Friday, August 31, 2007

Welcome reforms to Police Chief appointments or a bridge too far for the Scottish Executive ?

Following on from earlier this week when it was alleged the Scottish Executive may face legal action over claimed interference in the appointments process of Police Chiefs by local Police boards, the Scotsman today is running a further article on the issue.

Do anonymous, unaccountable Police Boards, which seem to lack transparency from time to time, serve the process well by making appointments of Police Chiefs ? or is this yet another antiquated area of regulation & appointment in Scotland needing reform ?

The Scotsman reports :

Don't ring alarm bells over future of blue-light services

ROSS MARTIN

THE current stramash between Kenny MacAskill, the energetic justice secretary, and Scotland's eight police boards over the power to appoint chief constables is being closely watched by everyone with an interest in governance.

This is the first battle between the new SNP Scottish Executive and the equally fresh-faced coalition councils that constitute the eight regional joint boards. But will it set a political precedent?

Is this particular power struggle evidence of the inevitable tug o' war between our new, self-confident Scottish government and the fast-developing coalition councils? Or is it just an isolated incident?

On the surface, there is no apparent reason for this street fight, as the number of separate police forces is simply unsustainable, both in economic and operational terms. As in all other parts of the public sector, increasingly sophisticated and expensive technology, along with a more co-ordinated approach to crimefighting and management, are driving operations into bigger, centralised units.

Unlike in the National Health Service, where ministers are trying to resist these same centripetal economic forces, currently threatening the future of district general hospitals, there are certain political attractions to the establishment, and naming, of a "Scottish Police Service".

Indeed, all three of the main blue-light services in Scotland - police, fire and ambulance - are odds-on bets for reform. In an era of impending budget restraint and with a new government keen to show it can develop post-devolution Scotland into a country capable of independence, the Scottish Ambulance Service, the Scottish fire service and the Scottish police service can expect to be moved centre-stage.

The economic attractiveness of the efficiency savings to ministers from merging all these unnecessary and costly bureaucracies, not to mention the symbolism of establishing the Scottish services, will far outweigh any little, local difficulties.

First up is, surely, the Scottish Ambulance Service, where the case for stand-alone stations, remote from either fire or police stations, is surely post-mortem. A review of the landholdings that currently house our ambulances - and the paramedics and technicians that use them, the clerical staff that support them, and the cleaners and the caterers that service them - is surely sitting in the waiting room of the minister's next surgery.

Such a review will release a large number of very valuable development sites, bringing a much-needed injection of capital - critically, not private finance.

This could then fund modern facilities that are integrated with police and/or fire, unlike the separate new fire and police stations built in some parts of the country.

A single integrated emergency services hub, to include a joint staff canteen and an integrated office, amid other common facilities in a modern, energy-efficient building would then be possible in all our towns, if not in smaller villages.

In the Scottish fire service, the current situation is alarming, with eight separate fire brigades with separate headquarters, teams of support staff and eight paid political posts overseeing them.

Compare that wasteful duplication with the singularly more efficient London Fire Brigade that serves a much larger population than that of Scotland.

Policing has already taken the first few steps down the rationalisation road, with much of the groundwork already done by the previous Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition - for example, the recent establishment of the Scottish Police Services Authority, taking responsibility for the big, expensive centralised services such as forensics, the serious crime squad and the country's only police helicopter.

The counterbalance to this centralisation has been the moves to devolve operational responsibility to what the police call "command level" - in most cases organisational units that are conveniently co-terminus with the local council boundaries.

Many chief constables agree that moves such as this, allied to the centralisation of the larger tasks as mentioned above, makes the case for fewer of them, with three or perhaps four forces being the optimum number for a country of our size.

So the logical next step at the national level is a review of the number of chief constables, their police boards and their headquarters buildings.

With all the political parties in Scotland now willing to discuss the range of powers of the Scottish Parliament, it therefore follows that there needs to be a review of the regional and local tiers of government.

The anonymous police boards, appointed by constituent councils, not elected, are surely first in the firing line.

So this fabricated argument over the appointment of chief constables is entirely unnecessary. In reality, it symbolises a more deep-rooted political objective - to set the tone for a realignment of power between an increasingly strident Scottish government looking to ensure maximum efficiency of the huge public sector spend, and the coalition councils, seeking to establish their role in service delivery and design.

The new SNP administration need not fear upsetting too many of its own local infantry, even though it has seen a huge swelling of its councillor core. The party's manifesto, upon which all SNP councillors and MSPs were elected, commits the new government to this "push and pull" reform of policing.

As convener of the Lothian and Borders Police Board, serving our capital city region - and with very little interest from colleagues in partner, constituent councils - I was, with the chief constable, trusted to appoint the deputy chief constable and his three assistant chief constables.

Equally surprising, the candidates for the post of Northern Constabulary's chief constable had to endure an interview panel consisting of the entire 32-member police board.

Other boards used a range of different procedures in between these two extremes. Clearly, this postcode lottery for police chief appointments required reform, and still does.

As is now the case with the national conversation and its constitutional question, it is not a case of whether to reform the appointments procedure for chief constables, its a question of who gets to pull rank over whom.

The battle lines have been drawn. Stand back. As the SNP clearly stated in their manifesto, "It's time".

• Ross Martin is policy director of the Centre for Scottish Public Policy.

Thursday, August 30, 2007

Legal profession will prepare for opening of legal services markets despite orders from legal chiefs against planned reforms

Oh what a strange week this has been with regard to news on the access to legal services issue.

Law Society of Scotland Chief Executive Douglas Mill writing in the Herald newspaper on Monday appearing in the Herald newspaper on Monday, asking for all to input into a debate on the opening up of the legal services market in Scotland, but reminding everyone that only ideas which he agrees with will be followed (chuckle) then on the same day, the Scotsman Law Section manage to print the opposite of Mr Mill''s view of the end of the world, by suggesting the inevitable opening of the legal services markets will have to be adapted to ...

Perhaps the Law Society's leadership is stuck in the past ? Time for a change everyone ?

The Scotsman reports :

Prepare for the end of the closed shop by rebranding and merging - as we have

IAN TURNBULL

THE legal profession in Scotland is facing challenging times. The recent OFT recommendations and the imminent deregulation of the legal profession, creating a level playing field between Scotland and England, will firmly confine our current ways of working to the archives.

Tesco Law, Virgin Law, EasyLaw: you name it, we can expect it. Firms with impeccable consumer credentials will be all over our business before you can even say "so long, closed shop".

Gillespie Macandrew, like many others, welcomes this culture of openness and breakdown of barriers. We believe in competition and we're focused on serving consumers' interests. But we're not complacent, and we need to be ready.

That's why we've just invested £100,000 in a comprehensive facelift (or re-brand, as the marketing people like us to call it). We've also invested in a training programme for our people to face the new challenges.

After extensive research among staff, peers and existing and potential clients, we have developed a revitalised corporate identity that will allow us to not only weather the onslaught from new providers, but also accelerate our growth while continuing to deliver a professional holistic offering across our existing client-base.

As well as helping us stand out in a crowded market, our re-brand also reflects the firm's expansion and diversification. The new logo champions our three key practice areas: law, property and finance.

The research indicated our public profile has been on the low side and Gillespie Macandrew is viewed as a "traditional" law firm. In reality, the truth couldn't be further removed: hence the new identity.

Our business has changed dramatically as a result of five very different acquisitions over the past three years, which have retained our Scotland-wide services and increased our business exposure to the Edinburgh market. It was important for us that the new identity reflected our aggressive growth and communicated the personality of our business, notably that of Hunters, the recognised and trusted estate agency, which we acquired in 2006.

The rebrand positions the new-look Hunters Residential as a pivotal element of our business, with matching brand identity and design work.

Our ability to give mortgage advice is again a recent addition to the stable. In June we launched a new financial services division, which broadens our existing work into specialist mortgage and pensions consultancy while complementing the private client department's estate and tax planning, trust management and investment capabilities.

This was rapidly followed by the acquisition of Haig Scott, the three-partner Edinburgh law firm, which was the springboard for the launch of our specialist housebuilder property team.

This new deal signifies a burgeoning trend of consolidation in the market. With mounting compliance and regulatory issues, the pressures of running a small practice are becoming all-consuming, and increasingly small and medium firms are under commercial pressures to merge and focus on niche specialities. By joining a much larger entity, the red tape is no longer an issue for the partners who can get on with the day job.

The result is that Gillespie Macandrew now boasts 22 partners and more than 150 people specialising in a range of niche disciplines: from licensing to tax planning; intellectual property to residential property. This year our turnover is set to exceed £10 million for the first time. A giant step from the £3 million that we recorded back in 2003.

