National Shrine or National Shame

So St Pauls is to re-open and legal moves begin to forcibly remove the protestors.

This has led to the decision of Cannon Giles Fraser to resign. In expressing his concern about these developments he told the Guardian -

"St Paul was a tentmaker. If you looked around and you tried to recreate where Jesus would be born – for me, I could imagine Jesus being born in the camp,"

He went on to say  - 

"The church cannot answer peaceful protest with violence."

This again raises the question of the point of a Cathedral like St Pauls. It is a beautiful building which attracts many tourists who bring in healthy revenue. But it is essentially a church - a place where people remember and think about the life, works and message of Jesus Christ. He unequivocally identified with the poor and vulnerable and would have stood alonside Giles Fraser.

The BBC's religious correspondent Robert Piggot says on their website - 

'But the truth is that St Paul's is a national shrine, a theatre for the finest religious music and worship. That role was reasserted today.'

Well call it a national shrine and theatre if you like. But don't call it 'worship' and then disregard those who are campaigning for issues at the heart of the Christian message. Because it then ceases to be any more than a popular tourist venue.

How do we judge cuts?

A couple of weeks ago I raised the question of cuts to public funding and the knock on effect to Access to Justice. I was adding my voice to those arguing that this was a false economy; in both social and economic terms. One major fear concerns the capacity of the courts to cope with the inevitable increase in unrepresented parties before the courts.

This concern was shared yesterday by the country's leading judges.

Lord Hope, one of the Supreme Court judges said -

"It doesn't affect us [in the supreme court] but lower down the system it has a major effect. I well understand the huge concern about public expense but people who take these decisions must understand that narrowing legal aid has a cost implication on the system and its efficiency and quality."

Our Senior woman judge, Lady Hale added - 


"The judges, of course, worry about the extent to which denying people access to legal representation and legal advice will … change radically the role of the court in seeking to do justice. I think all the judges are worried about this."

I hope that this contribution will help the penny to drop with the MOJ and the Treasury. Restricting funding for representation will lead to a cosmetic saving in the legal aid budget. But there will be a far greater cost to the Administration of Justice alongside diluting the system for which we have been rightly proud.

Unfair dismissal - sacked??

According to today's Daily Telegraph, a report commissioned by David Cameron has recommended the abolition of Unfair Dismissal!

According to the report its author Adrian Beecroft complains of “the terrible impact of the current Unfair Dismissal rules on the efficiency and hence competitiveness of our businesses and on the effectiveness and cost of public services."

The Telegraph report goes on to say that the Chancellor George Osborne has a similar views in relation to the dismissal laws. It also states that the report has the support of both the Chancellor and the Prime Minister.

This report follows hot on the heels of the conference announcement by Mr Osborne of the proposed introduction of a fee of £250 for bringing a claim before an Employment Tribunal with an additional fee of 1000 payable in the case proceeds to a hearing. He also announced the intention to extend the qualifying period of employment to 2 years before a sacked worker can take his case to the tribunal.

There is an agenda here which must clearly be of major concern to anybody with an interesting justice in England and Wales. There was a time in the distant past, when workers could be disposed of without any accountability. There was always an imbalance of power between employers and employees which has been addressed the last few decades. We are now in modern democracy where somebody can go to work and know that they will not be arbitrarily sacked at the whim of an employer who no longer sees them as a useful asset.

This is another proposed attack access to justice the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society. It is to be hoped that this goes no further than being the report.

Presumably Mr Cameron's coalition partners would never support such a move which could never be described as either liberal or democrat.

St Paul's - where would Jesus be?

There has been much hand wringing about the decision to close St Paul’s Cathedral to the public in the light of the continuing occupation by those protesting against the financial institutions which are the Cathedral’s neighbours.

Commentators have criticised the protestors for interfering with those who wish to visit St Paul's. In an open letter on the Cathedrals’ website The Right Reverend Graeme Knowles acknowledges the significance of the protest –

‘There is something profound about protest being made and heard in front of this most holy place: a gathering together of those concerned about poverty and inequality facing the great Dome of this Cathedral Church.’

