LYING 'YUMAN RIGHTS' SOLICITOR ........

[RogerC]

The campaigning human rights lawyer Phil Shiner has been struck off as a solicitor after he was found guilty of multiple professional misconduct charges, including dishonesty and lack of integrity.

PIL was instrumental in passing on about 65% of the 3,392 allegations received by Ihat, which now has fewer than 250 active investigations.

The tribunal found Shiner found guilty of 22 misconduct charges. They were proved to the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Two other charges were left to lie on the file.

This lying manipulative scum had no compunction in furthering his own standing and the financial gain of his company....Public Interest Lawyers (PIL)....irrespective of the distress and trauma not to mention reputation and safety of those troops involved and those who were currently serving in Iraq as the backlash grew.

“His misconduct has caused real distress to soldiers, their families and to the families of Iraqi people who thought that their loved ones had been murdered or tortured...............

I sincerely trust the full weight of the law is brought to bear against this despicable individual and he resides at 'Her Majesty's Pleasure' for a great many years.

 

[antony1969]

Seconded ... Disgusting low life that tarnished the names of real heroes ... Lock Him Up ... Lock Him Up

[Guest pelmetman]

RogerC - 2017-02-02 7:17 PMI sincerely trust the full weight of the law is brought to bear against this despicable individual and he resides at 'Her Majesty's Pleasure' for a great many years.

 

One would hope justice will be done........I wont hold my breath *-) .........

[John52]

Does anyone know exactly what he did?

The TV report I saw was very short on facts. All it said was he touted for business encouraging people to make personal injury claims (against the MOD). But thats something we see on TV every day in civvy street. Which made me wonder why those lawyers are still in business (or moving on to become lying politicians) and he got locked up?

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-02-04 10:14 AMDoes anyone know exactly what he did?The TV report I saw was very short on facts. All it said was he touted for business encouraging people to make personal injury claims (against the MOD). But thats something we see on TV every day in civvy street. Which made me wonder why those lawyers are still in business (or moving on to become lying politicians) and he got locked up?

Should you care to carry out some research you will find he paid people in Iraq to 'obtain' evidence against UK soldiers in relation to torture and then brought 'false' charges against those soldiers.  One case in particular cost the tax payer....us...you....me  etc etc £30 million.....

In addition I don't recall it being common place to pursue false claims of torture etc besmirching the good name of our Armed Forces.....This scum brought approximately 2200 of the 3400 allegations to the legal table.  However in light of investigations and other issues regarding false claims and accusations there are fewer than 250 active investigations which have been tabled by a variety of sources.

For example:

The campaigning human rights lawyer Phil Shiner has been struck off as a solicitor after he was found guilty of multiple professional misconduct charges, including dishonesty and lack of integrity.

Shiner claimed UK soldiers had captured, tortured and murdered innocent Iraqi civilians after the Battle of Danny Boy near Amara in 2004.  A 2014 report by the al-Sweady inquiry demonstrated that those who died had been members of the Mahdi army militia, who ambushed a British patrol and were killed in exchanges of gunfire. 

Shiner was sole director and 100% shareholder of PIL. The firm closed down in August after being stripped of legal aid funding for breaching contractual requirements.

Phil Shiner made soldiers’ lives a misery by pursuing false claims of torture and murder – 

More than £30m of public funds were spent on investigating what proved to be false and dishonest allegations.

Is that sufficient evidence and detail as to what this despicable individual has done.....all in the pursuit of money??

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-02-04 2:11 PM

 

Is that sufficient evidence and detail as to what this despicable individual has done.....all in the pursuit of money??

 

Yes I think so. Sounds like he got what he deserved

Just seems unusual for a layer to go to jail for it. I guess a lot more than £30m has been spent on false personal injury or libel claims and I don't recall lawyers going to prison for it. More likely to go to the House of Commons or Lords?

Incidentally, statistically members of the armed forces are the most likely to beat their wife or go to prison. But I don't recall you starting a thread about that?

