This was an Open Letter to Lord Falconer sent from my home address in Lancaster 28 Nov 06.
He did not respond.
Justice must not only be done... it must be seen to be believed. J B Morton.Open Letter (2) to Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer. Today 28 Nov 06 Attached to email and copied widely.
Dear Lord Falconer
Further to my letter dated 21 Sept 06 which remains ignored by you I write again on the same theme, your hypocrisy and corrupt/criminal judges and court staff – employees of yours. You know and do nothing.
In the Daily Express Friday 29 Sept 06 I read an article under the heading, ‘Falconer’s big U-turn on rights’ (human rights) where you were quoted as saying, “ We intend to mount a campaign for human rights – human rights not just for the oppressed minorities but for everyone. We will campaign for human rights, campaign passionately and campaign defiantly”.
That quote is beyond belief. (One basic human right is to be heard; your illegal immunity placed on any reporting of my case to protect the corrupt in government violates my rights under EU legislation. Please ask if you need that legislation.)
Additional to the violations of human rights and privations I have suffered and endured now for almost 6 years now at the hands of your corrupt employees acting on your instruction I continue on from my letter 21 Sept 06 which, I repeat, has been ignored by you. (Violation of Article 17 HRA 1998 please ask if you are unsure.)
1. Russell Meek of the Court Service was to investigate the documented PAYOLA of chairmen in Manchester Employment Tribunals: Peter Russell, David Leahy, SD Robertson, Robinson at least.
Russell Meek was prevented from investigating my claims because it was known that I had cogent evidence of that PAYOLA.
Russell had been assigned to investigate the same claims from another in Birmingham Tribunals.
That claimant declined to deal with him because he would not truly inform her of his intentions should her claim be proven. Russell was forced to discriminate against me because I was never given the opportunities that other person had been given.
Additionally some of those mentioned in Manchester Tribunals state in court that they are barristers when the Bar Council confirmed that they had never heard of them. Do they work with false CV’s and false credentials? (The Bar Council, following your lead, did not respond to my Open Letter about corruption within their ranks.)
More recently, as I tried for months within this year alone to advance that matter, your staff were instructed not to deal with me. I continued after receiving an email sent to me in error.
It had gone between Russell, Danny O Sullivan (the one from 2003 who knew of the corruption then see letter 21/9/06) and James Rose.
I emailed James Rose asking about my complaint thinking that it was to be investigated after all but James Rose emailed me saying that they would not respond. I reminded him of the White Paper Code for Conduct for Civil Servants. That Code of Conduct was clearly not meant for anyone with a GSI.GOV.UK address
2. Complaint PETER BALL Regional chairman Appeals Service Liverpool.
Peter Ball informed me that he was a solicitor in Manchester yet is not listed with the Law Society. The Bar Council does not appear to know of him.
Peter Ball reserved my case for himself to prevent the documented corruption from being seen by others outside the corrupt cartel named in my case(s).
Peter Ball, I was told, after being forced to travel to Liverpool as no papers would be sent to me, would be taken from my case and the Regional Chairman of the Appeals Service would look at my case, Peter Ball was not to have any further dealings whatsoever from then and his decision would be set aside and we would begin again.
That clerk informing a witness and me of that on our personal visit had been instructed to lie to us.Peter Ball was the Regional Chairman. That compounded the original lie of him saying that he was part time chairman and a solicitor in Manchester.
It is known that Peter Ball will sabotage my efforts to take my appeal to the Social Security Commissioners.
He has commandeered my case for himself; that is illegal under any legislation. That right to impartiality and non-discrimination is violated.
3. I have tried to have a pack of forms to apply for a judicial review sent to me. As a repeat performance of 2004 I am denied that right.
In my letter of Sept 06 to you I recorded the events of Nov 04.
I was denied my right to forms for a judicial review then as well and was forced to undertake that lengthy and expensive journey to London whilst very ill. Had there been any further delay I would have been out of time for application. How does that sit with your assertions about ‘human rights for everyone’?
Again you give me no alternative but to travel to obtain those forms.
Then I will have to travel again as I did in 2004 because if I do not deliver by hand they simply ‘disappear’.
