IFA Defence Union - Fair Hearing is a legal right

Make a donation, monthly and/or single HERE

We are launching a campaign to lobby the lawmakers.

Why the CPMA should look again at human rights

Issues

Peter Hamilton is a barrister specialising in financial services at 4 Pump Court

The new Chancellor of the Exchequer set out plans for the reform of financial regulation in his Mansion House speech recently.

The day after George Osborne’s speech, Treasury Financial Secretary Mark Hoban, enlarging on what the Chancellor had said, made a further announcement in Parliament: “At the heart of the banking crisis was a rapid and unsustainable increase in debt. Our macro-economic and regulatory system utterly failed to identify correctly the risk that posed, let alone prevent it.

“No one was controlling levels of debt and when the crunch came, no one knew who was in charge.

“For that reason, we need a macro-prudential regulator with a more systematic and detailed knowledge of what is happening not only in individual firms but across the financial system as a whole.

“Only central banks have the broad macro-economic understanding and understanding of markets, the authority and the knowledge required to make macro-prudential judgments.

“We will therefore place the Bank of England in charge of macro-prudential regulation by establishing within the bank a financial policy committee. We will also create two new, focused regulators- a new prudential regulator under the Bank of England, headed by a new deputy governor, and a new Consumer Protection and Markets Authority.

“All the new bodies will be accountable to Parliament, and their remit will be clear, so that never again can someone ask who is in charge and get no answer.

“First, we will legislate to create the financial policy committee in the Bank of England. It will have the responsibility to look across the economy at the macro-economic and financial issues that may threaten stability, and it will be given the tools to address the risks it identifies.
“It will have the power to require the new Prudential Regulation Authority to implement its directions by taking regulatory action with respect to all firms.

“Secondly, we will create a Prudential Regulation Authority as a subsidiary of the Bank of England. It will conduct prudential regulation of sectors such as deposit-takers, insurers and investment banks.

“Thirdly, a new Consumer Protection and Markets Authority will take on the Financial Services Authority’s responsibility for consumer protection and conduct regulation.

“The CPMA will regulate the conduct of all firms, both retail and wholesale, including those prudentially regulated by the PRA, and will take a strong proactive role as a consumer champion. It will have a strong mandate for ensuring that financial services and markets are transparent in their operation.

“The CPMA will regulate the conduct of every financial services business, whether they trade on the high street or trade in high finance. We need to ensure that this body has a tougher, more proactive approach to regulating conduct, and its primary objective will be promoting confidence in financial services and markets.”

At this stage, what can be made of the broad outline of those plans? There is a long way to go before they become a reality. There will be a consultation paper later in the summer, then there will have to be legislation which is promised within two years and the act which emerges from Parliament is likely to include (perhaps substantial) changes to the broad shape of what has been announced.

It is clear that the need for reform is chiefly driven by the failure of the current regulators to prevent the banking crisis and to ensure it does not happen again.

The key point is that prudential regulation of big financial institutions should be undertaken or overseen by the Bank of England, which is the lender of last resort.

On the other hand, the new Consumer Protection and Markets Authority will take on the FSA’s responsibility for consumer protection and conduct regulation. It will be refocused as “a consumer champion” and will have “a tougher, more proactive approach to regulating conduct, and its primary objective will be promoting confidence in financial services and markets”.

There are a number of comments to be made. The first is to note that all three of the new regulatory bodies are to be accountable to Parliament.

That is an important change for the better. At present, the FSA is at least nominally independent of the Government and Parliament. One of the negative consequences has been that the Parliamentary Ombudsman has had no jurisdiction to investigate FSA failings.

Recently, the Parliamentary Ombudsman produced a much admired report into the failings of the regulators concerning Equitable Life.
The Government, the FSA, and the public at large would have benefited from a similar searching investigation of the failures of regulation that contributed to the collapse of Northern Rock, HBOS and RBS.

Once the new CPMA is established and accountable to Parliament, it should also then fall within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

She will therefore be able to investigate allegations of maladministration by the CPMA referred to her by MPs.

Second, the new CPMA will have a fresh opportunity to put the rule of law and the law of human rights at the heart of the way in which it does its job.

