THE HYPOCRACY OF THE UK LAW SOCIETY [UNION]
ASTONISHING | 12.10.2006 08:11 | Analysis | Indymedia | Repression | World
The Law Society behaves like a monopoly power and attempts to MUZZLE THE PRESS BY STEALTH THROUGH TECHNICAL TACTICS IN COURT !
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND THE LAW SOCIETY OF ENGLAND AND WALES, UK.
The end of the double jeapordy rule came about recently.
However, astonishingly, the Law Society of the United Kingdom is in court, fighting for court papers to be “gagged”.
The Law Society won their injunction which prevents the media from gaining access to documentation of any case .
On 5th October the Law Society won an extention of injunction for another 28 days to 2nd November2006.
The evidence in court documents includes proof by primary evidence and proof by secondary evidence .
The main reason why the public should have access to court documents lies in the fact that documents in possession of third parties might throw light as to full extent of disclosure. It brings transparency to the court system.
Is the Law Society of the United Kingdom muzzling the press, stopping them from conducting investigations into documents which might have been perjured or often compromised?
One reason for this application for an injunction is that the Law Society may be trying to hide the facts of the hundreds of solicitors and barristers in the United Kingdom who have been convicted of fraud and other criminal offences and the Law Society may be attempting to protecting certain cases from being picked over- cases such as
R v Philip John Lewis [2006]; R v Richard Dawson [2006];R v Simon Rutledge [2006]; R v Timothy Miles [2006]; R v Brian Dugan [2006]; R v Stephen Sulston Williams [2006]; R v Angela Baillie [2006]; R v Stephen Sulston [2006]; R v John Martin [2005]; R v Michael Fielding [2005];R v Christopher Savage [2005]; R v Calum Blyth [2005]; R v Nicholas Pounder [2005];
R v Philip Huxtable [2005];R v Carsten Iversen [2005]; R v Susan Davies [2005]; R v Marylena Shuti [2005] ; R v Chris Christodoulides [2005]R v John Ingram [2005]; R v Ricardo Nardi [2005]; R v David Andrew Gatherer [2005]; R v Ricardo Nardi [2005]R v Gary Beales [2005]; R v Nicholas
Pounder [2005]; R v Christopher Savage [2005]; R v Donald Haling [2005];R v Haydn James Dodge [2004]; R v Timothy Robinson [2004]; R v Richard Dighton [2004]; R v Douglas Allan [2004];
R v Gavin David McCarran [2004];R v Richard McCauley [2004]; R v Roan George Sea [2004];
R v Andrew Arsine [2004]; R v Michael Lee [2004]; R v Ricardo Nardi [2004]; R v Andrew Nicholls [2004];R v John Greenwood [2004];R v Peter Lyle Sharp [2004]; R v Ruperella [2004]; R v Harjit Sangha [2004]; R v Timothy Farrant [2004]; R v Jennifer Hampton [2004];R v Paul Winter Morris [2004];R v Jeremy Cave [2003]; R v Shirley Harrison [2003]; R v Jill Radford [2003];R v John Tate [2003]; R v Basin Mohamed [2002]; R v Louis GATT [2001]; R v Miles McNulty [2001]; R v Donald Pirie [2001]; R v Michael James Palmer [1999].
And hundreds more..
Where there is self-standing evidence, the privilege rule is waived , if only we could see the documents.
The United Kingdom is still a class-biased country and the solicitors and barristers of the United Kingdom are mostly still from the middle and upper classes.
It can be argued that they are only protecting themselves, as Dicey, the constitutional lawyer wrote
“Men legislate..not in accordance with their opinion as to what is a good law, but in accordance with their interest, and this..is emphatically true of classes as contrasted with individuals, and therefore of a country like England, where classes exert a far more potent control over the making of laws than can any single person..
So true is this, that from the inspection of the laws of a country it is often possible to conjecture.. what is the class which hold, or has held, predominant power at a given time”
The end of the double jeapordy rule came about recently.
However, astonishingly, the Law Society of the United Kingdom is in court, fighting for court papers to be “gagged”.
The Law Society won their injunction which prevents the media from gaining access to documentation of any case .
On 5th October the Law Society won an extention of injunction for another 28 days to 2nd November2006.
The evidence in court documents includes proof by primary evidence and proof by secondary evidence .
The main reason why the public should have access to court documents lies in the fact that documents in possession of third parties might throw light as to full extent of disclosure. It brings transparency to the court system.
Is the Law Society of the United Kingdom muzzling the press, stopping them from conducting investigations into documents which might have been perjured or often compromised?
One reason for this application for an injunction is that the Law Society may be trying to hide the facts of the hundreds of solicitors and barristers in the United Kingdom who have been convicted of fraud and other criminal offences and the Law Society may be attempting to protecting certain cases from being picked over- cases such as
R v Philip John Lewis [2006]; R v Richard Dawson [2006];R v Simon Rutledge [2006]; R v Timothy Miles [2006]; R v Brian Dugan [2006]; R v Stephen Sulston Williams [2006]; R v Angela Baillie [2006]; R v Stephen Sulston [2006]; R v John Martin [2005]; R v Michael Fielding [2005];R v Christopher Savage [2005]; R v Calum Blyth [2005]; R v Nicholas Pounder [2005];
R v Philip Huxtable [2005];R v Carsten Iversen [2005]; R v Susan Davies [2005]; R v Marylena Shuti [2005] ; R v Chris Christodoulides [2005]R v John Ingram [2005]; R v Ricardo Nardi [2005]; R v David Andrew Gatherer [2005]; R v Ricardo Nardi [2005]R v Gary Beales [2005]; R v Nicholas
Pounder [2005]; R v Christopher Savage [2005]; R v Donald Haling [2005];R v Haydn James Dodge [2004]; R v Timothy Robinson [2004]; R v Richard Dighton [2004]; R v Douglas Allan [2004];
R v Gavin David McCarran [2004];R v Richard McCauley [2004]; R v Roan George Sea [2004];
R v Andrew Arsine [2004]; R v Michael Lee [2004]; R v Ricardo Nardi [2004]; R v Andrew Nicholls [2004];R v John Greenwood [2004];R v Peter Lyle Sharp [2004]; R v Ruperella [2004]; R v Harjit Sangha [2004]; R v Timothy Farrant [2004]; R v Jennifer Hampton [2004];R v Paul Winter Morris [2004];R v Jeremy Cave [2003]; R v Shirley Harrison [2003]; R v Jill Radford [2003];R v John Tate [2003]; R v Basin Mohamed [2002]; R v Louis GATT [2001]; R v Miles McNulty [2001]; R v Donald Pirie [2001]; R v Michael James Palmer [1999].
And hundreds more..
Where there is self-standing evidence, the privilege rule is waived , if only we could see the documents.
The United Kingdom is still a class-biased country and the solicitors and barristers of the United Kingdom are mostly still from the middle and upper classes.
It can be argued that they are only protecting themselves, as Dicey, the constitutional lawyer wrote
“Men legislate..not in accordance with their opinion as to what is a good law, but in accordance with their interest, and this..is emphatically true of classes as contrasted with individuals, and therefore of a country like England, where classes exert a far more potent control over the making of laws than can any single person..
So true is this, that from the inspection of the laws of a country it is often possible to conjecture.. what is the class which hold, or has held, predominant power at a given time”
ASTONISHING
Comments
Display the following 2 comments