In these exciting but uncertain times, our new brand values of reliability, approachability, vibrancy and partnership are designed to fuel our next stage of growth. With Clementi in England and pressure to follow in Scotland, consolidation and consumer demand shaping our world, my rallying cry to the profession is to be clear what you stand for and develop a robust brand that allows you to beat the newcomers at their own game.

Gillespie Macandrew is ready to do business in an open shop.

• Ian Turnbull is the managing partner at Gillespie Macandrew

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Douglas Mill accused of restricting ideas in debate on access to legal services reform

Douglas Mill gives his views on how to debate the opening of the legal services market in Scotland - somewhat embarrassingly restricting the nature of the debate in terms of how control will be retained over who enters the legal profession.

Peter Cherbi reports on the issue and Douglas Mill's ideas which appeared in the Herald newspaper on Monday ... too complicated for us again, but here is the full report from A Diary of Injustice in Scotland

Law Society Chief - Debate legal services reform but lawyers must retain control of the legal profession

Douglas Mill, the Law Society of Scotland's Chief Executive has made a less than convincing appeal for solicitors to retain control over their monopoly of legal services in the face of legal services reform.

Appearing in Monday's Herald newspaper, Mr Mill made the case that the Law Society of Scotland "has been at the heart of the debate for a number of years", alleging through a rather unusually long commentary that the legal profession in Scotland have been major players for the good of both the public & profession in the face of the impending reforms to the legal services market in Scotland.

Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth, as Douglas Mill particularly, has been at the heart of blocking any reforms to the way the legal profession in Scotland does it's business and made its vast profits over the years, at the expense of transparency, accountability, honesty & client care.

Last year, 2006, clients finally got a slight advantage in dealing with solicitors in Scotland, by way of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, which aimed to bring a measure of independent regulation to client complaints against solicitors amid a swathe of evidence the Law Society of Scotland & Faculty of Advocates had corruptly handled complaints procedures for many years, promoting interests of solicitors over that of the client, and ensuring little or no compensation was ever paid to cover an almost routine culture of theft from clients funds, be it in overcharged fees, theft, or embezzlement, which have become almost as common in the legal profession today as 'taking a breath'.

The LPLA Act 2007, brought about by long campaigns by many, including myself, and several consumer organisations, had a rough ride through Holyrood, with every dirty trick tried by the legal profession to kill it off - from bringing in English Peers such as Lord Lester of Herne Hill - who authored legal opinions against the passage of the bill, to the raging threats of Douglas Mill to take legal action against both the Scottish Executive & Parliament if the LPLA Act was indeed passed - citing the loss of a lawyer's "Human Right" to regulate complaints against colleagues.

The 2007 LPLA Act did of course, did pass the legislative process at Holyrood, although with some amendments brought in by certain MSPs so obviously sponsored by the Law Society itself, some of those amendments very dangerous in their aims, such as a few put forward by Conservative MSP Bill Aitken, who unsuccessfully demanded that fines which the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission could impose on crooked lawyers be reduced from £ 20,000 to £ 5,000.

Clearly Bill Aitken MSP, who is now the Convener of the sole Justice Committee at Holyrood, is no friend of the general public or victim of crooked lawyers when it comes to reforming the legal profession - and will no doubt resolutely stand to defend his friends in the legal profession from any further reforms which benefit the public far more than lawyers. This this very fact was demonstrated only a couple of weeks ago when Bill Aitken publicly demanded again, that Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill should not follow the OFT's recent recommendations to reform the legal services market in Scotland

Getting back to Douglas Mill's commentary on the legal services debate, there is sadly nothing new in his attitude towards the interests of the client, and certainly he is making no attempt to clean up the Law Society's 'sins of the past' which have seen client after client ruined to protect many lawyers with appalling service & conduct records, who go on to fleece & ruin more clients, unaware of their past. Douglas Mill is happy with that - it's been one of his many anti client policies pursued at the Drumsheugh Gardens HQ of the Law Society over the years, and has brought much profit to a dishonest, unaccountable legal profession, while throwing the interests of the client firmly into the waste bin.

However, the idea of controlled 'debate' publicly put forward by Mr Mill all comes down to this, as he fails to hide even in his own words from the article : "most would agree that it is perfectly acceptable - even welcome - for others to compete with solicitors for business, but not to compete as solicitors."

Open up legal services, but control who becomes a solicitor. What use is one without the other ?

Half measure reforms where the Law Society of Scotland remain in ultimate control are of no benefit to the public, and only seek to preserve the present monopoly maintained by the legal profession.

Mr Mill is trying to steer the debate on open market reforms away from breaking the solicitors monopoly on legal services such as courtroom representation and other long prized money making monopolies exclusive to the legal profession, which have earned many legal firms vast profits over the years - including of course, controlling how claims of compensation against rogue lawyers are handled via the use a solicitor to sue a solicitor route...

This is a form of 'controlled debate'. nothing particularly new to Douglas Mill and the Law Society, who have long blocked any public scrutiny over their function as the governing body of Scottish solicitors, and so-called 'protector of the clients interests' - the latter of which the Law Society of Scotland have performed well.

Last January, when the Law Society's Chief Accountant Leslie Cumming was attacked in a 'hit', organised it seems by Mr Cumming's own solicitor colleagues to thwart investigations into crooked lawyers, Douglas Mill and the Law Society 'High Command' took the opportunity to publicly call for the censorship & arrest of their critics - on the pretext that debate into the Law Society had caused the attack on the now retired Mr Cumming. This was a bizarre, fortunately unsuccessful move by the Law Society, typical of the desperation felt at their headquarters on their lack of control over public criticism.

Controlling debate by arresting those who put forward debate, is more akin to Nazi Germany than Scotland, Mr Mill .... but then debate is a one way street in your world, isn't it ?

Only this past weekend, we saw how the Law Society of Scotland deals with public 'debate' and how it has long operated a policy of censorship over the debate into reforms in an article I covered here : Wikipedia manipulated & censored by Law Society of Scotland in propaganda war against critics & reformers

We recently saw again, how Douglas Mill and his colleagues reacted against the Which? "supercomplaint to the OFT on opening up legal services reform. That reaction, was certainly against the idea of giving any advantages to the public when dealing with solicitors

It is up to us, the public, not to allow the legal profession to control & restrict the debate into how well earned reforms, brought about by the efforts of a wide front of consumer organisations, campaigners, the media, and our own Parliament, are implemented for the betterment of Scottish society.

The legal profession could also do itself some good, by healing the damage it has caused to its clients in the past, as well as voting in a new leadership which will take it away from unprecedented levels of complaints, higher than ever levels of fraud, lack of trust & public disrespect which have been the hallmark of the Douglas Mill years.

Here is Douglas Mill talking through somewhat gritted teeth on the possibility of reforming the legal services market .... a slight stammer seems to indicate a little reluctance to step up to the altar of accountability & free market reforms ?

Herald article follows :

Legal services market reform needs broadest possible input

DOUGLAS MILL

Readers of The Herald could be forgiven for thinking that reform of the legal services market had only appeared on the agenda in the past month or so. Certainly, the flurry of letters to the editor and stories on the news and business pages - in The Herald and elsewhere - might suggest this is the case. Not so for the Society, or a number of others who have been at the heart of the debate for a number of years.

A brief recap may be useful at this point.

The provision of legal services has been a subject of discussion for some time, though it rose to prominence - in the UK, at least - with Sir David Clementi's independent review of legal services in England and Wales, which published its findings in 2004. The same year, the Research Working Group on the Legal Services Market in Scotland - on which I represented the Society, along with the director of law reform, Michael Clancy - carried out a similar analysis. After detailed deliberation, the working group reported last year.

Among its findings, it concluded that intervention was unnecessary and the forces of supply and demand should dictate further changes to the legal services market. The Society raised with the previous Scottish Executive the issue of driving forward the research working group. However, the elections intervened. It is encouraging that the new Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill MSP, has responded to the issue with some enthusiasm, while also highlighting the need to deliver a Scottish solution appropriate for the Scottish marketplace.

Meanwhile, the Department for Constitutional Affairs at Westminster decided to go further than Clementi, outlining its plans for alternative business structures, or ABSs, in the Legal Services Bill. Recognising that any change south of the border would impact on Scotland, the Society remained heavily involved in all aspects of the debate: setting up an ABS working party; having monthly discussions among our Council members; staging question-and-answer sessions at faculty meetings up and down the country; ensuring regular liaison with the Faculty of Advocates and our Big Four firms. Indeed, Douglas Connell, from Turcan Connell, made a constructive contribution by putting forward a positive set of proposals for a form of limited multi-disciplinary practices.

In June, we staged a successful event in London for our members there, with ABSs taking centre-stage. At the same time, we have been gearing up for a major conference, The Public Interest - Delivering Scottish Legal Services, to be held in Edinburgh on September 28. Indeed, the subject of ABSs arises at events beyond our shores, and will likely feature at the Chief Executives of the European Bar Associations conference, to be hosted by the Society next month.