The rule of law is not an abstract concept of interest only to academic constitutional lawyers. It is of vital importance to all of us all of the time, it underpins our essential values and freedom. The courts will take action to uphold it. Fairness is at the root of the concept: -all are equal before the law and all are subject to it and rules of law should not be retrospective in their application.

There are at least two well known examples of concern to IFAs where arguably the FSA has not paid due regard to the rule of law.
The first is in relation to the lack of a long stop in the Financial Ombudsman Service rules, imposed retrospectively on all subject to the FOS jurisdiction, and rendering IFAs subject to different rules of limitation.

The second example is the unfair proposal made in the course of the retail distribution review that currently authorised IFAs will be disqualified if they do not requalify under rules to be introduced and to take effect at the end of 2012.

As a member of the profession, the ordinary law already requires him to work to the standard of a reasonably competent IFA. If he is not working to that standard, he would not be fit and proper under the present rules and he would be liable to have his authorisation cancelled.

On the day that the new qualification becomes mandatory, what will have changed apart from the rule itself? The IFA remains the same person who, up to the day before, was regarded as fit and proper and working to at least the standard that the ordinary law requires.

This has been discussed in my previous articles. Let us trust that the new CPMA will have second thoughts.

There is a natural and obvious close relation between the rule of law and human rights. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that the Human Rights Act 1998 should also be engaged in respect of those same two examples.

The FSA has been unwilling to acknowledge that that act has any application. Every public authority has a statutory duty to act in a way that is compatible with the human rights enshrined by the convention and the act.

Again let us trust that in its refocused zeal to protect consumers, the CPMA will have due regard to the human rights of those it regulates

The Financial Services and Markets Bill was declared compatible with Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 by Gordon Brown, despite spending five years using all available avenues Evan Owen failed to obtain permission to have sight of any legal advice which may have supported his declaration.

In a connected exercise it took many years for us to get two cases before the European Court of Human Rights, one was brought by Andrew Kerr with under £25,000 of direct IFA support and through indirect funding by Englands Ltd and of course Evan Owen who spent £50,000 of his own money chasing your rainbows.

The easiest way to pull the rug from under any attempts to obtain justice is to abolish the offending item and replace it with something ‘new and improved’. If this compensation machine is made compatible with human rights laws and limitation acts which are legitimate legal defences will you show any gratitude to those who may now be struggling to exist?

From: Mike Fenwick
Sent: 05 March 2010 3:22 PM
To: @fscs.org.uk
Cc: @fscs.org.uk
Subject: Keydata: FSCS's Position Statement in respect of the 2010/2011 Indicative Levy

Keydata: FSCS's Position Statement in respect of the 2010/2011

Indicative Levy for the Investment Intermediation Sub-Class

I write to express my opinion in respect of the above.

I am sure you are aware that there have been issues raised on this matter, amongst which have been

suggestions that the FSCS's decisions should be challenged, perhaps by way of Judicial Review, or

perhaps by a mass refusal, on the part of those who may be subject to levy in consequence of any

FSCS final decision, to pay any such levy.

It is I believe self evident that the latter course of action, refusal to pay, would render those who

chose such action to potential de-authorisation by the FSA. It is not therefore a course of action

which should be undertaken without considerable thought.

It is equally self evident, I believe, that seeking Judicial Review of any final decision by the FSCS

involves costs, costs in the establishment of any such Review, and, perhaps equally likely, costs as they

may arise in the defence by the FSCS of any such Review. Both such costs would fall to be borne by

the very same parties - it would appear to be what is commonly called a double whammy.

I make those opening comments so that I may explain the purpose of this contact, which is to outline

from my personal perspective why it seems rational to raise issues which might influence the final

decision of the FSCS - but which can only do so if they are made known to you in advance of that

decision.

May I start here:

My understanding is that the FSCS have been asked to provide the legal opinion upon which their

current thinking is based. My past experience of requests of that type are that they are not met

with an acceptance, by the party to whom the request is made, that the legal opinion will be made

available. I am unaware whether in this instance the FSCS have agreed to make the legal opinion

available. I am willing to be corrected, and I stress that comment, but I suspect not, and if that is

the case, then as night follows day, questions must arise that matters are being hidden, or at best

deliberately kept unavailable from those most affected by any eventual FSCS decision. A process,

other than one of transparency and openness, begins. Such processes, in and of themselves, are

perhaps the initial genesis of challenges such as those mentioned above. Factually, the FSCS become

the parent of any subsequent challenges. You will understand therefore that it is my intention to allow

the contents of this communication to be made public.

