IHAT

[Digby]

At least Shiner had the gumption to pay the money back, and didn't instead file for bankruptcy to dodge his responsibilities.

[onlynameleft]

The Gazette article is about 7 months old and is simply about the fact that, at that stage, the disciplinary bodies wouldn't publish the charges and there was a suggestion that it was Shiner that was blocking publication. Contrasted with his insistence on complete transparency from everyone else.
The more recent articles, and the comments on them, are quite different anyway. There can't be many lawyers who don't think he is an utter fcuktart now it is clear what he has done. I have absolutely no doubt there are some who think it is all a massive conspiracy against him though.
The Gazette's view isn't representative of all lawyers in any case and nor could it be because, remarkably, not all have the same opinions on this or any other matter.
The Gazette is mainly aimed at the smaller outfits doing the likes of PI, RTA's etc etc, most of the commentators are self aggrandising tosspots who don't have enough work to and insist it is someone else's fault. Which may be to a large extent true but not that many will miss them when they are gone.
I usually only read the articles with the most comments. There are some good ones about a firm in Rochdale or Bury or somewhere like that called Asons.

[OptimisticJock]

If the comments are to believed all the blogs that are "anti" shiner have been removed, some of them recently by the look of things. That rather negates the date of the blog. Even 7 months ago anyone with a wee bit of common sense could see Shiner was an unbercunt out to vilify squaddies and make a fast buck.

[onlynameleft]

If the comments are to believed all the blogs that are "anti" shiner have been removed, some of them recently by the look of things. That rather negates the date of the blog. Even 7 months ago anyone with a wee bit of common sense could see Shiner was an unbercunt out to vilify squaddies and make a fast buck.

Fair enough, it was just a passing comment about the article itself, not the comments, I'm just a bit curious about the all lawyers love Shiner tag when I certainly don't know any who do (although I admit there must be some but there are twunts in every walk of life) and that is somewhat undermined by a suggestion that there WERE anti Shiner posts in the first place, presumably posted by other lawyers (as the Gazette isn't really a general interest publication, much as it tries to be) and removed by whom? The Law Soc Gazette. So let's stick with the Law Soc Gazette is a cvnt? And some lawyers are too?
There's a difference between thinking someone is an ubercvnt and them being proven to be one, particularly for someone like the Law Soc Gazette.

[onlynameleft]

Plenty of lawyers criticising the Gazette's backing for him here:
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/phil- ... 57.article

[onlynameleft]

There is another similar case in front of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal currently involving 3 lawyers at an outfit called Leigh Day. Expected to be the longest SDT case ever at 7 weeks long. Be interesting to see what happens in that one. You can follow it on the Law Society Gazette website.

[OptimisticJock]

Yeah I seen that earlier. Hope they get fucked right over.

[Sandydragon]

Yeah I seen that earlier. Hope they get fucked right over.

Amen.