Musings and Snippets from a recently retired JP. I served for 31 years, mostly in west London. I was Chairman of my Bench for some years, and a member of the National Bench Chairmen's Forum All cases are based on real ones, but anonymised and composited. All opinions are those of one or more individuals. JPs swear to enforce the law of the land, whether or not they approve of it. Nothing on here constitutes legal advice.
This site is losing its way, its getting far too personal, and far too many gripes about the system. Its about time you just got on with the job, the site is boring now. If you don't like what the law says you have to do, go find something else to do but stop whining about it.
I duly note the irritation and double meaning in your reply, but its not a bad thing if you are told things you don't like to hear. Heaven forbid, you might even get a bit above yourself. The original purpose of this site was to inform people about the magistracy and how it functioned.
Since then its become much more political, and todays thread header is a perfect example. Its a retrogressive step, and the site is poorer for it IMHO
Comments like "it's no bad thing if you are told things you don't like to hear" work the other way round, you know. It may do you no harm to be occasionally exposed to opinions you don't like or agree with. Heaven forfend, but it might actually broaden your mind.
We have a growing class of politicians who seem to feel that, if God does not actually defer to them, He ought to. At one time, for a Minister of the Crown to be found to have done an unlawful act would have been a resignation matter. These days it seems to be as water off a duck's back. Grayling's ban on books being sent in to prisoners had little to do with security but a lot to do with a bullying need to grind the face of an underclass in the dirt. I for one am glad it has been overturned. I believe we are a more civilised country for it.
Coming back to the subject of the blog, the Courts are the ordinary person's only defence, short of revolution, against an arbitrary, capricious and unfair Executive. It is reassuring to see that at all tiers of the judiciary, there are people ready to do what the law mandates, even when this conflicts with the opinions of the Government of the day.
Well I like this site anyway so carry on as you are. IMHO you truly reflect the irritation we often feel in the retiring room when suddenly out of the blue we are told of the non sensical decisions that eminate from certain ministers as well as from Petty France. Although benches are pretty well truly representative of their areas colleagues from very different political persuasions were staggered to hear of the arbitrary books ban. And so it goes on....
Hopefully many readers of this blog realise that Bystander's political views (if they are as implied by his/ their comments) are definitely not shared by a majority of magistrates of my acquaintance.
Are you inferring that only one political party should be represented on the bench? I hadn't realised that everyone else was deemed frightfully inapproriate by their Worships.
Well, that may be true of your colleagues, but I flatter myself that my views are sufficiently in line with those of my colleagues for them to have elected me as Bench Chairman on several occasions.
This is not a political blog, but those of us who truly care about justice must be allowed to protest at heavy handed and partisan political tinkering with the law.
Have a look back through the archive posts, and you will see that I have been scathing about both major parties' policies. I do not belong to a party, but I have done in the past. I read most papers thanks to the blessing of the Interweb, but I continue to read The Times through a subscription because it is a paper that I have read since I was sixteen, and it's a habit.
I think anonymous' point might have been that had you made your post about the policy rather than about grayling it would have been more credible. Your thoughts on access to books versus drugs might have been thought provoking.
People like Anonymous 19:00 5 December, who won't even identify themselves by pseudonym, mystify me. This one, in the absence of any other evidence, appears to be the type of character who slavishly follows wherever the Establishment will lead. This sort of person does not understand that challenging the status quo can actually create beneficial progress. All law is immediately historical. When there is need to challenge law or regulation that is now felt unfit for purpose, then there is only one government to which complaint can be directed. That is either not party politics or automatically party politics, depending upon your viewpoint, I suppose, but it is not partisanship in application of the law as it stands. The same applies when it is ministerial whim, and not even regulation, that deserves challenge. When that whim harms one group, in return for political favour (i.e., votes) with a more powerful sector of the public, then it violates one reason for an orderly society, which is the protection of the vulnerable.
So, Anonymous 19:00, I suggest you learn to pronounce 'Baaa !' with an ovine not Scrooge-like accent.
I choose "anonymous" because ever since Bystander changed the system it has proved damned difficult for me to post anything, and probably you will think that a good thing. Anonymous at 10.48 7/12 has it in a nutshell. Frankly attacking Grayling personally and openly as this post does doesn't help and can be dismissed easily as a political attack. Frankly, I doubt the original Bystander wrote this thread, I would be very surprised if he had.. From some of the comments on here it seems pretty clear that more than one of you think you know best and any dissent to the "received" viewpoint means a belittling response.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion so long as its not defamatory and doesn't upset original Bystander as its his site.
Dear God, or deity of choice, this is Bystanders train set, he can write whatever he wants, whenever he wants. If you don’t like it, well, you can always vote with your feet and go somewhere else.
I know that opinions are like arseholes, but honestly we don’t have to see everybodies.
I have never agreed with a single word you have written. Indeed, were I a magistrate I would order that you get a damned good thrashing every day for the rest of your life. Your only redeeming feature is that you like malt whisky.
But yours is an indispensable blog and you have my permission to annoy the crap out of anybody you choose, especially Anonymous. John Stuart Mill and I daresay, your mother, would be proud of this blog..
Posts are pre-moderated. Please bear with us if this takes a little time, but the number of bores and obsessives was getting out of hand, as were the fake comments advertising rubbish.