However, I am aware that the FSCS have issued a position statement, and that it, in part, allows for a

partial insight into the legal advice that FSCS have received. My understanding, and again please

correct any misunderstanding on my part, is that this position statement has not been circulated, nor

perhaps has even its existence been made generally known, to all those who may have an interest in

matters concerning Keydata, neither those who may be affected by any eventual levy, nor indeed those

who have suffered losses in the Keydata affair. I choose not to believe that the FSCS are unaware of

the nature of a Judicial Review, and its scrutiny of process. It may be defensible to withhold the full

details of a legal opinion, but are the FSCS satisfied that effectively operating a version of

apartheid over who does and does not receive details of the position statement must leave it open to

question over process? The more so when, again as I understand the position, the FSCS have made

known to some, but not all, that their initial indicative thoughts are not final, and that up until

mid-March, again as I understand it, they will accept representations which may influence the

eventual decision. I fail to grasp how representations can be made, unless it is known that they have

been invited, nor how any representation would be in any way productive if the position statement

against which representations may be addressed has not been made publicly available.

I ask that you consider my comments.

However, now to substance.

I seek to address your current indicative decision from two differing perspectives, one being that

you are incorrect, and the other being that you are correct.

In doing so, and in an effort to minimise the content of this communication I intend to rely on the fact

that you are fully aware of the content of your position statement, and that I do not therefore need

to offer extracts in full where I wish to draw conclusions, but may rely on your intimate knowledge of

your own endeavours to understand the comments I make.

However, you may not be aware of comments I have already made public, and I draw these to your

attention by way of the under noted links. Again I do so to curtail repetitive comment. You will find

one post from me in the first link, and two comments in the second link - both appearing in Money

Marketing.

http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/regulation/hopes-rise-on-fscs-keydata-levy/1007741.article

http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/adviser-news/the-toll-truth/1007763.article

Why do I assert that your current indicative decision is incorrect? It lies in the manner in which I

believe the legal opinion has been reached.

We are dealing with what can best be described as a "chain of events", one event dependent on the

other, and eventually events which culminated in the losses that have occurred. I assume you would

not disagree with that analysis - this was not one event.

It is therefore crucial to assess that very sequence of events so that what happened eventually can be

traced back, step by step, to where it all started. I wish to suggest that your legal opinion (to the

extent that you have allowed it to be known) fails, and fails precisely because it does not

encompass that perspective.

Beyond the formation of Keydata itself, and its seemingly changing status - by way of its offerings,

and indeed its original authorisation by IMRO, we reach a point where it decides to bring to market a

range of products. In doing so it engages in decisions about what those products will embrace, the

investments, and potential investment returns, the management of the investments, the decisions over

who does what and when.

I do not believe that anything that occurred subsequent to those "initial" decisions, the starting point,

could have occurred but for that "initial" event.

As I see it, each and every one of those initial decisions relate to "investment management" at that very

genesis of events, they cannot at that point relate to "investment intermediation" because without the

"investment management" decisions having been concluded there is no subject matter upon which to

"intermediate".

What your legal opinion seems to suggest (as best you have made it known) is to omit and indeed ignore

both the "conception and birth", and address exclusively the "childhood" of events - and in doing so it

may have blinded you to the reality that exists if the chain of events is addressed in its correct

sequence.

Let me stress that had I been presented with the same legal opinion - with its start point of

assessment at a later stage in the actual "chain of events" than was correct, I too could reach an

indicative decision that it was "investment intermediation" - that in many ways would perhaps, I

stress perhaps, be the obvious and only conclusion.

But it would in my opinion be incorrect for the very reasons I have stated. One cannot "intermediate

investments" in the absence of earlier "investment management" decisions, and in this case the sole and

exclusive arbiter of such "investment management" decisions were Keydata.

It is impossible in my opinion to escape that conclusion. The genesis of the "chain of events" were

the "investment management" decisions taken exclusively by Keydata, and it is to that category of

activity "investment management" that the levy should fall.

However ...