Readers copied into my open letter to the Chairman of the Royal Mail will see the record of that routine interception of my mail even when sent by expensive delivery services. (Naturally I am never compensated for the loss and waste of postages. And, after my Open Letter to the Chairman of the Royal Mail, those Freemasons up here, including JOHN BUTLER of Lancaster Sorting Office are now going to extraordinary lengths to cover their corrupt practices of earlier. The efforts they make would be laughable if the situation was not so grave.)
4. The Employment Appeal Tribunal. (EAT). Not content with knowing that their corrupt practices of 2003 with QC JEREMY McMULLEN and MICHAEL BURTON could be proven and were witnessed they continued on into 2005 and to the present. MICHAEL ARBUCKLE and PAULINE DONLEAVY are willing recruits in that corruption led by Lancashire County Council, the common denominator in all of this. And, of course their legal rep of 2002/03, Cherie Blair for which see letter of 21 Sept 06.
Apparently I was in three places at once on 19 April 06.
I was having a claim dealt with in Chambers (violation Article 6 HRA) by Judge ALTMAN.
At the same time, 10.30 a.m. according to the Daily Cause List I was also having a claim heard in front of a panel of 3 judges. I was attending a medical appointment in Lancaster and then on way to Devon to resume my holiday which had been broken into for the medical appointment which I would not miss.
The EAT denied me the right under the Practice Directions 2004 to see documents when I personally visited on 6 April 06. That was to prevent me seeing the planned corruption. When the corrupt practices were known to have happened I went again in May 06 personally and again was deprived the right to see relevant documents.
I am still deprived of that right even though the PD 2004 document states that it is a right.
MICHAEL ARBUCKLE deals with the matters.
He, with LCC and Pauline Donleavy, is having a troublesome time producing anything that I would have needed to submit for any of the hearings I was supposed to have attended.
I constantly point out that only so much history can be rewritten.
And then that depends on the documents in my possession being rewritten. But why would I want to rewrite anything? How does any of that afford me human rights?
Never in the field of court conflict has so much been rewritten for so many by so few.
Your court service is a disgrace. You know and do nothing.
The public confidence in the judiciary is low for good reason.
Bringing criminal judges to trial would have the opposite effect of what is feared.
It is common knowledge that the judicial mafia ruins individuals just because they can.
When chairmen in tribunals can say, when human rights Articles are invoked, “We don’t bother with those” it is time to show him that ‘we’ do by dismissing him as another bullying court ignoramus.
When such as Lord Justice Peter Gibson suggests in court that I have made up most of the human rights legislation,
When all the criminal judges and court staff in my case(s) refuse to enter and register cases, close courts, prevent witnesses from attending, fail to list my case on public listings, hear full cases with me as appellant/claimant when I know nothing about the hearings, produce court ‘Orders’ intending to harm me on documents with my signature forged to validate those ‘Orders’, steal documents from bundles, impose massive costs for cases that have never been registered and never legally heard, produce court documents with false and defamatory information about me knowing that the contents of such documents are to be entered into other courts, make such remarks as “I can’t reveal this massive corruption”, impersonate judges and manufacture tapes when there has been no court hearing and all as recorded in my ignored letter of 21 Sept 06, when all the criminals from the judicial mafia and Freemasons are held to account if only under human rights legislation, will there ever be public confidence in the cornerstone of a civilized nation, the courts, and justice being seen to be done.
Even without human rights legislation as per “We don’t bother with those” there is enough statute and common law under English legislation prior to 1998.
Contempt of Court Act 1981 Sec 1 and 2(2) Accept and see false docs entered and do nothing.
Misconduct in Public Office (incl Misfeasance.) Perverting the Course of Justice.
Interception of Communications Act 1985.
Given that I have an allocated crime number showing that I was to be taken seriously about the criminal, Lord Justice Peter Gibson (Until Paul Stephenson stepped in as Deputy Commissioner of the MET for which motive see my letter of 21 Sept 06 and the whistleblowing matter which began all this) then surely he needed to be suspended. The very fact that you knew you employed a criminal and continued to do so violates rights for everyone being forced to appear in front of him. He clearly does not intend to consider the law and clearly altered the transcript when he was caught out. Naturally, cogent evidence discharges the burden of proof on those matters. They were also witnessed.)
And what charges against a person for impersonating a judge and convening a court scenario as happened in Lancaster County Court on 16 Feb 04 in the full knowledge of STEPHEN SAINSBURY and MRS GREGSON court managers there (all as in my letter 21/9/06)?
