This was the Freedom of Information (FoI) request to the Association of Chiel Police Officers (ACPO), made by Paul Randle-Jolliffe.
Paul is asking about crimes committed in public or private family law matters.
Victims of other white collar crimes have established long ago that there is a Memorandum of Understanding between ACPO and the Law Society which would, of course, cover family law, too.
Whilst the FoI request says that it’s waiting for an ‘internal review’, it will be interesting to read the outcome!
John Hemming MP offered to look into 2 – 3 well evidenced cases!
Meanwhile, you can put your own observation / case as “annotation”. But don’t go into rants, please.
Related articles
- May criticises police over red tape (mirror.co.uk)
- Police Reforms ‘Could Risk Public Safety’ (news.sky.com)
![Why Everyone Is a Victim [Except Rich Criminals]](http://edm1297.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/ocls.jpg?w=171&h=264 "Book by Evan Whitton")
Jul 06, 2011 @ 17:57:59
they must also have the same agreement with 60 minute makeover….if those frackers ever come near my home, if i am ever allowed to have one again, it will be a freaking blood bath i tell ye….!
Jul 08, 2011 @ 07:07:22
Acpo. the Association of Corrupt Police Officers will now be in Panic !
Murdoch,s scurrilous News of the World has been rumbled as a bribe
- backhander-brown envelope paying paper. The benficiaries are senior
Met. Police Officers, ( constables don,t get access to the cream jug ! )
Murdochs crew realised that there will be thousands of legal claims against
” Screws of The World ” the legal mafia would go on a feeding frenzy !
Bent coppers & the Solicitors Regulating Authority will be getting exposed
in the hearings,
Cut our losses to stem the floodgates of legal thefts & frauds and corruption
exposure. Sir John Stephenson will now be messing his undies when his
corrupt Met. will be hung out to dry. ” they need a major bank robbery,
terrorists act, or similar ” to deflect attention !
Milliband is already demanding a judge led enquiry ( a device to hide the truth ) We need a full Public Enquiry to lance the abcess of a country
we are enslaved in.
Why is Acpo a Private Ltd. Company that is financed by the Public Purse
these corrupt police get it every way they can, pensions ,pay, all from the
Public Purse why are,nt they paid by Acpo ltd.
Jul 11, 2011 @ 13:13:55
Dear Peter
I agree wholeheartedly with your comments, the ACPO and The Law society are registered as a private limited company. Why did Parliament allow the Law Society to investigate complaints from the public? It is government that has burdened the public with crimes committed against them that are neither recognised or investigated.
How can two private companies determine how a solicitor is investigated on criminal offences of fraud? Why has this goverment allowed this to happen to their public?
Who made the government seperate from the public when it comes to investigating crimes by white collar professionals?
The government have allowed an underworld of orginised white collar crime to flurish and grow. The government always says it can’t comment on individual cases, why cant it? Who made it that way? It sure wasn’t the public.
The Law Society is a monopoly. Vince Cable needs to lok in to this. The Law Society’s powers must be axed. They have overreached their powers in ways that a company is simply not allowed to do, nor can they use their influence in such a way that is detrimental to the public.
The Law Society is involved in every area of law in this country and beyond. They regulate the CAB and the law centres. These are institutions set up for the most needy and vulnerable. So if you have been defrauded by a solictor which has placed you in this catogory, you will not be helped as the all watching eye of the Law Society must be informed when it involves one of their own, so no help there for the public.
I propose that we demand from government a statuary instrument of protection for consumers of legal services, to set up a specialised team made up of specialised lawyers and a judge. These individuals must operate without fear or favour. They will have full powers of a court to determine cases for compensation damages, or, in far more serious cases, refer the matter for criminal proceedings. They would also determine whether the professionals involved have conducted themselves in such a way that there is an automatic revocation of their licence to practise law.
The only participation of the Law Society would be to pay a levy for such a consumer protection body. The Law Society must pay directly to the victim the award granted by the specialised consumer board. This would be the only participation the Law Society would have in matters involving the public.
The Law Society would soon get their members in order if it were to pay out to the public compensation and damges.
Norma
Jul 11, 2011 @ 15:30:39
Smart thinking, Norma!
I think you need to ask your MP to ask the Lord Chancellor about this!
And I shall encourage every victim to do the same!
Jul 13, 2011 @ 07:58:49
The Law Society cum SLA is in the privledged position of being
” self regulating” This must stop in the sameway the General Medical Council
lost there “self regulation” of Doctors due to Dr.Harold Shipman murdering
250 of his “patient victims”.
