OWNERS AND EDITORS PROTECTING THEIR CORRUPT COURT BROTHERS 31 Aug 2006


It has been CLEAR to our organisations for a very long time the reason the devil worshipping crooks running our courts have got away with their CRIMES for so long is the serious distortions in our national press and TV.

While we are bombarded with small time criminals getting front page headlines those who are sanctioned with controlling our courts are hiding their criminal fraud behind a smoke screen provided by their brothers running the press.If they can make it look like the only crimes perpretrated are by working class males then they can encourage ordinary people to think the ONLY laws that need tightened are against working class males.

However the BIGGEST asset stealing going on ,is the courts being used to take our homes,our assets but most importantly of all our children.These MONSTERS who are being aided and abetted in their crimes against humanity by the monsters controlling our PROPAGANDA press ,who despite some decent journalists trying to do their best, ultimately their bully boy bosses ensure decent journalism SELDOM gets through. We see everyday in our civil courts a dire shortage of the media unless the police or judiciary WANT them to be there .Anyone who has LOST their lifes work in our courts know they seldom if ever get publicity on lawyers and judges collusively stealing our assets.A large portion of which goes back into the coffers of the secret society devil worshipping lodges ,to prop up their fascist system, where many are either bought or blackmailed into doing the dirty on the decent law abiding long suffering public.

This is once again a notice to ALL who are involved in that evil propaganda. In time with the new technologies they will be shown to have aided and abetted a regime which is every bit as bad and worse than the extremes the world faced during hitlers reign .The difference being the SILENCE OF THE PRESS AND TV in the UK and USA.

HOW MUCH LONGER DO THEY THINK THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH SUPPORTING CRIMINALS?


NO END TO THE GREED OF THE LEGAL CROOKS 27 Aug 2006


Britain's top lawyers charge staggering £5,000 per hour

Britain's most expensive lawyers are reeling in astonishing fees of £5,000 an hour thanks to Gordon Brown's complications in the tax system, an authoritative survey revealed. Tax lawyers have shot to the top of the earnings table of top-paid barristers as companies struggle to deal with new taxes and regulations imposed by the Chancellor. The assessment said that two London tax barristers - Graham Aaronson QC and John Gardiner QC - are thought to have earned £3 million each over the past year. Another four tax specialist lawyers have topped £2 million in earnings, it said. Some barristers can now charge £5,000 an hour for their advice, according to the survey by The Lawyer magazine.

And clients hoping to save millions on their tax bills are now ready to pay as much as £50,000 for a day in conference with an expert barrister - although the fee involves advance preparation by the lawyer as well as his day's work. The disclosure that lawyers' fees are reaching unprecedented new heights comes in the wake of promises from ministers to end the scale of state payments that have meant barristers can earn £1 million in a year from legal aid. The fast-rising fees for commercial and tax lawyers are likely to undermine attempts by Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer to reduce the highest pay for barristers working on taxpayers' money. Legal aid lawyers argue that rewards for publicly-paid lawyers must match those paid by private clients in order to ensure that legally-aided criminal defendants and civil claimants get an equal service.

Tax law has become the highest-paid field of work for barristers because their advice can save their clients such large sums, the magazine's experts said. "Clerks say that advisory work is more lucrative than litigation, as befits an area where barristers are more knowledgable about the law than skilled in advocacy," The Lawyer said. "The sector has benefitted in the past months from a boom in the number of cases being brought as a result of a slew of new tax regulations and legislation on a domestic and European Union level."

A clerk at one leading barristers' chambers told the magazine: "If a tax specialist can save his clients millions in one hour, then he is providing them with a big financial gain in the long term. Something like £35,000 is absolutely what clients are willing to pay for that." The survey said that 16 barristers are now earning £2 million a year, with the tax specialists at the top of the table thanks to 'a boom in tax litigation'. Alongside Mr Aaronson and Mr Gardiner, it named Michael Flesch QC, David Goldberg QC, David Milne QC, and Jonathan Peacock QC as tax silks earning over £2 million. There are, however, no women among the list of 16 barristers who are rated in the £2 million-plus bracket.

The survey said that senior barristers working in commercial law with the rank of Queen's Counsel, of 'silk', are likely to earn up to £2,500 an hour. Even the most junior commercial barristers can expect to be paid at up to £125 an hour.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=401488&in_page_id=1770


CRIME IS ONE OF THE MAJOR GROWTH INDUSTRIES IN THE UK 26 Aug 2006


In Scotland the criminal justice system costs £800,000,000 per year.If a fraction of that was spent in our inner cities to create some hope for future generations of youngsters the country could put all these legal hangers on out of a job while vastly increasing the prospects of all of the rest of the country.