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-02-04 3:02 PM

RogerC - 2017-02-04 2:11 PMIs that sufficient evidence and detail as to what this despicable individual has done.....all in the pursuit of money??

Yes I think so. Sounds like he got what he deservedJust seems unusual for a layer to go to jail for it. I guess a lot more than £30m has been spent on false personal injury or libel claims and I don't recall lawyers going to prison for it. More likely to go to the House of Commons or Lords?Incidentally, statistically members of the armed forces are the most likely to beat their wife or go to prison. But I don't recall you starting a thread about that?

You just can't resist it can you.....any opportunity no matter how tenuous the 'link'? Seems you and Shiner might have something in common......any cheap opportunity to besmirch our Armed Forces.

Like I have said before.....some people are not deserving of the freedoms they enjoy on the backs of others sacrifices.

[Archiesgrandad]

Maybe the solution to the John 52 problem would be for us all to decline to respond to the insufferable ranting of this individual when he spoils otherwise interesting and enjoyable banter.

AGD

[RogerC]

Archiesgrandad - 2017-02-04 8:32 PMMaybe the solution to the John 52 problem would be for us all to decline to respond to the insufferable ranting of this individual when he spoils otherwise interesting and enjoyable banter.AGD

Agreed.....though being ex military myself I do find it rather difficult to ignore those insufferable, ungrateful, provocational comments.  However I will try.  :-)

[John52]

Archiesgrandad - 2017-02-04 8:32 PM

 

Maybe the solution to the John 52 problem would be for us all to decline to respond to the insufferable ranting of this individual when he spoils otherwise interesting and enjoyable banter.

AGD

 

I am looking at the posts on this thread before mine. Can you please point out what you see as 'enjoyable banter?'

 

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-02-04 9:09 PM

being ex military myself

 

I'd never have guessed ;-)

Seriously this is a general forum where you get a wide range of views. If you only want to hear from people who share your views you might be happier on a military forum?

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2017-02-04 9:37 PM

 

RogerC - 2017-02-04 9:09 PM

being ex military myself

 

I'd never have guessed ;-)

Seriously this is a general forum where you get a wide range of views. If you only want to hear from people who share your views you might be happier on a military forum?

 

Including from those whos views are in a minority ;-) ...........and getting smaller :D .........

[John52]

pelmetman - 2017-02-04 10:33 PM

Including from those whos views are in a minority ;-) ...........and getting smaller :D .........

 

Thats what Her Majesty's Hangers on always say. But they won't risk an election. They still make sure she and all her hangers on are forced on to her subjects without allowing them a vote.

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2017-02-05 9:03 AM

 

pelmetman - 2017-02-04 10:33 PM

Including from those whos views are in a minority ;-) ...........and getting smaller :D .........

 

Thats what Her Majesty's Hangers on always say. But they won't risk an election. They still make sure she and all her hangers on are forced on to her subjects without allowing them a vote.

 

Life must be wonderful in cloud cuckoo land.........No doubt you expect Corbyn to win the next election? ;-) ..........

 

 

[John52]

pelmetman - 2017-02-05 10:20 AM

 

Life must be wonderful in cloud cuckoo land.........No doubt you expect Corbyn to win the next election? ;-) ..........

 

Maybe not. But I think Blair took the Labour party into the same space as the Tory party, (which got him the support of the Establishment Media and helped him get elected). Corbyn is taking the Labour party back to its roots to give people a real choice again. So I think if any (Blairite) Labour MPs don't support Corbyn in that they should leave and join the Tory party instead of pretending to be something they are not.

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2017-02-05 11:02 AM

 

pelmetman - 2017-02-05 10:20 AM

 

Life must be wonderful in cloud cuckoo land.........No doubt you expect Corbyn to win the next election? ;-) ..........

 

Maybe not. But I think Blair took the Labour party into the same space as the Tory party, (which got him the support of the Establishment Media and helped him get elected). Corbyn is taking the Labour party back to its roots to give people a real choice again. So I think if any (Blairite) Labour MPs don't support Corbyn in that they should leave and join the Tory party instead of pretending to be something they are not.

