend-lpla.html &
http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2006/07/concerns-over-scottish-accountants-and.html

Amendments to the LPLA Bill await to be lodged - since the Bill still has to be considered firstly, by the Parliament this week ... but since amendments can only b e lodged by an msp - it will be interesting to see who comes out for the just-as-crooked Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland and posts their amendment ... no doubt someone with a sympathetic ear to ICAS ... maybe even someone affiliated to ICAS in some way .. who may even earn a big bit on the side for getting their amendment through - since ICAS seem so desperate to get this one in the pot.

Why are ICAS so desperate to get their amendment to favour their accountants through on the LPLA Bill ?

Well, as I reported before, if accountants are allowed to handle wills & probate services, when your accountant makes a mess of it - which they will surely do - you, the public, won't be able to do anything about it - because accountants are regulated by their colleagues at ICAS.

The scenario of accountants regulating accountants over the years has proved just as bad as crooked lawyers being investigated by the even more crooked Law Society of Scoltand - which is why we are here talking about the LPLA Bill in the first place.

If the ICAS amendment goes through - accountants will still be under their shield of self-regulation, where complaints go buried and no one gets proper, if any, compensation - while lawyers will have to face the scrunity of the new independent Scottish Legal Complaints Commission - where clients and the public will have a much better chance of getting their grievances heard against crooked lawyers who have overcharged, embezzled money, stolen from or defrauded their clients, failed to do work .. ruined livlihoods & businesses .. etc ..

Here's the catch though - if an accountant takes on the business of handling your will, and subcontracts much of the work back to a lawyer (as a secret agreement between ICAS and the Law Society of Scotland seems to suggest). then, when they take what's yours for themselves, instead of giving it to whoever you have left it to - there will be nothing your beneficiaries will be able to do about it - as the only complaint you will be able to make will be against the accountant, and ICAS will make sure that nothing happens - and it doesn't stop at wills ... no .. the Chartered Accountant will be able to strip your assets bare - and there will be not one thing - nothing at all, you can do about it ..

If you want an example of this - then read this : http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2006/03/norman-howitt-crooked-borders.html
&
http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2006/08/dont-trust-your-lawyer-or-accountant.html

- where a Borders Accountant - Norman Howitt, of Welch Accountants, Hawick, raided my family for every penny - a real con artist - and ICAS made sure nothing happened to the crooked accountant Howitt, despite the many frauds he has been involved in against my family. To make matters worse, it was the Director of Legal Services at ICAS - Tom McMorrow - who let Howitt off the hook - after a sham of several house visits to me, assuring everything would be done .. but it was all lies .. pure lies - nothing was done, and Howitt got away with it to rip off others.

So, we will have to wait and see who crawls out of the woodwork to represent the crooked accountants amendment to the LPLA Bil to promote their quest to get their greedy snouts in the trough along with lawyers, and rip off the deceased, just as Norman Howitt did in a fine example if ever there was one needed ... that;ll be a 'nice little earner' for whoever was bought off - sorry, I mean .. represents the views of the crooked accounting profession.

Here's the email from the Justice 2 Committee announcing progress this week - so get writing everyone - and make sure your MSP stands up and tells Parliament just how much correspondence they get from their constituents - and how, over the years, they have made thousands of representations to the Scottish Executive and the Law Society on behalf of constituents ...

From: Anne.Peat@scottish.parliament.uk
To: petercherbi@
Subject: RE: Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill - amendments &
debate
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006

Mr Cherbi

The Parliament is expected to consider the general principles of the LPLA Bill in light of the Justice 2 Committee's stage 1 report, during the afternoon of Thursday 7 September. If the Parliament agrees to the Bill's general principles, the Bill will then proceed to stage 2, the amending stage.

No amendments can be lodged until the Parliament agrees to the Bill's general principles, therefore the earliest date that any amendment could be lodged would be Friday 8 Sep. Amendments can only be lodged by MSPs and all amendments lodged will be published in the Business Bulletin and considered by the Justice 2 Committee. I do not know whether any MSP will decide to adopt the proposed ICAS amendment and lodge it.