It is the politicians who are failing to curtail vast quantities of Britains assets being abused by a bunch of rogues disguised in all sorts of finery with their wigs and regalia who think they deserve their hugely inflated salaries and pension schemes.

The paper shuffling crooks do NOTHING but undermine the UK's future by using vast amounts of revenue which could be used much more efficiently than what is happening just now .As huge amounts of cash are washed down the drain feeding the leeches who hang on the coat tails of the serial criminals who from childhood had nothing but a life of crime to look forward to.

The UK has a distorted perspective on how to break the cycle of crime and that shouldn't be filling more and more jails with our wasted youth but funding the infrastructure that will secure a dwindling prison population and ensure the demise of those who control our star chamber courts.They are the BIGGEST drain on the UK's wealth by a mile.


SCOTLAND BEING DESTROYED BY ESTABLISHMENT LACKIES 18 Aug 2006


Scotlands impoverished people have been oppressed for centuries by the establishment monsters acting NOT in the best interests of Scottish citizens but for the crown,monarchy and other hangers on who control the banks,insurance and multi nationals.

1.Mill(school janitor but now controlling Scotland as the crooked godfather of the Law Society of Scotland)and his mob.

2.Hamilton(New Head law lord for the notoriously corrupt Scottish Appeal courts previously controlled by Cullen) and his mob.

3.Boyd(Lord advocate who turns a blind eye to crimes by his pals at the Law Society)and his mob at the crown office.

4.McConnell (First Minister who fails Scotland over and over by allowing this mob of crooks to destroy Scotlands infrastructure)and his mafia party.

5.Scotlands Chief Constables who fail time and again to act on criminal collusion by the monsters at the law society.

6.Scotlands social work departments who make children a money making racket for corrupt lawyers.

7.Scotlands legal aid board who fund the criminals who disguise themselves in wigs and regalia in our courts.

8.Scotlands editors and owners of all media and TV who aid and abet the ruthless conduct of all of the above.Failing 99.999999% of the time to accurately publish how Scottish people are being abused.Instead they undermine the least fortunate and deride them to give more control to the establishments legal system who use multi billion pounds of public moneys to drag the victims of oppression continually through our courts .

Filling our jails with people who from birth NEVER stood a chance of bettering themselves thanks to all of the above.Lawyers make a fortune from legal aid defending serial criminals who are pushed into crimes from a young age thanks to a lack of ANY funding to break the cycle of decay in our inner cities.

9.Finally the devil worshipping secret society mobsters, many who join the ranks of all of the above, who sinisterly control ,bully and enslave Scottish citizens by infiltrating their brothers into EVERY area of Scottish life.


Devil worshipping power 100 18 Aug 2006


The power 100 are their ,not through intellect and merit but thanks to their devil worshipping secret society banking buddies.UK and USA business is run by a bully boy network of EVIL

Quiet Dutchman heads network of corporate talent ‘Those who succeed dedicate the majority of their careers to a single institution’

MAARTEN van den Bergh is the most powerful figure in British business, according to the substantial and independent Power 100 research undertaken by The Times into who is who, and who knows whom, in the top echelons of business. However, although van den Bergh is chairman of Lloyds TSB, and a non-executive director of BT, British Airways and Shell, few people this side of the Channel would even hazard a guess at his identity. Beyond those whose interests lie in City and commercial circles, only a small number would be able to place him. A vanishingly small number of people could put a face to the name. The relative anonymity of Maarten van den Bergh may raise questions about the methodology used to create the list. But unlike many such registers of the great and the good, it leans for its results not on the subjective opinions of a panel of judges or some sort of self- defining electorate. The market is the arbiter of who is in The Times Power 100.

It is the market, ultimately, that decides who is fit to run our largest companies and the market that decides whether they are qualified to be a chairman, a chief executive or a part-time non-executive director. It is also the market that decides how much those companies are worth. And it is a scoring system carefully aligned to these criteria that whittles the 2,722 directors of larger quoted companies down to the Power 100. Maarten van den Bergh is a good winner, and a deserving one. He comes out as top dog because he has more directorships of larger companies than any of his peers. In it instructive to note, however, that van den Bergh also comes out top if employee numbers, rather than market capitalisation, is used as the calculation cornerstone. This friendly, unassuming but determined, capable and dedicated Dutchman has control over more capital value than any other director of a London-listed company. He also leads, or helps to lead, the largest workforce. So what makes van den Bergh so special? What qualities do any of this year’s Power 100 have that set them apart from lesser corporate mortals? Some observers will assume that the movers and shakers owe their good fortune to the smooth workings of the old boy network. The Power 100 research certainly indicates that an embracing and dynamic network of relationships binds together the senior directors of British quoted companies. If you listen carefully, you may be able to hear the sound of backs being scratched. Wisps of cigar smoke may be seen wafting from oak-panelled rooms. But you must be determinedly cynical, and perhaps blinkered, if you assume that all the people who create, exchange and use the world’s wealth are co- signatories to an immoral, or even evil, capitalist conspiracy.