 

.......and Corbyns Labour represents the working man? 8-) ..........

 

 

[John52]

pelmetman - 2017-02-05 11:15 AM

 

.......and Corbyns Labour represents the working man? 8-) ..........

 

 

Yes I think Corbyn represents more peple than the Tory party - who primarily represent Landlords and their inherited unearned wealth. Most people don't really understand how they are being screwed by the system. Over the last 30 years the Government has been reducing the most visible taxes like income tax and especially inheritance tax, replacing it with stealth taxes like VAT and most recently Osborne's Insurance Premium tax.

 

Lloyd George said it best in 1909.

"What is the landlord's increment? Who is the landlord? The landlord is a gentleman - I have not a word to say about him in his personal capacity - the landlord is a gentleman who does not earn his wealth. He does not even take the trouble to receive his wealth. He has a host of agents and clerks to receive it for him. He does not even take the trouble to spend his wealth. He has a host of people around him to do the actual spending for him. He never sees it until he comes to enjoy it. His sole function, his chief pride, is stately consumption of wealth produced by others. What about the doctor's income? How does the doctor earn his income? The doctor is a man who visits our homes when they are darkened with the shadow of death: who, by his skill, his trained courage, his genius, wrings hope out of the grip of despair, wins life out of the fangs of the Great Destroyer. All blessings upon him and his divine art of healing that mends bruised bodies and anxious hearts. To compare the reward which he gets for that labour with the wealth which pours into the pockets of the landlord purely owing to the possession of his monopoly is a piece - if they will forgive me for saying so - of insolence which no intelligent man would tolerate. Now that is the halfpenny tax on unearned increment. This system is not business, it is blackmail

Now I come to the reversion tax. What is the reversion tax? You have got a system in the country which is not tolerated in any other country of the world, except, I believe, Turkey; the system whereby landlords take advantage of the fact that they have got complete control over the land to let it for a term of years, spend money upon it in building, in developing it. You improve the building, and year by year the value passes into the pockets of the landlord, and at the end of sixty, seventy, eighty or ninety years the whole of it passes away to the pockets of a man who never spent a penny upon it.

Look at all this leasehold system. This system - it is the system I am attacking, not individuals - is not business, it is blackmail. I have no doubt some of you have taken the trouble to peruse some of these leases, and they are really worth reading, and I will guarantee that if you circulate copies of some of these building and mining leases at Tariff Reform meetings, and if you can get workmen at those meetings and the business men to read them, they will come away sadder but much wiser men. What are they? Ground rent is a part of it - fines, fees; you are to make no alteration without somebody's consent. Who is that somebody? It is the agent of the landlord. A fee to him. You must submit the plans to the landlords architect and get his consent. There is a fee to him. There is a fee to the surveyor; and then, of course, you cannot keep the lawyer out - he always comes in. And a fee to him. Well, that is the system, and the landlords come to us in the House of Commons and they say: If you go on taxing reversions we will grant no more leases? Is not that horrible? No more leases! No more kindly landlords with all their retinue of good fairies - agents, surveyors, lawyers - ready always to receive ground rents, fees, premiums, fines, reversions - no more, never again! They will not do it. We cannot persuade them. They wont have it. The landlord has threatened us that if we proceed with the Budget he will take his sack clean away from the hopper, and the grain which we are all grinding our best to fill his sack will go into our own. Oh, I cannot believe it. There is a limit even to the wrath of outraged landlords. We must really appease them; we must offer up some sacrifice to them. Suppose we offer the House of Lords to them? Well, you seem rather to agree with that. I will make the suggestion to them. I say their day of reckoning is at hand."