It is also likely to be on the agenda at the International Institute of Law Association Chief Executives conference in Singapore in October. The International Bar Association in Singapore, the following week, will be another platform where ABSs will be discussed.

All this amounts to a considerable effort on the part of the Society. Rightly so, because the issue is of sufficient importance to demand such attention. We should never forget that this does not just impact on the legal profession - we are determining the future of a sector that contributes £1.2bn turnover a year to the Scottish economy, employing 30,000 people. A productive debate on the future of legal services in 21st century Scotland, based on evidence rather than perception, requires the broadest possible input if it is to be of value, which is why we welcome interested newcomers and seasoned veterans alike to the discussion.

The speakers at our Edinburgh conference - which will include the Justice Secretary - can outline some potential business models and give their views on the best way forward. For the Society's part, we are keenly aware of the competing interests involved, which include ensuring access to justice, competition in the legal services market and consumer protection. We are eager to take all those views into account in reaching, as far as is possible, a consensus on the issue.

We understand the justifiable concerns of those who say that high street and rural firms would find it hard to compete with, for instance, a supermarket chain providing legal services, and may be forced out of business.

Yet we also realise that the big firms are competing in a global marketplace. The success of the big firms is something to take pride in - they should not be hampered. Equally, we don't want to affect the availability of lawyers in certain parts of the country or the viability of our consumer protections. It is worrying that it is becoming increasingly difficult to attract young lawyers to small and even medium-sized towns. Despite that, most would agree that it is perfectly acceptable - even welcome - for others to compete with solicitors for business, but not to compete as solicitors.

The solicitors' profession has more capacity for change now than at any time in the recent past. Solicitors are more consumer-focused, better qualified and harder working than ever before. They are increasingly accessible, accountable and successful - we should all be proud of that. I know I am.

But the Society is only one player here. This is a matter for everyone in the solicitors' profession and, indeed, the whole of civic Scotland. Ultimately, the Scottish Executive and Scottish Parliament will make their own judgments on the way ahead and the Society will play its full part in assisting the Scottish Executive and Scottish Parliament to make the right decisions for Scotland and Scotland's legal system.

But whatever happens, the profession's core values of integrity, independence and confidentiality must be maintained.

# Douglas Mill is chief executive of the Law Society of Scotland

Law Society of Scotland President MacKinnon quits over pressures of string pulling ?

Being President of the Law Society of Scotland these days isn't all it's cracked up to be, since the position itself carries no powers, and binds one to wholeheartedly agree with others within Drumsheugh Gardens who pull the strings of policy for Scotland's entire legal profession - not always in the best interests of members though.

John MacKinnon, reports the Scotsman, is leaving office because he cannot cope with the demands of the high profile post and also manage his own job as partner with law form Brown & McRae in Fraserburgh ....

Oh well ... the current VP, Richard Henderson steps up to the position of full President with all it's lack of powers, but we are left feeling .. there is a smell of mould at Drumsheugh Gardens which the membership need to clean up themselves ....

The Scotsman reports :

Law Society president quits job over pressures

THE President of the Law Society of Scotland is to step down from the post with immediate effect, it emerged last night.

John MacKinnon is to leave office because he feels he cannot cope with the demands of the high-profile post and his job as a partner with law firm Brown & McRae, based in Fraserburgh.

The President of the Law Society is a figurehead who represents its 10,000 members in Scotland. Mr MacKinnon took up the post in May, at a time of great change in the profession. Big issues include the creation of the independent Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and so-called Tesco law - the call to allow basic legal services to be provided from outside the profession to widen consumer choice.

The society's vice-president, Richard Henderson, becomes president and the society will appoint a replacement for him as soon as possible.

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Lord Advocate's missing advice comes back to the fore as explanations lack over Lockerbie

In the murky world of the Lockerbie bombing case, which the SNP led Scottish Executive seem to have joined in full swing, the question of the Lord Advocate's advice on matters relating to the appeal before the SCCRC and possible release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.

Brian Fitzpatrick is hot on the trail of this alleged advice from the Lord Advocate to the First Minister, seeking an FOI from the Executive on the matter, but reports in the Scotsman he has been told :"It would be contrary to the public interest to reveal whether that information exists or is held by us"

Oh well Brian, you should be used to that .. it's the same response people usually get when they ask for an FOI on anything to do with the legal profession !

Oh no .. wait a moment .... it's even worse when the legal profession are asked for FOIs because they have immunity from the FOI Act !

The Scotsman reports :

Strange case of missing advice

BRIAN FITZPATRICK

ONE of Alex Salmond's first moves in office was to lambast the then prime minister Tony Blair for riding roughshod over Scottish principles of due process. Blair's offence: concluding a memorandum of understanding with Colonel Gaddafi's Libya (the UK-Libya memorandum provided for work to begin on a bilateral treaty including arrangements for prisoner transfers).

According to Salmond, Blair had reached a dastardly rapprochement with Libya that could result in the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi. Moreover, Blair had done so without consulting the Scottish Executive.

Lawyers and policymakers familiar with such documents (not quite the rarities our local political leaders seemed to have thought) expressed bafflement at the political row: had the memorandum departed from the usual provision that prisoner transfer requests needed the agreement of our legal authorities? Salmond surely knew prisoner transfer agreements related only to prisoners for whom all judicial process is completed.

He acknowledged that, far from being completed, Megrahi's case was due for a hearing before the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and an appeal by the Lord Advocate on sentence had been marked - so why continue to decry Blair? Was this just a political stunt?

Legal eyebrows were raised further when Salmond made clear he was proceeding on the advice of Eilish Angiolini, QC, Scotland's senior prosecutor. Breaching centuries of ministerial protocol, he made clear not only that he had taken her advice, but the terms of her advice. Angiolini has remained silent on the subject.

Seeking to establish what advice on the memorandum and proposed treaty may have prompted Salmond's ire, I sought disclosure of all details held by the Executive on the Lord Advocate's advice (The Scotsman, 25 June)

An answer landed in my e-mail inbox late last Tuesday. Wait for it: that important legal advice leading to a near-rupture with the next-door neighbours? Well, sorry, but you can't see it - because Scottish ministers (Salmond and the Lord Advocate) have determined: "It would be contrary to the public interest to reveal whether that information exists or is held by us".

Yes, it is not just citizens who cannot be told the terms of the advice - we cannot even be told if there was any such advice in the first place. But, wait a minute, the First Minister had already told us he sent off his "letter of concern" having sought out that very advice. In fact, had he not told us what was in that advice?

The strange reticence now in producing any advice suggests some possible explanations: that there was no such advice from the Lord Advocate - an unconscionable state of affairs. Or that there was some advice given, but it is not being produced because "it is considered the public interest in disclosing this material is outweighed by the need to allow ministers and officials to be able to consider all options". Translated into plain English, it would be highly embarrassing to the First Minister and Lord Advocate for the advice to have been demonstrably wrong. Finally, that the advice given was correct - but was not the advice outlined by Salmond.

It was not all inactivity: Scottish ministers did manage to trigger the Freedom of Information Act provisions whereby a delay is deemed as a refusal of a request (taking eight weeks to refuse to say if advice even existed is regarded as dilatory by most authorities). Ministers now have to conduct an internal review of their odd refusal. A reply by 4 September is promised. I won't hold my breath: but I will keep asking. Unhelpfully for the administration, the questions raised by the strange case of the Lord Advocate's missing advice will not go away and demand a response more substantial than mere stone-walling. Meantime, what is now beyond doubt is that the bold claim the Lord Advocate's role had been removed from the political sphere has been dashed. More curiously, dashed by the man who made that very claim in the first place: Salmond.

• Brian Fitzpatrick is an Advocate. He was Labour MSP for Strathkelvin and Bearsden until May 2003 and previously served as head of the first minister's policy unit for the late Donald Dewar.

Accusations of evidence manipulation surface in Lockerbie Trial

Information comes to light via a press release from Dr Hans Koechler that evidence may well have been manipulated in the Lockerbie Case .. along with other instances we have yet to find out about ...

How deep does this run and how typical this kind of thing is in cases across Scots Law is anyones guess ... but the general feeling is the entire legal system of Scotland has become polluted with corruption .. and that issue needs to be repaired.

Following issued as a Press Release from the I.P.O. Information Service:

Lockerbie case: new accusations of manipulation of key forensic evidence

I.P.O. Information Service

Statement of Dr. Hans Koechler, international observer appointed by the United Nations at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands (2000-2002), on a key witness’s admission of perjury in the Lockerbie Trial

Vienna, Austria, 28 August 2007

P/RE/20559c-is

On 4 August 2007 Dr. Hans Koechler received from Mr. Edwin Bollier, head of the Swiss-based company MEBO AG, a copy of the German original of an Affidavit, dated 18 July 2007 and signed by Mr. Ulrich Lumpert, former employee (electronics engineer) of MEBO AG, Zurich, related to the Lockerbie case.

