Ice Bucket Challenge

In response to the lazy journalists and the "too-cool-for-school" contrary types.

So, what does it mean?

This is a total re-write. I admit it.  

It's a re-write because the first draft was me saying, "See!  The CBA wouldn't agree something this dangerous without a proper consultation!  Why, the CBA is mid-consultation right now! Surely that wouldn't be superceded!"         It's actually the fifth re-write.

You see why I needed the re-write?

The CBA today announced that the direct action was over for the Bar because it had won us a reprieve until the various reports and reviews are complete.  I object.

As this god-awful government is so keen on saying: "Let me be clear."

I object to the government coming to the Bar (that's the Circuit leaders and not just the CBA) and saying that they want to make a deal but we must decide by the morning.  Not only that but we must not let those deciding see the paperwork upon which the deal is being made.  Not only that but we must not allow those making the decision to consult (at all) with those whom they represent.

I also object either to the mis-reporting by all sides or to the incorrect information given to those making the decisions last night.  Either the Law Society or CLSA were represented and secured their own deal regarding postponement, in which case the decision-makers were not told that last night.  Or solicitors were unrepresented in the negotiation and deal-making, in which case the token "victories" for them were secured by the Bar and so TLS and MoJ are not quite being clear and honest in their releases today.

Anyone will tell you: a limited time offer (much like credit for guilty pleas under EGP) is rarely worth the trade for proper consideration and scrutiny.

As for the deal itself, well, I object again.

I object that it's a crap deal when we could have done better; the MoJ were on the ropes.

I object that it probably cannot be undone now as the Bar will have lost credibility and its mouthpiece. 

I object that a deal is done when there is an active consultation as to whether further action ought to take place and where the result is not yet known.

I object to the disregard for due process that applied to this deal-making.

Perhaps it will render me less popular than those of my Learned Friends who are "outraged" but I also object to the disingenuous behaviour of a sizeable number of solicitors and barristers, reacting to the news.

I expected to see some vile drop of poison such as that coming from a certain panto-villain solicitor of this parish but to see an outright cry of "traitors" against the Bar is simply not right.

Firstly, "the Bar" did not blame "solicitors" for Des Hudson.  Many, in fact, called for his resignation in the same way that solicitors did.  A whole circuit said no to this deal, in no small part because of the lack of security for solicitors in what was being offered.

Next, "the Bar" has not left solicitors out to dry any more than solicitors did by refusing to start work at the new contract rates on 20th March.  After all, we all said no cuts and no deals.  That was a deal without speaking.  It was utter acquiessence and it was done because of the number of vipers in the grass.  People were fearful of what would happen and who would take what work etc.  That was totally understandable, but it was utterly unhelpful.  

Finally, it seems that blaming "the Bar" would be a good way to justify taking the "we're just going to get on with it" approach adopted so theatrically by a well-known solicitor.  Instead, solicitors could take a better lesson than not to trust the CBA; they could take the lesson that fighting hard and taking big hits rather than token hits is what forces the Dark Lord to come to the table.  

Stop working for these derisory cut fees.  Stop it now.  All of you.  See how long the courts cope.  It'll be much less time than you think.

Stop waiting to see the direction of the wind and have that vote on the new contracts.  Express your intention not to sign-up to either. 

Make it clear, not only to Grayling and his puppeteers at the MoJ but also to his successor, that you will stand and fight and that, if you could stop attacking them on Twitter for five minutes, you'd see that a sizeable majority of the Bar stands by you too.

The tragedy of the Bar's move was not that it "shafted" anyone.  It was that it was the wrong deal, after the wrong aim was identified.  It was done at the wrong time, in the wrong way.

That may not be as populist as saying "I'm outraged" and "not in my name" or even "sack the CBA leaders", but it is hopefully a practical analysis of where we are, where we are going and what we must learn.

On their terms (or "Chatham House rule and the Lord Chancellor's tea party")

I have not given this matter extensive thought this afternoon, but the following occurred to me whilst I sat pondering futility.  

The meeting that TLS has been so courageously and skillfully arranged with Lord Voldemort for the benefit of us all, is to be held under the Chatham House rule. This worries me. 

On the Northern Circuit, at our first videolink meeting on Legal Aid last year (which seems like an eternity ago!), we expressly forbade the Leader of the Circuit from taking part in any further meetings (at that stage) under CHR. 

The reason for this was that it was felt that Chatham House rule is not beneficial to the transparency of process that we are due in this case.