Based, again on my experience, it is not at all uncommon for Bodies such as the FSCS to find it hard to

change its mind, not least when it has obtained legal opinion, whether correct or incorrect, and not

least when it has issued a position statement based on that legal opinion. Changing one's mind becomes

hard in such situations, even when cogent argument is presented that validly points in that direction.

So what are the implications if my earlier comments do not persuade you that your indicative decision

is incorrect? Indeed are there very much wider implications? In my opinion yes, and they are

profound.

Let me start by using a visual illustration - my reasoning in so doing will be justified later in these

comments.

Let me imagine that the FSCS have a two drawer filing cabinet.

In one drawer is a list given to you by the FSA, and it is headed "Firms and persons authorised and

permitted to engage in "investment management".

In the second drawer is a similar list issued by the FSA, but this time it is headed "Firms and persons

authorised and permitted to engage in "investment intermediation".

Your position statement makes clear (again I am relying on your knowledge of its contents) that for

the FSCS an immediate reaction to an event such as Keydata is not to simply ascertain which drawer

Keydata is in. No matter the permissions or authorisations granted by the FSA, the FSCS are both

required and empowered to ignore those two drawers, and must for its purposes focus exclusively on

the "activity" involved. It is the "activity" involved - in this case the activity of Keydata which

decides which drawer is involved.

That in essence is what your position statement seeks to address, and the legal opinion (such as you

have made known) seeks to assist you in addressing.

Both seek to list a number of criteria by which you can decide, who holds the monies, who acts as

agents, etc etc - you already know the points involved without my repeating them.

What it produces, and for you to hold to your current position, what it must continue to defend, is a

"DNA profile" of those factors from which it is possible to distinguish a person or firm whose

activity distinguishes between "investment management" and "investment intermediation". Were it to

fail to do so would mean convicting the innocent and allowing the guilty to escape.

However, having established that "failsafe" DNA profile, and having decided that Keydata's activity

was without question or qualification of any kind, that of 100% "investment intermediation" - what

then is the next step?

It is to apportion a levy, and seek payment from those who fall into that identical category. However,

if you just open the second drawer, which from everything I currently know, is what you intend to do

- in so doing you negate, and put at risk the very analysis that you have so far employed.

In one of the links above, I cite as one example, an instance where those granted

permission and authorisation as "investment managers" may at times also engage in "activities" which

can be assessed as "investment intermediation". There are other examples beyond the one I gave.

Am I correct in reaching that conclusion? I have to be, do I not, because I am using the very criteria

that you have used, I have matched it against the DNA profile the FSCS have given for Keydata -

namely, the very criteria that the FSCS assert establish beyond all and any reasonable doubt that

this "activity" - is that of "investment intermediation".

It matters not what the FSA lists in drawer one may say, it matters not what "chain of events" may

be involved, or that this activity is of a secondary nature, or to an earlier or even otherwise more

predominant activity - the DNA is the key evidence, it cannot be therefore be refuted - the very

position I suspect you currently intend to maintain.

That being the case, any levy which has to be apportioned must fall to "all those" who match that

DNA profile - the DNA profile upon which your indicative decision is founded. It cannot be

otherwise.

You cannot ignore your own process of analysis. You cannot just open drawer two and without further

thought to your own arguments and justifications, if you hold them to be 100% exempt from

challenge or question, impose a levy on the list given to you by the FSA therein. To do so would ignore

"activity" - the foundation of your conclusions to date.

If Keydata was not engaged in "investment management", despite all arguments that can be raised

against that position, but is, on the basis of your adopted criteria, engaged in "investment

intermediation", then so too - at times - are many other "investment managements".

It is my opinion, as indeed is the entire content of this communication in like manner, my opinion, were

you to levy only those in the FSA list in drawer two, you would be selectively penalising, and thereby

prejudicing wholly incorrectly, a limited number of those upon whom any levy should be allocated, and

allowing others who match your criteria to avoid any levy and I cannot escape my current conclusion

that this fact, and its wider implications (beyond just the Keydata issues), has escaped your attention.

I believe my thoughts are worthy of your serious consideration. I hope you, even perhaps reluctantly

at first, may eventually share that opinion. Not least because they are issued in advance of any final

decision, and may therefore allow you to reach your final decision aware of at least some of the views

that others have on the matter.

