parasite You will see them on the forefront of every situation where people are faced with a calamity , where people are seen to be suffering from misery and misfortunes . When natural or man made disaster strikes they will be there . Well spoken , knowing the right words and phrases , kind in their manners , expressions on their faces full of concern .

Showing empathy , consideration , compassion , sensitivity , undertanding . Listening . Revealing that they are so deeply affected by others grief , sorrows and heartaches and they want to help them unselfishly .

Historically the lawyers are the descendants of ' smarties ' who always devised ways of taking the advantage of others by inventing some ' magic ' , ' rules ' , ' practises ' , rituals ' , ' dogmas ' and ' customs ' which meaning only they were able to explain and the aim was to put themselves a bit up in the food chain . All those shamans , witchdoctors , healers , sages , magicians , spiritualists , healers , soothsayers , druids , mystics .

Since any moral scruples would hinder the effectiveness of their efforts they adopted new ' morality ' - NO MORAL RESTRAINTS , EVERYTHING IS ALLOWED .

The first thing you discover when dealing with lawyers is that they seem to not understand English when you start asking them specific questions or they use a method of answering a question with another question , not to clarify the issue but to muddle it beyond comprehension . As all con artists they distract victims by bringing excessive attention to irrelevant issues and disproportionately stressing the alleged importance of something called ' legal points ' which evidently only they can understand .

The real concerns are confused or ignored .There is almost no discussion about the truth or the need to discover it .The facts are converted to ' evidence ' which importance and the means of presentation are known only to the ' initiated '. In the case of any doubt they overwhelm you with the claim of possessing the magical substance which they call ' INTEGRITY ' - and who you are to question the person possessing that mysterious , invisible stuff ? The system is made confusing on purpose so to baffle and irritate victims in its clutches . You need to hire someone claiming to know how it operates to avoid threats and lies thrown at you and there is no difference between an extortion racket and the necessity to engage a lawyer .

That person is the child of the system , his loyalty is to the system , he is dependent on maintaining the system as it is - the paying client is just a fool who has to be squizzed as much as possible , fed with lies and discarded . Since a client ends up so often in prison , with very limited means of protest and often bankrupted , it is safe for the lawyer to do it again and again . You actually pay the lawyer to help to achieve and legitimise your own conviction because once you authorised him to ' represent ' you he plays by the rules of the system and not by looking at your best interests . How many of convicted ' criminals ' have been blackmailed into pleading ' guilty ' by the ruse that ' you cannot win , therefore you will be better off pleading guilty as you will get a ' discount ' ( lesser penalty ) .

Sometimes you hear propaganda crying about a ' courageous ' lawyer defending a person unjustly persecuted , implying that the defence of client`s rights is a rule and not an exception . But such occurrence is a rare occasion ( sometimes even staged ) , looking at the fact that over half of people going through courts have more than one lawyer involved in their case . Disappointed with the general lack of care they ditch one lawyer for another lawyer with the hope that the next one will be better . It is not , and like the first one he makes promises or implies that something positive will happen when you pay him money ( upfront - of course ). In the situation when a person is familiar with some details of the procedures , he is being bamboozled into belief that he is wrong , issues are presented purposefully confusing not only for an average person but also for a reasonably educated and intelligent person . So often , if they cannot ' convince ' you about the absurdity or a lie they claim that this is because you are not a lawyer therefore obviously ' you do not understand ' .

When all is confusing enough you are faced with several options which are not pleasant at all . That adds another factor to the whole state of affairs - desperation to clarify the situation , to end it all up as quickly as possible because you are tired , exhausted , utterly confused and not knowing what to do and how to react .

Forger about ' Nigerian letters ' as the king of tricks to rip off people . An average lawyer is by necessity awarded trust without doing anything to earn it - and that trust is used to con people into paying them voluntarily , UPFRONT , huge amounts of money just for making vague promises , providing intangible service of implied hope and no responsibility for their conduct , their actions and the results of their ' work ' . People outside of ' profession ' are treated with utmost contempt and disrespect , it is like a hotbed of peculiar form of racism . Like in a good mafia organisation one gang member is protecting the interests and the ' authority ' of the other gang member ; covering each other lies , dishonesty and incompetence and shielding the blunders and sustaining those whose ' authority ' is threatened by ' outside interference ' .