And you have done nothing except to distance yourself e.g. 4th July 2005 when there was an article in the Daily Mail, Matthew Hinckley, re lack of faith from public re court transcript and trials with video recordings. That was because you knew then that I had court documents showing that court transcripts are routinely altered and that court transcribers such as JL Harpham in Sheffield are paid to offer false transcripts knowing that they pervert the course of justice. (All as in my letter 21/9/06).
Under civil law you have vicarious liability for your employees committing criminal offences. (Please ask if you need Case law).
Some of those offences are mentioned above and others include:
Intent to harm (knowledge and foresight into the criminal law generally.)
County Court Act 1984 Sec 133, 134, 136 especially
Assist offenders and Obstruct justice (Criminal Law Act 1968 Sec 4 (1)
Malicious Communications 1981 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 Computer Misuse Act 1990
Perjury Act 1911 (Sec 5 at least) Please ask for Case Law if needed.
Criminal Attempts Act 1981 Fraud (see Black’s for definition and Lord Denning on Fraud.)
Extortion and Demand Money with Menaces.
For the benefit of others copied into this I refer to case law for corrupt judges. They are not above the law despite their belief in themselves as so being. R v Llewellyn Jones 1967: R v Benbridge 1783: R v Marshall 1855: Lord Campbell, “…. no doubt a judge who maliciously obstructs the course of justice is guilty of a misdemeanour”.
There are others. Please ask if you need assistance.
We need more like Judge Patrick Robertshaw: Nov 25th 2002. The cancer of local government corruption must be eradiated. And that is the bottom line here, local government corruption (Lancashire) compounded by their associations with Cherie Blair and her involvement in the originating matter.
Please ask if you need me to list the corrupt judges and court staff involved. Why should they bring into disrepute the few staff that have been helpful and concerned about what my case reveals?
Yours sincerely Carol Woods 3 pages copied widely for total transparency. White and ordinary, the discrimination is apparent. None of you would have dared to treat me as I have been treated if I had a different religion.
Dear Lord Falconer
Further to my letter dated 21 Sept 06 which remains ignored by you I write again on the same theme, your hypocrisy and corrupt/criminal judges and court staff – employees of yours. You know and do nothing.
In the Daily Express Friday 29 Sept 06 I read an article under the heading, ‘Falconer’s big U-turn on rights’ (human rights) where you were quoted as saying, “ We intend to mount a campaign for human rights – human rights not just for the oppressed minorities but for everyone. We will campaign for human rights, campaign passionately and campaign defiantly”.
That quote is beyond belief. (One basic human right is to be heard; your illegal immunity placed on any reporting of my case to protect the corrupt in government violates my rights under EU legislation. Please ask if you need that legislation.)
Additional to the violations of human rights and privations I have suffered and endured now for almost 6 years now at the hands of your corrupt employees acting on your instruction I continue on from my letter 21 Sept 06 which, I repeat, has been ignored by you. (Violation of Article 17 HRA 1998 please ask if you are unsure.)
1. Russell Meek of the Court Service was to investigate the documented PAYOLA of chairmen in Manchester Employment Tribunals: Peter Russell, David Leahy, SD Robertson, Robinson at least.
Russell Meek was prevented from investigating my claims because it was known that I had cogent evidence of that PAYOLA.
Russell had been assigned to investigate the same claims from another in Birmingham Tribunals.
That claimant declined to deal with him because he would not truly inform her of his intentions should her claim be proven. Russell was forced to discriminate against me because I was never given the opportunities that other person had been given.
Additionally some of those mentioned in Manchester Tribunals state in court that they are barristers when the Bar Council confirmed that they had never heard of them. Do they work with false CV’s and false credentials? (The Bar Council, following your lead, did not respond to my Open Letter about corruption within their ranks.)
More recently, as I tried for months within this year alone to advance that matter, your staff were instructed not to deal with me. I continued after receiving an email sent to me in error.
It had gone between Russell, Danny O Sullivan (the one from 2003 who knew of the corruption then see letter 21/9/06) and James Rose.
I emailed James Rose asking about my complaint thinking that it was to be investigated after all but James Rose emailed me saying that they would not respond. I reminded him of the White Paper Code for Conduct for Civil Servants. That Code of Conduct was clearly not meant for anyone with a GSI.GOV.UK address
2. Complaint PETER BALL Regional chairman Appeals Service Liverpool.
Peter Ball informed me that he was a solicitor in Manchester yet is not listed with the Law Society. The Bar Council does not appear to know of him.
