News

The full Lord Harley SDT judgment has been published

By on
261

Legal Cheek gets two mentions

harleypopart

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) decision that saw eccentric ‘Harry Potter’ lawyer Lord Harley struck off the roll has been published in full.

The 56-page document (embedded below) details why Lord Harley, real name Alan Blacker, was booted out of the profession and slammed with an £86,000 costs order for — among other things — making statements about his academic qualifications that were “inaccurate and misleading”.

Harley’s legendary LinkedIn page, which is still live, proved to be a real talking point for the tribunal. On his online profile, it’s claimed Harley holds a number of colourful job titles including ‘Transactional Analysis Psychoanalytical Psychologist’ and ‘Fellow’ of the Zoological Society of London. It also claims he has degrees from Trinity College, Manchester Met, Leeds Beckett, Kaplan Altior and a number of foreign universities, including Stanford.

It may seem farfetched, but Harley — who did not attend the recent disciplinary hearing — told the SDT via his witness statement:

My academic standing as illustrated in the LinkedIn profile gives the best representation of academic position and I will not waver from.

Other interesting extracts from the respondent’s witness statement include his comment that the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) allegations against him are “baseless” and that the applicant had acted in “bad faith”. He also states that one of the witnesses, John Smith, is a “cretin”, and continues:

I first met him through a Rolls-Royce enthusiasts club meeting and have only met in [sic] once, and once was more than sufficient. He was rude, arrogant and offensive and has generally been asked to leave more Rolls-Royce events than I care to imagine.

You can have a full read of the judgment below. Legal Cheek even gets a mention on pages 28 and 50.

For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek's careers events:

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub

261 Comments

IM Recruiter - we want Lord Harley

46. The Respondent did not attend the hearing…The Respondent’s witness statement did not have a statement of truth in the standard format but stated at paragraph 3 that “Where the facts are within my knowledge, they are true. Where they are not within my own knowledge, they are true to the best of my information and belief” and after paragraph 358 stated “This is my statement, made as a peer of the realm and a knight of the Order of St John, and as an officer of the Supreme Court, true, clear, precise and unequivocal”

48. The Respondent was entirely culpable for his misconduct. The Respondent’s
motivation for the misconduct appeared to be self-aggrandisement. The misconduct
was planned. The Respondent’s actions had harmed the legal profession’s
reputation – he had made it a laughing stock. The harm caused was totally
foreseeable.

Lord Harley clearly needs help. However, I don’t think it is him alone has has made the professional a “laughing stock”.

(9)(2)

anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(3)(0)

Anonymous

If he made no money out of it, it isn’t for the want of trying.

He submitted a bill to the NTT for Wojcicki’s trading standards case of £111,000. His charging rate was £454 an hour.

So don’t say he made nothingv out of it: he wouldn’t show the SRA the books.

(5)(0)

Anonymous

£454 plus VAT per hour for, as Admin so eloquently put it, a “lawyer” with one client to ill to walk to the end of his street.

(2)(0)

Anonymous

A whole two mentions!

(5)(1)

Anonymous

It is actually the same mention twice.

(5)(0)

Anonymous

Hang ooooooon!

This comment was edited without stating that there was a breach of the comments policy!

This post has been moderated because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(1)(1)

Anonymous

That’s better!

(3)(0)

Anonymous

This comment had been removed as it insinuated that a Legal Cheek journalist may have had an embarrassing physical reaction to the joy of seeing Legal Cheek mentioned in the Harley judgment, contrary to Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(4)(0)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(29)(2)

Anonymous

The Lord Harley did not like your comment!

(4)(1)

Wendy

You don’t even no him do you there is no need to keep on the slanderous words here but vary on cause he is laughing at all off you.

(0)(13)

Beach Boy

Wendy, Wendy what went wrong
Oh so wrong
We went together for so long

I never thought a guy could cry
‘Til you made it with another guy
Oh Wendy, Wendy left me alone
Hurt so bad

Wendy, Wendy don’t lose your head
Lose your head
Wendy don’t believe a word he says

I can’t picture you with him
His future looks awful dim
Oh Wendy, Wendy left me alone
Hurt so bad

Wendy I wouldn’t hurt you like that
No no no
I thought we had our love down pat
Guess I was wrong

The farthest thing from my mind
Was the day that I’d wake up to find
My Wendy
Wendy left me alone

Wendy, Wendy left me alone
Hurts so bad
Wendy, Wendy left me alone
Hurts so bad
Wendy, Wendy left me alone
Hurts so bad
Wendy, Wendy…

(3)(0)

Anonymous

And they went as far as to get a witness statement from the Lord Chief Justice – and nicely set
Out his real titles!

(2)(1)

Armitage Shanks

I thought that he was pathetic and somewhat inadequate (and still do) but he comes over as actually quite nasty.

(24)(0)

Not Amused

The SRA needs to be made to answer for both admitting him and ignoring him.