This site is losing its way, its getting far too personal, and far too many gripes about the system. Its about time you just got on with the job, the site is boring now. If you don't like what the law says you have to do, go find something else to do but stop whining about it.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your advice. I shall lose no time in following it.
ReplyDeleteI duly note the irritation and double meaning in your reply, but its not a bad thing if you are told things you don't like to hear. Heaven forbid, you might even get a bit above yourself.
ReplyDeleteThe original purpose of this site was to inform people about the magistracy and how it functioned.
Since then its become much more political, and todays thread header is a perfect example.
Its a retrogressive step, and the site is poorer for it IMHO
Comments like "it's no bad thing if you are told things you don't like to hear" work the other way round, you know. It may do you no harm to be occasionally exposed to opinions you don't like or agree with. Heaven forfend, but it might actually broaden your mind.
DeleteWe have a growing class of politicians who seem to feel that, if God does not actually defer to them, He ought to. At one time, for a Minister of the Crown to be found to have done an unlawful act would have been a resignation matter. These days it seems to be as water off a duck's back. Grayling's ban on books being sent in to prisoners had little to do with security but a lot to do with a bullying need to grind the face of an underclass in the dirt. I for one am glad it has been overturned. I believe we are a more civilised country for it.
Coming back to the subject of the blog, the Courts are the ordinary person's only defence, short of revolution, against an arbitrary, capricious and unfair Executive. It is reassuring to see that at all tiers of the judiciary, there are people ready to do what the law mandates, even when this conflicts with the opinions of the Government of the day.
Is Anonymous a fifth columnist from the powers that be ?
ReplyDeleteWell I like this site anyway so carry on as you are. IMHO you truly reflect the irritation we often feel in the retiring room when suddenly out of the blue we are told of the non sensical decisions that eminate from certain ministers as well as from Petty France. Although benches are pretty well truly representative of their areas colleagues from very different political persuasions were staggered to hear of the arbitrary books ban. And so it goes on....
ReplyDeleteHopefully many readers of this blog realise that Bystander's political views (if they are as implied by his/ their comments) are definitely not shared by a majority of magistrates of my acquaintance.
ReplyDeleteAre you inferring that only one political party should be represented on the bench? I hadn't realised that everyone else was deemed frightfully inapproriate by their Worships.
DeleteWell, that may be true of your colleagues, but I flatter myself that my views are sufficiently in line with those of my colleagues for them to have elected me as Bench Chairman on several occasions.
ReplyDeleteThis is not a political blog, but those of us who truly care about justice must be allowed to protest at heavy handed and partisan political tinkering with the law.
Have a look back through the archive posts, and you will see that I have been scathing about both major parties' policies. I do not belong to a party, but I have done in the past. I read most papers thanks to the blessing of the Interweb, but I continue to read The Times through a subscription because it is a paper that I have read since I was sixteen, and it's a habit.
I think anonymous' point might have been that had you made your post about the policy rather than about grayling it would have been more credible. Your thoughts on access to books versus drugs might have been thought provoking.
ReplyDeletePeople like Anonymous 19:00 5 December, who won't even identify themselves by pseudonym, mystify me. This one, in the absence of any other evidence, appears to be the type of character who slavishly follows wherever the Establishment will lead. This sort of person does not understand that challenging the status quo can actually create beneficial progress. All law is immediately historical. When there is need to challenge law or regulation that is now felt unfit for purpose, then there is only one government to which complaint can be directed. That is either not party politics or automatically party politics, depending upon your viewpoint, I suppose, but it is not partisanship in application of the law as it stands. The same applies when it is ministerial whim, and not even regulation, that deserves challenge. When that whim harms one group, in return for political favour (i.e., votes) with a more powerful sector of the public, then it violates one reason for an orderly society, which is the protection of the vulnerable.
ReplyDeleteSo, Anonymous 19:00, I suggest you learn to pronounce 'Baaa !' with an ovine not Scrooge-like accent.
I choose "anonymous" because ever since Bystander changed the system it has proved damned difficult for me to post anything, and probably you will think that a good thing.
DeleteAnonymous at 10.48 7/12 has it in a nutshell. Frankly attacking Grayling personally and openly as this post does doesn't help and can be dismissed easily as a political attack.
Frankly, I doubt the original Bystander wrote this thread, I would be very surprised if he had..
From some of the comments on here it seems pretty clear that more than one of you think you know best and any dissent to the "received" viewpoint means a belittling response.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion so long as its not defamatory and doesn't upset original Bystander as its his site.
Dear God, or deity of choice, this is Bystanders train set, he can write whatever he wants, whenever he wants. If you don’t like it, well, you can always vote with your feet and go somewhere else.
DeleteI know that opinions are like arseholes, but honestly we don’t have to see everybodies.
Apparently, ENH, you feel we desperately need to see yours. Thank you.
DeleteI have never agreed with a single word you have written. Indeed, were I a magistrate I would order that you get a damned good thrashing every day for the rest of your life. Your only redeeming feature is that you like malt whisky.
ReplyDeleteBut yours is an indispensable blog and you have my permission to annoy the crap out of anybody you choose, especially Anonymous. John Stuart Mill and I daresay, your mother, would be proud of this blog..