All amendments lodged will appear in the Parliament's business bulletin which is published daily, other than in recess. It can be accessed here and any amendments lodged will appear in Section G.
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/businessBulletin/index.htm

I hope this is helpful.
Anne Peat
Justice 2 Committee
The Scottish Parliament
Direct Dial Telephone 0131 34 85220
Fax 0131 34 85252
RNID Typetalk 1800 1 0131 34 85047

Law Society of Scotland receives calls for re-invesgtation of complaints against lawyers, amidst Parliamentary debate on LPLA Bill

After a recent story in the Scotsman newspaper, reporting that some 250 lawyers were to have their records 'wiped clean' over what appears to be an organised misuse of regulatory powers, clients whose cases have been affected in this affair, where verdicts such as "unsatisfactory conduct" were applied to solicitors after complaints had been investigated, have now called on the Law Soceity to reinvestigate their complaints, and apply different sanctions other than what was initially, perhaps, conveniently, imposed after what turned out to be in many cases, prolonged, prejudicial, and prevaricative investigations against member legal firms and solicitors by the Law Society of Scotland.

You can read the original article from the Scotsman, here : http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1239022006
and my original coverage of the story at :
http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2006/08/law-society-of-scotland-finds-new-ways.html

The origins of the affair started in January 2003, when the Law Society, obsessed with dressing up self--regulation as the best thing since sliced bread, and trying to maintain it's own power over legal issues, started applying the "unsatisfactory conduct" verdict on lawyers records, in an effort to argue it was doing something to combat soaring client complaints - but being aware all the time, there needed to be legislation approved to make this so, as is reported in the Scotsman newspaper article.

So, why did the Law Society of Scotland not drag out the likes of David Mcletchie, Roseanna Cunninghan, Donald Gorrie and Pauline McNeill, who sponsored the "Council of the Law Society" Bill on 6 September 2002, to bring in yet another piece of legislation to allow them to do this ?

Well, as we all know, nothing happens in the Scottish legal profession, without some foresight as to it's effect .. and given the fact that some of these 250 lawyers were involved in very serious complaints, which also had seen the involvement of senior Law Society staff in allegations of fiddling the complaints .. one many speculate, with good reason, the matter was left to rest, so that the Law Society, at some later date post January 2003, could simply remove the verdict .. and blame it on the political process, for not providing the necessary legislation to effectively carry out the sanctions process .. and what do we have now ? exactly that.

You can see a copy of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland Bill on the Scottish Parliament's own website, at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/bills/billsPassed/b60as1.pdf
and you can read more about the Council of the Law Society of Scotland Bill, at : http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2003/20030014.htm

Isn't it strange, the Law Society of Scotland can get what legislation it wants through the Scottish Parliament, with politicians who are also lawyers, at almost the speed of light ? but members of the public including clients who have had their livelihoods and lives ruiined by the legal profession, have to wait years for results to their calls for Parliamentary debate ?

As a campaigner myself, I went to the Scottish Parliament in 1999, and asked the then Justice & Home Affairs Committee - which was then under the Convenership of Roseanna Cunningham, to hold an investigation into the Scottish legal profession and how it was regulated. Several other clients who had problems with the likes of the Law Society of Scotland, Faculty of Advocates, and other parts of the legal profession, joined me, and we had the Scottish Consumer Council 1999 report - "Complaints against Solicitors", as good evidence to support our case. In what became bitter exchanges between clients, campaigners, the Parliament itself, and some particularly nasty Parliamentary Clerks, who embargoed particular campaigners from even communicating with the Committee on such matters, the Justice & Home Affairs Committee voted to do nothing.

Not to give in to failure, the campaign to get a Parliamentary investigation into the thoroughly corrupt Scottish legal profession, moved on, with the formation of groups such as "Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers', and saw other campaigners joining together in efforts to get an inquiry.

In February 2001, the newspaper, Scotland on Sunday, in an article by the then Chief Reporter - Peter Laing, ran a story on my own case, and reported that my MSP, Phil Gallie, had got us the chance to have an investigation into regulation of the legal profession by the Justice 1 Committee of the Scottish Parliament, of which Phil Gallie was a member, the Committee being chaired by Christine Grahame .. and having some of the present members of the Justice 2 Committee .. the likes of Maureen McMillan - who, at the time, was married to a senior member of the Law Society of Scotland's "Scottish Parliament liason Committee" ...

I was then invited onto BBC Radio to debate problems with the Scottish legal profession, what happened in my own case, and what form the Parliamentary inquiry in 2001 might take with lawyers Joseph Platt (who went on to become Law Society President that year) and Austin Lafferty, the infamous media lawyer, who declared the perfect client to be an old lady who came along to sell her house for £100,000 ....