This is not a heart warming tale of eccentricity. This is a powerful and wealthy regulator failing the public.

(43)(3)

Charlotte Proudman

This is still all about me

(55)(3)

Anonymous

cretins

(5)(1)

Just Anonymous

I think my favourite part of the judgment is when it quotes Blacker’s witness statement, where he justifies his published academic qualifications as follows (pages 27 – 28):

“203. In any event my academic results were not acceptable to me and I had
them verified independently to reassess their integrity. I did this after taking
both LMU and MMU to tribunals funded by the then Disability Rights
Commission and the EHRC as it is now known. I believed and subsequently
proved I had been discriminated against on and for political, religious and
disability grounds.

206. In addition to being a disabled person I’ve had my academic results
independently verified under the personal learning plan by a national charity
which enhances one’s results to give a proper reflection of one’s academic
standing. They do this by a formulaic calculation based on your actual
performance and strong medical evidence and independent examination and
reporting”

Translation: “My results were crap, so I made up new ones!”

(44)(0)

Anonymous

Cringeworthy self-aggrandizement. Even when he’s trying to crawl out of the hole he created for himself he just can’t resist claiming that he sued his Universities (did he actually go to any of them) via the EHRC! His fantasies are lies and his lies are fantasies.

(10)(0)

Not Lord Harley & definitely not his wife

This is so sh*tty of him – disabled people can’t just get their qualifications improved by a charity! His utter drivel might lead some people to believe that this is true and disregard the perfectly valid qualifications of other disabled people! He is such a tosser.

(17)(1)

Anonymous

but, the bodies did publish them, so they are factually correct

(0)(4)

What?

What bodies published what? What is factually correct?

(2)(0)

Liar liar pants on fire

The only body that has published anything is the SRA.

It has published that Blacker is a dishonest liar. He has a pass degree with no honours.

He has no doctorates or masters. And that is based on what other bodies said.

Instead of posting your usual bollox Blacker, just say where you claim to have got your degrees. You won’t because you can’t. You have made them up.

You are too thick for doctorates, masters and honours.

Alan “basic pass degree” Blacker.

(7)(0)

Anonymous

A lie is a lie duckweed even if you persuade somebody if isn’t.

(1)(0)

What?

I assume “duckweed” is a reference to the Twinsectra test, as developed by the Tribunal in its judgment.

(2)(0)

Anonymous

The amount of time and effort some Legal Cheek people put into attacking this guy is quite shocking. The nasty and offensive comments made are tantamount to bullying and harassment. There seems to be a total lack of compassion for him. This twisted nastiness is far more likely to bring the profession into disrepute than anything he did.

(6)(61)

Anonymous

Yeah, because we shouldn’t be allowed to criticise a man who fraudulently mislead clients…

Sorry if valid criticism hurts your feelings.

(33)(1)

Eh??

Bullying and harassment? They’re rightfully lambasting an overly narcissistic snake-oil merchant. This man has tainted every case he’s ever run, and has argued to the last with the SRA for…what exactly? He’s dragged the profession through the mud.

(24)(1)

Anonymous

A man is in prison because of you and your fantasies Alan.
GTFO.

(16)(1)

Anonymous

Frankly, the judgment speaks for itself.

(4)(0)

Anonymous

Yes – this sort of weird personally motivated rant. Very strange.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

It is not harassment. I haven’t called him a cretin yet, but whilst we’re on the subject, Dr. Blacker, what is your take on the throwing of stones into glass houses?

(1)(0)

Anonymous

HHJ Lynch QC would have a word to describe him.

(24)(0)

Lord Harley of Counsel

Your boba fides have been adjusted Alan.

(12)(1)

Anonymous

Yay Lawbytes are here!

(7)(0)

Anonymous

Love them fellas

(8)(0)

Anonymous

And fellettes 🙂

(1)(0)

Anonymous

And fellates

(1)(0)

Anonymous

What about my Boba Fetts?

(0)(0)

Diogenes

So this is how the costs racked up so dramatically – Mr Blacker’s wilful obstruction and obfuscation.

(12)(1)

Anonymous

Can someone please stick the link to the judgement on his LinkedIn somehow? I’d like to see him try and explain it away in front of all his avid followers.

(9)(1)

Anonymous

Only just realised he calls himself two names as well as all his qualifications, Dr Blacker and Lord Harley

(4)(0)

Lord Harley of Counsel

Not to mention his previous names of the Earl of Carrick and the Earl of Dublin.

(7)(0)

I'm only here to see Alan

Walt walt walt

(5)(0)

Anonymous

If he used his Papa’s birth surname he would be Alan Clough.

(7)(0)

Vapido

What is striking about the judgment is that there was no allegation that Lord Harley misled the SRA. He gets admitted, obtains various waivers and is granted higher rights of audience, yet at no point does the SRA say “we gave him those things because we were misled”.

Lots of questions for the SRA to answer – but it won’t want to.