But he also asks the protestors to leave because –

‘..today is about our ability, practically, to carry on our mission with free and open access to this public space and treasured place and I hope that the protestors will understand the issues we are facing, recognise that their voice has been legitimately heard, and withdraw peacefully.’

There is some irony there as ‘free and open access’ currently costs £12.50. But the wider issue relates to the words ‘carry on our mission.’

Whatever one’s religious views, it cannot be denied that St Pauls is a Christian establishment. So it cannot be denied that its main role is as a place of worship of and teaching about Christ. Those issues must outweigh the need to provide a place for tourists for a reasonable fee.

So the question must be WWJB? (Where would Jesus be?). His first public words give a clue –

‘The Lord’s Spirit

Has come to me

Because he has chosen me

To tell the good news to the poor..’

He was the one who told a rich young ruler to give away his wealth to the poor. He was the one who said –

‘But you rich people

Are in for trouble

You have already had

An easy life..’

So it seems that given the choice Jesus – and presumably his most famous follower St Paul. Would be less concerned about whether the grand old building can continue to accommodate the flow of paying tourists. He would be in the tent outside identifying with those who are concerned for the weak and vulnerable. He would be eating and possible feeding (!) the protesters.

I’m afraid that if the Cathedral has to forego visits for a while that is a small price to pay to make the point that the poor are more important than the building.

A Memorable Typo

Remember the days of Temps - before we outsourced extra work or used voice recognition??

The quality was always mixed. For some reason I just remembered a classic typo from a few years ago.

I was acting for the family of a child. The family were visiting a local store and ascending the stairs. A large wooden bannister came away from the wall and fell onto the child causing a bit of an injury. I duly despatched a letter of claim to the store and got a cryptic reply from insurers. They said that they had noted the circumstances and wondered whther we had complained to the Bar Counci. Huh??

I checked the file and noticed that letter said - 'as our client was ascending the stairs a heavy barrister fell on her head.'!

Now that would have been a sight to behold! 

Four Years for FB Defendants...too much?

I have to say that I was initially shocked by the four year jail sentences handed out to the to the defendants who had set up a Facebook features encouraging riots. Jordan Blackshaw and Perry Sutcliffe Keeling each set up Facebook pages encouraging riots in their home towns. This was all that happened. Nobody turned up in either town that to take part in any disturbance. It would seem therefore that a four-year jail sentence in these circumstances was very disproportionate.

However on 18 October the Court of Appeal disagreed. The Lord Chief Justice felt that the sentences were justified. The riots in August 2011 were so serious and shocking that severe sentences were appropriate for those involved. As far as social media was concerned he referred to “the rapid movement and congregation of disorderly groups in new and unpoliced areas " In other words although nobody actually turned up to riot at the time, there was a potential for a serious disturbance just by the use of the Facebook pages. This in itself was sufficient to justify the sentence.

Having thought about further I can therefore understand the reasoning of the Court of Appeal. Potential rioters could well have responded to those pages and disturbances could have resulted from the actions of the two defendants. One can appreciate therefore why, in the circumstances, custodial sentences were appropriate. However I should say that the length of the sentence is still seems to be excessive. The reality remains that nothing actually happened, apart from the setting up of the pages and it does not appear that either defendant actually did anything further by way of planning any disturbance. Whilst one can appreciate the deterrent aspect of the severe sentence; four years still appears to be the much too high.

Whilst we are on this subject I do think that there has been too much emphasis on the negative impact of social networking as far as the riots are concerned. It should not be forgotten that in the aftermath of the riots a whole series of cleaning up exercises were launched via Facebook and Twitter. Social  Media clearly influential. The impact can be good or bad depending on the motivation of the users.

To that extent it is simply a reflection of the society in which we live

Learned Friends

Something light for a Friday afternoon!

Allegedly true - but who cares?

COUNSEL: Doctor, before you performed the post mortem, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
COUNSEL: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
COUNSEL: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
COUNSEL: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the post mortem?
WITNESS: No.
COUNSEL: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
COUNSEL: But could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Well, I guess it's possible he could be practicing law somewhere.