Unmasking of the unmasked

Legal services are described ( like medicine ) as ' not the exact science ' - however paying money to lawyers is ' rigorous science ' . In theory a lawyer is supposed to be a person making obligation to do a certain job in return for the payment of the fee . The assumption about lawyer supposed ' loyalty ' as his ' obligation ' is based on ' common sense ' and dealings with other people in our society , tradesmen , ' proper ' professionals etc . The common believe (assumption) that if you pay money to a lawyer he ' owns you ' is dispelled by several sources which formally prove that lawyer ( an officer of the court ! ) has foremost ' loyalty ' to the system . It does not end there - lawyers ' loyalty ' is actually not only to the system but also to his colleagues - other lawyers - in protecting them from mishaps ; to people in police and departments of public prosecutions ( brothers in arms ) and you are just an unlucky fool who has to be parted with your hard earned or borrowed money .

It is done ' legally ' , ' lawfully ' , ' ethically ' - often only after you have been deceived you start to wonder - and then comes great discovery - so this is the ' fairness ' and ' justness ' of the system .

One of classical ploys to hijack community resentment at the abuses is to create impression that lawyers are in the forefront of the struggle for ' human rights ' . Of course not some ephemeral human rights like ' fair treatment ' or providing ' natural justice ' or maintaining fair procedures in courts . Oh , no ! They throw in a red herring - ' struggle ' for ' the right to be represented in Court by a lawyer ' . Isn`t it a wonderful ' human right ' to have ????

- It guarantees lawyers the indecent income from your hard earned or borrowed money .

- It prevents you from saying in Court things which are not convenient for the nomenclatura and truth remains hidden .

- Instead , the lackey of the nomenclatura says publically things he knows the judge needs to hear and to pretend to believe in , to justify his/her decision .

If you brought a car to a mechanic instructing him and paid him to repair a certain component and the mechanic failed to do so because a manufacturer of that car could be exposed as making doggy parts , you would have 10 consumer advocate groups standing on your side ( surprise , surprise - ALL controlled by lawyers ) . However , when you deal with a negligent /dodgy lawyers you are completely on your own - there are no effective ' checks and balances ' , no independent government institution ( ALL existing ones are staffed by lawyers with predictable outcomes ) . So , if there is a matter of a normal person stealing a roll of toilet paper from a supermarket they do not have any hesitation in denouncing and condemning such person . However, when a crooked lawyer is exposed , they do not have any hesitation to do just the opposite - to be involved in the protection of their crooked colleagues . That is - the incitement to commit crime ! - punishable by ' law ' if committed by other members of our society who are outside of legal mafia ?

You have to wonder about perversity , depravity and imbedded dishonesty of such people ( psychopaths ? ) who consciously , knowingly and deliberately deceive those who made the mistake of trusting them or who have to trust them because there is no other choice . They do it because they can and because the Queensland Legal System allows them to . BUT ' legal ' organisations and lawyers groupings keep promoting propagandist view of lawyers as someone who has got not only ' professional ' knowledge of law and its applications but also the attributes of justice , fairness and honesty ( ' INTEGRITY ' ) . What I find myself incomprehensible ( even within limitations of the system ) is the attitude of those called ' judges ' who are supposed to be the guardians of the fairness , the respectability and the integrity of the legal system and the state .

It would be a bit naïve to expect that those people will suddenly say - ' sorry , we have done wrong and we apologize for that and we will amend all wrongs we did ' . Such admission is simply not in their nature . If they were this kind of people they would have done it long time ago and changed their behaviour . They will deny , reject , misrepresent , distract , confuse , deceive and lie - that is their way of approaching such topic . Internal reforms are not going to work . They have to disappear like the dinosaurs , which they resemble in their resistance to changing conditions in the environment and dependability on their ' size ' to achieve objectives . In the present form , being largely parasitic elements , they are not relevant to the existence and progress of the society .

My public exposure of perversity of the ' legal ' people and ' legal ' institutions is meant to encourage other people who are abused , persecuted , victimized and disrespected to speak up about own experiences in a very public way . Naming and shaming will make them very visible in the community and harder for them to do what they are doing and warning others about wrongdoers and their methods will reduce the number of their victims since people with be more aware of those frauds . The fight has to go on because it forces those charlatans to think twice before stepping on toes of the next person .

