Phil Shiner Human Rights Lawyer ' struck off ' for misconduct.

POGS With regard to your comment to me "I also remember mentioning the firm of human rights lawyers you once worked for. Isn't there something looming soon for them or am I mistaken? I probably am."

Three solicitors from Leigh Day are to face disciplinary proceedings but as the case is due to be heard in March no conclusion can yet be drawn as to their guilt or innocence. If they are found guilty they will be struck off.

If that happens, it does not, in my opinion, detract from the very good work the firm has done and continues to do in representing victims of, amongst other things, sexism in the workplace, clinical and industrial negligence and many other issues that many law firms prefer not to deal with because of their complexity and the time it takes to reach a resolution.

For several years from 2011 or thereabouts the firm successfully represented the wives and families of British soldiers in cases brought against the MoD relating to a lack of duty of care. At the present time there are proposals afoot to reduce legal protections for British troops, preventing them from suing the MoD for negligence.

Well at least I know the answer to my post 10th Feb 20.15

Lady Shami Chakrabarti said she thought it was 'sad' and he had 'lost his way'.

Oh the irony of saying:-

"I think it’s very sad when a public servant who’s given very good service to the public, when their career ends in disgrace.”

Out of all the cases I think they are following up 20 which could have some basis - or may not when fully investigated.

or send him to an Army barracks and let them deal with him - Liaise's words

as an alternative to prison was avoiding the rule of law and asking for soldiers to meet out "justice". In my eyes that is a mob rule and lynch mob approach

But that is what you are only assuming that is what Liaise meant which sounds as if you believe that is how the military behave.
She may have meant court martial (not possible of course). You cannot assume what someone else is thinking if they have not said it. You are assuming that is how the army would deal with him which is precisely the type of witch-hunt which these soldiers have had to put up from the likes of Shiner for years, based on false evidence.

It sounded very much that

or send him to an Army barracks and let them deal with him.

as an alternative to prison was avoiding the rule of law and asking for soldiers to meet out "justice". In my eyes that is a mob rule and lynch mob approach.

We cannot pretend that atrocities do not happen in war and that it is only the 'enemy' that carries them out.

If British soldiers mistreat enemy soldiers they need to face th consequences. We do not want our troops abused and equally we must not allow them to treat others badly. BUT I do not want false evidence or a witch hunt. That is not justice & Shiner was wrong to follow that route. It might mean real culprits go unpunished.

Eloethan

'I don't recall anyone on Gransnet specifically defending Phil Shiner. I did, however, say that I have worked for a firm of human rights solicitors and I very much respected the work that they did.'

I most certainly do remember posters defending Phil Shiner!

I also remember mentioning the firm of human rights lawyers you once worked for. Isn't there something looming soon for them or am I mistaken? I probably am.

Is Shiner still a 'well respected' Law Professor at Middlesex University?.

Shami Chakrobarti picked another good partner in Shiner didn't she. Where is any statement from Liberty or Chakrobarti.?

As I say funny how the wagons close in a tight circle isn't it.

mob rule, lynching a good kicking or worse
What sort of minds have you got putting words to someone's post like that?

I don't think Liaise suggested that at all Eloethan - is that what you think would happen?

Perhaps Liaise meant that a bit of square bashing, some trips into the Brecon Beacons in the snow and fog, fitness training, casualty drills etc might be a good experience for Mr Shiner and give him a bit more insight into Army life rather then his twisted and greedy view of 'justice'.

Result. Things have moved forward and not before time!

I am so pleased that at last the discredited IHAT , The Historic Allegations Team , investigation has at 'long last' been shut down by the MOD.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/10/iraq-abuse-inquiry-has-directly-harmed-defence-nation-andmust/

I hope this is given more media coverage than ever and justice will be carried out regarding Phil Shiner and all who were knowingly associating themselves with his actions.

A very good day but it should never have gotten this far!

Liaise You seem to imply that you would approve of soldiers, if they had the opportunity, giving Shiner a good kicking (or worse). Whatever the provocation, violent retaliatory action against unarmed people is not legal in civilian life or in the army - though it appears you think it should be.

Liaise that is not how a decent society behaves...mob rule and lynching! Also you are inmplying that soldiers are animalistic in meeting out retribution.

That is what Shiner was 'proving' with his false evidence and defence were saying soldiers behaved according to code of conduct.

Jalima and POGS I agree with you that the government has not done enough for the soldiers, I feel that some of them were thrown to the wolves.
Hope that things change for the future.

