Ta daaah! You asked, I came.
There has been an investigation into why so very many ethnic minority law firms breached solicitor professional conduct rules compared with whites and a report issued
Well, yee-es, that's one slanted way of putting it. If you're going to say that, you might in fairness add, there has also had to be pointed consideration of why 'ethnic minority law firms' are disproportionately investigated, and disproportionately disciplined and punished following investigation. Are they 'worse' than white firms, or subject to more scrutiny and punishment? Not saying that transgressors of any stripe should not be punished, but don't draw fucking lazy conclusions about racially-based propensity and standards from a biased system. And then be coy about it.
Anyway
Recap:
Constance gets into trouble in Hughne/Price trial.
Constance is prosecuted, jury can't agree so they are discharged.
Constance is tried all over again (retrial) and found guilty on 3 counts-
- Giving police 2 untrue statements;
- passing off false statement (2) as false statement (1) to confuse police;
- giving the wrong statement to a document expert (who was presumably examining it re allegations of alteration).
Constance is under new investigation after allegations come to light she either obtained evidence by false pretences when defending the civil libel trial brought against her by her mother.
Why did she do it? Limelight addiction, throwing herself into another unhappy break-up after her own relationship ended very bitterly (witness the horrendously mean Daily Mail article on the new girlfriend of her former partner Anthony Arlidge QC-did CB have a hand in it?), wanting to show off about how she, a relative insider, could play the system? Dunno. My legal sources didn't have a kind word.
More importantly, what is the weave question?