Chatham House itself describes the rule thusly:
"It allows people to speak as individuals, and to express views that may not be those of their organizations, and therefore it encourages free discussion. People usually feel more relaxed if they don't have to worry about their reputation or the implications if they are publicly quoted."

So, it allows the representative of TLS (despite possibly being one of those in whom there was a vote of no-confidence and who still will not resign) to voice his/her own views and not to properly represent the views of TLS's members. This is precisely what has been complained of.

What is more, the others present will not be able to point the finger at such an offending person without breaching the rule.

Accordingly, whilst Grayling is running from another clash with the Bar, he thinks the leadership of TLS are still prepared to box themselves into a corner in this manner.

Did those organisations attending actually agree to CHR? Or did it simply pass into the meeting's details without query? Or, more worryingly, was it a condition upon the meeting happening at all?

Any thoughts? Should be Grayling be allowed these Special Measures? Will it improve the quality of anybody's "evidence"? Or is it just a way of putting up a screen to spare blushes?

UPDATE:
The MoJ has just sent an angry reply to The Criminal Bar Association for calling it a cancellation.  But, this just raises another question:  Why is the MoJ arranging a Chatham House rule meeting with TLS and solicitors' groups but not inviting the CBA to the party on the same date?  

A few thoughts about tradesmen...

We have had a number of tradesmen through our little old flat in the last year.  There have been plumbers, builders, sparkies, chippies and fitties (by which I mean window fitters, of course).

Some of these guys were cowboys.  Sadly, we are having to sue two of them for the thousand pounds' worth of damage they did whilst "renovating".

There are a few things that these guys all had in common.  These are simply observations and ponderings.

1) Why are builders all Bobs?  Where are the Belindas?
They were all men.  Not one female tradesperson in the whole lot.  Why is this?  Do women not like doing these jobs?  Is there some sort of misogynist conspiracy keeping them at bay?  Who can say?

2) Half a job - at best.
They were all a bit crap.  When did we as consumers simply accept that if you "get a man in", they will do most of the job and then disappear into the sunset before finishing?  We have had window fitters leaving wooden frames and packaging in the garden (along with their Subway wrappers).  We have had other window fitters who destroyed plaster, paint and various fittings who then just left it as was and walked out of the door.  We have had plumbers and builders who - actually, don't get me started as to how much these guys sucked.

Now, it's not as if we were paying mates' rates or employing people at random.  They were, at least, sourced from RatedPeople.com and they were paid just over the average rates etc.  They just couldn't be bothered to finish the jobs properly.

3) My home as well as your workplace.
The staggeringly arrogant way in which these guys treated our home was breathtaking.  Shouting at each other (whether to do with work or not) is one thing, but doing that when you are clearly on a work telephone call, for example, is just rude.

Moreover, it's the things being shouted.  Homophobic abuse (in a house with two gay guys, not that it should matter) and racist talk of "pakis and gypos" is just offensive.  But it shouldn't matter whether I am gay, Pakistani or of Roma decent, or have friends who are anything else.  Coming into somebody's home and just assuming that you can be racist/homophobic at the top of your voice is just as bad as assuming that you can spark up a doobie in somebody's living-room when you have only just met.  It demonstrates either arrogance or ignorance or both.

And if they want to make it about matters of race, I have limited experience of anything other than caucasian, British tradesmen but the limited experience I have had of Polish workmen has suggested that they are faster, complete things to a greater standard, not particularly cheaper (a job done well deserves reward) and, if they are being racist and homophobic, owing to my lack of understanding of any Eastern European language, I cannot understand it.  Why are people "fighting to save" the jobs of the "British" tradesman if they are not up to the job?

4) Customer satisfaction
When something has gone wrong during the course of such works, you may have to raise the issues either with the workmen or their employers.  You can do this in the most polite and, well, "British" sort of way but, to a man, the response seems to suggest that somehow you are to blame for wanting a job doing competently  and without destruction of your home and, preferably, without feeling like it has been done by Combat 18.

I am fed up of tradesmen.  In future, despite the fact that I am lacking the skills and my hours being what they are and so on, I will look the job up online and do it myself because, if nothing else, I'll care about how it ends up and I have a right to treat my house like my home because it is.


</rant>

On the subject of rights... a thought on Theresa May's proposals today.

In light of the Tory pledge by Theresa May today about the Human Rights Act, let me just help you out as to why this affects YOU.

