The MA is a strange creature, lumbered with an impossibly complicated structure and a system of 'branches' that has made it simply irrelevant to many JPs. For example, the Middlesex Branch - and the County of Middlesex was abolished in 1964 - meets in Bloomsbury, making it very difficult and expensive for magistrates living to the west of London to get there. The Association is belatedly getting round to sorting out a structure to match the newly amalgamated benches but it still seems likely that the new system will be full of anomalous groupings.
Motions for 'debate' are hand-picked in advance, and are totally ignored within five minutes of the vote being taken. Nobody has ever regarded the procedure as having the slightest significance other than to put a bogus gloss of democracy on to MA decisions.
Many magistrates are seriously unhappy about the way things are going in the lower courts, with large cuts in resources, clumsy mergers of benches, loss of experienced staff, and many more issues. You won't hear much about that at the MA's meeting, because the historically supine approach of the Association will ensure that nobody rocks the boat. It took the recent 'guidance' on blogging (or 'blogging' as the document called it) to uncover the existence of a shadowy group that discusses matters affecting magistrates' courts with the MA, senior judiciary and other figures in the system without any attempt to ascertain members' views, nor to report back on what was discussed. The group recently revisited the 'blogging' guidance, but decided (or so I believe) not to have another look at it, regardless of the weight of informed opinion that concluded the policy to be ill-advised misconceived and under-researched.
So the Mail has had its fun for another year, next week's meeting will take its course and deep peace will descend on the MA for twelve more months.
In the words of the Monty Python film (almost) "so what has the MA ever done for us"?
ReplyDeleteWhy the constant carping about the MA? It will only be a strong as it's memebership so get involved. Bite the bullet and travel to London Town, represent your branch, anything but spare us the continual whine.
DeleteThis used to be a great forum - let's get it back on track!
You say "it still seems likely that the new system will be full of anomalous groupings."
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by this?
And perhaps - I hesitate to say this - the most anomalous group of all is the lay magistracy itself. Cf. Prof.R.Morgan writing behind a pay wall in The Times.
ReplyDeleteThere are many of us who have put years into working through the MA and going to all those London meetings...actually...and made little progress in getting any change.
ReplyDeleteMaybe because others do not share the same ideas on 'progress' that you do.
DeleteThe MA is the only organisation that represents lay magistrates and they have an extemely difficult job dealing with an increasingly hostile governemt who fails to recognise our value to the criminal justice system. To constantly knock it on a public forum is unacceptable - HMCTS must relish every snide comment made. Remember 'devide & rule' - as relevant now as when it was first uttered.
The MA is my first port of call for information and increasingly, for training. My branch have just run a sentencing training session at out local Crown Court supported & attended by senior judges, more than HMCTS has ever done for me.
The MA hierachy might not be perfect, but at least the MA is my professional body.
I am right with Sascoenv; the MA is the only voice we have in these increasingly difficult times, and when John Fassenfelt recently spoke at our annual bench meeting, he reiterated what good work the MA is doing, with direct access to those in power. Whether they listen or not is a different matter, but the channel is there. We all need to put in a bit of effort and not sit back and carp; Bystander complains about having to travel into Central London for meetings. Here in the sticks I drive 40 miles to get to our branch meetings and courts, but I am happy to do it as a volunteer, just as I am happy to sit on the bench as a volunteer. If I wasn't, I would go and do something else.
DeleteWE are witnessing the demise of anonymity online which may be no bad thing in some cases. Makes trolling a thing of the past.
ReplyDeleteOnly you could criticise trolling without a hint of irony Goggins (or Broxted,Rehill,Macfarlane etc etc).
DeletePS where are you standing for PCC? Can't find you anywhere.
ReplyDeleteAs the magistracy is voluntary, what interests are to be protected by such a trade association?
What do you mean by that?