Yes, of course, these giants of business make sure that they know plenty of people, but they also make sure that they know plenty of things, too. One of the enduring testimonies to emerge from three years of Power 100 surveys is that successful business people are very often loyal. As you read the biographies of the Power 100 constituents, you will notice time and again that the men and women who succeed dedicate the majority of their careers to a single company or institution. Van den Bergh is a case in point. He was 32 years with Shell before spreading his wings. Sir Tom McKillop, last year’s winner and in second place this year, has dedicated the greater part of his working life to AstraZeneca — and its forerunner companies Zeneca and ICI. Ditto, John Buchanan, ranked third. Like McKillop, Buchanan is in the Power 100 top ten for the third successive year. He spent most of his best years with BP before giving Vodafone, AstraZeneca, BHP Billiton and Smith & Nephew the benefit of his experience. Lord Sharman was a KPMG accountant man and boy before rising to sit on the boards of six leading British companies active in fields as diverse as advertising, insurance, gas, security guarding and brewing. Rob Margetts, the former ICI employee of 31 years’ standing, is now chairman of two FTSE 100 companies and a non- executive director of a third.

Everywhere you look in the Power 100, you see canny business people who have helped to create significant and sustained wealth in an organisation. It is these people who, when they reach their late forties and fifties, are identified by others as being best qualified to help them to guide other businesses to sustainable success. Yes, it is important to know people. However, it is more important to be an experienced manager and engineer or scientist, accountant, banker, civil servant or marketeer. And which are the companies that feature again and again as the breeders of our finest managers? It is the BPs, GSKs, HSBCs and Unilevers of this world. It is the likes of Shell, Barclays, Tesco, British Gas, Vodafone and Rio Tinto that breed wealth-creating and job-creating talent. It is these companies that also recycle and share that talent.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,2020-5-1857924-15950,00.html


Lawyers fall out with Law Society 18 Aug 2006


Oliver Adair of the Law Society: 'I don't accept the society is disinclined to represent the profession's interests'. Picture: Ian Rutherford

New body 'will rival Law Society'

Lawyers in move to set new national association to represent interests Represents further blow to Law Society who are failing to deliver for many Prompted by Scottish Executive bombarding legal industry with reforms

Key quote "This goes to the heart of the question: what is the Law Society there to do? Are they there to represent the profession? It seems to me they have failed on that front. It has taken a handful of associations to stand up and be counted." - GRAEME RUNCIE, EDINBURGH BAR ASSOCIATION Story in full A MAJOR schism is opening within Scotland's legal profession with lawyers across the country plotting to create a new national association to represent their interests, The Scotsman has learned. The proposed new body reflects an unprecedented militancy among Scotland's 1,500 registered legal-aid lawyers and a rejection of the traditional representative role played for decades by the Law Society of Scotland. The Scottish Executive is currently obliged to conduct negotiations with the Law Society, but one lawyer behind the plans for a new national grouping last night warned: "The Executive will have to deal with us."

The new association would be a second blow for the society which already faces losing part of its traditional role of policing the legal profession under plans for an independent complaints commission. Some lawyers are angry at the Law Society's decision last week to accept a £1.3 million increase in legal aid for the most serious criminal work and resume co-operation with the Executive, and believe a new national body would better fight their corner in future battles with ministers. Bar associations will meet over the next few days to decide whether to call off a proposed boycott of sex cases, which would have created a massive backlog of trails in Scotland's courts and was condemned by Jack McConnell as "shocking and disgraceful". Vincent McGovern, the spokesman for the Hamilton Bar Association, said the creation of a national "faculties forum" was being discussed to "speak up" for the profession at a time when the Scottish Executive was bombarding them with reforms.

"We understand that the Law Society also does the job of representing solicitors but the bottom line is that the message we need to get across simply has not been delivered," he said. "It is felt the only way we can protect our interests is to have some sort of cohesive, co-ordinated national body that can liaise with members of faculties and speak with some authority. "It would act as a counterbalance with the Law Society who negotiated with the Executive without a mechanism for proper consultation." He added: "The Executive will have to deal with us and the Law Society will have to take instructions from us."