The system of ` dammocracy ` is made purposefully irritatingly confusing , complicated and baffling as to discourage many people from attempting to fight it because you are expected to follow ` their ` rules , ` their ` approved methods . My message to all you good people out there is to do something what you feel is right , and not necessarily to do it ` as expected ` . You can offend only someone who has moral values system .

A few quotes from the book written by Australian lawyers about Australian lawyers - ' Lawyers ' - The Law Book Company - Sydney , ISBN 0 455 20654 6 .

P77. professional colleagues must support each other vis-à-vis clientele and the community . The professional must refrain from acts which jeopardise the authority of colleagues and must sustain those whose authority is threatened .

P77( notes ) . since a disproportionate number of those in the dominant occupation are from the families with members already in or associated with them , it would appear that whoever is doing the calling , is doing it in a highly biased and self-protected fashion .

P79. the profession`s vested interest in a given legal order renders its service irrelevant to those in the society who seek radical change in the existing order .

P83 . one of the most striking features of the four professions discussed is the absence of effective machinery and the apparent lack of concern for the surveillance if professional conduct and the enforcements of ethical codes ..When the association do take notice of breach and act to correct them , they are more commonly breaches of ' intrinsic ' obligations such as advertising .

P84 . any thoroughgoing attempt to enforce ( professional ethics ) would be immediately challengeable both on strictly legal grounds and on the grounds of who defines ' fairness' , ' responsibility ' , ' proper duty ' , ' misconduct ' , and so on outside of law

P642 . any real expression of conflict between the prosecution and the defence in terms of emotionally charged heated exchanges are carefully prohibited by common agreement and the defendants are left on their own .

P643 . lawyers argue about remote legal technicalities and procedures and around points of law , and the real concerns of defendants are either hopelessly confused or ignored . Every trial is a conspiracy to silence the real life interest of the people in the dock .

Some interesting quotes about the various issues associated with the legal system in this last English colony .

How did that happen? After a conference in Rome in November 1215 , European courts adopted a truth-driven and judge-controlled system but it was rejected by a dozen or so almost certainly corrupt judges and lawyers in London . Barristers got control of civil litigation by 1550 and effectively made it a get-the-money game via interminable pleadings , discovery , negligence , class actions , libel etc. Barristers got control of criminal trials by 1800, and then, in the sacred name of fairness (!) , began to invent truth-defeating ( and hence unfair ) rules which conceal relevant and probative evidence. Along with cross-examination designed to hide the truth , the rules effectively make it a get-the-guilty-off system .

In France, the presiding judge is obliged to find out the truth for himself ; he questions witnesses and allows them to give the whole truth in a narrative , rather than the artificial YES or NO .Prosecution and defence lawyers can ask questions through the judge and make submissions, but they are not allowed to cross-examine lest they ' pollute ' the truth with the usual psychopathic devices :' destroying ' witnesses by brutal questioning , lying to them , making them agree that black is white , shifting the goal-posts , putting the victim on trial etc . On Monday 28 May 2001, the French Prime Minister, M. Lionel Jospin, called for a common legal system throughout the European community based on the Charter of Fundamental Rights. England may thus have a choice: either to dismantle the corrupt adversary system and accept theEuropean system it rejected nearly 800 years ago, or to become a theme park .

If British justice at last begins to seek truth, fairness and justice, can the colonies be far behind ? For the media, it would mean that trained judges would seek the truth behind alleged libels and sub-judice contempt law would not exist . Some barristers may not like it, but they can be safely ignored: they make up 1/25th of one per cent of the population. And surely some barristers will be relieved that they can stop all that dreadful serial lying and acting like psychopaths .etc

The adversary system is defined as a system controlled by lawyers. The judge controls the court but lawyers control the process. They decide who will give evidence , what they will say, and how long the process will last, with the meter running . Since lawyers are in charge of a major legal system, the 1600 million people affected by it can expect , and rightly expect , them to run it responsibly , with anxious care for fairness ,truth and justice . Geoffrey Roberston QC says the adversary system is a game and shouldn't be. Judges are barristers one day and untrained judges the next. We can be sure they instantly stop serial lying ; that they have been desperately racking their giant legal brains to find a way to stop their former colleagues' serial lies ; and that after five centuries we can expect a solution any day now .