 

Lloyd George's plans to impose a land tax were foiled by the landowners in the House of Lords. A hundred years later the wealth of the great landowners has become even more obscene. The policy of both New Labour and Tories has been to restrict housing supply to inflate prices for the landlords' benefit. They have left a string of loopholes to avoid inheritance tax and the Tories want to do away with it altogether - they would rather tax poor mans earned income than rich mans unearned income. Now we are seeing it extended further with even detached houses being sold leasehold without the hapless buyers realising what leasehold really means!!! Salesmen disguise it by calling it 'virtual freehold' People are led to believe they are buying the house and land but they are not!! It still belongs to someone else who will control it and charge more rent on it!! They are just paying a lot of of the rent up front!!! It's a gigantic conspiracy against the people of Britain and it's time to bring the whole edifice crashing down.

[Guest pelmetman]

Would you say this crowd is a shining example of soclalist liaring John? ........oops I mean lawyering >:-) .......

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4194422/I-sinister-agenda-shark-smeared-troops.html

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2017-02-05 11:33 AM

 

pelmetman - 2017-02-05 11:15 AM

 

.......and Corbyns Labour represents the working man? 8-) ..........

 

 

Yes I think Corbyn represents more peple than the Tory party - who primarily represent Landlords and their inherited unearned wealth. Most people don't really understand how they are being screwed by the system. Over the last 30 years the Government has been reducing the most visible taxes like income tax and especially inheritance tax, replacing it with stealth taxes like VAT and most recently Osborne's Insurance Premium tax.

 

Lloyd George said it best in 1909.

"What is the landlord's increment? Who is the landlord? The landlord is a gentleman - I have not a word to say about him in his personal capacity - the landlord is a gentleman who does not earn his wealth. He does not even take the trouble to receive his wealth. He has a host of agents and clerks to receive it for him. He does not even take the trouble to spend his wealth. He has a host of people around him to do the actual spending for him. He never sees it until he comes to enjoy it. His sole function, his chief pride, is stately consumption of wealth produced by others. What about the doctor's income? How does the doctor earn his income? The doctor is a man who visits our homes when they are darkened with the shadow of death: who, by his skill, his trained courage, his genius, wrings hope out of the grip of despair, wins life out of the fangs of the Great Destroyer. All blessings upon him and his divine art of healing that mends bruised bodies and anxious hearts. To compare the reward which he gets for that labour with the wealth which pours into the pockets of the landlord purely owing to the possession of his monopoly is a piece - if they will forgive me for saying so - of insolence which no intelligent man would tolerate. Now that is the halfpenny tax on unearned increment. This system is not business, it is blackmail

Now I come to the reversion tax. What is the reversion tax? You have got a system in the country which is not tolerated in any other country of the world, except, I believe, Turkey; the system whereby landlords take advantage of the fact that they have got complete control over the land to let it for a term of years, spend money upon it in building, in developing it. You improve the building, and year by year the value passes into the pockets of the landlord, and at the end of sixty, seventy, eighty or ninety years the whole of it passes away to the pockets of a man who never spent a penny upon it.

Look at all this leasehold system. This system - it is the system I am attacking, not individuals - is not business, it is blackmail. I have no doubt some of you have taken the trouble to peruse some of these leases, and they are really worth reading, and I will guarantee that if you circulate copies of some of these building and mining leases at Tariff Reform meetings, and if you can get workmen at those meetings and the business men to read them, they will come away sadder but much wiser men. What are they? Ground rent is a part of it - fines, fees; you are to make no alteration without somebody's consent. Who is that somebody? It is the agent of the landlord. A fee to him. You must submit the plans to the landlords architect and get his consent. There is a fee to him. There is a fee to the surveyor; and then, of course, you cannot keep the lawyer out - he always comes in. And a fee to him. Well, that is the system, and the landlords come to us in the House of Commons and they say: If you go on taxing reversions we will grant no more leases? Is not that horrible? No more leases! No more kindly landlords with all their retinue of good fairies - agents, surveyors, lawyers - ready always to receive ground rents, fees, premiums, fines, reversions - no more, never again! They will not do it. We cannot persuade them. They wont have it. The landlord has threatened us that if we proceed with the Budget he will take his sack clean away from the hopper, and the grain which we are all grinding our best to fill his sack will go into our own. Oh, I cannot believe it. There is a limit even to the wrath of outraged landlords. We must really appease them; we must offer up some sacrifice to them. Suppose we offer the House of Lords to them? Well, you seem rather to agree with that. I will make the suggestion to them. I say their day of reckoning is at hand."