For the record, I have no actual or potential liability for any levy, nor am I or have I been affected

by the events surrounding Keydata. The comments are my personal opinion, and are intended to

challenge your current thoughts in the hope that your final judgement is fair and less open to question

than might otherwise have been the case.

Naturally, I do not expect any detailed response at this juncture, but I would consider it a courtesy

if an acknowledgment of the receipt of this e-mail were issued.

The pages on this website are under review so please accept our apologies for all errors or omissions.

www.fs-du.co.uk A fishy tale

Qualifications maketh the 'professional'? An educationalist's view

Where next for banking regulation - Edward Leigh Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee http://www.iii.co.uk/articles/articledisplay.jsp?section=Markets&article_id=9966248

RDR For Dummies by Steve

Opinion of Anthony Speaight QC:

"There are growing concerns that the pendulum of consumer protection has swung too far in the case of the Financial Ombudsman Service and small independent financial advisers. The FOS appears regularly to be exercising its discretion to adjudicate upon claims against small IFAs up to its maximum theoretical jurisdiction of £100,000. There is rarely an oral hearing. And there are good reasons to believe that sometimes FOS makes substantial awards in cases which would be rejected by the courts. On other occasions compensation seems to be calculated in a more generous manner than a court would assess damages. By reason of very large excesses and other insurance shortcomings some such IFAs have no insurance which responds. There is no appeal on the merits.

Such a system would be tolerable if the maximum award were modest – say £5,000 (which is the maximum summary compensation under the legal professions’ schemes for "inadequate professional service"). It would also be tolerable if, as is the case with the summary system of adjudication in the construction industry under the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, there could be a complete rehearing before a court. And it might even be tolerable if it were applied only against very large companies

But an unappealable, compulsory, summary jurisdiction against small traders making awards as great as £100,000 is, in my view, both wrong in principle and producing injustice in practice."

FSMA 2000 and Article 6 declaration of compatibility

Information Tribunal dismisses HM Treasury appeal against ICO Decision Notice and must disclose information relating to Gordon Brown's declaration that the Financial Services and Markets Bill was compatible with human rights legislation.

Suggestions from a barrister, things to do when faced with the FOS if you want to make any possible future case against it as water tight as you can.

STAND YOUR GROUND

Qualifications maketh the 'professional'? An educationalist's view

Submission to House of Lords Select Committee on Regulators - Call for evidence - UK Economic Regulators (Copyright)

Their report is HERE

...The word is independent. There are many definitions but let's take a look at three:

1. Not influenced or controlled by others in matters of opinion, conduct, etc.; thinking or acting for oneself: an independent thinker.

2. Not subject to another's authority or jurisdiction; autonomous; free: an independent businessman.

3. Expressive of a spirit of independence; self-confident; unconstrained: a free and independent citizen.

Long live IFAs whatever method of payment their clients choose

Evidently in response to articles including THIS ONE Sir Christopher Kelly, chairman of the Financial Ombudsman Service gave a speech at the Association of Finance Brokers (AFB) annual dinner on 2 July 2007. Our response is HERE

Dear Mr Cresswell

Outcry over the FOS non-disclosure of evidence

BALANCE the SCALES of JUSTICE

Letter to ECPG and Impact of regulation on retail financial services

FOS IS HOUNDING THE INFIRM - UNFAIR AND UNREASONABLE

"Most regulators’ careers end prematurely in failure and disgrace." - HOWARD DAVIES : HENRY THORNTON LECTURE : CITY UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL : 4 NOVEMBER 1998

Letter from FSA regarding 15 year long stop HERE Hirst Opinion on FOS requirement to take account of what the 'former scheme' was required to do HERE

Letter from FSA HERE confirming our worst fears, regulated persons and companies have no rights under common law. The letter is supposed to address the fears we expressed during this meeting: http://.fs.du.co.uk/meeting.htm

The IFA Defence Union recommends the use of surveillance equipment when dealing with the regulators or even clients, the following story is that of another IFA who fell under the wheels of this driverless juggernaut:

We were terminated by FIMBRA due to false allegations by a couple of sick bully boys.

