I guess it was going to happen one day. Someone called Andrew Brooks has taken offence at my comments on the decision of the UK judiciary to ban continued publication of the documents disclosed by the Barclays whistleblower.
I said two things. Firstly:
I’m not surprised at the decision. It is a repeat of the stupidity of the British judiciary when faced with issues of substance of importance to their chums in the hierarchy of society.
And then:
This whole Barclays scam is, to put it quite unsubtly, a fraud on the public in the sense that it relies upon a deception (albeit legitimate, assisted here by the Courts) to secure a financial advantage for Barclays executives at cost to the taxpayer and Barclays shareholders.
Andrew Brookes said:
I, and I expect many others also, will find this type of comment not only highly offensive towards what continues to be the the most respected judiciary in the world, but it also goes to show the fundamental weakness in too much of what you write. One day, you might choose instead to recognise the respective functions of the judiciary and the government and then direct your attentions properly to those whom actually make the laws you complain of.
Seeking to imply that the judiciary is (in my interpretation of your comment) corrupt, does neither you, nor the veracity of any arguments you wish to advance, any credit.
I did not retract so now he has added:
Whether I agree with them, or not, I respect your right to express your views. But you a member of a professional body and should be expected to act accordingly. I accept I may be wrong in expressing this view, which is why, having first raised the matter here, I have now invited the Bar Council to take up the matter with the ICAEW.
Ahhh‚Ķ.so there we have it. Because I’m a chartered accountant I’m not allowed to express my view on the judiciary upholding abusive law (as they so often do in the tax area — indeed — but for the House of Lords decision in the Westmoreland case I am pretty sure Barclays would not dare try the exercise they undertook) and suppressing the right of people to know what is already in the public domain. Anyone else can but the old boy’s network must not let the side down. If it does then he who does so must be severely punished. So runs the logic‚Ķ‚Ķ
Creating these abusive schemes, commenting upon them (as we know PWC did), operating the offshore mechanisms that facilitates them, undermining democracy and the rule of law in the process — all that is fine for a member of the profession.
But saying that the judiciary does not want the public to know that they are losing tax revenue by the deception of a major bank — now that is a serious issue requiring professional discipline.
I await to hear what happens with interest, but no concern.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I shall not be wishing you good luck Richard if the ICAEW decide to do something about this “complaint” but don’t need to as it should be laughed out of Moorgate Place.
By the way who the hell is Andrew Brooks anyway. Dare I mention free speech?
Richard
I would take this to be an encouraging sign that your campaign is really starting to achieve something substantial. But you will only know this when you are sued by someone wealthy.
As to Andrew Brooks’ actions, we have a doctrine in Scots Law (from our Roman Law roots) that I consider to be apposite: “Sponsio Ludicra – a trifling or ludicrous engagement that a court (here read ICAEW) will not entertain an action for”. But then, if the law as practised by lawyers were not full of ludicrous engagements the legal profession would not have reached the dizzy heights of affluence and pomposity it has today.
It looks like you’re beginning to get to them Richard. I don’t know whether the gentleman concerned is a member of the ‘wealth management’ industry, but it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if he was.
I think it’s safe to say that the man in question is quite heavily involved in tax and trusts.
Need I say more….
He never leaves a link to his own blog. Let’s say it’s not always respectful of those whose opinion he does not share.
But he thinks they’re from a lower life order, no doubt, so that is alright and no doubt quite becoming professional conduct.
Richard
I see Roger has already said what I was going to say. If this didn’t happen, you would know you weren’t accomplishing anything. Perversely, it is actually a good sign!
This article absolutely stuns me. Roger Rabbit hit it on the head (boy, the things you never thought you’d hear yourself say…lol)
This is just asinine.
Good luck to you Richard.
“I have now invited the Bar Council to take up the matter with the ICAEW”
The Bar Council represents practising barristers, not High Court judges. I doubt that they will be greatly impressed.
I do not know, nor do I care who, or what, Andrew Brooks is but his grasp of the legal world is somewhat tenuous if he thinks that the laws by which High Court judges try and protect us poor simple British subjects from information freely circulating in the rest of the world were ever passed by Parliament. The polite term is Common Law, but the reality when it comes to supressing information is that judges simply make it up as they go along.
Have just received the April copy of Accountancy (the ICAEW magazine) and have checked the “disciplinaries”page.
Good news, Richard, you’re not in this month’s issue!