I covered the story of the BBC Radio debate in my earlier post here : http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2006/03/bbc-radio-scotland-debate-on-legal.html

The Justice 1 Committee inquiry started in 2001, amidst the high hopes of clients & campaigners like myself - but when Mr Gallie began to ask sharp questions on why there were constant protests against the legal profession when it was claimed all was well with regulation of solicitors, he was replaced by his own party on the Committee ... limits were then also imposed on who would be able to speak before the 2001 Justice 1 Committee ... (no individual clients were allowed to appear) .. and the submission from members of the public who had been maliged by crooked lawyers - and an even more crooked Law Society of Scotland, were heavily edited, to the point that some submissions simply did not make sense. A strong line was also taken by the then Justice 1 Committee, against the appearance, of "Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers", in an orchestrated attempt by some in the Parliament and legal profession to portray SACL as a rogue organisation, being irrelevant and 'against the public interest' ...

Ultimately, the "Regulation of the Legal Profession" inquiry by the Justice 1 Committee, launched in 2001, was used by the Scottish legal profession, to support it's position as self-regulator ... and it was hoped the outcome of the 2001 inquiry would put a stop to calls for reforms of the way complaints against lawyers were handled. No such luck !

Myself and the many other campaigners soldiered on to get the reforms to , through torturous Scottish Executive consultations and well organised dirty tricks campaigns by the legal profession, and a certain subjugated Scottish newspaper group, who once, supported independent regulation and featured my own case, and those of many others, heavily among it's pages .. and we eventually got the Justice 2 Committee Stage 1 Consideration of the "Legal Profession & Legal Aid" (Scotland) Bill, a long overdue piece of legislation we have been asking for nearly two decades ... to end the corrupt form of lawyer investigating lawyer and covering up for the crooked.

Along the way, certain people who were arrogantly opposed to transparency, and clients interests, such as David Mcletchie - a lawyer who hated the thought of independent regulation .. but fought bitterly to keep his taxi expense claims .. and some other 'aspects' of his social life, from becoming public .. were paid back for their obstructional tactics in support of their crooked comrades at Drumsheugh Gardens .. with some others still awaiting the chop over new evidence coming to light yet to be used ...

The Stage one debate on the LPLA Bill begins in the Scottish Parliament, next week .. and the stage 2 consideration of amendments will begin on 26 September 2006 ... and one of the amendments I am particularly interested in curtailing, is the attempt by the equally crooked Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS) to insert an amendment so that accountants can handle the business of wills & probate, which at present, only a lawyer can do - thus giving the possibility that clients of accountants who get ripped off in the handling of a deceased loved one's affairs, will have to go through yet more self-regulatory channels at ICAS if they complain against their crooked accountant but clients of lawyers under the terms of the new LPLA Bill will have much greater protection in the form of independent regulation of lawyers by the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

It will be interesting to see what happens in next week's debate on the LPLA Bill .. because as we all know, every single MSP in the Scottish Parliament, has had letters from constituents regarding problems with lawyers, problems with the Law Society of Scotland, problems with the Faculty of Advocates, and other areas of the Scottish legal profession. Many MSPs have made representations to the Scottish Executive (sometimes the same representations in different cases) to the Executive ... so will this be reflected in the debate ?

Will MSPs admit that, for the entire history of the Scottish Parliament, they have known of severe problems with the regulation of lawyers in Scotland ?

Will MSPs admit they have had thousands of constituents write to them over the years ? , on horrendous issues such as lives being ruined, businesses being ruined, homes being lost, families being harrassed, assets being embezzled, stolen, deceased love one's belongings and assets stolen - all at the hands of ... Scottish lawyers - who have been supported to the hilt, bu their corrupt self regulatory body - the Law Society of Scotland.

We shall have to wait and see what happens next week in Parliament, and at the Justice 2 Committee .. but while we wait ... let's call for those 250 lawyers names to be made public, along with the details of all those complaints - if the Scotsman were so quick to publish the 'muddle' story - they should publish the clients side of what happened - after all, we are talking about the public interest here, aren't we ?

When an advertisement doesn't mean what it says ... ?

Since it's a Saturday - one of those "London Bus discovered on the moon" headline kind of days , I will take the opportunity to respond to the comments of Mr Kennedy Stewart, who replied in the comments box, to an article I wrote, on diminishing values in Scotland, here : http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2006/08/scotland-descends-into-land-of-fraud.html

My response :
Dear Mark Kennedy-Stewart,

I appreciate the time you took to comment on my remarks on your advertisesment.

The wording in your advertisement was your own choice, and a person's words or actions, often reflect the type of person they are. That is a widely held notion, I believe to be true.

If you want my advice, and you probably don't, be more circumspect on the wording you use in advertisements and publicly available material - if you ever get it wrong, as I think you did in what you said in your advertisement, the press will eat you alive, as they did. A lesson learned ?

I've dealt with Scottish Borders Council before, as a property owner and in other roles. You should not take what they say as being verbatim - to you, or the media.