(17)(0)

Anonymous

What do you have to do to get higher rights of audience as a solicitor? A course or exam or other firm of assessment?

Someone please enlighten me.

Did AB actually pass that stage or did he obtain some forms of concession?

(0)(0)

The Waiver King

I got a waiver.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Alan Blacker, the human waiver

(0)(0)

Hurrah for Lawbytes

Waiving as he sinks.

(0)(0)

Pro bobo

Paragraph 39.5 says he misled he SRA:

“”The Applicant’s case was that the Respondent had claimed in various documents that he held an “LLB (D Hons)” in Law. In the paper document exhibited to Mr Smith’s statement, it stated that the Respondent’s “Professional Qualifications” included “LL.B. (Double Honours) Law Oldham Business University College” with an explanatory footnote “A franchised degree from Huddersfield through Oldham Business Management School”. The same claim appeared in a document that was submitted by the Respondent to the SRA on 24 October 2010 in respect of a waiver application.”

How embarrassing for the regulator.

(9)(0)

Diogenes

“212. My doctorate was awarded as a D.Litt which is superior to DPhil but in order to have it recognised in the UK I’ve had to have it downgraded in accordance with the appropriate academic rules.”

Could I trouble you for the title of your doctoral thesis, Alan? I’d be very interested in reading it. Only it doesn’t show up in any union catalogue anywhere.

(18)(0)

Vapido

To recap:

1. The regulator admits a buffoon and gives him higher rights of audience, as a result of which he appears at a Crown Court trial and loses a client to five years in jail.

2. The regulator then incurs almost £100,000 of costs in getting him struck off.

3. The regulator stands no chance of recovering those costs, which fall on the profession.

4. The SDT congratulates the regulator on its handling of a “difficult case”.

(21)(1)

Quo Vadis

Exactly. I couldn’t have put it better myself.

Alan Blacker was only exposed through his wanton behaviour in the Wojcicki trial. What if he hadn’t worn those ribbons on his gown? How long would he have stayed undetected? Are there other Alan Blackers out there, just waiting to be exposed?

(11)(0)

Be careful what you write.

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(9)(2)

Anonymous

This seems about as realistic a story as his CV.

(2)(0)

anonymous

I honestly believe this is a total one – off.
I haven’t ever come across anything like it. Surprised blackers opponents didn’t shop him / report him over what was blatant lies. Open goal. Especially as he had such a bad attitude.

(4)(0)

Bob Probo

They did report him. He was being reported from 2012 onwards. That’s the most alarming thing about this.

(5)(0)

Anonymous

Is he the same Person as Artoo from Rof?

(2)(0)

Anonymous

No, he’s not Artoo from RoF, he is Arsehole from Jaflas.

(8)(0)

Wendy

Takes one to no one, don’t y think? Huh?

(0)(5)

Wendy's House

What a witty rejoinder – good work, Alan!

(1)(0)

Bob Probo

As the judgment demonstrates, he is anyone he chooses to be.

(2)(0)

Schadenfreude

Hilarious! This is the ultimate piss-take. A profession which prides itself on the onerous academic qualifications and practical experience to be obtained before anyone can be entered onto the hallowed roll, and which has an army of highly-paid regulators, has been bamboozled by this oaf, with nothing more than bluff and bluster. Will anyone (other than our esteemed hero) be held to account?

(15)(0)

Flummery

What about the other solicitor trustees of JAFLAS? Where they equally taken in by his silky smooth literacy skills?

(5)(0)

Harley watcher

They certainly have questions to answer but have so far declined. And they have all resigned, two in February and the last on 1 Aug.

(1)(0)

Robert de Bono

Judgment, paragraph 41.6:

“The English order [of St John] tried to issue an injunction and when they were told to
get on with it and I served them with Part 18 notices, they decided to drop the whole affair, if they cannot bring a civil case, how can this tribunal then
consider their evidence under a criminal burden?”

Those Part 18 notices are such an important weapon in a litigator’s armoury…

(6)(0)

Anonymous

Those requests for further information under the CPR.

It may of course be the rules of the Privy Arboreal Court.

(6)(0)

Bob Probo

On 18 March 2013 he told the SRA that:

‘JAFLAS follows the “Part 18 questions” procedure which makes the opponent fully liable to pay success fee, punitive damages, if they don’t answer the questions in full or within the specified time period.’

Funnily enough, the SRA didn’t question that statement.

(3)(0)

Rio Ferdinand

Yo Blacker, you got merked!

(13)(0)

Anonymous

Never thought I’d see this joke resurrected. Absolutely class.

(6)(0)

Anonymous

I bet Lawbytes had a massive asphyxo-wank as they read the judgment. Deservedly so in light of Blacker’s conduct. I am laughing at his self-importance thinking he can uplift poor results to inflate his CV.

(12)(1)

Anonymous

The recording of the hearing was better.

(4)(0)

Double blind anonymised

The Blacker Statement could provide sufficient material to inspire theses for real PhD, DPhil and DLit students in law for years to come. Oh, the delicious irony!