Almost by accident I had taken a micro recorder up (my sister-in-law worked for an electronics firm). I had recorded the conversation with the compliance officer at Hertsmere House.
When we played back the recording it bore no resemblance to the words we were alleged to have said and which were pivotal to the case against us.
Our Solicitor let it be known that he had seen the transcript of the tape, but no mention was made at our appeals tribunal. Our Barrister did take the compliance officers apart and showed them up for what they were..
There was an ex policemen that worked for the 2 compliance officers that had taken a statement from us, at the hearing he told the Tribunal that the written statement attributed to him and used to bury us was not made by him (he at least was being honest).

1) What would have happened if I didn't have the proof that they were lying?
2) Why did they lie in the first place?
3) Why were they not disciplined for lying? (we couldn't afford to take them to the High Court)

I am saddened by what happened, my Father thought naively that if we just told the truth we would be alright. Just as well that I am I bit more devious. I am still bitter for what they did to my Family (unable to work for 3 months young family to support and relying on state aid including milk tokens) - I wonder whether Magee-Englefield and Hamp really thought they had done a good job?

Thanks for all the support and help. (NO need to reply as you are doing a great job into the nitty gritty)

The Union is the first port of call for advisers wherever they may be in the UK and whatever area of business they have chosen to work in. We welcome any person caught in the inhuman web of the Financial Services and Markets Act, an Act that is not compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 so we will be testing this soon, see THIS and send it to YOUR MP as soon as possible, after reading THIS , THIS

Re: Article in Money Marketing entitled "IFAs seek legal advice on misselling responsibility'. The quote in full was: "the IFA Defence Union has been gathering opinions from legal and actuarial experts as well as questioning the FSA. The evidence strongly suggests that IFAs have a case for misrepresentation of risk against providers with many products but accept the argument that the regulator is culpable in some areas and that the providers have a right to want to challenge it. IFAs cannot be held responsible for misrepresentations made by either party, they have been the whipping boy for far too long. If IFAs are afraid of taking on the providers they should ask themselves how much time and money they are wasting on defending claims relating to 'unsuitable advice' when the complaint is in fact about the product, the FSA have indicated that it would be appropriate to refer such complaints to the provider".

Did you know? - Commission costs an average of 3% within investment business, compliance costs 9%... is the FSA adding value? Considering it costs investors three times more than the IFA distribution channel any sane person would come to the conclusion that regulatory interference is counter productive.

Falconer call to end claims culture: A Department for Constitutional Affairs spokesman said: "This is a complex and controversial issue where the Government cannot provide all the solutions". OH YES IT CAN!! Here are the simple solutions:

Simple solutions? Of course they are but why can't they be implemented? Why is this so painful?

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmbills/121/1999121.htm
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998: In my view the provisions of the Financial Services and Markets Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.

The Pensions Ombudsman and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human rights HERE If you don't have the time or the inclination to read it here is a brief synopsis : The FSMA is NOT compatible with the ECHR, we have asked for sight of opinion. Also see HERE

Making a fuss about the FOS This article is published in the September 2004 issue of Money Management Magazine. To subscribe call 020 8606 7545 or visit www.FTadviser.com The only problem is a reference to primary legislation being required to amend the FSMA and rein in those empowered by it (in their own interpretation) when the fact is that the FSMA allows just one of Her Majesty's Ministers to change anything he/she wishes at any time and as often as he/she deems fit. Well that's democracy? See HERE

We need copies of FOS decision letters that advisers feel are incorrect so please fax them to us on 0845 4585299, we will be compiling a database that will be used to find inconsistencies. We have quite a few interesting developments on this front, more to follow.

FOS Jurisdiction: It has been brought to our attention that many IFAs are not aware of the full facts relating to the jurisdiction of the FOS for any complaints relating to advice provided before 1st December 2001.

Many professions have their own defence union:

Lawyers, Accountants and Doctors have a union to turn to in times of need. Now IFAs will have their very own defence union.

The Hutton debate in Parliament and the following is quoted from Hansard, Columns 770 and 771 on 4 February 2004 - the words are spoken by the Prime Minister:

We cannot have a situation in which we end up translating what we know today back into the context of what was known and thought in September 2002, and then reaching a judgment.*

Click on the 'About' button to find out more and join our mailing list on the links page.

We are launching a campaign to lobby the lawmakers. Why the CPMA should look again at human rights