I've frequently heard Council officials giving quotes to the press, issuing press releases, giving briefings against people concerned with news reports, then saying the exact opposite to those concerned in meetings. Even on matters where criminal charges had resulted, the Council or it's officials have either contradicted their own comments or even, in some cases, sought to prevent officials being called before Parliamentary Committees investigating their conduct.

Go into the Scotsman archives to read plenty about how SBC handle things, or just ask anyone from the Borders on how they performed when they lost over 4 million in their education department, or how they managed the countless other scandals which have hit SBC over the years, from letting cases of known abuse run for 10 years plus, to giving away common good land ..etc.

I find Scotland to be a great place too. I was born here. I love my country. I have served my community, in many more ways than anyone will ever know, and I have put myself at risk in some cases, to counter things, where many in my Borders town were too cowardly, too chicken, even, to act to put things right.

I am not a negative person. I expose that which should not be. I know there are plenty honest hard working people in Scotland, I am one of them. If you want to find a hard working honest person in Scotland, there are many. Don't run our own people down. It seems sometimes though, the honest are ultimately controlled or at least, outnumbered, by the dishonest.

This blog isn't about the positive things in Scotland, that's why it's titled, "A Diary of Injustice in Scotland". Injustice, is something which should not happen, not, therefore a very positive subject, unless, the injustice is remedied, which of course, I will report. I write about the positive things of Scotland, somewhere else.

I have to say, my own stance on property and housing is well known, and conflicts with any notion of land &houses being used as a profit model.

I do not have any time for such a thing as 'property as a speculative business', or money making venture, whether that comes from local councils selling their housing stock to (what turn out to be crooked housing associations giving empty promises to their tennants), local lawyers, builders, and real estate agents manipulating land & private housing sales, along with the banks to make huge profits on mortgages and unwarranted house price rises which bear no relation to increases in wages or the cost of living, or investment companies buying up many properties to rent as a business.

From what I've seen, experienced and learned over the years, a place to live, should be a right for all, not a commodity to be traded for profit, speculation, or be the subject of mass marketing to drive up prices, and price locals & just about anyone else, out of their own communities, and certainly without threat of a mother and child being kicked out on the street at 2am by some heartless person lacking any humanity.

It is true that imigration has brought many people to Scotland (some more hardworking than others), and many people in the third world would and do give everything they have to come here. I've been to the third world, and seen it for myself, so I know this to be true.

It's a pity though, that some immigrants (many of whom want to work, some even who are highly educated and more capable, honest & moral than others) are exploited, discriminated against because of their race, colour, or religion, or are even dragged out of their homes at 3am in handcuffs along with their children and babies, then held in confinement, sometimes for years, and then deported - in our country which they idolised so much to get to in the first place. How does that reflect on negativity ? I'd say it reflects reality.

If someone wants to talk about the third world in comparison to our own country, I would advise them to go there, and live with the people for a few years at their level, no quick holidays, posh $400 a night hotels or big houses & fancy cars to make a pleasant stay. Make some friends, and learn about life, about the haves, and have nots.

Standing among heavy traffic for 12 hours a day, choking on car exhaust fumes, selling sweets with the local children might give some commentators a better perspective of how others in the world live & have to make money to feed their families and keep a small tin shack of a house on a sandy hill, while we merrily debate our own behaviour on the internet.

I digress a little, but I remember being with a quite well known lawyer in his car, in Chambers Street, Edinburgh, late on a cold dark day in November 1999, prior to a meeting with senior Counsel. We were parking to go to a shop I wanted to visit.

I forgot to lock his passenger car door when I got out, thinking it had 'central locking'. When I asked - the [nameless] lawyer responded, saying something to the eftect that it was more important for a few people in the third world to be fed than for his car to have central locking". He was, and is, correct. I was impressed with the man's values, because I knew he mean't what he said.

I had never heard that from a lawyer before, at least, from a lawyer who actually meant it - but then again, the lawyer who said it, is actually, a hard worker, family man, and to my knowledge, not a crook - unlike some in his profession I know. I wonder what that lawyer would think of the wording of such an advertisement to recruit someone with the lack of tact to chuck out a family onto the street at 2am...

I appreciate the time you took to comment, Mr Kennedy Stewart. I hope your issues are cleared up and you got the staff you wanted. I hope there are no mothers kicked out with children through the night in any part of Scotland, and, for my way of thinking, the best way you can establish how a person can cope with aspects of a job, which is what you originally sought, is to interview them face to face, in perhaps, a more diplomatic manner.

Peter Cherbi