This post has been moderated because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(7)(0)

Anonymous

The case in Cardiff, what happened to the appeal?

(0)(0)

Anonymous

It was withdrawn after Blacker got sacked.

Wojcicki got proper advice.

(2)(0)

CaseyJones

Maybe Blacker’s Rule 19 application will go the same way. Hard to see what possible grounds he could have for seeking a re-trial.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(5)(9)

Collette

Hey ho Alan

(3)(0)

Anonymous

And what would be the alternative? Allow this dangerous game to continue for the sake of protecting supposed issues with Alan’s health?

(4)(0)

Anonymous

Francois, stop getting your defence in early.

(3)(0)

Ron Probo

The SDT did appear a bit concerned about possible delusional thinking. As the judgment records (paragraphs 44.6 and 44.7), these concerns were easily dispelled by analogy with a duck: if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, it’s a duck. This is, perhaps, not the high point of the reasoning on display in the judgment.

This post has been moderated because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(2)(0)

Anonymous

I think they were saying that Blacker is Quackers.

(1)(0)

Bob Porno

Apparently, the duck is thinking of suing for defamation.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Very humiliating to be compared with Blacker. Aggravated damages will be huge.

(1)(0)

Ron Probo

Depends whether the duck served a Part 18 notice, surely?

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Did it walk like a duck and quack like a duck? Or was it a chicken independently verified an uplift to become a duck?

(3)(0)

Jack Flass

What I don’t get is how the Tribunal was satisfied (to the criminal standard) that Harley walks like a duck when he was not in the court room. The finding was against the weight of evidence, the only available evidence (in the form of the answerphone message) being indicative of a sheep, not a duck.

Sounds to me like the Tribunal was comparing apples and pears. Maybe there are grounds for a retrial after all.

(0)(2)

Anonymous

The weight of the evidence is that Blacker is a pig. A fat pig.

(1)(0)

Ikcicjow Oitallef, DSO and two bras (accredited vol. 5)

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(7)(0)

Alethephobe

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(2)(0)

Simple Layman

– Alan Blacker has been struck off
– He’s still claiming to be on the Roll
– So he’s holding himself out as a Solicitor
– That’s a criminal offence

So when will he be arrested? Just asking…..

(8)(0)

Buffet King

Surely Alan Blacker is a simple pieman.

(1)(0)

Wendy

Hahaha, still baying for his blood are we. You don’t understand Alan will be readmitted after the appeal an then well see a serious case of sour grapes from you lawbytes lot, please enjoy you’re fun while its lasts, and actually he is a tenacous lawyer who you would want in you’re conner.

(0)(16)

Petit Boudin Blanc

Alan, there are 7 errors in your post. Take the other pill.

(6)(0)

Petit Boudin Blanc

I do apologise, it’s 9 errors and rising with every re-reading.

(6)(0)

Anonymous

Blacker has no chance of getting back on the roll. Ever.

A pass degree. Clown. Wuckfit.

This post has been moderated because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(6)(0)

Interloper

Wendy, you do not exist, you cannot exist. There is no-one on this planet who would stick up for this hoodwinking oaf other than the oaf himself.

Alan – drop the pretence, it really is sad !

(7)(0)

Anonymous

The SDT judgment shows just how unhinged Blacker is. Pure fantasist, inventing qualifications and decorations.

This post has been moderated because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(7)(0)

Anonymous

Same style and same grammatical errors as made by Mr Blacker in his statements to the SDT….

(5)(0)

Anonymous

“Conner” being the operative word?

(3)(0)

Anonymous

“Conner” is the word.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Get yourself over to Roll on Friday Blacker.

They are taking the piss out of you too.

Loser.

(4)(0)

Wendy's mate

Sorry everyone.

This post has been moderated because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(6)(0)

Sue R Pipe

We got you Blacker.

Lawbytes finished you.

Ha ha.

(24)(0)

Lord Harley of Counsel

My exam results were specially analysed, reassessed and marked against the Harley scale for stupidity.

As a result my pass degree without honours from ‘Udeersfield (acc Oldham franchise) has been converted into a DPhil (summer cum laude) from Oxford. Curiously Oxford do not know.

(7)(0)

Pedant (Hons)

Forget the SRA, HHJ Morgan, the SDT, the Law Society and all that stuff. The simple question is this: should any vulnerable person be represented by a lawyer who cannot write a single sentence without fucking it up?

(10)(0)

Anonymous

And resorts to base insults.

(7)(0)

Wendy

Ignorant cretin

(0)(9)

Anonymous

Let’s have an overview:

– Wrong side of 40
– Struck off in one of the most humiliating fashions ever
– £86k costs order against him and no clear resources to satisfy this order
– responsible for a man serving circa 5 years in prison after masquerading as a lawyer
– a fantasist
– allegedly disabled (without medical evidence disclosed)
– abandoned by the rest of the members of JAFLAS
– only Counsel he can find is facing disciplinary proceedings

He must be crazy if he thinks the end of his story will be positive.