 

Lloyd George's plans to impose a land tax were foiled by the landowners in the House of Lords. A hundred years later the wealth of the great landowners has become even more obscene. The policy of both New Labour and Tories has been to restrict housing supply to inflate prices for the landlords' benefit. They have left a string of loopholes to avoid inheritance tax and the Tories want to do away with it altogether - they would rather tax poor mans earned income than rich mans unearned income. Now we are seeing it extended further with even detached houses being sold leasehold without the hapless buyers realising what leasehold really means!!! Salesmen disguise it by calling it 'virtual freehold' People are led to believe they are buying the house and land but they are not!! It still belongs to someone else who will control it and charge more rent on it!! They are just paying a lot of of the rent up front!!! It's a gigantic conspiracy against the people of Britain and it's time to bring the whole edifice crashing down.

 

I hope to be a landlord once again John, although I doubt I'd fit Lloyd Georges description, just as the bulk of UK landlords don't :-| ............Although its surprising how many of your champagne socialists seem to enjoy the trappings of wealth, and how many rush to don the ermine and get into the House of Lords after bitching about the place for years *-) ..........

 

Labour no more represents the working classes..........UKIP has more in common with your average blue collar worker than Corbyn >:-) ..........The only thing Labours got on its side is inertia

 

;-)

[John52]

pelmetman - 2017-02-06 1:35 PM

 

Although its surprising how many of your champagne socialists seem to enjoy the trappings of wealth, and how many rush to don the ermine and get into the House of Lords after bitching about the place for years *-) ..........

;-)

 

My champagne socialists *-)

Except they are not mine and they are not socialists. Anyone can call themseves a socialist, doesn't mean they are one. Blair posed as a socialist but was little different to Thatcher, and now his supporters are trying to put the skids under Corbyn.

Gideon (George) Osborne was arguably a socialist, but his form of socialism was only for landowners. *-)

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2017-02-06 2:43 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-02-06 1:35 PM

 

Although its surprising how many of your champagne socialists seem to enjoy the trappings of wealth, and how many rush to don the ermine and get into the House of Lords after bitching about the place for years *-) ..........

;-)

 

My champagne socialists *-)

Except they are not mine and they are not socialists. Anyone can call themseves a socialist, doesn't mean they are one. Blair posed as a socialist but was little different to Thatcher, and now his supporters are trying to put the skids under Corbyn.

Gideon (George) Osborne was arguably a socialist, but his form of socialism was only for landowners. *-)

 

Take away the champagne socialists and you're just left with the loony left, who are quite happy for open door migration to continue to take the jobs of the British working class.......another vote winner there eh? >:-) .........

 

 

[John52]

pelmetman - 2017-02-06 5:03 PM

the loony left, who are quite happy for open door migration to continue to take the jobs of the British working class.......another vote winner there eh? >:-) .........

 

 

It isn't the 'loony left' who have let them all in because they haven't been in power.

The 'loony right' have let them all in because unfettered immigration drives down workers wages and drives up house prices for landlords, both of which certainly seem to suit the Blatcherites, and probably some in UKIP too. I realise thats not what they say, but then politicians sometimes say one thing and do another Like Farage who seems to have got a shock when he got elected, and scarpered because he realised he can't deliver what he promised. It was easier for him to criticise others from the sidelines, than to do better himself.

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2017-02-07 9:29 AM

 

pelmetman - 2017-02-06 5:03 PM

the loony left, who are quite happy for open door migration to continue to take the jobs of the British working class.......another vote winner there eh? >:-) .........

 

 

It isn't the 'loony left' who have let them all in because they haven't been in power.