Legal ethics appear to be one of those oxymorons, like military intelligence and criminal justice Fox QC says the ethics hold that lawyers are not morally responsible for what they do for clients . A Sydney psychiatrist, Dr Elizabeth O'Brien , says that sounds like psychopathy . Psychopaths have no conscience . Professor Monroe Freedman, a US legal ethicist, says if a rapist privately tells his lawyer he is actually guilty, the adversary system still demands that he cross-examine the victim to suggest she is promiscuous . Perhaps we can redefine the adversary system as a corrupt game controlled lawyers some of whom are trained to act as if they are serial liars and psychopaths.

And if the adversary system actually demands that the people who run it must pervert justice , it should be the tiniest of steps for judges and lawyers to say there must be something wrongwith the system , and that we need a better one . Some are doing that . The term-get-the-guilty-off system comes from former lawyer Brett Dawson's The Evil Deeds of the Ratbag Profession in the Criminal Justice System . Evidence should be weighed, not suppressed; none of the rules for concealing it can survive rational analysis. The rules include one which prevents the judge and prosecution from commenting on the accused's refusal to give an explanation, although an explanation from an innocent person could reasonably be expected. There are rules against hearsay, patterns of criminal behaviour, and evidence said to have been improperly obtained. And there is a discretion to conceal virtually all relevant and probative evidence. Dawson says a criminal defence lawyer requires little intelligence; all he has to do is object to all evidence on the ground that it might prejudice his client.

The investigative system is cheaper and more effective than the adversary system, and the 1988 ICAC Act specifically said ICAC was to be non-adversarial where possible . In 1990 former Justice Michael Helsham told ICAC's parliamentary oversight committee that he had no idea how the inquisitorial system works and advised the committee to find out . In 1991 the committee asked ICAC Commissioner Ian Temby toinvestigate and report . ICAC sought guidance from an authority on European systems , Bron McKillop, of Sydney University Law School, and he supplied background information in 1991. Commissioner Ian Temby QC and other ICAC staff spent $77,290 March 1994 without a report ; McKillop was asked to write the final report .

By contrast, the code of conduct for lawyers in the European Union, adopted unanimously in 1998 , says : 'A lawyer must serve the interests of justice as well as those [of his clients] , ' and that a lawyer has ' legal and moral obligations . towards : the client , the courts [and] the public ' ; this requires 'absolute independence ' .

  • Peter Markan
    How dodgy lawyers can hide behind a blanket legal banner (Get honest, professional advice so THEY claim. Don't touch any of these with a barge pole)

    Ken Clarke's reforms should help stop ambulance-chasing, dodgy claims and excessive fees for lawyers – but, as ever, the devil will be lurking in the detail

    One of the reasons so many people are fond of Ken Clarke is that he is always cheerful, and when falling asleep on the government frontbench, as he did during last week's budget, he happily admits it. Another reason is that he is consistent: he despises us all as a bunch of rascally idiots, even fellow-lawyers. He is everyone's favourite old bull, but only when rampaging in someone else's china chop, especially his own. So no one will have been surprised to hear the justice secretary pop up on air today – ahead of a statement to MPs – to explain why he's going to curtail "no win, no fee" legal activity that encourages ambulance-chasing, dodgy claims and excessive fees for lawyers.

    I know, I know, it's already been flagged up. And Clarke is also taking a £350m axe to legal aid, notably the modest civil aid variety, a move that is causing grave offence to those who seek to promote access to justice for society's poorest. Labour's spokesman, Sadiq Khan, (a lawyer himself) takes a prod at coalition policy here – as does the Community Sector Coalition here. I'm sure they make many valid points. But lawyers, like doctors, are also high-end trade unionists. The Law Society, Bar Council and British Medical Association all defend lucrative vested interests in ways that do not always chime with the wider public interest despite their lofty piety. The media are just as bad. So is the National Association of Nuns, I don't wonder.

    As a veteran court reporter and foreman of at least five juries, the lawyers' defence of jury trial for very petty theft – £70 worth of cosmetics sticks in my memory – always struck me as blatant special pleading. What was usually going on was simply a professional thief taking a reasonable gamble on getting a gullible jury, albeit at taxpayers' expense. Unless the prosecuting barrister was completely pathetic my juries always convicted. No win, no fee was arguably a noble reform, promoted by Lord Derry Irvine, Tony Blair's first lord chancellor (and ex-boss in law), off the back of the 1998 Modernising Justice white paper, explained here. It turned into the 1999 Access to Justice Act, its title aping saintly Clem Attlee's act that introduced legal aid in 1948.