(12)(0)

Anonymous

And thick as pigshit.

(5)(0)

Alan Blackerrrrr

Sez the person who looks like pigshit. Go eat dick you melon.

(0)(1)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(0)

Sicko Fant

I like this Lord Harley chap: he shows us exactly why the SRA is not fit for purpose and must be abolished. Thanks Alan/Lord/Dr/Colonel/etc Blacker.

(2)(5)

Wendy

Alan Clough to be accurate.

He is a fake Lord, a bogus doctor, and a phoney Colonel.

He has stolen the family history of the Blacker of Carrick Blacker, set himself up as a pretend judge and been ignominiously booted out of the legal profession.

That really is what you call a cnut.

(9)(1)

Wendy

Errr, that’s not me twat

(0)(0)

Sicko Fant

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(2)(1)

Rob Norbo

So how did he get on the roll?

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Lies and deceit.

(2)(1)

Anonymous

Err. exams and stuff you idiot

(0)(5)

Anonymous

But you are too thick to pass exams Alan.

You got a pass degree with no honours.

All else you lied about.

(5)(0)

Anonymous

Having read all of that, it is clear that none of you realize that a set of London chambers have signed a pro Bono deal with him; spending their time and money on him, at their expense. surely to goodness that must mean that they see there is a good chance of the case winning. And this is for the lawyers not the nutters or rather the sane lawyers who read this comic.

(1)(4)

Anonymous

There is always a desperado who will take a dead cert loser for some free publicity.

If your brief does his job properly Alan he will tell you to produce your degree certificates. Except they don’t exist. He will tell you to get a consultant’s report on the illnesses that you don’t actually have.

In short he will make you prove you are a fraud.

Your application for a review will be rejected and the legal world will laugh at you once again. You will lose your appeal and look a fool again.

To say nothing about you being a hopeless lawyer. You lost before the IPCO, JCIO, High Court and SRA. You are a born loser.

This post has been moderated because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(4)(0)

Anonymous

Ooooh someone’s got nappy rash

(2)(2)

Anonymous

Alan, one barrister (not chambers) agreed to take your case before he saw the judgment. He’s going to advise you to put up or shut up in respect of your qualifications/memberships. As you’ve shown you can’t/won’t prove your right to these things, your appeal will consist of 1) challenge to decision not to sit in Manchester which will fail because the high court has already ruled and the SDT offered video/telephone access, and 2) challenge to the costs order which will probably succeed in part and you will think you’ve won but you won’t have because you’ll still be struck off.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

“Signed a pro bono deal” is a rather grandiose way of expressing it. It’s not like man u signing Ronaldo is it????

More like independent barrister (not the chambers), facing disciplinary procedures himself, takes on case.

(1)(0)

Harleytosis

The Chambers has signed a pro bono deal with you? Your statement proves you know nothing, least of all that a bona fide SENIOR COUNSEL (a real QC) at that chambers actually wrote a witness statement for the SRA’s case against you!

(6)(0)

Anonymous

An entire set of chambers has signed a deal with him? No. It has been reported that Anton van Dellen has agreed to represent him pro bono at an application for a re-hearing.

As Lord Harley’s Linkedin CV demonstrates, people do pro bono work for the publicity as well as for bono of the public. The bono of the public will be served when the Tribunal dismisses the Rule 19 application.

(2)(0)

Anonymous

The pro Bono deal was signed before the SDT judgment was published.

No sane lawyer worth his salt would think there was a cat in hell’s chance of either reviewing or appealing that judgment.

Expect a tactical withdrawal by the pro Bono chambers once reality kicks in.

In the meantime, the day off is booked for 6 September to watch Blacker’s latest public humiliation and flogging, with another few grand on the bill.

(2)(0)

Anonymous

Booked off – you’re on the dole you muppet

(1)(2)

Anonymous

You are on disability Alan. So the state gives you your money.

But when they find out that you aren’t really ill, you will be on the dole.

(3)(0)

Anonymous

The telegraph said chambers.

(0)(1)

Anonymous

Oh well if the Telegraph says it, it must be true…

(0)(1)

Anonymous

That’s a way of saying “Ok I was wrong but my excuse is I relied on someone else’s information”. Either way, the end result is you were still wrong.

(1)(0)

CountDuckula

The only questionable bit is the Tribunal’s approach to the second limb of Twinducktra. “It looks like a duck” is not much of a basis for a finding of dishonesty. But that would be a section 49 point, not a Rule 19 point.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Load o squirters on here tonight.

(1)(2)

Anonymous

Has anyone on here got s job or are they all dole dossers?

(0)(2)

Anonymous

That’s just you Alan, the rest of us haven’t been struck off.

(4)(0)

Anonymous

You’ve never been struck on

(0)(1)

Anonymous

You’re going to have to tell me what that even means Alan as it really seems like gibberish.