Peter Ball reserved my case for himself to prevent the documented corruption from being seen by others outside the corrupt cartel named in my case(s).
Peter Ball, I was told, after being forced to travel to Liverpool as no papers would be sent to me, would be taken from my case and the Regional Chairman of the Appeals Service would look at my case, Peter Ball was not to have any further dealings whatsoever from then and his decision would be set aside and we would begin again.
That clerk informing a witness and me of that on our personal visit had been instructed to lie to us.Peter Ball was the Regional Chairman. That compounded the original lie of him saying that he was part time chairman and a solicitor in Manchester.
It is known that Peter Ball will sabotage my efforts to take my appeal to the Social Security Commissioners.
He has commandeered my case for himself; that is illegal under any legislation. That right to impartiality and non-discrimination is violated.
3. I have tried to have a pack of forms to apply for a judicial review sent to me. As a repeat performance of 2004 I am denied that right.
In my letter of Sept 06 to you I recorded the events of Nov 04.
I was denied my right to forms for a judicial review then as well and was forced to undertake that lengthy and expensive journey to London whilst very ill. Had there been any further delay I would have been out of time for application. How does that sit with your assertions about ‘human rights for everyone’?
Again you give me no alternative but to travel to obtain those forms.
Then I will have to travel again as I did in 2004 because if I do not deliver by hand they simply ‘disappear’.
Readers copied into my open letter to the Chairman of the Royal Mail will see the record of that routine interception of my mail even when sent by expensive delivery services. (Naturally I am never compensated for the loss and waste of postages. And, after my Open Letter to the Chairman of the Royal Mail, those Freemasons up here, including JOHN BUTLER of Lancaster Sorting Office are now going to extraordinary lengths to cover their corrupt practices of earlier. The efforts they make would be laughable if the situation was not so grave.)
4. The Employment Appeal Tribunal. (EAT). Not content with knowing that their corrupt practices of 2003 with QC JEREMY McMULLEN and MICHAEL BURTON could be proven and were witnessed they continued on into 2005 and to the present. MICHAEL ARBUCKLE and PAULINE DONLEAVY are willing recruits in that corruption led by Lancashire County Council, the common denominator in all of this. And, of course their legal rep of 2002/03, Cherie Blair for which see letter of 21 Sept 06.
Apparently I was in three places at once on 19 April 06.
I was having a claim dealt with in Chambers (violation Article 6 HRA) by Judge ALTMAN.
At the same time, 10.30 a.m. according to the Daily Cause List I was also having a claim heard in front of a panel of 3 judges. I was attending a medical appointment in Lancaster and then on way to Devon to resume my holiday which had been broken into for the medical appointment which I would not miss.
The EAT denied me the right under the Practice Directions 2004 to see documents when I personally visited on 6 April 06. That was to prevent me seeing the planned corruption. When the corrupt practices were known to have happened I went again in May 06 personally and again was deprived the right to see relevant documents.
I am still deprived of that right even though the PD 2004 document states that it is a right.
MICHAEL ARBUCKLE deals with the matters.
He, with LCC and Pauline Donleavy, is having a troublesome time producing anything that I would have needed to submit for any of the hearings I was supposed to have attended.
I constantly point out that only so much history can be rewritten.
And then that depends on the documents in my possession being rewritten. But why would I want to rewrite anything? How does any of that afford me human rights?
Never in the field of court conflict has so much been rewritten for so many by so few.
Your court service is a disgrace. You know and do nothing.
The public confidence in the judiciary is low for good reason.
Bringing criminal judges to trial would have the opposite effect of what is feared.
It is common knowledge that the judicial mafia ruins individuals just because they can.
When chairmen in tribunals can say, when human rights Articles are invoked, “We don’t bother with those” it is time to show him that ‘we’ do by dismissing him as another bullying court ignoramus.
