First there was Dunblane and the huge outcry about gun control,now the issue concerns knifes.If we had a UK government and legal system protecting us ,gun and knife control would be considered not an unreasonable thing for a state to want to limit .The problem, reaction solution system used for centuries by dictators now in daily use by the UK mobsters running our country. However as happened with Hitlers mob, the disarming of a nation leds to the rise of fascist dictators who KNOW that when you disarm a countries citizens it is very much easier to control and distribute the wealth more unevenly to the point of a corrupt state STEALING off its own people.The masonic controllers are running rife in the UK causing utter chaos while their masonic mafia brothers running the legal system are using the courts to steal our assets on a GRAND SCALE.

One way to ensure this goes on without proper detection is to CONTROL the output of the media.We see day in day out the UTTER RUBBISH pumped out by our media and especially by the BBC which shows a dire complicity with backing up and supporting a POLICE STATE. The POLICE are not taking action against white collar masonic criminals but of the general public who demand protection.The legal system requires large amounts of petty criminals to prop up the judges,lawyers ,police ,social workers and the other hangers on who are an ever increasing dynasty of families who leech off the bottomless pit of public money squandered by the crooked paper shufflers disguised as honorable legal advisers.The biggest drain on the resources of the UK's economy is the depth this country has to dig into its pocket to keep these people in the lifestyles they think they deserve while keeping the rest of the population in poverty , up to their necks in debts or dependent on the state for a pittance the ones most likely to be forced into some form of criminal activity. What is going on bears all the hallmarks of the rise of the Third Reich except they only keep a limited amount of the countries population within the system to stifle TOTAL resistance to the crooks at the helm of all this corruption.Chief constables playing a major part in that ESTABLISHMENT corruption.

It is not for the people to fear the government but for the government to FEAR its people ,disarming the population makes it easier for the crooks to remain plundering our lives.How much longer can the UK plunge into the depths it is until the VOLCANO of public anger spills onto the streets of the UK .That is what is presently being curtailed by the use of draconian powers under state terrorism laws. The REAL TERRORISTS are those dominating and abusing its powers in courts up and down the length and breadth of the UK and sanctioned by MEDIA propaganda.



Divorce ruling delivers

Given that judges in England and Wales exercise considerable discretion in assessing the division of assets in contested divorces, the Law Lords ruling was badly needed. Now, a legal template has been established to guide future settlements. Three elements have to be considered:

Need - which is the maintenance cost of running a home and supporting a family

Contribution - which is what a party brings to a marriage to create joint wealth

Compensation - which is the amount required for financial redress to a party who is disadvantaged as a result of the marriage break-up

One factor which is explicitly ruled out of any calculation in high earning marriages is what has been called "legitimate expectation". This is the belief that entering the union should guarantee future wealth or economic wellbeing. In his lead judgment, Lord Nicholls said "hope and expectations are not an appropriate basis on which to assess financial needs." He also squashes the idea - which had provoked considerable interest and speculation in the case of the Millers - that the size of a settlement should be influenced by the conduct of either party.

The Appeal Court had taken Mr Miller's adultery into account in awarding his wife a 5m settlement. Lord Nicholls says this approach is "erroneous" and remarks that "some highly experienced judges are beginning to depart from the criterion laid down by Parliament."

This admonition will be keenly felt by the lower judiciary and means that, only in circumstances where one party's behaviour is "obvious and gross" (in the words of a previous ruling ) should it be considered in dividing the spoils. In overturning the Appeal Court's ruling in the case of the McFarlanes, the Law Lords set out clear principles for determining "periodical" payments when there are insufficient assets to fund a clean-break settlement. The lower court limited the payment, of 250,000 a year, to a five-year period. Lord Nicholls says that the Appeal judges seem "not to have had the distinction between needs and compensation in mind."