I do find it surprising that this went ahead before any criminal investigation. I wonder if files will be sent to the CPS now? He was found guilty amongst other things of dishonesty so it might be deduced from that that there is a possible criminal act committed. However, the standard of proof is different in regulatory hearings and it might be that the CPS don't think the evidence is high enough. It just seems odd that it's been done this way round. Liaise I'm glad I live in a society that believes in due process regardless of the alleged actions of the accused - that's how we demonstrate that we are better than they are.

Phil shiner should go to prison for many years or send him to an Army barracks and let them deal with him.

Because one soldier behaves in an inhumane way does not mean all soldiers will. Because one'human rights' lawyer behaves badly does not mean all HR lawyers do!

Why to do people use one instance to reinforce their own prejudice?

I know people in the forces who I admire and some that I do not. Equally I know lawyers I respect and some I do not! We are all capable of good/ bad choices and behaviour.

Rigby46 I sometimes think that those who disregard the HR of others shout loudest when they think their HR have been breached!

Even if we disregard the human rights of others, we are still entitled to our human rights. I knew someone who had a friend who was one of the solicitors for the Guildford Four. He was ostracised in his community and his marriage broke up. He paid a terrible price for fighting for justice for these men who in fact turned out to be completely innocent. I'm talking here about basic democratic principles - this particular PS case doesn't undermine those.

On the point of Legal Aid, this has been scrapped (whatever a person's financial circumstances) for:

Divorce
Child contact/residence
Welfare benefits
Employment
Clinical Negligence
Housing Law - except in very limited circumstances

Those that can afford to pay for legal advice and representation on these issues will continue to do so but those who do not have the financial resources have to represent themselves. Those that do so invariably lack the knowledge and experience of the legal system and this has slowed down the Court system.

POGS, I agree, and, furthermore, I think the lawyers who pursue the human rights of those who disregard the rights of others should be ashamed of themselves too.

The law has been dragged into disrepute in that only the very rich and the very poor (through legal aid) can pursue justice through the courts as no one else can face ruination to do so.

From far left to far right our 'brave'politicians have been conspicuous by their silence on all sides of the H of C! One can only feel contempt for each and everyone these fireside warriors!

I don't recall anyone on Gransnet specifically defending Phil Shiner. I did, however, say that I have worked for a firm of human rights solicitors and I very much respected the work that they did.

Just because this man has behaved badly doesn't mean that all lawyers doing this sort of work are doing the same, nor does it mean that all the cases relating to the abuse of civilians are false.

I agree with the point regarding sending soldiers to wars under false pretexts and of not providing the proper equipment. However, they are people doing a job - some incredibly brave, some not - for which they should be properly paid, housed and equipped, which, despite all the talk of bravery and heroes, doesn't appear to happen.

Where were our brave politicians when this was happening? Those brave politicians who sent soldiers in to fight an illegal war on a fictitious pretext with inadequate equipment?
Did they come forward to defend the troops who were falsely accused?

I haven't heard that they have, perhaps I missed that.

I echo that petra. I've continuously been contemptuous of the hypocrisy displayed by certain sections of the political classes, this sorry story is no different. Thank goodness this odious man was at last rumbled before he could destroy any more of the lives of our brave service personal.

The spineless coward couldn't even face the court, unlike our brave soldiers who faced the most unspeakable horrors every day. I hope he spends the rest of his life looking over his shoulder. perhaps then he might get a glimpse of the fear that our lads experienced.

ps The Military's role primarily is defence of The Realm.

Civil emergency response and recovery is multi-faceted and does include the military but is mostly civilian (paid) and volunteers.

blueskies
I am still puzzling over your post which I have read twice now.

The first sentence is correct - and the UK does not condone torture. Any person found guilty of torture would be breaking the United Nations Convention against Torture - that includes individuals and governments including Prime Ministers, eg TB knew of the torture risk.
If only we were true to ourselves and admitted that the military brutalises people ( chicken or egg? ) otherwise how could they do job for which they are paid? In a different kinder society the "military" would be search and rescue--helping people in distress -floods and disasters
I don't think that, on the whole that is true, that the military 'brutalises' people (unless you have experience or evidence to the contrary) and I do think that, in this country, the military are there when there are floods, disasters, when firemen go on strike etc.

Of course, as in all walks of society, there will always be someone who breaks the rules, gives everyone else a bad name and causes suspicion.

Our military are respected and many citizens around the world have been extremely relieved and not further terrified when they have seen British troops arrive.