Report comment

The protesters actions of cutting through perimeter fencing pale into insignificance next to the threat of death against some of the deportees returning to regimes that have no respect for human rights. It seems that the Government is increasingly attempting to stamp out any degree of dissent against the state or any authorities and classifying peaceful protest and expressions of solidarity and support as terrorism. I can't recall protesters at Greenham Common being labelled terrorists. What is this country coming to ?

Hasn't the SRA got better things to do than prosecute solicitors for activities they engage in outside the profession ? How about adequately penalising solicitors who commit fraud, instead of simply dishing out suspensions or no penalty at all ?

The SRA, having failed to strike off a single solicitor involved in the Ecohouse fraud has recently :-

1. Refused (through Paul Philip) to reconsider their prosecutions against the solicitors concerned despite a request from 44 MPs for the SRA to act correctly by revisiting justice against the solicitors by paying attention to their dishonesty and their involvement in fraud.
2. Blocked a lay application attempting to bring justice where the SRA had so abysmally failed. The SRA said there was no new evidence, but had buried all evidence of dishonesty originally (as if it wasn't obvious due to a colossal misappropriation of client funds of up to £33,000,000). The SRA never alleged dishonesty at the original SDT trial.

It seems the SRA is intent on denying justice against the Ecohouse fraud, in fact the SRA is still having difficulty referring to the case as a fraud and has never shown any inclination to establish fraud against its members. Apparently it is not necessary or appropriate for the SRA to do so according to their legal department.

The SRA has perverted the course of justice in the Ecohouse case through not disclosing evidence of dishonesty to the SDT. Effectively the SRA is committing regulatory fraud by concealing both fraud and the dishonesty of the solicitors concerned. The SRA stood to benefit from doing so because it would permit it to fend off claims against their compensation scheme, whilst at the same time inflicting permanent loss on victims of fraud. That satisfies the criteria for fraud through non disclosure in accordance with the Fraud Act 2006. Doesn't that make the SRA officers who have been complicit in the perversion of justice criminals ?

Who's more at fault then, peaceful protesters or bent SRA officers and a bent CEO ?