RugbyRebels

The SDT found that Shiner authorised and procured his firm Public Interest Lawyers to enter an agreement in June 2015 providing financial benefits to a third party in order for him to change his evidence to the Al-Sweady inquiry into allegations of atrocities in Iraq.

Shiner was also dishonest in presenting the changed evidence from that third party without explanation, and in sanctioning and approving the creation of emails which did not describe the true reason for the agreement.

The SDT also found dishonesty proved in how Shiner responded to two questions from the Solicitors Regulation Authority during its investigation.


This was the SDT finding, whether there is more or whether any of this amounts to perjury is a question I'm not qualified to answer. Eugene is the man for crime. I think perjury is lying under oath rather than simply lying. There may be a conspiracy charge of some description.

Paying for false testimony must be illegal, Shirley.

Mellsblue wrote:Paying for false testimony must be illegal, Shirley.

Wouldn't it come under conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?

belgarion wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Paying for false testimony must be illegal, Shirley.

Wouldn't it come under conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?

Possible if perjury wasn't an option, although entering false evidence does effectively count to lying under oath.

Andy Coulson has only recently shown perjury isn't really that important

Digby wrote:Andy Coulson has only recently shown perjury isn't really that important

I await the comment that it won't be in the public interest to proceed in the near future. If criminal action is not going to happen, then hopefully the soldiers affected will undertake a class action against the turbocunt and take him for every penny he has defrauded the British taxpayer for.

Sandydragon wrote:

belgarion wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Paying for false testimony must be illegal, Shirley.

Wouldn't it come under conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?

Possible if perjury wasn't an option, although entering false evidence does effectively count to lying under oath.

But as he was paying a 3rd party for false testimony, not giving testimony himself, surely that is conspiracy not perjury

belgarion wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

belgarion wrote:
Wouldn't it come under conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?

Possible if perjury wasn't an option, although entering false evidence does effectively count to lying under oath.

But as he was paying a 3rd party for false testimony, not giving testimony himself, surely that is conspiracy not perjury

That's more or less what I was getting at.

I suppose it depends on how th evidence was delivered and by whom. PIL may not have been the ones delivering it, so maybe perverting the course of justice might be a better option?

Sandydragon wrote:I suppose it depends on how th evidence was delivered and by whom. PIL may not have been the ones delivering it, so maybe perverting the course of justice might be a better option?

From onlyname left's post: 'The SDT found that Shiner authorised and procured his firm Public Interest Lawyers to enter an agreement in June 2015 providing financial benefits to a third party in order for him to change his evidence to the Al-Sweady inquiry into allegations of atrocities in Iraq.'

The fact that they asked a 3rd party to change his evidence & paid him to do so is a pretty clear instance of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice

I should stress the quote is from the Law Society Gazette, not the written judgment which hasn't been issued yet.

Mercer has written to the Met to see if criminal charges can be pressed.

OptimisticJock wrote:Mercer has written to the Met to see if criminal charges can be pressed.

Good for him. Someone needs to keep the pressure on.

Soldiers are just doing their job, exploited by the system which has produced them. You can't blame them for this illegal war. The blame lies at the feet of the profiteering ruling class who wage these wars.

Zhivago wrote:Soldiers are just doing their job, exploited by the system which has produced them. You can't blame them for this illegal war. The blame lies at the feet of the profiteering ruling class who wage these wars.

Actually you can if they have broken the law on an individual basis. But helping to making false allegations isn't acceptable.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Soldiers are just doing their job, exploited by the system which has produced them. You can't blame them for this illegal war. The blame lies at the feet of the profiteering ruling class who wage these wars.

Actually you can if they have broken the law on an individual basis. But helping to making false allegations isn't acceptable.

I thought the idea was that they were being persecuted because of ill feelings about the unjust war that was waged. Surely that's what this is all about.

I'm of course assuming you don't think zero prosecutions is due to gov whitewash.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Soldiers are just doing their job, exploited by the system which has produced them. You can't blame them for this illegal war. The blame lies at the feet of the profiteering ruling class who wage these wars.

Actually you can if they have broken the law on an individual basis. But helping to making false allegations isn't acceptable.

I thought the idea was that they were being persecuted because of ill feelings about the unjust war that was waged. Surely that's what this is all about.

I'm of course assuming you don't think zero prosecutions is due to gov whitewash.

Zero prosecutions due to a lack of evidence. You will of course believe otherwise, without any evidence of course, but that happens to be th case. There have been successful prosecutions of service personnel related to incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan, so I'm not sure that any argument that there is a coverup has any credibility.

The persecution was because of a lawyer who was a member of the stop th war coalition who decided that there was a systemic failure in discipline where none existed.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Actually you can if they have broken the law on an individual basis. But helping to making false allegations isn't acceptable.

I thought the idea was that they were being persecuted because of ill feelings about the unjust war that was waged. Surely that's what this is all about.

I'm of course assuming you don't think zero prosecutions is due to gov whitewash.

Zero prosecutions due to a lack of evidence. You will of course believe otherwise, without any evidence of course, but that happens to be th case. There have been successful prosecutions of service personnel related to incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan, so I'm not sure that any argument that there is a coverup has any credibility.

The persecution was because of a lawyer who was a member of the stop th war coalition who decided that there was a systemic failure in discipline where none existed.

No, I don't necessarily think it's a whitewash, I never claimed that it was.

Now Shiner has declared himself bankrupt weeks after selling his house to his daughters for £300K cash....

Legal types.....more tricky than a barrel of monkeys.

onlynameleft wrote:Now Shiner has declared himself bankrupt weeks after selling his house to his daughters for £300K cash....

Total cunt. Shame we don't do public flogging any more.

Sandydragon wrote:

onlynameleft wrote:Now Shiner has declared himself bankrupt weeks after selling his house to his daughters for £300K cash....

Total cunt. Shame we don't do public flogging any more.

This.

Interesting that Legal Profession kept on supporting him right to the end.

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/comment-an ... 93.article

Some of the comments are very interesing.

Must've been written by his mate.

OptimisticJock wrote:Must've been written by his mate.

They all tend to close ranks when there is any criticism.