This does not stop the GMC preventing crooked doctors assisting crooked
police ” sectioning” innocent victims re: Dafydd Morgan, Maurice Kirk, etc
Just how we achieve our objectives I dont know my MP Edward Timpson is
a barrister and a crook ! concealing offences. We cannot burden just
Vince Cable MP and John Hemming. I think we need to research what
cross party committees are dealing with in the hope we can introduce
our concerns in the sameway Vicky Haigh attended a cross party committee and spoke to John Hemming MP. This certainly shook-up a judge orto when John Hemming used Parliamentary Priviledge to uphold democracy. If
you notice Speaker Bercow has slid under the carpet ! on a damage
limitation exercise !
Ideas Please
Jul 13, 2011 @ 08:11:59
Very good point, Peter!
Attending Select Committees and trying to speak to the members is distinctly one avenue. I did that mainly with the Treasury Select Committee.
But there’s the Justice and the Business Committee. The membership is online. However, once again, it’s by far more effective if an MP writes on our behalf. Austin promised to do that in January… With a bit of luck I’ll see him next week…
Sighingly yours,
S
Jul 14, 2011 @ 09:06:33
A week is a long time in politics a quote by Harold Wilson. You can
say that again! The present furore is bringing MPs out of hiding and
they are all now clammering for the end of corruption etc. but they support
a judge led enquiry, as most of victims unite supporters know a major contributor to this corruption is the judiciary, followed by ACPO, IPCC.
HMCS etc.
Has anyone noticed a friend to us Dr.Vince Cable was forced out of his job as
Minister for Business because he opposed Murdochs bid for B sky B last
December.
He should be reinstated as his foresight has proven He was Right all along !
I would respectfully request Victims Unite should send a note of thanks for
his sacrcifice in the pursuit of democracy as I am sure he will appreciate
we at Victims Unite have not forgotten our meeting in Committee Room 13.
It will be nice for him to know his efforts are appreciated and not forgotten.
and we need him as a friend & supporter
Aug 03, 2011 @ 19:49:06
believe we need to ask who drew up the MOU ?
Why was it drawn up?
Who sanctioned the MOU?
Given the terms of the MOU, which by obligation under the terms of the MOU the police must first act in the interest of the law society when a member of the public reports a proffessional for dishonesty and criminal acivities, the police take instruction from the law society on how to proceed with the complaint.
The Law Society in turn, and by obligation to its members togther with the obligation of the MOU act in the interest of its members, then the fundimental question here is “Who is acting in the public interest”?
If Goverment or parliament had to face what the public face in trying to bring those of wrong doing to account, then James Murdoch and his caravan of collaberators would never have been held to account for the wrong doings against the public.
The name “The Law Society” I believe is missleading in that the name promotes a misconception in that the name suggests “a society of law” when in fact the law society has nothing to do with the practicing and dispensing the law, it is a “Regulator” therefore it should be aptly named “The regulator of legal professionals” But then again this would not be a proper discription either, because the Law society is the trade union for its members, so when MP’s and goverment attempt to push all the responsibility back on to the victim, MP’s are directly or indirectly permitting corrupt and dishonesty practices against the public to flurish and grow.
One prime example of the law society’s collaberative efforts to protect a number of dishonest solicitors, is during a criminal investigation, were by the law society closed down the practice of JD Cort convicted of murder and Fraud May 2010 in 2009 at the hight of the criminal investigation, I sent documention to the case worker at the law society that showed this solicitor JD Cort was activley involved in accessing our mortgage account, for the purpose of taking our property dishonestly, the case worker did not pass that information to the police, and to the certain knowledge of the case worker at that time all of JD Cort’s files were subject to the “Police evidence of crime act 1986″ why did the case worker not pass those documents to the police?
Surely this is perverting the course of justice?
What happened to the case file that contained details of our property? did someone pull that file? is so who? so were is the ethics commitee when it comes to the public defrauded by legal proffessionals, and covered up by the so called regulator “the law society” these are questions that do have answers, the only other question is who is the law society answerable to?
This company “the Law Society” operates as a “Monopoly” I believe that is very easy to prove, It also overeaches its powers in its practices when dealing with dishonesty within the legal industry, it also overeaches its powers by the agreement of the MOU with the ACPO, this document is not in place for the public interest or protection, it is a instrument used to the detrement of the public, giving the offender, and the regulator added protection in prerventing fair and proper process of the law in holding those to account who abuse thier position to perpetrate crimes. (white collar crime) the depth of these crimes are far reaching and catastrophic for the victims.
I would suggest that the none existing consumer protection for the public of legal services is an inditment of the goverments apathy and dereliction of duty for failing to provide adeqaute protection.
N0rma
Aug 04, 2011 @ 17:43:03
Good questions, Norma, once again!!!
I think we’ll have to work with John Hemming MP on this. He needs some ‘clean evidence’ of one or two cases though.