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)

Comments are closed.