He said a meeting would be held in Perth within the next few weeks to thrash out plans for the new national body. Graeme Runcie, the president of the Edinburgh Bar Association, added: "This goes to the heart of the question: what is the Law Society there to do? Are they there to represent the profession? It seems to me they have failed on that front. It has taken a handful of associations to stand up and be counted." But senior Law Society officials last night dismissed suggestions that they had failed to represent lawyers' interests, insisting it was their negotiations which secured meetings with deputy justice minister Hugh Henry and, ultimately, an improved pay offer of 8 per cent for court work and 12 per cent for all other work backdated to December 2005. Oliver Adair, the convener of the society's Legal Aid (Solicitors) Committee, said he welcomed plans for a national network of lawyers to act as an "intermediary" between lawyers and the society. But he added: "I don't accept that the society is in any way disinclined to represent the interests of the profession. "It seems to be our negotiations were successful."

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1200382006


BBC criminalizing the poor 16 Aug 2006



Why dont the BBC scramble their TV and radio signals and anyone who wants to watch Big Brother propaganda can pay a subscription?Instead of its draconian measures of having a data base of all UK homes and harrassing the poor who dont want to watch the establishment media machine.

How many would take up the option of watching their programs?

===================

Glasgow tops TV licence dodgers

More than 38,000 people in Scotland have been caught without a TV licence in the past six months. Glasgow tops the list with more than 10,275 licence evaders uncovered. The city also remains at number two in the UK national league.

A total of 3,646 people were caught in Edinburgh, the second highest number in Scotland and fifth in the UK list.

The figures were calculated by TV Licensing's inquiry officers between January and June this year.

Tracking down

Almost half of the 38,055 people caught were in Scotland's cities, but towns such are Motherwell and Hamilton also figure in the Scottish top 20.

THE LICENCE FEE
Colour licence - £131.50
Black and white licence - £44
People over 75 - free licence
Blind Concessionary Licence - 50% reduction
Those living in residential care - £5 licence
Possible fine for no licence - £1,000

Fergus Reid, of TV Licensing, said: "From Aberdeen to Ayr, Dundee to Dunfermline, our results show just how effective we are at tracking down those people who try to get away with watching TV without a valid licence. "According to these latest figures, we're netting over 100 people a day in Scotland on average, which is one of the reasons why fewer people than ever are dodging the licence fee."

A colour TV licence currently costs £131.50 and a black and white licence £44. Those who do not buy one face a £1,000 fine.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/scotland/4792865.stm


Law Society godfather considers suicide 16 Aug 2006


QUOTE
"you feel like opening your wrists and lying in a warm bath."

A lawyer's never loved in his own home land

WHENEVER Douglas Mill travels abroad on business, the warm welcome he receives as an ambassador for the legal profession in Scotland means a lot more to him than a polite token of respect. For Mill, the Law Society's chief executive, it also throws into sharp relief just how negatively the legal profession is perceived on his home turf.

"The Scottish legal profession is held in phenomenally high esteem - everywhere except Scotland," says Mill. "It's not just the profession that's held in high esteem but Scots Law, the Scottish legal system and the Scottish legal profession.

"These are three slightly different things but all closely related, and we are still looked at, for historical and other reasons, as a jurisdiction that deserves profound respect. Sadly - and it is a lack of understanding thing - in Scotland, at the moment, that respect is not there.

"But you go abroad and you get the feel-good factor, and you come back to what I have to deal with five days a week - and you feel like opening your wrists and lying in a warm bath."

Such an exaggeration could be dismissed as characteristic of Mill's ebullient manner, but it is also a measure of the frustration he feels about the way the profession is regarded in Scotland. It remains to be seen whether any of the society's well-documented concerns about impending regulatory changes - specifically, the ramifications of setting up the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, as proposed in the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill - will be taken on board.

The changes could not only alter the role of the society, but the future direction of the profession. Perhaps Mill can console himself that he is not alone. As acting president of the International Institute of Law Association Chief Executives (IILACE), he is in regular contact with bar associations around the world, and he has noted that all are facing two common challenges, one internal and one external.

"The big internal issue is one that every law society has - of democratic legitimacy of the organisation through elected council members and representatives. Because they are busier people, the greater burden falls on those of us for whom this is the day job. "The outward-looking issue is the whole question of the independence of the profession and the interface between government and profession. That is not just a UK issue with Clementi and the Scottish Bill, that is a global thing. There are jurisdictions such as Australia and Canada that are actually further ahead than we are, developmentally." Delegates at the IILACE annual conference in New York this week will get the chance to debate these and other issues facing the legal profession around the world. Now in its eighth year, IILACE was founded in Edinburgh in 1999, as a fringe event at the Law Society's 50th anniversary conference.

"The first meeting took place in our council room," recalls Mill. "I don't take the credit for the initiative - it was a guy called Barry Fitzgerald from the Law Society of South Australia, who took the opportunity of piggybacking on our conference. "It was the third biggest legal conference in the world that year - we had about 1,300 delegates from about 40 different countries - and Barry saw the opportunity to get CEOs to engage."