ReplyDeleteThe county of Middlesex hasn't been abolished. http://www.abcounties.co.uk/
ReplyDeleteHowever, local government administrative areas (some of which confusingly call themselves counties) have changed a few times and are generally no longer aligned with the county borders.
This twisted and seemingly embittered whining about the MA is tedious in the extreme. For everyone's sake, get over the fact that they didn't want you in the upper echelons of the organisation ("too interested in his own agenda") and stop harping on about this. It makes you look frankly infantile.
DeleteCharming.
ReplyDeleteI've been sitting for two years now and have no intention of joining the MA. I’m sure that the MA has people who do good work, and care about what we do (and in fact the MA rep at my bench is a star). However, it doesn’t represent the views of many younger working magistrates of whom I am one. Of the five working magistrates appointed at the same time as myself, none have joined.
ReplyDeleteTo me, the MA looks very parochial and not especially independent. For example, in the Times article earlier this year JF appeared to condone single magistrates sitting alone in police stations (very disapointing). And the comments here ‘defending it’ actually don’t do it any favours either. There is a material percentage of magistrates who haven’t joined the MA that have reasonable criticism but the MA seems unwilling to listen or respond. And the ‘get involved point’, sorry, it’s hard enough combining work and sitting.
What's that you were saying, Bystander (Team)?
ReplyDeletehttp://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2012/11/justice-denied-our-worst-retreat-since-dunkirk.html
What's the matter with everyone? I make some reasoned and verifiable comments on the MA and I get "This twisted and seemingly embittered whining about the MA".
ReplyDeleteThis is a grown up blog that discusses magistrates' courts. If this ill-tempered and unpleasant run of comments persists I shall introduce registration before comments are allowed. I would regret that, but enough is enough.
This is what happens on internet forums. A comment is posted. If it is posted by someone regarded as contentious, then the body criticised will know almost immediately and posters, self appointed or (in the case of companies, large interest groups etc) appointed by the body criticised, will hie themselves over to lambast the post and the poster (personal comments - as above - are commonplace). I believe it is called astro-turfing. The aim is not only to steer the discussion, but to give genuinely impartial readers the impression that the criticism was unfair, unfounded and motivated by personal grudge.
DeleteBystander: alas this is what happens when any of us dare to comment about the MA. Many of us have tried very hard to work through the organisation until our resignations.
ReplyDeleteThe MOJ are a better organisation to talk for many of us because - and we might like to remind ourselves of this - we are members of the judiciary.
The MoJ are a Governmental department and therefore a political body. The Magistracy are part of the Judiciary. Does this Magistrate not understand the importance of the separation of those who make and those who dispense justice?
DeleteDoes the government (or the daily Mail)?
DeleteI got the following reply from the MA when I wrote to complain:
ReplyDeleteThank you once again for your feedback on the blogging guidance. All
responses were collated in a clear report laying out the arguments put
forward against the restrictions.
We requested that the Magistrates Liaison Group discussed blogging once
more at its meeting on the 23rd October and the report was circulated to
members of the MLG prior to the meeting. John Fassenfelt presented the
arguments in the meeting.
After discussing the arguments the Group concluded that this guidance
has been approved by members of the Senior Judiciary and it is not felt
at this stage that there was a case to withdraw or amend it. However, it
was agreed that it will be kept under review.
Best wishes,
Chris
Chris Brace
Chief Executive
Interpretation:
DeleteBecause Upstairs have approved it, instead of communicating the ill-feeling caused by the policy back to our Lords and masters, we Downstairs have agreed to bend over and get shafted....
At least the MA was challenging the decision. The NBCF, on the other hand, fully endorse the guidance and none of its members seem to mind...
DeleteThe MA apparently didn't "challenge" the decision; their internal discussion group appears to have adopted a policy of appeasement, and we all know how that ends up, don't we?
DeleteDear Bystander,
ReplyDeleteSadly, there are responses here as intemperate as those that drove many of us away from the MA website. This individual won't take part in any more discussions because it doesn't feel appropriate but I wish you so very well.