    I was always a bit suspicious of Irvine's reform because he unveiled it to us political reporters one Friday morning when all the legal affairs correspondents were out of town, attending a law conference in Cardiff. He knew it would be controversial so he kept it away from the specialists – a routine Whitehall wheeze. "We're not getting rid of 'no win, no fee', we are going back to the way it was in the early 1990s," Clarke said on Radio 4 – ie before Derry Irvine expanded the Tory-introduced concept. What's more, he's acting on a report by Lord Justice – Sir Rupert – Jackson, which was commissioned when Jack Straw was still justice secretary. The core trouble is that when legal aid was abolished for personal injury claims, the belief held that it would still be wrong in principle for lawyers to have to share their clients' award for injury received.

    So when no win, no fee was substituted, lawyers were instead allowed to double the fees claimed against the respondent when they won – a sharp incentive to do such work, knowing that a win would help pay for other cases lost. Trouble is that this branch of the trade rapidly expanded, often making it hard for firms, especially small ones, and individuals (facing vexatious neighbours?) to risk fighting a case where they might be saddled with punitive costs – to pay lawyers, not plaintiffs. Better to settle unless you're the NHS, which still ended up paying £312m in damages – £456m in lawyers' fees, so Clarke claimed today*.

    It's right that people should be able to sue doctors – it's a proven incentive to better care, but it can also be a racket. And £768m is a lot of money not being spent on care. Ministers protest that some legal fee settlements can be up to 1000% (surely very few?) of the award won. I think that amounts to what we might elsewhere call a perverse incentive to litigate, often on frivolous claims of injury at work or hedge disputes.

    Ambulance-chasing ads from solicitors started popping up on daytime TV channels and on hospital walls, while "claim farmers" (firms that sold promising cases to law firms for a cut) have sprung up. It all costs money and it's not all about real justice, more of a casino – like investment banking. We won't touch here upon the separate but related niche whereby London's very open legal market has turned it into the "libel capital of the world". But that, too, has an inhibiting effect on free speech, not least for reputable scientists challenging dodgy pharma claims. Clarke has just announced plans to insert a new "substantial harm" test which may inhibit rich and litigious libel tourists, along with an "honest opinion" defence.

    Good. Real investigative journalism need not fear that but Formula 1's Max Mosley will still be able to sue the News of the World for its less defensible exposes. Lawyers have been quick to complain there are fewer civil actions of the personal injury kind than there were 10 years ago and that Straw had already tackled the cost and backlog in small claims – road traffic accidents – by bundling up 75% of them into a new fast-track scheme. Clarke appears to be building on that, so we will see later today what Straw has to say about it. Ministers want more mediation, as they hope to achieve in divorce cases. They want damages expanded by 10% so the litigant gets what he/she needs, while the lawyer's share of a win is to be no more than 25% – the rule that exists in the US.

    As with most things, but especially the law, the devil is always lurking in the detail, famously not Ken ("What Maastricht treaty?") Clarke's forte. But it sounds like a step in the right direction. Yes?

    *2.15pm update: This from Andy Slaughter, the shadow justice minister, who is disputing Ken Clarke's figures on the amount of damages paid by the NHS:

    In his statement this morning on the Today programme, as quoted in your article, the secretary of state (Clarke) concluded his interview by saying: 'I mean in 2008-09 the NHS did pay out £312m in damages; it paid far more out to lawyers in fees, £456m. So it is the wrong way round and it is not where the NHS should be spending its money.'

    These figures are incorrect. We note that this has been used as justification for the changes several times by Mr Clarke and Jonathan Djanogly. £456m is the cost for damages (£312m) plus defence legal costs (£40m) plus claimant legal costs (£104m). Part of the reason for the disparity in defence and claimant costs is the cost of expert evidence.


  • Leeds lawyer jailed for stealing £51,000 from pensioner
    honest lawyer A common question our group get asked often is can we recommend an honest lawyer?

    The simple answer is that there are honest lawyers but they are no longer lawyers as they are either dead, have resigned from the law society or been sacked by them.