In a statement released today, Dr. Hans Koechler, who has followed the Lockerbie proceedings since the beginning of the trial in the Netherlands in May 2000, highlighted basic aspects and questions of this new revelation that appear to be of relevance not only in connection with the upcoming second appeal of the convicted Libyan national, but also for new prosecutorial action ex officio by the Scottish authorities.

In his affidavit Mr. Lumpert implicitly admits having committed perjury as witness No. 550 before the Scottish Court in the Netherlands. He states (Par. 2) that he has stolen a handmade (by him) sample of an “MST-13 Timer PC-board” from MEBO company in Zurich and handed it over, on 22 June 1989 (!), to an “official person investigating the Lockerbie case.” He further states (in Par. 5) that the fragment of the MST-13 timer, cut into two pieces for “supposedly forensic reasons,” which was presented in Court as vital part of evidence, stemmed from the piece which he had stolen and handed over to an investigator in 1989. He further states that when he became aware that this piece was used for an “intentional politically motivated criminal undertaking” (vorsätzliche politisch kriminelle “Machenschaft”) he decided, out of fear for his life, to keep silent on the matter.

The rather late admission of Mr. Lumpert is consistent with an earlier revelation in the British and Scottish media according to which a former Scottish police officer (whose identity has not yet been disclosed to the public) stated “that the CIA planted the tiny fragment of circuit board crucial in convicting a Libyan” for the bombing of the Pan Am jet (Scotland on Sunday, 28 August 2005).

Upon receipt of the document, Dr. Koechler informed the owner of MEBO AG on 7 August 2007 that Mr. Lumpert will have to submit his affidavit under oath before the competent judicial authorities of Scotland. In the meantime (22 August 2007), the owner of MEBO AG has requested the Scottish judicial authorities – by way of the Swiss Prosecutor’s office and on the basis of the agreement on mutual judicial assistance between the UK and Switzerland – to investigate the alleged criminal manipulations referred to in Mr. Lumpert’s statement.

In his capacity as UN-appointed observer of the Lockerbie trial, Dr. Hans Koechler has repeatedly raised the issue of the timer fragment and expressed his amazement at the Defense team’s refusal to look into the matter during Mr. Megrahi’s appeal when questions as to the reliability of forensic evidence had already been raised. (See Dr. Koechler’s appeal report, Par. 10 [c] of 26 March 2002; his statement of 23 August 2003, Par. 10; and his statement of 14 October 2005, Par. 2.)

It is to be recalled that, as witness before the Lockerbie court, Mr. Edwin Bollier had raised the issue of the manipulation of the timer fragments, but was brusquely interrupted in his testimony by the presiding Judge and prevented from giving further information in this matter.

In the meantime (information received on 26 August 2007), Mr. Lumpert has revised part of his Affidavit (Par. 5); he now states that the letter “M” on the timer fragment (supposedly for the German word Muster: sample), unlike previously stated, has been engraved by himself. In view of this and earlier statements, Mr. Lumpert’s credibility will have to be assessed very carefully by the competent judicial authorities and he will have to be made aware of the consequences, in terms of criminal law, of lying to the Court.

At the same time, the credibility of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) is also at stake. In its News Release of 28 June 2007, in which it had announced the referral of Mr. Al-Megrahi’s case to the Scottish High Court for a second appeal, the SCCRC found it necessary to “absolve” the investigating authorities of any suspicion of wrongdoing. Should Mr. Lumpert’s confession be proven to be true, the SCCRC’s statement – “The Commission undertook extensive enquiries in this area but found nothing to support that allegation or to undermine the trial court’s conclusions in respect of the fragment” – will appear highly questionable, even dubious. The public will have to ask why a supposedly independent judicial review body would try to exonerate “preventively” officials in a case which is being returned to the High Court for a second appeal because of suspicions of a miscarriage of justice.

If it is indeed the rule of law that governs the Scottish polity, the Scottish judicial authorities will have to deal with this new revelation ex officio – independently of how the appeal court in Mr. Megrahi’s case will evaluate this witness’s confession of perjury.

Those responsible for the midair explosion of PanAm flight 103 will have to be identified and brought to justice. If there was any wrongdoing, criminal and/or due to incompetence, of the judicial authorities in the investigation and prosecution of the Lockerbie case, this will also have to be dealt with through proper procedures of criminal law. A continuation of the rather obvious cover-up which we have witnessed up until now is neither acceptable for the citizens of Scotland nor for the international public, Dr. Koechler stated.

Dr. Koechler's Lockerbie trial report

Dr. Koechler's Lockerbie appeal report of 26 March 2002

Dr. Koechler's statement of 23 August 2003 on the agreements between the UK, the USA and Libya

Dr. Koechler's statement on new Lockerbie revelations of 14 October 2005

Dr. Koechler's statement on the referral of the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed Al Megrahi to the High Court of Justiciary

Web Site of the Lockerbie Observer Mission of Dr. Hans Koechler

END/Lockerbie case: new accusations of manipulation of key forensic evidence/2007-07-04/20559c-is
International Progress Organization
Enquiries: info@i-p-o.org, fax +43-1-5332962, postal address: A-1010 Vienna, Kohlmarkt 4, Austria

Monday, August 27, 2007

Lord Cullen chairs new scheme to help lawyers 'listen to their clients'

The new Signet Accreditation scheme ran by the Writers to HM. Signet Society is launching a scheme to test 'young' solicitors on whether they are "worthy of becoming accredited specialists in their chosen field" - reports the Scotsman.

This is aimed at solicitors with between three and six years post-qualifying experience and it has been designed to address early concerns from firms that it should test solicitors on their skills - not just their ability to study for exams.

Lord Cullen, the former Lord President is the chair of the Board, and is quoted in the Scotsman report as saying "I have been very impressed by the fact that the assessment that takes place is not just concerned with book-learning but is concerned very much with client communication," he says.

Listening to the client ? Whatever next are we going to hear !

The Scotsman reports :

'It's all about how to listen to your client'

JENNIFER VEITCH

ACTORS are to be hired to play clients in mock interviews to test whether young solicitors are worthy of becoming accredited specialists in their chosen field.

Applications have opened for the new Signet Accreditation scheme, launched by the Society of Writers to Her Majesty's Signet (WS Society) to help recently qualified lawyers to hone their skills.

Candidates seeking the signet seal of approval for commercial litigation or commercial property will be the first to undergo the assessments this November, with further specialty exams due to begin next year.

The mock interviews will be the first part of a two-week assessment process - which will also include a take-home assignment and a written exam - and will test solicitors' interpersonal and communication skills as well as their knowledge of the law.

The scheme now has a board of directors, chaired by Lord Cullen of Whitekirk, the former Lord President. Three practice area committees led by established practitioners have been established to oversee the benchmarks for assessment.

The accreditation scheme is aimed at solicitors with between three and six years post-qualifying experience and it has been designed to address early concerns from firms that it should test solicitors on their skills - not just their ability to study for exams.

Speaking to The Scotsman, Lord Cullen says the importance of client communication would a vital component of the tests. "I have been very impressed by the fact that the assessment that takes place is not just concerned with book-learning but is concerned very much with client communication," he says.

"Has [the solicitor] learnt how to listen to what the client has got to say? Has he learnt to ask the right questions and not impose a solution without listening to what the client has got to say? These are very much everyday things that solicitors are and should be concerned with."

He adds: "An important part of this is conducting an interview with a client. If he literally comes off the street and says, this is my problem, here are the papers, this is my understanding of the situation, please ask me any questions to elaborate, the solicitor who is sitting that assessment has got to give sensible advice at the time.

"It's not a question of searching the books for four weeks. It is about how to react, how to deal with, how to listen to the client."

Solicitors interested in applying for a place on the accreditation scheme will first have to ask themselves whether they feel ready. Robert Pirrie, the WS Society's chief executive, says a few weeks of study will not make up for lack of experience.

"This is not about a process whereby you study for a period of three or four weeks and sit a test, this is about assessing whether you have achieved a particular level of professional development," he says.

"You should look on this assessment as if you were about to be assigned a piece of work by a partner in your firm to do next week - you wouldn't think about going to study. You have to judge, do you think you are ready to take an assessment of your professional development at this stage? This isn't a question of studying intensively for a few weeks and you'll pass - it doesn't work like that."

The key to the future success of the scheme will lie in the benefits that firms see from supporting their recently qualified solicitors to become accredited, adds Pirrie.

"One firm has used the expression 'out-sourced assessment' - that it's useful for them to have some sort of external benchmark against which to assess whatever training and development they have internally.