The concept of an international association is far from new, adds Mill, but it has taken the cooperation between law societies to a global level. "The Chief Executives of European Bar Associations is now into something like its 48th year, but IILACE was invented on the basis that there were other jurisdictions that felt the need for networking at a CEO level, in particular the Australians, Canadians and so on. "It started off as an English-speaking, Commonwealth-type thing, but it's gone beyond that. We have been to every continent, except South America. We can't tune into South America at all, which is very unfortunate. Beyond that we are starting to get pretty worldwide coverage."

He adds: "It is an annual conference and also a virtual organisation in terms of having a website and regular e-mail contact. We try to balance it between the work of a CEO, issues involved in running a law society, and so on, and some of the big geopolitical issues about independence. "The main benefit is that it saves you reinventing other people's wheels - it's a good information-sharing network. Canada and Australia are the two relevant jurisdictions for me. They may seem much bigger countries, but they are not really - the Canadian provinces and Australian states are very comparable to Scotland in terms of population and numbers of lawyers."

For the first time, ILLACE is holding a conference independently of a host law society or bar association, and Mill says this is a sign of its growing international reputation.

"We always picked another conference to piggyback on. It is the first time we have not gone to a home law society - this is a make-or-break year for IILACE. We have 29 delegates and 15 guest speakers, which is easily our best ever."

The agenda includes debates about the role of the lawyers in contemporary society, the reform of the legal profession, and the relationship between the American Bar Association (ABA) and the Bush administration.

The two keynote speakers are Dennis Archer, the former mayor of Detroit and a past president of the ABA, and Robert Grey, its immediate past president. "To get these two very significant international legal figures again I think is an indication that this is the year that IILACE came of age," says Mill, who will mark ten years as chief executive of the Law Society of Scotland in January.

But while IILACE appears to be growing in stature, Mill says the future standing of the Law Society and the Scottish legal profession and legal system remains less certain during a period of unprecedented change. "The system was never perfect, but it has probably been unduly knocked," he says. "The profession, the law and the system are all up for change. But I think there is a concern that it is change for the sake of change, change without holistic understanding, without breadth, depth, and vision.

"That is what concerns us at the moment because, quite honestly, the respect that the Scottish legal system has attained around the world historically will be eroded and is eroding at the moment. There is no doubt in my mind about that."

But he adds: "It is a mark of the respect in which the Law Society of Scotland is held and that the Scottish legal system is held that I am chairing this conference. Our stock is still high internationally. I would hope we would continue to maintain the share value we have internationally - but we have got to fight to do so."

• www.iilace.org

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1187642006


Law society godfather gagging press 14 Aug 2006


DOUGLAS MILL Chief executive and godfather of the law society of Scotland gagging Scottish media

http://petercherbi.blogspot.com

Law Society of Scotland claims success in gagging the press over Herald newspaper revelations of secret case memos LAST week, I had a meeting with a 'source' .. a 'deep throat', as it were .... and one of the things which came up was a certain line of 'bragging'coming out of the Law Society offices, which senior officials had embarked upon, claiming they had "shut up the Herald [newspaper] for good".

This was of course, of interest to me, so I continued to question my source ... who reported that an article which appeared in early June - provoked intense rage from Douglas Mill - the Chief Executive of the Law Society of Scotland - because it reported on what were supposed to be secret memos, sent by Mr Mill to the then Law Society of Scotland President, Martin McAllister, Philip Yelland - the Director of the crooked Client Relations Office, and David Preston (who went on to become the President of the Law Society in 2002), reporting on discussions with Alistair Sim, the Director of the Professional Liabilities Division at Marsh UK, on the subject of Mr Stewart Mackenzie's negligence claims against several firms of Scottish solicitors who had indeed been negligent in their dealings of the client's legal affairs.

I published the memos in question, and reported on this story earlier on the site, here : http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2006/06/corrupt-link-revealed-how-law-society.html

The Herald newspaper today, reports in an article on the matter - which has apparently been demanded by the Law Society of Scotland in correspondence to the newspaper I have now seen, that "The article was not at any stage intended to challenge the integrity or honesty of Mr Mill or the Law Society, but instead to question apparent contradictions highlighted by evidence to the committee."

Douglas Mill was in such a rage at the offending Herald newspaper article of June 4 titled - "Would Granny swear by the Law Society" - in relation to Douglas Mill's claim before the Justice 2 Committee that he swore on his "granny's grave" to Holyrood's Justice 2 Committee that "never once have I, any member of my staff, or any office-bearer dabbled in a claim" .. that he ordered the paper print a retraction to the appearance he claimed their article gave - that he had personally become involved in the Mackenzies financial claims against negligent & crooked laywers.

