Report comment

@Scruff's comment timed at 9:25 on 17th June against Ecohousevictim.

Point 4. makes no reference to insurance whatsoever, so the point you make is a total irrelevance. You clearly have a "Bee in your bonnet" regarding your bitter experience with insurers and you are now polluting the comments section with your copious and inane ranting at anyone who doesn't share your opinion or point of view. Your rantings do not represent reasonable nor logical debate.

The SRA's lack of conviction relates to their ineffectual SDT prosecution against the solicitors involved in the £33 Million Ecohouse fraud, none of whom were struck off. I hope that this fact reassures you that there is nothing shallow about the comment, which is based on the real life experience of 850 victims who did not receive justice due to SRA duplicity and deceit ( cheating victims out of justice as a consequence of the SRA's attempts to avoid claims against the SRACF by not alleging dishonesty for fraud). It is also wholly irresponsible of the SRA to permit fraudulent solicitors to remain in practice to inflict further loss and undermine all confidence in the solicitor profession and its regulators who should be removing tainted elements from the profession. It is small wonder that SRACF levies are on the increase when these crooks are permitted to remain in practice.