(0)(0)

Diogenes

Alan, for the defender of the downtrodden you portray yourself as on LinkedIn, you don’t half display some prejudice here.

(3)(0)

Anonymous

You don’t have a job now Blacker, you have been struck off.

(4)(0)

Anonymous

Did he ever have a job other than in his own head

(0)(0)

Anonymouse

Someone said (way back when after Cardiff made us all aware of Alan, I think) that he had been a COBOL programmer. As that was evidence from someone other than Alan it might be true.

(0)(0)

Harleytosis

Alan, the SDT struck you off the roll. You will be losing your dole next week!

(2)(0)

Anonymous

It is always a joy when Blacker posts on these articles.
His posts are immature and infantile, and mainly just abusive .

He so obviously is thick as mince and displays the intellect of a 4 year old.

Why doesn’t he just post copies of all his qualifications instead of lying about them.

This post has been moderated because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(4)(1)

Anonymous

Your username is very apt. Pathetic and Spiteful as anything would be better.

This post has been moderated because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(5)

Mental as anything

Thank you Alan. The content of your post describes you. As well as the word arsehole.

(3)(0)

Unemployed Alan

You are all dole dossers

(0)(0)

Anonymous

So Blacker is done with the SRA. All this nonsense is peripheral. The appeal is doomed. End result will be the same (give or take a potential reduction on the costs).

Not can we focus on getting his comeuppance with HMRC. That has to be the next stage along with seeing if his Disability Living Allowance can be scrutinised.

(2)(0)

THE MAN WHO HAS KNOWN HIM YEARS

3.42 P.M here here can not wait for them to get on to him

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Sir Fred is that you? Hello, if so! 🙂

(0)(0)

Anonymous

The way he behaves he probably already is under scrutiny for his fraudulent benefit claims.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Get those miniature trains off him.

(0)(0)

Alan Blackerrrrr

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(1)(0)

Concerned taxpayer

Presumably the benefits investigators would be looking to see if he were working as a lawyer and at the same time claiming benefits for being unable to work through disability. They might also be interested in how he manages to hop on and off the model engines (youtube passim).

(2)(0)

Anonymous

I’ve never seen anything that suggests he claims work-related benefits, just DLA. You can work and claim DLA.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

He didn’t work anyway: he has no clients.

(1)(0)

Vince Crabtree

I saw Lord Harley at Bolton Crown win an appeal and get costs on a case which was brought three years out of time. He was wonderful. The prosecution rode hard but lost to the better lawyer. I bet none of you have even done a trial, you limp biscuits.

(1)(3)

Anonymous

Another anecdote posted by Alan in a false name.

An appeal is not a trial.

He won’t do any more. He is struck off.

(3)(0)

Anonymous

An appeal is a trial actually, in the crown it’s a complete rehearing and it took all day.

(0)(1)

Anonymous

6 minutes is not a whole day.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Are you thick – obviously. It was fully defended.

(0)(1)

Anonymous

Crown Court cases cannot be brought “3 years out of time”. I think you will find there is no statute of limitation that has a bearing on the Crown Court.

Perhaps you have confused civil and criminal law with your fake story at Bolton Crown Court. Must try harder, Alan.

(5)(0)

D Goodwin

Of course Alan, that was the 6 minute hearing on 5 July 2013.

An appeal against conviction which the prosecution did not resist.

Not much argument in 6 minutes.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

There’s a new hearing on Monday in Manchester, 10:00 but it’s anonymised apparently he’s back on the roll till his appeal is heard.,

(0)(1)

Anonymous

His engines are called Tarn Beck, Rio and Elle. He also has a blue one called rackia or something similar.

(0)(0)

Boon Probo

That works at out £45.40, doesn’t it?

(0)(0)

D Goodwin

Oh no. It was much more than that.

At legal aid rates on a DCO it would have been £130.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(0)

Alan Blackerrrrr

Heh look at you, weak fggt

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Cracklickers of the world unite.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

The only cracklicker there will be Blacker.

Of course he licks Steamy Rob’s crack.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Steamy Rob is a dole dosser, isn’t he ?

(1)(0)

Anonymous

I think he’ll get it. And the Manchester venue.

(0)(2)

Anonymous

Of course you think you will get it Alan. You are the only one that does.

You are a deluded fool.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Last time you forgot American Cyanamid Alan.

Make sure you don’t forget the duty of candour this time. Tell the judge that you went on holiday instead of going to the SDT. He won’t be impressed by that.

Another defeat looms Alan. Think JCIO, IPCO, FoI, SDT.

You always lose.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

I think it’s very sad that you have such empty lives, I bet he’s laughing his cock off with all that money!

(0)(0)

Anonymous

You mean the £111,000 ?

More likely he is doing things with Steamy’s cock.

(0)(0)

Alyn Frankel

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

He’s cost you a fortune!