"Another benefit is to help focus their training and development internally. It is a challenge a lot of firms have, because even when they run programs they can sometimes find last-minute cancellations.

"An assessment like this helps to increase the priority attached to that sort of activity alongside fee-earning. There is also an important lawyer retention point. This is something firms can offer younger lawyers."

Pirrie adds that the scheme - which is intended to complement the Law Society of Scotland's peer-view accreditation of specialists - will help firms show their clients that they are serious about high standards.

Amber Thomson, a partner with Dundas & Wilson, who is chairing the scheme's commercial property practice area committee, says the fact her firm is involved is a measure of its potential to nurture young talent.

"As a firm, we have not gone particularly for accreditation of specialism," she says. "We operate north and south of the Border and we like to make sure we are UK-based rather than just in one area. But we have decided that this is the right thing for the age group that will be involved - the three to six-year post-qualified stage. It follows on from what we do with the diploma and the newly qualified, and this gives us a stepping stone."

Philip Rodney, chairman of Burness, adds he was attracted to chairing the commercial litigation practice area committee to help lawyers at an earlier stage in their careers.

"I was very lucky throughout my career that I had a number of people who acted as guru figures for me," he says. "With the pressures of modern practice, there is less of that. It is good to give back the benefit of the experience you have to the next generation - I see that as part of my responsibility."

• More information about the signet accreditation scheme is available from: http://www.thesignetaccreditation.co.uk

Justice Secretary threatened with legal action over alleged interference in Police Chief appointments

The Scotsman today reports that : "Kenny MacAskill, the Holyrood Justice Secretary, has been threatened with legal action by furious councillors over a move to give ministers new "veto" powers in the appointment of chief constables.

Mr MacAskill has angered Scotland's eight police authorities by giving them just two weeks to respond to a Scottish Executive plan to give Paddy Tomkins, HM chief inspector of constabulary (HMCIC), a more formal role in appointing senior officers."

How quick some people are to run to lawyers !

Does anyone feel Mr Tomkins deserves a more formal role in appointing senior officers throughout Scotland after his performance as Chief Constable of Lothian & Borders Police ?

The Scotsman reports :

MacAskill threatened with legal action over police chief veto plan

PETER MACMAHON

KENNY MacAskill, the Holyrood Justice Secretary, has been threatened with legal action by furious councillors over a move to give ministers new "veto" powers in the appointment of chief constables.

Mr MacAskill has angered Scotland's eight police authorities by giving them just two weeks to respond to a Scottish Executive plan to give Paddy Tomkins, HM chief inspector of constabulary (HMCIC), a more formal role in appointing senior officers.

New guidelines from the Executive directorate general for justice and communities say that Mr Tomkins should report to ministers once police authorities, made up only of councillors, have chosen a new chief constable.

According to the Executive document, passed to The Scotsman, ministers will then look at Mr Tomkins's report to see if "evidence has been properly recorded and weighed" and whether his advice to the boards has been followed. If it has not, ministers will have the power to reject the selected candidate - a power that local authorities say undermines the powers in law of councillors to choose the police chief best suited to their area.

A strongly worded letter to Mr MacAskill from Paul Rooney, the convener of the Scottish Police Authorities Conveners Forum and the convener of the Strathclyde police board, accuses the Executive of "outrageous" behaviour in setting the two-week consultation deadline.

In the letter, which has been seen by The Scotsman, Mr Rooney writes: "Broadly, what is proposed under the guise of greater ministerial involvement in the process is to give HMCIC a significantly higher role in the process to an extent that the police authorities and elected members of the authorities are made subservient to his oversight. This gives this officer a role which he does not have in statute and is both insulting and demeaning to those elected members who do have a statutory duty to perform in the appointment of senior officers."

It then states Mr Rooney has advice that what is proposed is ultra vires - outside the law - and says that, if insisted on, "can only involve police authorities and Scottish ministers in unnecessary litigation".

Last night, Mr Rooney said: "I do not wish to comment on this at this time."

A Scottish Executive spokeswoman said the role of the HMCIC was "to act as the senior government adviser on policing matters and to assist boards in making their selection". She added:

"New guidelines are being revised by the police advisory board for Scotland to ensure the appointment process is open, fair, trans-parent and based on merit. There will be no changes to statute which requires appointments to be made by police boards following consultation with, and subject to approval of, Scottish ministers."

One well-informed Executive source said: "Ministers have a legal responsibility to ensure important jobs are filled properly.

There has to be a way to make sure selections are made professionally and not on the basis about questions on Masonic lodges or Celtic season ticket-holders or being a friend of a council leader."

ROW OVER HIGH-PROFILE APPOINTMENT OF CHIEF CONSTABLE

AN EXTRAORDINARY row has broken out between Strathclyde Police board and Scotland's most senior police officer over the appointment of a new chief constable for Strathclyde.

Paddy Tomkins, Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland, suggested that some councillors who would be responsible for selecting a replacement for Sir Willie Rae as the Chief Constable of Scotland's largest force have been privately discussing who should get the £161,000-a-year job.

But his letter to Mike Blair, the clerk to the Strathclyde board, on 7 August provoked a furious response from Mr Blair, who wrote back on 9 August to say that the tenor of Mr Tompkins's letter had raised the suggestion that the selection process was already compromised.

In the second in a series of letters, which has been seen by The Scotsman,

Mr Blair added: "I cannot assess what action or range of actions I now require to put in hand. It may be nothing or it may require the area procurator-fiscal to consider an allegation of corrupt practice."

This letter brought a swift climb-down by Mr Tompkins, who replied on 10 August that if he had "the quality and detail or evidence" he would have written in "quite different terms

Law Society of Scotland computers identified in Wikipedia censorship war

Much too complicated a story for our meager resources at Scottish Law Reporter, but Peter Cherbi delivers the explanation on why the Law Society of Scotland decided to censor it's Wikipedia entry and edit out critical paragraphs

It is of course, disappointing to see the Law Society identified as a censor of free speech yet again, but indicative of the style of leadership at Drumsheugh Gardens which seems to prohibit debate at any cost.

Wikipedia manipulated & censored by Law Society of Scotland in propaganda war against critics & reformers

It's taken the media long enough to report something I covered 18 months ago back in February 2006 where the Law Society of Scotland were censoring out information on it's Wikipedia entry, critical of it's operation as self regulator of the legal profession.

Today, Scotland on Sunday and a few other newspapers finally report on the story, giving the Law Society's editing out the critical information as part of the legal profession's media campaign against criticism of it's ways, which we all know to be less than honest ....

Here are some screenshots of the changing face of the Law Society of Scotland's Wikipedia entry.

This is how the Law Society of Scotland's Wikipedia entry looked with some more truthful details before the censorship started ...

Wikipedia Law Society page before edit

Next up follows the edited version by the Law Society, and the current version, which can be seen to omit any criticism at all of how the Law Society functinos or deals with complaints against it's members ...

Wikipedia Law Society page after  ediit law society of Scotland wikipedia 26 August 2007

Of course, manipulating the media is a common thing for the Law Society of Scotland when it comes to news reports critical of it's performance as a self regulator of complaints against it's own member solicitors ... and sometimes officials have even resorted to threatening journalists careers if they report too many (or any) stories of client complaints against legal firms in Scotland.

I've covered some of those media manipulation stories by the legal profession in previous articles here :

Law Society of Scotland actively censors the Scottish Press to kill articles on crooked lawyers

Scottish Legal Profession censors the Press to kill off bad publicity - Part II

Law Society of Scotland claims success in gagging the press over Herald newspaper revelations of secret case memos

Scottish media opinion being manipulated by legal profession against Parliamentary reforms of LPLA Bill ?

... with some more upsetting articles on Law Society manipulation of the popular media here ;

Scots Law Chiefs turn hostile on consumer organisation in propaganda war against deregulation of legal services markets.

Lawyers complaints system thought to have caused intimidation of clients for years

Lawyers protests over low legal aid fees revealed to be fake as Law Society's own research points to increase

Chief Executive of the Law Society of Scotland branded a liar after FSA denies claims of intervention to block complaints body

Law Society of Scotland threatens Court challenge against Scottish Executive over LPLA legal reform Bill

Scottish legal profession campaigns against open debate in Scottish Parliament on independent regulation of complaints against lawyers

Fairly obvious then, after reading through those previous articles, the legal profession in Scotland hates criticism of itself and prizes control over the media and free speech as being one of it's main weapons against reforming the complaints system against lawyers and keeping the public silent on the culture of injustice within the legal profession itself.

For my own part, I am reminded of the Law Society of Scotland's special briefings against myself and other critics of the legal profession on the same night & day after their Chief Accountant was attacked, apparently in a 'hit' arranged by crooked lawyer(s) ...surprisingly .. yet to be caught some 19 months after the 'hit' took place ...

