Having, like almost all of my criminal colleagues, been initially appalled by the creation of ESTO Law and all the duplicity surrounding it, I felt that the subsequent hasty winding up of the enterprise had at least quickly drawn a line under the sorry affair. That was until I read last month’s Journal and was appalled at the closing of ranks in the Editorial column, accusing the profession of judging ESTO and its directors too quickly and harshly before the Society’s own investigation had concluded (surely a double standard in itself: we may support, but you may not condemn?).
I trust this same investigation will take full account of the fact that the negotiating committee placed tremendous pressure on my faculty, Kilmarnock, to withdraw from the Police Duty Scheme to show solidarity with the rest of the profession, while at the same time they were forming a company to take advantage of just such a vacuum within the scheme? Surely double-dealing such as this from a position of trust demands censure from the Society at the very least?Simon Brown, Solicitor Advocate, Matthew Brown Solicitors, Irvine