When such as Lord Justice Peter Gibson suggests in court that I have made up most of the human rights legislation,
When all the criminal judges and court staff in my case(s) refuse to enter and register cases, close courts, prevent witnesses from attending, fail to list my case on public listings, hear full cases with me as appellant/claimant when I know nothing about the hearings, produce court ‘Orders’ intending to harm me on documents with my signature forged to validate those ‘Orders’, steal documents from bundles, impose massive costs for cases that have never been registered and never legally heard, produce court documents with false and defamatory information about me knowing that the contents of such documents are to be entered into other courts, make such remarks as “I can’t reveal this massive corruption”, impersonate judges and manufacture tapes when there has been no court hearing and all as recorded in my ignored letter of 21 Sept 06, when all the criminals from the judicial mafia and Freemasons are held to account if only under human rights legislation, will there ever be public confidence in the cornerstone of a civilized nation, the courts, and justice being seen to be done.
Even without human rights legislation as per “We don’t bother with those” there is enough statute and common law under English legislation prior to 1998.
Contempt of Court Act 1981 Sec 1 and 2(2) Accept and see false docs entered and do nothing.
Misconduct in Public Office (incl Misfeasance.) Perverting the Course of Justice.
Interception of Communications Act 1985.
Given that I have an allocated crime number showing that I was to be taken seriously about the criminal, Lord Justice Peter Gibson (Until Paul Stephenson stepped in as Deputy Commissioner of the MET for which motive see my letter of 21 Sept 06 and the whistleblowing matter which began all this) then surely he needed to be suspended. The very fact that you knew you employed a criminal and continued to do so violates rights for everyone being forced to appear in front of him. He clearly does not intend to consider the law and clearly altered the transcript when he was caught out. Naturally, cogent evidence discharges the burden of proof on those matters. They were also witnessed.)
And what charges against a person for impersonating a judge and convening a court scenario as happened in Lancaster County Court on 16 Feb 04 in the full knowledge of STEPHEN SAINSBURY and MRS GREGSON court managers there (all as in my letter 21/9/06)?
And you have done nothing except to distance yourself e.g. 4th July 2005 when there was an article in the Daily Mail, Matthew Hinckley, re lack of faith from public re court transcript and trials with video recordings. That was because you knew then that I had court documents showing that court transcripts are routinely altered and that court transcribers such as JL Harpham in Sheffield are paid to offer false transcripts knowing that they pervert the course of justice. (All as in my letter 21/9/06).
Under civil law you have vicarious liability for your employees committing criminal offences. (Please ask if you need Case law).
Some of those offences are mentioned above and others include:
Intent to harm (knowledge and foresight into the criminal law generally.)
County Court Act 1984 Sec 133, 134, 136 especially
Assist offenders and Obstruct justice (Criminal Law Act 1968 Sec 4 (1)
Malicious Communications 1981 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 Computer Misuse Act 1990
Perjury Act 1911 (Sec 5 at least) Please ask for Case Law if needed.
Criminal Attempts Act 1981 Fraud (see Black’s for definition and Lord Denning on Fraud.)
Extortion and Demand Money with Menaces.
For the benefit of others copied into this I refer to case law for corrupt judges. They are not above the law despite their belief in themselves as so being. R v Llewellyn Jones 1967: R v Benbridge 1783: R v Marshall 1855: Lord Campbell, “…. no doubt a judge who maliciously obstructs the course of justice is guilty of a misdemeanour”.
There are others. Please ask if you need assistance.
We need more like Judge Patrick Robertshaw: Nov 25th 2002. The cancer of local government corruption must be eradiated. And that is the bottom line here, local government corruption (Lancashire) compounded by their associations with Cherie Blair and her involvement in the originating matter.
Please ask if you need me to list the corrupt judges and court staff involved. Why should they bring into disrepute the few staff that have been helpful and concerned about what my case reveals?
Yours sincerely Carol Woods 3 pages copied widely for total transparency. White and ordinary, the discrimination is apparent. None of you would have dared to treat me as I have been treated if I had a different religion.
4 comments:
Falconer is rebuked over whistleblower
By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor 12:01 AM BST 02 Apr 2004
Lord Falconer, the Constitution Secretary, was rebuked yesterday by a Commons committee over the disciplining of a "whistleblower" who gave evidence to MPs about the failings of an official child protection agency.
The standards and privileges committee ruled that he had committed a contempt of Parliament in suspending Judy Weleminsky from the board of the Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service (CAFCASS).
However, the committee accepted that he had not intended to penalise her for giving evidence to the Commons constitutional affairs committee and recommended no further action should be taken against him.