In other words, Julia McFarlane was entitled to a lifetime award not merely for maintenance but also to compensate her for the financial disparity suffered in the marriage break-up. Divorce lawyer Helen Marriott called it an "exciting and ground-breaking" judgment and predicted that it would lead to a rise in demand for pre-nuptial agreements - even though they are not legally binding. It is certainly one of the most comprehensive judgments issued by the Law Lords - with opinions being given by four of their lordships. One, Lady Hale, a former chair of the Law Commission, lays down a set of general principles. Another law lord, Lord Hope, specifically examines the position of Scottish law and suggests that the practice of awarding periodic allowances for a maximum of three years is in need of reform.


McKie case opens door to hundreds of appeals, claims QC

Hundreds of prisoners convicted on fingerprint evidence may have grounds for appeal as a result of the Holyrood hearing into the Shirley McKie case, a QC claimed yesterday. Maggie Scott, chair of the Faculty of Advocates Criminal Bar Association, said there seemed to be a systematic failure by the Scottish Criminal Records Office (SCRO) and the Crown Office to tell defendants when fingerprint identifications had been disputed.

Last year a landmark ruling by the Privy Council said that failure to disclose information amounted to a breach of human rights and hence grounds for appeal. Ms Scott was speaking in light of evidence given to Holyrood's Justice 1 committee on Tuesday by Hugh Kelly, the head of the SCRO in the late 1990s. The committee is looking at how the SCRO and its fingerprint service dealt with Ms McKie, the former Strathclyde police officer wrongly accused of intruding on a murder scene in 1997 after a print was incorrectly identified as hers by four SCRO experts. During Tuesday's session, Mr Kelly said if there had been dissent among SCRO experts about a print's identity, a "case conference" was held by a senior expert and three or four others. Asked by Alex Neil, the SNP MSP, if the Crown would be informed about such dissent, Mr Kelly said: "I would expect not." Mr Kelly said that, so long as a senior expert was confident of an identification, prints were passed as evidence to the Crown.

He also said it was possible SCRO officers may hold numerous meetings with different experts until there was a consensus. Ms Scott said it was astonishing that defendants were not told if fingerprints used against them were disputed within the SCRO. She told The Herald: "There could now be a whole range of cases that might have to be looked at." She said uncertainty over how the SCRO identified fingerprints was one of the most compelling reasons for holding a full public inquiry into the McKie case, something the Scottish Executive have so far resisted. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service said it would not comment on evidence as it emerged during the inquiry.


It was noticable on tuesday 23 May 2006 at the evidence gathering in the Scottish Parliament in relation to the new bill regarding a new process to regulate lawyers that after the Law Society brokers Marsh and their insurers Sun Alliance had finished giving evidence the PRESS and TV got up and left .Not one remained to listen to the VICTIMS of this horrific system and we now have absolute proof that the Law Society have almost total control of the media thro their media lawyers sitting vetting stories .

It is ultimately the failures of the Scottish press, a few small exceptions aside ,that are the cause of the rampage taking place against the Scottish people by an evil and corrupt group controlling Scottish law . They have an all to COSY relationship with the owners and editors and the PRESS are now thro our links over the internet being EXPOSED every day as being as ruthless by failing to publish the harrowing stories caused by the massive land and property theft taking place in our once proud land.



Archives of yesterday hearings at Scottish Parliament regarding new bill on lawyer complaints go to 2.54 minutes for victims evidence and 2.08 minutes also.§ion=22&title=Justice+2

minutes of ALL meetings at


Long term exposure to watching the BBC could leave you believing

1. That ALL men are prone to wife beating ,child abuse and rape.

2. UK judges are honest and have probity

3. The UK has a democracy

4. That the BBC is unbiased ,honest and has integrity

5. That the internet is bad for humanity and especially children.

6. That UK royalty are angelic and above the law

7. That there is no widespread fraud and corruption in our law enforcement and courts

8. There is no widespread land and property theft by banks and corrupt thieving lawyers

9.That it is credit card abuse that is the cause of bankruptcies and nothing to do with litigation instigation by a corrupt UK legal system and huge legal fees imposed on anyone who has their own home even if they dont want involved in that process and against their wishes

10.The establishment masonic controllers dont have anything to do with BBC news output

11.That the BBC programs aren't actually BBC programming and propaganda

12.That the BBC always stands up for the little guy against the state.