The press loves a good Human Rights Act (HRA) story, don't they? We all do, maybe. It's the new, "health and safety" or "political correctness gone mad". Who gives a crap if prisoners can't have a Playstation? I haven't got a sodding Playstation! Who cares if some bastard with a hook for a hand gets sent off to "his own" to get dealt with however they see fit? 

Alright, I don't necessarily agree with your views on that but you have the right to have those views and to tell whoever you want about them. (articles 9 and 10 - freedom of conscience and expression)

That's the same right that lets you rant about the government on Facebook, that means television can parody politicians and that newspapers are allowed to expose the government's corruption over expenses and lying about wars - all without anyone being locked up like a Russian punk band.

These rights have conditions attached, you know. Those rights can be ignored by the Government in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Most rights are subject to these limits. That's pretty broad, no? Are governments so bereft of good lawyers to not be able to work that for the likes of Abu Qatada? Or do they ignore their lawyers' advice so as to make political mileage out of it, just like Theresa May did?

So, sure. We have to jump through hoops to deal with hooky clerics and prisoners with nothing but time on their hands but, you know what UK? Our country has been around for ages. We have been built, destroyed, rebuilt, invaded, conquered, lived through wars and plagues. I think that the Human Rights Act and the protection it gives YOU is probably worth growing the fuck up about and telling banshee-esque politicians like May to keep their lying hands off.

Ben Knight 

p.s. - YOUR other rights are:
- Right to life - government, police, G4S and other private contractors should not really be able to kill YOU.  Don't laugh; it has happened on many occasions recently.  Look it up.

- Inhuman Treatment - those same people shouldn't be allowed to torture YOU.

- Slavery - no forced labour except things like community service.

- Right to Liberty - if you're locked-up by the police (or their private sector lackies), it had better be for a good reason, with a judge keeping on eye on why and for how long.

- Right to a Fair Trial - get told what you are supposed to have done and have the right to put your side of things. Also, this is the right that lets you hold your employer to account for giving you the boot. Due process may take a little time but that's how we know the innocent are not in prison and the guilty are. When this article is breached, innocent people lose their liberty and sometimes their lives.

- Retrospective Crimes - If you do something now and it is legal, this stops the Government deciding to lock you up later when they decide that they didn't like it. 

- Right to Privacy - this is what stops the State getting its paws on every detail about you and interfering in every little bit of your life. It has conditions like the ones above but the assumption is that you, your family and your emails/letters etc are safe from the State. No wonder, in the light of the NSA and GCHQ stories of late that the Government wants to steal this right away from you. They are already breaching it.

- Freedom of Assembly - join a union. It's what separates us from the crazy states.

- Marriage and Family - get married and have a family if you want. It's your right at the moment. The Government have not excluded this from their plans to get rid of this Act. 

- Peaceful Enjoyment of your Possessions - what's yours is yours. The State can't have it unless we have voted to let them take it. Even the Queen has to keep her mits of your house due to this right. That wasn't always the case and, without the HRA, we would return to the State being able to take your land for little or no compensation just because it suits them.

- Get an Education - the State has to let you go to school and learn. They can charge you money for it once you get that far but nobody can be kept out - even if they're a gob-shite. Gob-shites need to learn a different way. The State has to leave none of them behind.

- Be free from discrimination - not just because of your religion or your ethnicity but also because of your gender, your political or other opinions or any other thing about you. This is what makes HUMAN rights about the human. We are all human, even those who don't always act like it. 

BEST OF ALL - They have to hold elections so you can kick the bastards out if they take the piss.

This government is desperate to get rid of YOUR rights. Ask yourself why. They want to stop you being able to see a lawyer to exercise any of these rights too. Ask yourself why.

Anyone ready to exercise that last right yet?

Another blog...

Well, I have a blog for my ice hockey show, a blog for my legal show and now I have a blog for the other stuff...."what remains".

Much of what I will write will be on the law, I suspect.  That stuff is living here because Northpod Law is a project featuring the voices of others.  I do not speak for them.

This blog will probably not be updated very frequently.  Rather, it will be a repository for occasional posts.

The first big post is on the subject of an article I read today, on a Friday at the end of a week that featured tax returns and other such joys, that ground my gears to the point where I had to write something down in reply.

You'll see that I do rant on occasion.  We all need somewhere to vent and apparently two podcasts are not enough!


Thanks for reading.
Ben