The 'loony right' have let them all in because unfettered immigration drives down workers wages and drives up house prices for landlords, both of which certainly seem to suit the Blatcherites, and probably some in UKIP too. I realise thats not what they say, but then politicians sometimes say one thing and do another Like Farage who seems to have got a shock when he got elected, and scarpered because he realised he can't deliver what he promised. It was easier for him to criticise others from the sidelines, than to do better himself.

 

So the loony left don't want to keep open door migration? ;-) .............Why are they protesting about Brexit then? :D ............

 

 

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-02-07 9:29 AM

pelmetman - 2017-02-06 5:03 PM the loony left, who are quite happy for open door migration to continue to take the jobs of the British working class.......another vote winner there eh? >:-) .........

It isn't the 'loony left' who have let them all in because they haven't been in power.The 'loony right' have let them all in because unfettered immigration drives down workers wages and drives up house prices for landlords, both of which certainly seem to suit the Blatcherites, and probably some in UKIP too. I realise thats not what they say, but then politicians sometimes say one thing and do another Like Farage who seems to have got a shock when he got elected, and scarpered because he realised he can't deliver what he promised. It was easier for him to criticise others from the sidelines, than to do better himself.

Another totally untrue statement from the resident 'knocker'....

In the interests of 'truth' one might like to read and digest what the looniest of 'Left' actually did to ruin the country through mass uncontrolled immigration:.........extracts from various sources 'including' New Labour, The Observer, Telegraph and Migration Watch ........but I suppose there will always be those who won't let the truth get in the way of yet an other lame excuse to have yet another unsubstantiated whinge....

Lord Mandelson admitted: “In 2004 when as a Labour government, we were not only welcoming people to come into this country to work, we were sending out search parties for people and encouraging them, in some cases, to take up work in this country.”

In the past senior figures have denied that they engineered immigration, and three years ago refuted suggestions from adviser Andrew Neather that they encouraged the process to make the UK “truly multicultural” as a snub to the right.

The former Cabinet minister confirmed for the first time that New Labour not only welcomed but actively encouraged that mass influx of migrants.

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

Landmark

The strongest evidence for conspiracy comes from one of Labour’s own. Andrew Neather, a previously unheard-of speechwriter for Blair, Straw and Blunkett, popped up with an article in the Evening Standard in October 2009 which gave the game away.

Immigration, he wrote, ‘didn’t just happen; the  deliberate policy of Ministers from late 2000…was to open up the UK to mass immigration’.

He was at the heart of policy in September 2001, drafting the landmark speech by the then Immigration Minister Barbara Roche, and he reported ‘coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn’t its main purpose - to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’.

That seemed, even to him, a manoeuvre too far.

The result is now plain for all to see. Even Blair’s favourite think tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), commented recently: ‘It is no exaggeration to say that immigration under New Labour has changed the face of the country.’

It is not hard to see why Labour’s own apparatchiks supported the policy. Provided that the white working class didn't cotton on, there were votes in it.......

 

So there you have it...from reliable sources, some who would clearly not be comfortable admitting what they were complicit in bringing about......... You have that despicable, money grabbing, war mongering sh1te B'liar to blame because it was he and his lot that openly sought out and encouraged mass immigration in the interests of New Labour....to knowingly change the social fabric of the country in order to try and retain 'power'.  Yet another demonstration of the evil that is Tony B'liar. 

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-02-07 12:52 PM

 

You have that despicable, money grabbing, war mongering sh1te B'liar to blame because it was he and his lot that openly sought out and encouraged mass immigration in the interests of New Labour....to knowingly change the social fabric of the country in order to try and retain 'power'.  Yet another demonstration of the evil that is Tony B'liar. 

Well at least we agree on something :-D

But I dread to think how right wing you are if you consider Tory Bliar New Labour to be 'loony left' He may have pretended to be a bit left wing to suck up their votes, in the way that sleazy politicians can promise everything to everybody. But what he did was barely distinguishable from Thatcher. Thats why some call them both Blatcher.