13.The BBC is not the mouthpiece for the Law Societies of Scotland,England ,Wales and Ireland.

14.That the BBC investigative reporters are never swayed by police and court press releases about criminal hearings in UK courts.The BBC always have journalists in our civil courts when massive land and property fraud is taking place disguised as UK LAW.

15. The BBC always take the view of the victims and dont SPIN stories and meticulously gather information from victims ensuring a balanced view of incidents are published.

16.The BBC governors are hand picked from working class backgrounds and council estates throughout the UK

17.All BBC senior positions are filled with people from deprived backgrounds to ensure the poor and underpriviledged are properly respected and protected by the UK's public broadcaster

18.The BBC never threaten or drag through the courts poor underpriviledged families for not paying an illegal tax for a (supposed)public broadcaster.Even if they dont want to watch the programs.

19.The BBC always shrewdly spend licence payers money on sending their reporters minimum distances to UK courts ensuring they uphold human rights legislation and NEVER send their reporters at huge expense to third world countries to selectively pick on their governments human rights abuses to allow the UK and USA governments to move in and FIX those abuses.

20. The BBC NEVER bully their staff particularly journalists in their newsrooms to distort the news ensuring the UK public remain permanently bamboozled with lies ,deceit and new world order propaganda.

BBC Big Brother Censorship

Bias lawyer on law reform committee 3 May 2006

J2 committee bats away concern over bias of adviser on reforms

The Scottish Parliament's Justice 2 committee has brushed aside calls for it to dump Margaret Ross as adviser on controversial and bitterly contested legislation overhauling the regulation of legal services. A spokesman insisted the Aberdeen University academic is the right person to counsel MSPs, choose witnesses and brief on policy, despite allegations that her independence is seriously compromised. The Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill proposes to strip the right of the nation's 10,000 lawyers to police themselves and also seeks to increase access to justice by abolishing the lawyers' monopoly over paid advocacy rights. Committee hearings on the bill began last week. Ross, it has emerged, gave evidence to predecessor committee Justice 1 in 2002 opposing key reforms which the present bill advocates. One MSP dubbed her "an unashamed advocate of self-regulation", an assertion Ross did not deny.

Even more concerning, perhaps, is the fact that Ross is a senior Law Society of Scotland functionary and until recently sat on two of its committees, including the Access to Justice committee. The Herald noted a fortnight ago that none of the bodies which favour ending the lawyers' monopoly over paid advocacy rights has been invited to address the committee the Office of Fair Trading, the Association of Commercial Attorneys and the professional body representing patent agents. The committee says that the decision not to include them on the list of witnesses was made before Ross came on board. Ross's appointment is particularly sensitive given the society's carefully choreographed media assault on the new bill. The Edinburgh-based body fired its latest salvo last week by issuing a report commissioned from governance expert Professor David McCrone, alleging that the proposals to overhaul regulation could prove a "costly hammer to crack a nut". Significantly, and presumably at the society's behest, McCrone set out to undermine analysis of the consultation which gave rise to the bill, showing that a vast majority of respondents favour independent regulation. The society declined to disclose how much of its members' money was spent on McCrone's report and an earlier and equally savage critique by English QC Lord Lester of Herne Hill.

Last December the society apparently underwent a Damascene conversion, coming out in favour of an independent body to handle complaints about poor service by solicitors after years of trenchant opposition. Recent developments suggest this was a tactical retreat than a genuine restatement of principle. For the society to have Ross "on the inside" in such a difficult political context appears to some, including former SNP leader John Swinney, as inappropriate at the very least. Back in February Scottish Tory leader Annabel Goldie stepped down from justice 2 because her membership of the Law Society clashed with the committee inquiry. Ross appears exempt from such considerations, even though the adviser's job description stressed that he or she "must be able to advise the committee dispassionately" and "should not be involved in any capacity that would compromise his or her ability to act". Independent MSP Margo MacDonald is another politician concerned that Ross does not meet these criteria. She plans to raise the matter tomorrow with the parliament's business bureau, which is responsible for making committee appointments. Macdonald said: "It states quite clearly in the adviser's contract terms that impartial and objective advice has to be given to the committee. It's ironic that we are talking about the justice committee when clearly justice must be seen to be done. It is very difficult for someone to plead objectivity when that person has gone on record so decisively in favour of one side of the argument, and this compromises the open-minded approach which the committee is required to adopt."

