In my post of 20th July 2015 regarding magistrates brought before the JCIO I wrote, "In 2012 14 J.P.s were involved. Of these 6 were removed by reason of being low sitters and therefore not fulfilling their obligations when appointed. 8 were removed from the magistracy. Notably there were none who were merely given "advice" as to their conduct or were reprimanded. Similar numbers are recorded for 2013. 7 were sacked for not meeting the minimum sitting requirements and 3 were removed for other reasons. Once again there were no complaints that resulted in non dismissal decisions. All that changed in 2014. There were 40 J.P.s investigated of whom 7 were sacked for low sitting and a similar number was given "advice" as to conduct. The major change was that 24 were reprimanded over their conduct which seems largely to have been misplaced comments usually within the court or retiring room".
From the above figures alone there are now two conclusions:- either J.P.s are, in increasing numbers, using language which is deemed unacceptable or there are more J.P.s than ever who are intolerant of language that has been previously deemed as normal. There is however the get out of jail conclusion that language that has always been acceptable and still is acceptable to the majority is unacceptable to a vociferous minority. This is of particular interest considering the subject of my post yesterday. Readers of course will draw their own conclusions.