(0)(0)

Collette Mitchell

It is a shame you have fiddled so much benefit over the years Alan.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Your life must be empty now that you have been struck off Alan.

All that you have to do us to wait for the taxman and the benefits people to turn up and investigate you.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Don’t forget to take your degree certificates on Monday Alan, so the judge knows you aren’t telling fibs about your so called qualifications.

(0)(0)

Mustafa

Come on Alan, it’s time to stop all this bloody nonsense. Get some proper medical help for you are obviously a deluded keyboard warrior. That’s fine if you are only crossing swords with others like you, but you chose to enter the real world with the same bizarre thought processes. There’s no way back from the manner in which you have been exposed but with some decent advice you should be able to limit the future damage to yourself and others.

(2)(0)

Edward de Hewson

“There’s a new hearing on Monday in Manchester, 10:00 but it’s anonymised apparently he’s back on the roll till his appeal is heard.”

You mean he’s making an application for a stay of execution? Why would it be anonymised when the striking off is a matter of public record?

(1)(0)

Anonymous

There is no High Court judge sitting in Manchester on Monday and no case in the list at 10 am.

(0)(0)

Anon

Ah, but what about the Privy Arbital Court?

(1)(0)

Anonymouse

That only sits in Rochdale.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

The Privy Arbitrary Court is the only place he could win.

His review and appeal are doomed.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

So far, this has cost the profession £93,000 for the SDT trial and £18,000 for the Fraser J proceedings. That is a total of £111,000…

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Eureka.

(0)(0)

Wendy

Snore, snore,snore…… Getting bored now, for all the hooing and Hahn Alan will be back so why don’t you all accept than continually indulging in mocking and poor humor

(0)(4)

Anonymous

Poor deluded fool Alan.

Any High Court Judge reading the SDT will realise that you ate an old and buffoon of the highest order, summa cum laude.

You are the world’s most clueless lawyer.

(1)(0)

Alan Blackerrrrr

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(1)(5)

Anonymous

Of course Alan, of course.

This post has been moderated because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(2)(0)

Alan

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(1)(1)

Anonymous

You will look stupid tomorrow when you are still off the roll Alan.

(4)(0)

Wendy

You lot all always look stupid anyway, and we will see who locks stupid tomorrow.

(0)(2)

Anonymous

While you are talking Alan, why don’t you tell us where you got all your made up degrees ?

The universities you claim to have been awarded them by say they didn’t. Are they lying ?

(0)(0)

Anonymous

He pulled his degree’s out of his fat arse

(0)(0)

Anonymous

That’s actually what it looks like Alan.

He didn’t get them by studying as he is too thick.

It is clear that he didn’t turn up for the SDT as he has invented his qualifications and dare not be cross examines on them as he is just a liar.

(1)(0)

Wendy

I’ll bet yours is fatter, brave Mr Anonymous, yet more examples of jealousy from a bunch of failed wannabes. Get. A. Life. Twat

(0)(3)

Anonymous

You prove that your qualifications are all lies Alan by your refusal to be honest about them.

You have achieved two things in the law: (I) you did Wojcicki’s case shockingly badly; and (ii) you have made yourself look the biggest cnut who ever stepped into a courtroom.

Congratulations Mr Fuckwit.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

You forgot (iii) -Dressing up like a grade A bell-end

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Yes you do.

With all those medals you blagged.

Liar.

Wendy

Snore snore snore. Boring. by all means cary on wasting you’re lives.

(0)(2)

Hurrah for Lawbytes

Wendy = Alan on the juice.

(1)(1)

Alan Blacker

Wendy’s my good friend you wasteman.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

We all know you conned your way onto the roll.

Alan Blacker = cheat

(0)(0)

Alan

I’m no cheat, I’m a winnerrrrrr you donghead.

(0)(1)

Anonymous

A pass degree.

What a tosser.

(1)(0)

Alan

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(1)

Hurrah for Lawbytes

Nice one, Alan. almost up to your usual standard of invective.

(0)(0)

Alan Blacker

Still better than yours, you bumbling muppet.

(0)(0)

Wendy

Yawn….

(0)(1)

Anonymous

Let me guess Alan.

You got a pass degree from Huddersfield. Then went to a bunch of muppets who upgraded it to a DPhil from Oxford.

A High Court Judge is a bit brighter than you and will see through your nonsense.

Fraser obviously thought you were a twat and so did Warby.

It will be SRA 3 Blacker 0.

(1)(0)

Alan

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(8)(1)

Bantz & Co

Strong insult game, Alan.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

You have lost everything for years Alan – IPCO, JCIO, SRA, SDT, High Court X2.

This will be no different.

(0)(0)

Bangers & Lash

200+ comments, the bantz are going right off the charts.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

And they show Alan to be a grade A loser.

(0)(0)

Alan Blacker, Lord Harley

Says the person who lives in his mum’s cellar, you turd.

(1)(1)

Anonymous

Wrong Alan. Stop drinking turps.

(1)(0)

Alan Blacker

Shut it wasteman.