Scotland on Sunday reported that story here : Cash laundering link to law chief stabbing and dutifully mentioned my blog - which was only 3 weeks old but apparently causing consternation in the Law Society HQ and other parts of the Scottish legal profession...

Cash Link to Law Chief Stabbing Scotland on Sunday 29 January 2006

Senior officials at the Law Society called a few journalists and asked them in for 'special briefings' to be given files on myself & others, with orders to run stories alleging it was critics of the legal profession who were responsible for the attack on Mr Cumming, and that they should be immediately silenced, websites taken offline - and one identified official - very senior in rank at the Law Society, allegedly said to a journalist that [named] campaigners against crooked lawyers "should be locked up in Guantanamo Bay for a bit of torture" ... something the press sadly decided to leave out ... it would have made a good headline though as the journalist knows himself - something like Law Boss calls for critics to be tortured ? ...

Here's today's Scotland on Sunday article on the Law Society of Scotland up to it's usual tricks of media manipulation ...

Wikipedia warzone

MURDO MACLEOD

THEY are the Wikipedia timewasters, anonymous cyber-vandals who use one of the internet's greatest resources to abuse rivals, spread gossip and cause widespread confusion.

But Scotland on Sunday can today reveal that many of the culprits are staff at major companies, councils, government departments and other organisations who spend their time sabotaging the free online encyclopaedia rather than working.

From the Prince of Wales's official residence to British Airways, the Ministry of Defence and Aberdeenshire Council, this newspaper has established precise numbers, times and details of how employees used work computers to anonymously edit Wikipedia articles, often to spread abuse, bigotry and outright nonsense.

Among the biggest Wikipedia timewasters in the UK appear to be MoD employees, who were responsible for more than 4,600 anonymous edits in the past four years.

They included 100 entries about Formula One, contributions about the 1970s cartoon series Captain Caveman and several disparaging references to Scots Pop Idol winner Michelle McManus.

MoD computers have been used to edit the entry on the Faslane Peace Camp, claiming the submarine base was vital to the local economy and that if the nuclear base left, the campaigners would find something else to complain about.

Wikipedia was founded in 2001 and currently has two million English articles, all of them written and edited by computer users around the world. The site has always been vulnerable to abuse and last week it emerged the CIA had edited articles including those relating to casualty levels in Iraq.

Many malicious editors of Wikipedia try to mask their identities, but using sophisticated scanning software, Scotland on Sunday has traced thousands of edits back to hundreds of organisations, several of which last night launched investigations to track down those responsible.

Computers operated by Scotland's local authorities were used in 16,190 Wikipedia edits in the past four years.

Top of the league is Aberdeenshire with 2,004 changes. They were used to make no fewer than 12 entries about Jaffa Cakes, along with a comment that all "neds" are "gay".

In second place was South Lanarkshire Council, which recorded 1,505 Wiki edits, including obscene and bigoted remarks about Celtic FC and Rangers owner David Murray.

Perhaps one of the most surprising sources for anonymous Wiki editing is Clarence House, the home of the Prince of Wales. An enthusiastic linguist at the royal residence added a paragraph on the usage of the Australian greeting "G'Day", while another remarked on the sexuality of a Surrey businessman.

In addition, a computer on the network of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission was used to make comments about Rangers, calling them "the world's most bigoted football club". And a Scottish Parliament computer was used to change Tory MSP Phil Gallie's date of birth to 1839.

British Airways computers have been used to make anonymous edits about the 2005 Helios air crash north of Athens, which killed all 121 on board. Meanwhile, a BBC computer was used to remove criticism of its iPlayer software.

Computers at the Law Society of Scotland have been used to make anonymous edits which removed a paragraph which was critical of them.

Wikipedia is also being used as a weapon in disputes within organisations. Lesley Hinds, chairwoman of NHS Health Scotland, was criticised in an anonymous, ungrammatical and misspelt Wikipedia posting which came from an NHS Health Scotland computer.

It said: "Health Scotland is under the relocation review which will most likely see it being moved from Edinburgh to Glasgow. Lesley Hinds appears to support this which is surprising since she is meant to represent the interests of Edinburgh in her Lord Provost role. When this policy was released it was expected she would of resigned is [sic] protest but instead has continued working in both jobs."

Mike Emmott, employee relations adviser with the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, said: "Most employers would expect anyone wanting to edit Wikipedia to do it at home and in their own time. Employers are not Attila the Huns who will ban everything and they accept a little bit of give and take, but it is hard to see how vandalising Wikipedia pages is acceptable. A ringleader for this kind of activity could even find themselves being dismissed."

Andre Coner, a consultant with computer security firm Commissum, said: "It's a myth that everyone is anonymous online. They're not. In order for you to send and receive information, the various servers need to know where your computer is."

Spokeswomen for both the MoD and the Scottish Parliament said they were aware of the issue and were looking into the origin of the offending edits. A BA spokesman said it was also looking into the issue.

And South Lanarkshire Council pledged "appropriate action".

However, a spokeswoman for Aberdeenshire Council suggested that most of the edits would have come from youngsters using school computers and members of the public using library machines.

A spokeswoman for the Law Society of Scotland said it had removed inaccurate and outdated criticism and that since the number beside the edit could be identified as belonging to the Law Society it could not be construed as anonymous.

Cut and run

January 31, 2006, 6.58pm

A user going by the name of Sjharte, who identifies himself as being an Edinburgh-based lawyer, added the following paragraph to the Wikipedia page on the Law Society of Scotland.

"There has been criticism of the Law Society of Scotland from some sections of the Scottish public citing the level of complaints by members of the public against Scottish solicitors. The Scottish Executive has instituted studies into regulation of the Scottish legal profession."

February 8, 7.11pm

An anonymous writer deletes the paragraph. The edit can be traced to a computer on the Law Society of Scotland network.

7.46pm

Another Wikipedia editor, under the name of ALoan, restores the critical paragraph.

February 17, 1.22pm

Again an anonymous writer deletes the paragraph of criticism. Again from a computer on the Law Society of Scotland network.

February 19, 10.17pm

"Sjharte" edits the page to bring back the paragraph.

February 23, 5.27pm

Again an edit is made from a Law Society computer.

8.27pm

"Sjharte" puts the critical paragraph back in.

March 24, 3.18pm

Anonymous but traceable. The Law Society computer is used to wipe out the paragraph again.

9.29pm

Sjharte has another go, adding the critical paragraph and branding the anonymous edits as "vandalism".

April 13 ,2006, 10.56am

Resistance is useless. Again the criticism is blanked out. Again the edit is anonymous. Again it can be traced to a Law Society of Scotland computer.


WHAT IS WIKISCANNER?


Wikiscanner allows users to hunt for anonymous edits which came from computers at the networks of various organisations.

This is the basic Wikiscanner link, enjoy: http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/

This is the link which takes the user to all the anonymous edits originating with computers on Ministry of Defence networks:
http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip2=82.110.109.192-255&nolimit=1

This is the link which takes the user to all the anonymous edits originating with computers on British Airways networks:
http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=163.166.150.0-255&ip2=163.166.137.0-255&ip3=163.166.0.0-136.255

This is for the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission:

http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=82.70.48.72-79

Sunday, August 26, 2007

FOI Commissioner rules Scottish Executive wrong to withhold details of radioactive contaminated drinking water

The long wait for the release of data relating to the radioactive contamination of drinking water in certain parts of Scotland goes on, but has been helped slightly with Kevin Dunion, the FOI Commissioner ruling that the previous Scottish Executive were wrong to withhold information about contamination of drinking water, using "the risk of terrorism" as an excuse for secrecy.

How many more issues may have fell to these kinds of poor excuses from the Scottish Executive still remains to be seen as Mr Dunion's office works through it's backlog of FOI requests & reports ... but what clearly comes through from reading some of the decisions is that many organisations & public bodies still get by with corrupt practices by being excluded from the FOI Act ... the Crown Office certainly ranking as one of the more famous examples as that .. not forgetting the Law Society of Scotland too of course ...

The Sunday Herald reports :

Executive guilty of using terrorism as an excuse to refuse FoI request

Commissioner rules government was wrong to withhold information about contaminated drinking water

THE RISK of a terrorist attack was wrongly used by the Scottish Executive as an excuse to keep information about radioactive contamination of drinking water secret.

The Scottish information commissioner, Kevin Dunion, has found the Executive guilty of breaching freedom of information legislation by failing to provide documents from a file entitled "Release of radionuclides in drinking water systems".

TheSunday Herald originally requested the documents in December 2005, and appealed to Dunion after they were withheld by the Executive.The verdict of his investigation, received on Friday,is a damning indictment of the official secrecy that persists in the Scottish civil service.