The case was referred to the standards and privileges committee earlier this year after the constitutional affairs committee complained that Miss Weleminsky's suspension from the CAFCASS board constituted a "prima facie breach" of parliamentary privilege.
The standards and privileges committee said a letter sent by Lord Falconer on Dec 11 suspending Miss Weleminsky had given the "unfortunate impression" that she was being punished for giving evidence to the constitutional affairs committee.
Alan Duncan, the Tory constitutional affairs spokesman, said: "Ministers will trash civil servants in order to cover their own incompetence. This is becoming a familiar pattern of New Labour in government."
Miss Weleminsky said she was "very pleased" by the report's findings and called for more support for those speaking out. "Life is made very difficult for them," she added
Whistleblowers are always targeted, then the cover up begins...
Lord Falconer ready to sue Gordon Brown over pension
By Andrew Porter, Political Editor 12:01AM GMT 01 Nov 2007
Lord Falconer is preparing to sue Gordon Brown over his refusal to allow him to claim a six-figure pension, The Telegraph can disclose.
The unprecedented development sets the scene for a potentially explosive court case between Tony Blair's close friend and the Government.
The former Lord Chancellor is adamant that he is due a higher pension and is preparing for a courtroom battle after the Prime Minister refused the request. The controversy stems from when Lord Falconer was made Lord Chancellor in 2003.
He was entitled to an annual salary and pension that exceeded any other cabinet minister, including the Prime Minister. Historically, that reflected the fact that the Lord Chancellor had given up a lucrative private legal career — he had been earning more than £500,000 a year.
But instead of taking the £232,900-a-year package on offer, he opted for the standard £104,386 deal that was paid to cabinet ministers based in the House of Lords to avoid a political row.
The Cabinet Office says his pension entitlement is £52,193, but Lord Falconer believes it should be double that.
Former Lord Chancellors are not allowed to return to practise at the bar to avoid them appearing in cases with judges they have appointed.
Neither side looks like backing down, which could lead to a gripping legal fight. The row also threatens to open old feuds between Blairites and Brownites. Last month Lord Falconer – who once shared a flat with Tony Blair — criticised Mr Brown over his decision not to call a general election.
He is understood to believe he has a very strong case, which could hinge on a statement he gave to the Lords in 2004.
In a debate on constitutional reform, the future role of the Lord Chancellor was being examined. Mr Blair had said he intended ultimately to abolish the role of Lord Chancellor. But in the meantime Lord Falconer — who never served as an MP — took the role as well as that of Constitutional Affairs Secretary.
But crucially, he told the Lords: "The Lord Chancellor will retain the current pension and salary arrangements of his office". He now believes that this should be the case. But the Cabinet Office maintains that the position on his pension should be tied to the salary he took in 2003.
The threat of legal action is part of an intriguing game of brinkmanship between Lord Falconer and Mr Brown.
The former Lord Chancellor may hope to force government lawyers to cave in. However, as such a case is thought never to have been tested before the Government is expected to push ahead and defend it.
Mr Brown and Lord Falconer have held private talks in recent weeks but they have "ground totally to a halt".
Last year Lord Falconer was criticised by MPs for benefiting from a grace and favour flat in Admiralty House, a perk worth about £200,000 a year. He lost the use of it when he left Government but still owns homes in London and Nottinghamshire.
from:
http://www.solicitorsfromhell.me.uk/charlie-has-been-sacked.html
Falconer, lord of nonsense. (Column)
From:The Daily Mail (London, England)
Date: June 21, 2004
Byline: PETER MCKAY
COMMON sense suggests it would be unwise for a Prime Minister to select as his Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs a man with whom he once shared a flat, a crony without obvious qualifications for the job.
However, that's what happened when Tony Blair picked his lawyer friend Charlie Falconer.
If Lord Falconer of Thoroton (as he became) possesses other qualities which would commend him as a senior government minister to other premiers, these have not come to light.
Charlie Falconer was a childhood friend of the prime minister and the pair later shared a London flat in the early days of their legal careers.
Like the outgoing Lord Chancellor Lord Irvine, Lord Falconer has never been elected and was promoted to the Lords soon after Labour came to power in 1997 because Mr Blair wanted him in government.
His most high profile job was taking ministerial responsibility for the "poisoned chalice" of the Millennium Domen after Peter Mandelson's first resignation.
Post a Comment