The 'retraction', or shall we say, 'clarification', in today's Herald newspaper reads like this : "Mr Mill has asked us specifically to clarify that as chief executive he does not become involved in the handling or resolution of individual claims. We are happy to set the record straight." Well, how does that sit with the content of the memos ?

Mr Mill, nor any office bearer of the Law Society of Scotland hadn't become involved in a claim for negligence .. but there he is, writing a memo on just such a case, arranging for more delays, having discussions with the Director of Marsh UK - who actually administers the Master Insurance Policy which defends against client claims for negligence .. and as we have seen from testimony from Mr Stewart Mackenzie himself before the Justice 2 Committee inquiry this summer - the case in which Mr Mill became involved .. still remains to be resolved - despite Mr Mill claiming to John Swinney MSP at the Justice 2 Committee hearing .. he was trying to help the Mackenzies ....

Clearly, from the memos, Douglas Mill did become involved in the Mackenzies claims of against negligent lawyers. Clearly, he hates the fact these memos became public, and clearly, he will do anything to prevent the reality of his involvement in such claims becoming a widely held view.

Mr Mill, by your brow beating of the Herald newspaper into this 'verification' of their article, you have only confirmed the fact of your involvement in financial claims of negligence against crooked lawyers .. and as such, you have confirmed the fact you have lied to the Justice 2 Committee of the Scottish Parliament, when you "swore on your granny's life" that you did not.

But we have been here before, haven't we, Douglas ?

You youself, wrote to the Scottish Legal Aid Board on the 6th April 1998, seeking to defeat my application for legal aid to challenge the Law Society's fiddling of the Andrew Penman complaint ... which was a financial claim for negligence. Here's the letter.

You, Douglas Mill, became involved in my claim against Andrew Penman, and the Scotsman newspaper reported on this very involvement in an article on 5 June 1998 titled "Law Society accused of closing ranks as claim fails". Thank you, Scotsman.

So, the two major newspapers in Scotland, the Herald, and the Scotsman, have both reported on Douglas Mill becoming involved in financial claims of negligence against crooked lawyers.

The evidence, has been presented, clearly, showing letters or memos from Douglas Mill himself, and other office bearers of the Law Society of Scotland involving themselves in such claims.

Douglas, you can deny this all you want in the press - and you can deny this all you want to the Justice 2 Committee of the Scottish Parliament, but the fact is, you are a liar.

The evidence says you were involved, and in how many other cases have you been involved ?

I am therefore moving for you to be recalled before the Justice 2 Committee to account for your testimony.

Just for 'clarification' for my readers, I am republishing the memos, Douglas Mill's letter to the Scottish Legal Aid Board against me, the brave Scotsman's reporting of Mill's successful attempt to kill off my own negligence claim .. and I will throw in the letter from Mill's colleague, Phillip Yelland to my own lawyer instructing him not to proceed my own claim for negligence against Penman and the Law Society of Scotland.

The evidence speaks for itself. Douglas Mill and other office bearers of the Law Society of Scotland do become involved in client complaints and clients legal actions against crooked & negligent lawyers.

If you think the Justice 2 Committee should recall Douglas Mill to account for why he lied to them in his claim that he, nor any other office bearer of the Law Society have ever become involved in clients claims of negligence against crooked lawyers, email the Justice 2 Committee at Justice@scottish.parliament.uk and ask them to recall Mr Mill, Chief Executive of the Law Society of Scotland, to be held to account for his claims.

Read on for the articles, from the Herald Newspaper, links to follow :

http://www.theherald.co.uk/business/67756.html

Douglas Mill

PAUL ROGERSON August 14 2006

In our edition of June 5, 2006, we wrote an analysis on the ongoing concerns relating to the Law Society Master Insurance Policy. In the course of the article, we questioned the Law Society chief executive Douglas Mill's role in the ongoing debate and in particular his evidence to the Justice 2 Committee. The article was not at any stage intended to challenge the integrity or honesty of Mr Mill or the Law Society, but instead to question apparent contradictions highlighted by evidence to the committee.

Mr Mill has asked us specifically to clarify that as chief executive he does not become involved in the handling or resolution of individual claims. We are happy to set the record straight.

and the offending article, which prompted Douglas Mill's rage at the Herald newspaper ...

http://www.theherald.co.uk/business/63315.html

Would granny swear by the Law Society?

PAUL ROGERSON June 05 2006

THE Law Society of Scotland continues to fret about the prospect of independent oversight of its controversial master insurance policy, which covers compensation claims against Scottish solicitors arising from negligence, fraud or dishonesty.

For years, critics such as the Scottish Consumer Council have complained that the policy gives rise to suspicions that solicitors, broker Marsh UK, and the insurance companies are in league to the detriment of complainers.