    Any person who has an affinity with his fellow man and who studied law would quickly find out the speed at which any kindness, consideration, honesty, integrity or empathy would be driven out of the soul of a potential candidate and they would have no option but to resign when they finally got to know what was expected of them . Anyone who tried to operate as an honest lawyer would find they would be black balled by their organisation and its members, as HONESTY and INTEGRITY are not qualities that ensure the long term security, prosperity and survival of a legal mafia that primarily operates as fraudulently and as corruptly as they can get away with, while masquerading as some sort of legal system.

    Terrorist propaganda has been the facade they hide behind with a mask of superiority and self righteousness that directs attention away from the international fleecing by a worldwide cabal of freemasons subtly and deviously acting behind a wall of pomposity and ritual that has done far more damage to men than all other wars put together. World wars last 5 to 10 years as opposed to the vast plundering by the judicial and legal terrorists that has been going on for centuries as is evident by the ever increasing speed and greed in how they operate and the blatant disregard for the growing body of victims who are uniting against that outright tyranny.


    Once again the BBC make a complete arse of a report about lawyers ripping off clients. The biggest financial scam across the globe is the ease with which lawyers and judges are getting away with stripping men of all their worldly possessions. So how do the BBC start this report? Using as an example a woman going through divorce who gets ripped off, NOT a man.

    As many millions of men know it is the men that are picking up the legal bill, not only for themselves, but for their ex-wives in the most absurd and manipulative legal chicanery as the legal mafia GUARANTEE the wife ALWAYS wins in divorce, unless the man is a freemason and then his brothers in the judicial mafia ensure the ex-wife suffers the seem fate with persecution campaigns that millions of ex-husbands endure thanks to the mobsters running the courts for their own and the crown's self enrichment.

    The BBC are the protectors of that system with media lawyers acting for the Law society's ensuring nothing gets out about how they operate these huge financial scams and why there are endless propaganda reports on domestic violence , as this is the weapon they use to ensure the trillion pound legal aid trough continues unabated while men's lives are destroyed on a daily basis by the utter scum and dregs of the earth. Another shocking and heavily misleading report by the Bloody Big Con and not unusual as men are sick and tired of the vile feminist claptrap manufactured by a publicly funded broadcaster run by a feminist leaning, homosexual leaning , judicial leaning and legal mafia leaning tv station.
    It comes as no surprise to us that LAWYERS are getting away with murder and the Tory government have been promoting slave labour schemes for the corporate giants like Tesco. Both the politicial and legal mafia's are turning the UK population into peasants and serfs just like in the good old days.

    A senior government lawyer is facing sensational claims that she abused her housemaid and imprisoned her as a "slave", the Standard can reveal.

    Shibani Rahulan, principal legal adviser at the Department of Health, denies exploiting Pratima Das, an illiterate Indian who was brought to London as a nanny and cleaner in 2004. Ms Rahulan, 40, is alleged to have confiscated the woman's passport and put her to work for 15 hours a day at her home in Harrow. The case is being heard at the High Court today. Ms Das, classed as "low caste" in India, claims she was strangled and beaten and only escaped after a violent argument in June 2008. She was allegedly taken to hospital with scratches to her neck after a passer-by called police.

    Since then, she has fought a long-running legal battle against Ms Rahulan. Friends of Ms Rahulan say Ms Das invented wild allegations once she was sacked. A friend said: "Shibani has lost so much money fighting this case and just wants to get on with her life." Her partner, Rex Waldron - who is a lawyer at the Department for Work and Pensions - added: "Ms Das said when she was sacked 'I will make you regret this for the rest of your life' - and she's lived up to that threat."

    After leaving her employment, Ms Das applied for asylum. Judge Sharp ruled in 2009 that the 43-year-old widow could not go back to her home in India because Ms Rahulan belongs to "an influential and higher-class family in that area" and her former cleaner could face "inhuman or degrading treatment" on her return. Her claim for asylum is still pending. She then attempted to bring an employment tribunal case in 2010, but a panel found that she had told a "bare-faced lie in the face of the tribunal" and dismissed her claim for lost earnings. Ms Das is now applying for the right to bring her original employment claim, saying she was ill-advised. Today's hearing is an appeal before Lord Justice Mummery. Judge Sharp has ruled that Ms Das's treatment "came within the definition of trafficking", adding: "Her employers were harbouring her and abusing their power and taking advantage of her vulnerability for the purpose of exploiting her as an overworked and abused employee". He also found that she "suffered certain injuries at the hands of her employers".