As far as Justice 2 is concerned, it appears to be a question of hats. In a statement, a spokesman for the new convenor David Davidson MSP, said: "Ross gave evidence to the former J1 Committee as an independent academic expert. As such she was expressly asked to give her personal view on the issue of how best to regulate the legal profession. Her involvement in the J2 Committee scrutiny of the Bill is as an adviser, which is a very different role. As set out in the adviser specification, the adviser will advise dispassionately on the basis of available evidence without seeking to persuade it of any particular outcome or approach that he or she may favour. "Mrs Ross was not involved in the Committee's selection of initial witnesses for the Bill as her appointment took place after the Committee had agreed the witnesses for these sessions. As previously advised, the Committee will consider the written evidence received in early May and will decide then whether to seek any further oral evidence. To date the Committee has received over 600 submissions from both organisations and individuals, including the Office of Fair Trading and the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys. A Scottish Parliament spokesman said: "While the Committee may receive advice from Margaret Ross, it is for Committee members to decide who to call for oral evidence and what questions to ask of witnesses. The Justice 2 Committee members were aware of Mrs Ross's Law Society interests at the time of her appointment and her undertaking to cease any involvement in the Society's Access to Justice Committee."

Lawyers battle watchdog proposal 3 May 2006

The Scottish legal establishment will today mount a concerted attack on plans to end centuries of self-regulation and create an independent complaints body. The Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, the Scottish Legal Action Group, and the Scottish Law Agents Society will warn MSPs of serious flaws in proposals for a Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. The commission, which will have a non-lawyer chairperson and a non-lawyer majority on its board, will be charged with investigating all unresolved complaints about lawyers providing a bad service. Funded by a levy on the profession, the commission will be able to order solicitors and advocates to pay up to 20,000 compensation to clients four times the current maximum.

Complaints about professional misconduct, such as embezzling money from clients, will still be policed by the profession. The reforms have been praised by ministers and the Scottish Consumer Council as a way of restoring public confidence in the way complaints are handled. The dispute will be raised today when senior figures give evidence to Holyrood's Justice 2 committee, which is scrutinising the bill . The Law Society of Scotland, which represents the country's 11,800 solicitors, describes the commission as "a direct threat to the rule of law". Because board will be appointed by ministers, the body will not be independent of government, but "a cipher for the Scottish Executive a government controlled quango," it is claimed. Besides being "slow, rule-based, bureaucratic and expensive," the society says the commission threatens the independence of the legal profession. It also says the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill breaches European human rights law, as a commission decision cannot be appealed to the Court of Session, instead being subject to internal review. The society claims firms will be reluctant to offer pro bono or low-cost legal aid work in case it results in a complaint possibly fraudulent to the commission, turning some deprived communities into "advice deserts".

The Faculty of Advocates, representing 744 QCs, rejected the idea it was "soft" on disciplining its members and said political appointees were "an unjustified intrusion by the state into the independence of the legal profession". With its non-lawyer majority, the commission will lack the legal experience to adjudicate on complaints, while its nine commissioners and 60 staff will make it more expensive than the current system, the faculty complained. The Scottish Law Agents Society, the largest voluntary association of solicitors, warned the system could become "a claimant's bonanza", with clients risking nothing to complain and lawyers running up large bills, on top of their levy, to defend themselves.

Bureaucracy, cuts in pro bono work and breaches of human rights law were also flagged up by the Scottish Legal Aid Group. Last night the Scottish Executive said ministers and Holyrood's presiding officer had determined the bill was EU-compliant. A contrary legal opinion obtained by the Law Society was being considered by the executive, a spokeswoman said. She added: "It is in the interest of consumers that complaints be dealt with in an informal and expeditious way."