(0)(1)

Anonymous

Blacker has no insight into his inadequacies.

He is barely literate, incapable of articulating coherently and has a limited vocabulary.

His career in the law is pure fantasy.

(0)(0)

Someone who knows you well

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(1)(2)

Alan Blacker, Lord Harley

Why are you lying? Expect a summons to a court in due course for blatant attempts at defamation of my person.

(2)(1)

Anonymous

You have no reputation to lose.

You are officially a liar and dishonest. Oh, and struck off.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Under what pseudonym would you issue proceedings?

Will it be First Person (Lord Harley) Second Person (Earl of Dublin) or Third Person (Vicar of Dibley)?

And how will you collect any legal documents from 13 York Street?

(6)(0)

Alan Blacker

I’ll sue you too. Just you wait, you’ll be paying off my mortgage.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

You do not have a mortgage Alan you live in a rented terraced house with cats . You have never owned your own house

(1)(0)

Anonymous

You lived with mummy for years.

Anyway, the SRA will bankrupt you for the £86,000 and you will lose the right to sue.

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(0)

Alan Blacker

Hah you wish you poor flog. I’ve got far more money and assets than you think and the SRA ain’t getting 1p out of me. I’m walking outta this as the winner once the dust settles, mark my words.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Lawbytes people might want to screen shot this last one for the SRA!

John smith

Hi Alan

I know you are a brilliant academic and never miss anything.

Have to say I like http://Www.jaflas.com. Not to be confused with jaflas.co.uk.

(3)(0)

Anonymous

Amazing. The foul mouthed Alan Blacker is silenced.

(2)(0)

Alan Blacker, Lord Harley

No one can silence me you peasant. I’m going to contest the tribunal’s decision and will win a final, epic victory. Just you wait, I’ll show you muppets.

(0)(3)

Anonymous

Been drinking Alan ????????????????????????????????

(0)(0)

Anonymous

An impostor. The word “The” is missing.

(1)(0)

Alan Blacker

Oh its me alright, you weak peasant.

(0)(0)

Sleepless

Peasant – that’s good coming from the great socialist his tweets make him out to be.

(1)(0)

Anonymouse

Only until he/Wendy have had a bit to drink.

(2)(0)

Harleytosis

I wonder when he will re-open the Privy Arbital Court so that he can upgrade his fail at the SDT hearing into Double Honours (Summa Cum Laude)?

(3)(0)

Black Out

Will he get a Law Society prize for it ?

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Rude int he

(2)(0)

Alan Blacker

You’re rude you muppet.

(0)(3)

Anonymous

Does anyone moderate this thing on a weekend??!

(0)(2)

Anonymous

I can never be sure if its Blacker or a great troll to inflate hits.

If it’s really him then it is far more tragic than a hoax.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Some posts are clearly from him and seem to be intended to have threads closed off.

Others however appear to be from impostors.

(0)(1)

Sleepless

The ones that have correct spelling and grammar are unlikely to be from him (under any of his various pseudonyms).

(3)(0)

DaveKafka

So, the SRA asks him to produce waivers which it gave him in the first place. When he doesn’t do so, the SRA charges him with failing to cooperate. And the SDT upholds the charge. Hmm…

On reading the judgment, you could be forgiven for getting the impression that the SRA wasn’t entirely sure what waivers it had actually granted.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

The SRA is no better at answering questions than Blacker.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Blacker is the son of a loom tattler and rough.

He aspires to be something that he is not. As soon as he opens his mouth or starts to write, it is obvious he is ill suited to the law.

He should put the law behind him and do something he is better equipped for.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

“He should … do something he is better equipped for.” What would that be?

(1)(0)

Harleytosis

The International Olympic Committee has just just upgraded Lord Harley’s single poxy swimming badge to 24 Olympic swimming golds.

Blacker has announced that he spent the night sewing them onto his gown in preparation for today’s accreditation by Manchester Crown Court that he remains on the Solicitor’s roll.

When approached for a comment, Blacker’s lawyer, Anton Van Dellen, called his client a ‘cretin’.

(6)(0)

Anonymous

What is so telling about this whole fantasy nightmare that Alan has created is that despite his supposedly holding more qualifications, honours, plaudits and titles than any lawyer in the country, he has still only managed to attract a handful of clients throughout his whole legal “career”. That tells us that when potential clients meet him, they either see through his fantasy charade, or that in person, Alan is a complete knob.

But the very few who do not see Alan for the idiot he is must be protected from him and his delusions, and that is why Alan will not emerge victorious. Further appeals will only prolong the humiliation – for God’s sake man, just go with what little dignity you have left.

(2)(0)

Anonymous

My god, Legal Cheek will be scrabbling around to sort this comments section out this morning.

AB appears to be obsessed with insults revolving around the male member!

(0)(0)

Steamy Rob

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(0)

Harleytosis

AcCREditaTIoN

(0)(0)

Comments are closed.