"A notable feature of this case is that the Executive has suggested release of this information may have dire consequences," Dunion said. "It has said that release could constitute an offence under anti-terrorism laws, that it might harm national security and it could even be misused in a way which could be lethal to the public."

Such claims, however, turned out to becompletelyunfounded,Dunion concluded."After considering the nature and content of the information being withheld I found that not only are these highly worrying claims overstated, in fact it is not possible to find any justification for them at all," he said.

The Executive argued that releasing the documents would breach section 79 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 because it "might prejudice the security of any nuclear site or of any nuclear material". But it failed to produce any evidence to back up its case.

According to Dunion, the six withheld documents are about "the financing and administrative arrangements involved in setting up a joint research project". They consist of "innocuous exchanges" with the UK government, he said.

Dunion pointed out that the government's Health Protection Agency had already published detailed guidance on how to respond to an attempt to poison drinking water with up to 23 different radionuclides. Authorities have been advised to draw up contingency plans, including possible treatments and alternative sources of supply.

"If this kind of information is readily available,it is inconceivable that disclosure of the information withheld by the Executive in this case could have the effect upon national security and public safety which it alleges," Dunion said.

The Executive argued the documents should remain secret as their release could damage relations with the UK government, or inhibit the formulation of Scottish administrative policy. But both arguments were dismissed by Dunion.

He concluded that the Executive had incorrectly applied three sections of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, and was in breach of part one of the act. He has ordered the withheld documents to be released within 45 days.

A spokesman for the Scottish Executive said: "We have just received the decision from the information commissioner on this case, which dates back to the previous administration, and are considering its terms. It would be premature to comment at this stage."

Holyrood MSPS handing out special passes to lobbyists - cronyism & favours or just good business ?

Would anyone be surprised to learn their msp may be handing out special passes to lobbyists so they could walk around the Parliament, meeting anyone they chose to and arrange all sorts of scams favours fiddles deals travel junkets fact finding trips etc while constituents who might request one such pass may well be told to take a hike ?

The Sunday Herald reports SNP MSP Tricia Marwick saying "It's unbelievable that we have voluntary organisations who are lobbyists having uncontrolled access to the parliament. They're able to enter the MSP block and do whatever they please. We need a comprehensive review of who has passes and the purpose of giving passes."

Among the lobbyists reported in the story are those from the environment, religious groups, and political party colleagues who failed to gain election seats ... also a few commercial lobbyists such as Devin Scobie, who runs Caledonia Consulting - where Lord Watson, now out of jail from arson charges and back in political life is based, according to an earlier Sunday Herald report HERE

Well, no time like the present is there ? Time to light a fire under the passes system ?

Row as lobbyists and party donors ‘access all areas’ with Holyrood visitor passes

MSPS ARE handing out prized Holyrood passes to lobbyists, allowing them unrestricted access to all areas of the parliament,the Sunday Herald has established.

Around one in five MSPs has given a "regular visitor" pass to either an interest group, a party colleague or an organisation that has given money to their party.

Now a member of the parliament's corporate body, Nationalist MSP Tricia Marwick, is demanding an overhaul of Holyrood's lobbying rules.

This comes in the wake of recent revelations about peers handing out Westminster passes to organisations with whom they have a financial relationship. The House of Lords resisted publishing details of who received passes, but gave in after a freedom of information request.

Now Holyrood has come under fire after publishing a list of pass-holders, who get security clearance on condition they do not engage in lobbying.

Twenty-four MSPs have given individuals or organisations regular visitor passes, nearly 90% of which have gone to lobbyists, party colleagues or donors.

The environment minister Richard Lochhead, an SNP member, gave a pass to Scottish Renewables lobbyist and Nationalist councillor Grant Thoms. Schools minister Maureen Watt sponsored Leonard Cheshire parliamentary officer and SNP member Ryan McQuigg.

Labour MSP Karen Gillon signed a pass form for Unison's Dave Watson, who is also vice-chairman of Scottish Labour. Her colleague, Pauline McNeill, helped PCS union representative and Labour member Lynn Henderson get a pass.

Similarly,Labour'sPaulMartin sponsored Amicus's "political officer" Allan Cameron, whose organisation, like Unison, is a generous party donor.

LibDem members also helped party colleagues get into Holyrood without regular security checks. Jeremy Purvis gave a pass to Fairbridge Scotland's Alex Cole-Hamilton, a LibDem candidate at the last Holyrood election. Iain Smith sponsored the party's campaigns officer Charles Dundas, and Hugh O'Donnell signed in Oxfam's Shabnum Mustapha, a LibDem candidate in Glasgow.

Religious groups also gained access. Labour's Ken Macintosh sponsored two members of the Scottish Council for Jewish Communities, while SNP MSPs ensured the Free Church of Scotland and Catholic Church received passes. But the main beneficiary were environmentalists, with lobbyists from RSPB, WWF, Scottish Environmental Link and Friends of the Earth all getting visitor status.

Commercial lobbyist Devin Scobie, who runs Caledonia Consulting, also received a pass, after being sponsored by parliament official Carol Devon.

The issue is controversial because most interest groups, and all members of the public, can only walk around parliament if escorted by an MSP. A regular visitor's pass, by contrast, affords access to Holyrood for a four-year parliamentary session. Passholders can walk around unrestricted and make bookings through the members' restaurant.

But SNP MSP Marwick said: "It's unbelievable that we have voluntary organisations who are lobbyists having uncontrolled access to the parliament. They're able to enter the MSP block and do whatever they please. We need a comprehensive review of who has passes and the purpose of giving passes."

A parliament spokesman said that although a visitor's pass allowed access toindividualswho hadparliamentary business it "did not entitle them to the unsolicited lobbying of members".

Law Society of Scotland insurer Marsh being sued by business rival over staff poaching

Marsh Inc, which through it's UK Subsidiary Marsh UK, handles the Law Society of Scotland's Master Insurance Professional Indemnity Fund - better known as the killer of clients claims against negligent & corrupt solicitors, is being sued by Willis & United amid allegations of 'staff poaching'.

Perhaps they have been learning a few naughty tricks from Drumsheugh Gardens ?

The Times Reports :

Writs fly as insurance firms fall out

Grant Ringshaw

MARSH, the world’s largest insurance broker, has become embroiled in a legal battle with rivals Willis and United Insurance Brokers.

The allegations centre on claims that some senior executives at Marsh’s aviation division in London were involved in a plot to poach staff and business from high-profile airline clients.

Willis alleges that Michael Moran, a former head of African aviation, sought to recruit staff for Marsh from the middle of last year in breach of his contract while still employed by the firm.

Willis has also alleged that Moran, who resigned from the company at the start of the year, passed confidential information, including thousands of files, to two Marsh executives, Nicholas Vine and Mark Church, managing directors at the group’s UK aviation and aerospace division. The information included documents about insurance business with Air Zimbabwe and South African Airways, two Willis clients. Marsh later withdrew its job offer to Moran.

Marsh has denied the allegations and is counter-suing Willis. Marsh alleges that Mark Goddard, a former senior vice president at the company, who left in 2004 to join Willis, passed confidential records to its rival about airline customers.

The claim accuses Willis and Goddard of a “conspiracy” to “use unlawful means to acquire clients of Marsh”.

The legal struggle between the two insurance-broking firms comes as it emerged that United Insurance Brokers (UIB), a smaller rival, is also suing Marsh. UIB alleges that Vine, the head of its aviation division until October 2004, breached his contract by attempting to negotiate “some form of team move” from UIB to Marsh.

UIB’s claim in the High Court alleges that Vine also passed confidential information about its business to Marsh including details of a bid for a key contract with Pakistan International Airlines (PIA). The writ claims that the information led to Marsh making an identical bid for the PIA account. As a result, the two companies were appointed as joint brokers to the airline.

Bassem Kabban, the UIB chief executive, wrote to Bruce Carne-gie-Brown, the then Marsh UK chief executive, in October 2004 to complain that Vine was attempting to take other UIB staff with him to the rival. Within days UIB said it sacked Vine for gross misconduct. Vine joined Marsh in November 2004.

UIB is suing for £2.5m covering damages, loss of business and legal costs. Marsh and Willis have not given details of the size of their claims.

Marsh, which is contesting the allegations, declined to comment on the cases. UIB and Willis also refused to comment.

The legal battle comes at a sensitive time for large insurance brokers, which have been attempting to rebuild their reputation after the industry was targeted by Eliot Spitzer, the former New York state attorney general, in an investigation in 2004 into alleged anticompetitive practices over commissions.

The Spitzer probe, which sent shock waves through the industry, has led to fierce competition and pressure on margins. However, aviation remains one of the more profitable areas.

Friday, August 24, 2007

Campaigners call for protection of families & beneficiaries in Inheritance law reform proposals

More From A Diary of Injustice in Scotland where Peter Cherbi reports on the Scottish Law Commission's call for reforms to Inheritance Law while critcising the lack of attention to protection for beneficiaries & families against rogue lawyers & executors.