    Mr Waldron said: "Pratima lived as a member of the family. We've got photographs of her at all of our parties and family gatherings - does she look like she's here under duress? As a slave? It's ridiculous. Her passport was kept with all of the family passports in the house. She had a bedroom upstairs with cable TV." He added: "We just want this woman to leave us alone, but for as long as she's in this country she will continue to harass a hard-working member of the Government who works until 11pm most nights for the good of the country." Ms Das's lawyer, Paul Grant, of Bernard Chill & Axtell Solicitors, said: "There are thousands of people in the UK being kept as modern-day slaves. It is a huge hidden problem happening in towns and suburbs throughout the country. Often no one sees these people because they are not allowed to leave the houses and even if they do because they may not speak English no one is aware of their plight." Ms Rahulan advises the Department of Health but is officially employed by the DWP. A spokesman said the case was a "private matter".

    SAY NO MORE!!!!!!!!!!!

    Police were called to a London crown court after judges and barristers allegedly had their lunches spiked with urine.

    The investigation was launched when lawyers complained the food smelled "a bit off", with urine traces later found in soups, salads and sandwiches. All kitchen staff at Snaresbrook crown court have been suspended and temporary replacements have been brought in while Scotland Yard detectives and Redbridge council carry out a joint investigation. Judges, lawyers and court staff have reportedly been sent letters saying the matter is being taken "very seriously", and that anyone feeling unwell after eating the food should contact a doctor.

    A dining room, used by lawyers and known as the advocates' lounge, was closed when a worker alerted the authorities on Tuesday. The court's meals are provided by caterers Eurest Services. A spokeswoman for the company said: "We are aware of a suspected food contamination and are investigating." A source told The Sun: "Hygiene inspectors started an investigation. People are worried there might be someone working in the kitchens with a serious grudge against the legal system.

    "They've suspended the entire catering staff including many old women who have worked there for donkeys' years. New people have been brought in while the police conduct their investigation." Snaresbrook has seen a number of high-profile cases in recent years. Boy George was jailed there for 15 months in 2009 for falsely imprisoning a male escort.

    The Law Society seems to lurch from one crisis to another. They have paid huge amounts of money to shut down the Solicitors From Hell website. Initially the actions were confined to its members suing for libel. O.K some solicitors were unfairly listed.

    However, in the latest action the Law Society include harassment claims for good measure. But what a mistake that was and the judge gave the game away in his judgement. If you cannot sue a journalist or blogger because the publication is true – it’s fine to sue for harassment instead. So the message seems to be to solicitors and everyone in fact - if the publication is untrue and you are defamed – sue for libel. Or if you are correctly exposed for wrongdoing, sue for harassment as an alternative. That part of the judgement will go down as a grave error. The Law Society could have confined this to libel and probably still succeeded. However, by introducing harassment into this they have got a whole bunch of folks steamed up. When journalists and the Libel Reform Campaign sit down and digest the implications for free speech there will be hell to pay.

    And now the floodgates are open which one of the Law Society’s members is going to be the first to bring a harassment claim. Keep a close eye on the court listings – that might be sooner than you think. And in the meantime just see how busy the three websites which have replaced Mr Kordowski’s site get. According to Mr Hudson of The Law Society these sites are being monitored but currently ‘pose no danger to the public’. Glad to hear that Mr Hudson. We thank you for confirming that and the research which must have been carried out by the Law Society to qualify you to make such a statement on the public’s behalf.

  • Solicitors from Hell successor to UK version
  • Solicitors from Hell 2
  • Cowboy solicitors
  • They think its all over : Solicitors from Hell owner to appeal High Court’s website shutdown order ‘all the way to Europe if necessary’
  • Solicitors From Hell removed from internet as UK High Court grants injunction to Law Society of England & Wales to censor client reviews of lawyers
  • Criminal in nature ? Law Society Chief Des Hudson off the hook over ‘criminal’ jibe against Solicitors from Hell website owner as judge dismisses case
  • 'Phone hacking was wrong and shameful': NoW lawyer's apology to inquiry
  • 'The Law Society is worse than a pit full of vipers'
  • Greedy lawyers blamed as 'cash for crash' scams boom
  • Lawyer Tom Crone behind NOTW hacking scandal resigns