One oft-heard allegation is that lawyers will not take up negligence cases against other lawyers because, if they are successful, this will push up their own premiums.

The society vehemently denies any collusion. Last month, chief executive Douglas Mill felt moved to swear on his "granny's grave" to Holyrood's Justice 2 Committee that "never once have I, any member of my staff, or any office-bearer dabbled in a claim".

Back in 2001 Alistair Sim - a Marsh executive and member of the Law Society of Scotland - told predecessor committee Justice 1: "The society is not involved in the handling or resolution of individual claims."

Really? Mill's extraordinary oath followed the production of evidence by MSP John Swinney apparently showing Mill, office-bearers and society officials becoming deeply involved in the resolution of a claim, never mind dabbling. The former SNP leader came brandishing what some have dubbed the "smoking memo", written in 2001 by Mill to Martin McAllister, the then president.

The document concerned complaints against solicitors brought by Stewart and Susan Mackenzie, from Pitlochry. It discussed not only the merit of the complaints, but also the character of the Mackenzies.

Mill told McAllister: "I have discussed the matter with Alistair Sim and I think a holding letter is ideal ... there is a saga here."

He added: "The Mackenzies, I would say, are different from some of our other complainers in as much as they have several valid claims, they have been let down by a series of solicitors but they are unreasonable in their expectations of quantum et cetera. Rather than trivialise matters I would recommend that the four of us, i.e.: you, me, David Preston (vice-president) and Alistair Sim ... have a summit meeting on the up-to-date position looking at both the complaints and claims aspects.

"There is no doubt Mr Mackenzie is (an) intelligent and well-organised individual (sic) who could, unlike some of the other thorns in our flesh, come over very well at (an) investigation."

The full text of the memo was only made public last year after the commendably persistent Swinney demanded to know why parts of the document were excised "for legal reasons" in submissions to Justice 1made public in 2001.

Paul Grice, chief executive of the Scottish Parliament, wrote to Swinney admitting "mistakes" were made in the editing and sanctioned publication of the full text. Who leaked the memo in the first place remains a mystery.

MSPs will have to decide whether Mill's granny is now spinning. Addressing Justice 2, the society's chief executive explained away the apparent contradiction thus: "

The layer of insulation between the society and claims handling is Marsh the broker. Our then president (McAllister) got a letter from (Mackenzie). Many of the letters that our president gets do not have the same degree of foundation as lies behind Mr Mackenzie's issues. I was asked to give a briefing on the matter. I quite properly inquired of Marsh, 'I seek an assurance that these claims are being progressed quickly.' That is what I do in such situations. I give my president an assurance that I am satisfied, having been satisfied by Marsh."

If Mill was solely concerned about the expeditious resolution of the Mackenzies' claim, it is unclear why he thought it appropriate to comment on both the amount of the claim ("unreasonable") and liken Stewart Mackenzie to a "thorn" in the society's flesh.

John Swinney is not reassured. "The memo is plainly at odds with what the Justice 2 committee is being asked to believe,' he told The Herald. "None of the answers given to Justice 2 give me any confidence that the society's position is as stated in Mr Mill's evidence."

The semantics experts on Justice 2 may ponder how looking at the "claims aspects" can be distinguished from "dabbling in a claim". The dictionary defines "dabble", incidentally, as: "To undertake something superficially or without serious intent."

One might also ask why the society is worried about independent oversight if the master policy is working so well for claimants.

Michael Clancy, the organisation's in-house lobbyist, gave an answer in a letter to Justice 2 on May 25. He wrote: "The society does not accept that the 'light touch' approach in the (Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland)) Bill will be maintained throughout the life of the (Scottish Legal Complaints) commission. There is no evidence that the master policy (does) not work in favour of the client. There is no evidence of undue delay of treatment (of) master policy issues."

A decade ago dozens of Westminster MPs, some of whom are now MSPs, begged to differ. In February 1996, 49 members of parliament signed an early day motion condemning the operation of the master policy as fundamentally hostile to the underlying principles of Scots law.

Their number included several big-hitters: David Steel, Charles Kennedy, Ken Livingstone, Martin O'Neill - former chairman of the Department of Trade and Industry Select Committee - and the current UK parliament speaker, Michael Martin. One signatory - Malcolm Chisholm - is now an executive minister.

The late Gordon McMaster tabled the motion after learning of the plight of Paisley housebuilder Iain McIntyre, a constituent who suffered estimated losses of ?2.7m following a 10-year legal nightmare involving a string of incidents of negligence and bad faith at the hands of various law firms.

The motion stated: "Inherent conflicts exist between the Law Society of Scotland's duties to guard the public interest and protect its members' interests, which have forced Mr McIntyre to endure the loss of his business (and the) forced sale of his home ... it is unjustifiable that the Law Society holds the master professional indemnity insurance policy which has built into it penalties and bonuses which give solicitors a vested interest in minimising negligence claims at unfair levels".