Cherbi presents his own case as one of the more famous examples of poor handling of a will by the legal & accounting professions in Scotland, identifying Borders accountant Norman Howitt and Kelso solicitor Andrew Penman as being the main culprits in the disaster that befell his late father's will, with no resolution to-date and worryingly including details of potential criminality yet to be addressed.

An all too common example of how wills are handled in Scotland, so surely it's time to give protection against such poor behaviour which has dragged the legal profession's reputation into the gutter ...

Wives & children of the deceased should be given greater protection against a possible disinheritance by their partners & parents under new proposals to grant greater rights over the current 'laws of succession', reports the Herald newspaper.

The current laws on inheritance & wills are rather antiquated - just like many parts of Scots Law these days sadly, antiquated and not really reflective of life in the 21st Century (although some ex-judges and a few members of the judiciary seem to prefer it that way .. or worse, fight to preserve ancient law with the odd loophole, having to rely on judicial whim to let cases through).

At the moment, dependents have a right to one-third of a deceased parent's 'non heritable', or more commonly referred to "moveable estate" regardless of the terms of a will, whether they are included in it or not.

"Moveable estate' doesn't really include properties, it's more like cash, bank accounts, etc .. but one point on this would be that in several observed cases, lawyers have taken advantage of such incidents by altering the wills of deceased clients to write out family members, and then scooping the remaining properties of the client for themselves or selling them to preferred clients & colleagues .

However, the Scottish Law Commission has strangely missed the most glaring recommendations for overhauling the laws of succession - and those are, stronger regulation & oversight of how wills are handled by the likes of the legal profession & courts, protection for beneficiaries against negligence, corruption & incompetence by crooked lawyers, accountants & other professionals, including protection against crooked executors.

One could ask why the Scottish Law Commission didn't recommend increased protection from the likes of negligent, corrupt & incompetent solicitors & executors ... could it be too many links to the legal profession or perhaps, not enough statutory powers given to them by previous administrations because the legal profession itself doesn't want the SLC to have too much power, much like the position of Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman has been since it was formed from the Law Reform (Misc Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990

The answer to that may well be that if such protections were put in place, the likes of actions of crooked lawyers such as Andrew Penman, of Stormonth Darling WS, Kelso, and crooked Executors such as the Norman Howitt of Welch & Co, Accountants in the Scottish Borders , wouldn't so frequently take place .. and the legal profession wouldn't be so easily able to milk dead clients assets for furthering their own legal firm's profits & wallets while many families in Scotland get ripped off in an almost daily occurrence from the Scottish legal profession.

Of course, I have the example of what happened to my late father's estate to illustrate what so many in Scotland go through when dealing with crooked lawyers & crooked executors out to ruin an estate for their own personal profit & gain.

Norman Howitt, the Executor of my late father turned up the day after my father died, with a hand written list of 'addittions' to my father's will in Mr Howitt's own favour and of other unspecified relatives & 'unidentified people'. The 'additions' were written in Mr Howitt's own handwriting, and also strangely wrote myself and my mother out of the will - much to the amazement of myself, my mother, my own lawyer, family & friends, and the Police.

Suffice to say the 'amendments', seemingly written after my father's death, and in the Executor's favour, didn't get the time of day but these unsubstantiated handwritten 'amendments' didn't stop Norman Howitt, teaming up with the lawyer crooked lawyer Andrew Penman Andrew Penman to ruin my late father's assets & estate, in their own interests. paying themselves fat fees along the way and making sure no one got anything.

Not content with ruining my late father's estate and trying to write myself and my mother out of my father's will, Norman Howitt then went on to take all my mother's assets too including her bank book & pension book, while Mr Howitt and Mr Penman made sure no one bought the properties of my late father in Jedburgh ... no doubt so they could be sold to a preferential colleague perhaps ...

A severe example of a crooked lawyer & crooked executor one might think ? but in reality a common occurrence which only goes on and on because lawyers regulate complaints against their colleagues via the corrupt Law Society of Scotland, and make sure that when a family of a deceased client complain a crooked lawyer has wiped out their inheritance, nothing is ever done against the offending legal firm or lawyer concerned - and to make sure nothing is done, the family of the deceased client are obstructed to the nth degree by the protectionist Law Society of Scotland and prevented at all costs by the most senior members of the legal profession to obtain legal representation to pursue the likes of crooked lawyers & crooked executors for negligence & compensation for what was done.

So you see - when lawyers & executors rip off a will and a family - nothing gets done, ever - and the lawyers & executors get away with their frauds & rip offs because their professional regulatory bodies, the law, the Police and politicians all take a back seat, seemingly quite content to do so, and safe in the knowledge the many victims are never given a significant public voice calling for reforms.

The dead client is robbed (easy since they are dead), the remaining family & beneficiaries are robbed (easy because nothing can be done about it since lawyers regulate themselves) and executors get away with it too because they cut the crooked lawyer in on the deal ... all the while politicians & the courts stand by doing nothing because of their good friends in the legal profession need to make their fat profits.

Here's another common example of what happens to residual estates of deceased clients, involving the famous Scottish legal firm of Turcan Connell : Law Society of Scotland rejects complaint over estate ruined by huge legal fees

Reform is needed - but the rules & laws governing Executors etc are stuck in the dark ages, with the approval of many in the legal profession it seems because they make money from it in an easy hit against deceased clients and grieving families whom the likes of solicitors, accountants & others easily target for money.

The Scottish Parliament must have it's say on this issue, and people, particularly those who have experienced the full horrors of solicitors & executors mishandling wills should write to their MSP and the Scottish Executive with their experiences, to bring reforms & protections against the mishandling of wills by the law and those professions & executors charged with such duties.

Report from the Herald newspaper to follow :

Shake-up of law on wills aims to protect children

CALUM MacDONALD

NEW PROPOSALS: Parents will no longer be able to cut dependant children out of their will

Parents would no longer be able to disinherit their dependent children by cutting them out of their wills under new proposals which amount to the most radical shake-up of Scotland's inheritance laws in a generation.

Spouses and dependent children would be given greater protection against being disinherited while co-habiting partners would see their rights to make a claim on an estate extended under the proposals.

And in cases where a person dies without leaving a will, surviving spouses should inherit their entire estate, according to the Scottish Law Commission (SLC), which published the proposed reforms yesterday.

Scotland's inheritance laws, otherwise known as the laws of succession, are in need of a radical overhaul to reflect changes in society such as the legal recognition of gay relationships, the increasing number of step-families and divorces, according to the SLC. The report from the SLC deals with two major issues: the position of surviving spouses, civil partners and co-habitants when a person dies without having made a will; and the protection of close relatives from being disinherited.

It says that the current rules governing intestacy, when a person dies without a will, sometimes fail to provide a fair result for surviving partners and therefore should be changed. At present if a person dies and leaves a large estate or a mainly heritable one - in other words one comprising land and buildings - and is survived by a spouse or civil partner but has no children, the spouse will be the major beneficiary.

However, a substantial proportion may go to the dead person's parents, siblings and even the sons and daughters of siblings who died before them. In some circumstances they can inherit more than the spouse.

The SLC proposal is that in this situation the surviving spouse or civil partner should be entitled to the whole estate.

The other major proposal contained within the SLC report deals with close relatives who are disinherited. Under Scots law someone who makes a will is able to disinherit any member of his or her close family by leaving all of their estate to other people.

The SLC said: "There is strong and consistent public support for some protection for spouses, civil partners and issue and dissatisfaction with the existing regime of legal rights applicable to them."

It proposes that in these circumstances spouses and civil partners should be entitled to a quarter of what they would have got had there been no will, and that dependent children should be able to apply to court for maintenance from the estate. The definition of who would qualify as a "dependent" child under the new proposals has still to be decided.

It also recommends that co-habitants be entitled to a share of the estate in these circumstances.

The report also calls for new legislation to prevent a person evading the protections against disinheritance by giving property away before they die instead of leaving it in a will. Currently in Scots law there is nothing to prevent a person doing this.

The SLC proposals were welcomed by academics and legal practitioners alike.

Alan Barr, a partner with Brodies LLP, said: "I think these proposals are entirely reasonable.

"It's not a root and branch removal of the law as it stands, but it's modernising and deals with problems that people have perceived about it.

"There is always a balance to be struck between whether on the one hand you should be able to do exactly what you like with your estate, and on the other whether people should be bound to provide for at least some of their family.

"This is an attempt to change that balance slightly and to simplify what is very complicated law."

Michael Meston, emeritus professor of Scots law at the University of Aberdeen and one of the foremost authorities on the Scots law of succession, said: "The law in this area is undoubtedly in need of improvement.

"These proposals are very welcome and address a much-needed improvement in the law."