The MPs were "convinced that the principle of Scots law that everyone is entitled to independent legal representation has been breached by the Secretary of the Law Society of Scotland actively encouraging one firm of solicitors to cease acting for Mr McIntyre". They were not alluding to Mill but a predecessor.

Justice 2 will doubtless ask itself whether such a large number of MPs would have made such a damning statement without compelling evidence. Commenting specifically on the operation of the master policy last week with reference to the 1996 early day motion, the Law Society said:

"In 2005, the Office of Fair Trading endorsed the master policy by closing their investigation with no recommendations for action on professional indemnity. The OFT recognised the protections for the clients of Scottish solicitors and this follows similar scrutiny by the European Parliament, the UK Parliament and the Scottish Executive, with similar results."

It is certainly true that the OFT could find no "strong and compelling" evidence that the master policy was anti-competitive by denying legal firms the right to seek cheaper insurance cover. Whether its investigation amounted to an "endorsement' is another matter.

The watchdog's written judgment asked searching questions about the Scottish public's access to justice when complaining about solicitors, a subject beyond its formal remit. It said there was evidence that some Scottish consumers have found difficulty in finding another solicitor to represent them when they lodge malpractice claims.

The watchdog admitted it did not have enough evidence to prove collusion, but added: "In the absence of such evidence, we consider that the difficulties experienced by some legal services clients in gaining representation ought to be considered as an access to justice issue."


TYRANNY AND TERRORISM 13 Aug 2006


For anyone still not aware BUSH and BLAIR are tyrants.Both are members of evil devil worshipping sects who's ultimate goal is to create a NEW WORLD ORDER.

Bush is a member of the Skull and Bones club while Blair is a Bilderberger and both guests at the Bohemian club well known for its devil worshipping ceremonies.They have sworn oaths of allegiance to an evil self appointed elite regime the illuminati.Both may not look like your standard tyrant but that is a deliberate PLOY by the self appointed elite to have you believe these two criminals and terrorists have your best interests at heart.

Nothing could be further from the truth.Both of them and their huge entourage of hangers on are answerable ONLY to the elite who control them.When they talk of having to take away our freedoms to fight terrorism it is their coded way of saying that they have the latest technology in place ,including spy satellites to monitor us all from cradle to grave.

The first wave was the tapping of our phones (something they accused the Soviet union of doing many years ago) and monitoring our mail.The modern equivalent being email interception and cameras at every street corner. The second wave ,something they know society will be more resistant to are microchipping our bodies and installing tracking equipment in our cars.Hence the need to crank up the terrorist threats to bring in these evil gadgets and martial law something the USA already has been facing since 9/11 .

The people of the world need to waken up to the fact that those with these powers and control are determined to handcuff us with more of their technological toys to ensure they continue to dominate and exert total control on the enslaved citizens of this world.

THAT THEY WILL NOT GET AWAY WITH AS TO MANY OF US ARE AWARE OF THEIR PLANS FROM BEING VICTIMS OF THEIR CORRUPT SYSTEM.


ILLUMINATI TERRORISM CREATING WORLD CHAOS 13 Aug 2006


The devil worshipping masonic terrorists behind every MAJOR event throughout history, while controlling the bulk of the UK's and USA's media ,has created utter chaos throughout the world to continue their domination of an enslaved populous. Little of our history is documented about the devil worshipping cults who have dominated this planet for eons and it is their control of all publishing outlets that have allowed them to remain free of the NORMAL publicity that is acquired by anyone in a position of power.It is only thro the internet that finally their MASTER PLAN of the NEW WORLD ORDER can be exposed.

The centre of world domination can be pinpointed to Londons square mile,Israels supreme courts,Bohemian Grove and Yales Skull and bones society among others. Oaths of allegiance to these sinister groups have been sworn by anyone who seeks public office or has a position of power in UK or USA society.

NO ONE can reach the dizzy heights in any part of UK or USA society without FIRST taking their devil worshipping creepy and perverse oaths.They have bullied,persecuted and deviously controlled US ALL through a network of power so EVIL all other previously documented tyrannical control pales by comparison. It is for the VICTIMS of this system to alert and awaken the majority of the worlds population who have been brainwashed by the worlds media.Their domination MUST be fully exposed and all decent people must initiate steps to advance an alternative strategy to bring the devil worshipping gurus down before they can inflict any further damage on an already fragile world.

Please forward to ALL your contacts and pass any articles in a similar vein to them also.We are ONLY living in a dangerous world due to this evil controlling so called elite who in time cannot and will not succeed in their despicable plans.