MET POLICE NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE

lack of integrity or honesty; use of a position of trust for dishonest gain

illegal, bad, or dishonest behaviour especially by people in positions of power 

destroying someone's (or some group's) honesty or loyalty; undermining moral integrity

Corruption is an improbity or decay in the decision-making process in which a decision-maker consents to deviate or demands deviation from the criterion which should rule his or her decision-making, in exchange for a reward or for the promise or expectation of a reward, while these motives influencing his or her decision-making cannot be part of the justification of the decision.

The above are just a few definitions of the word CORRUPTION.  It is to be noted that powerful people  figure in defining the word and that the acceptance of money is not necessarily part of the definition but changing some something is a factor.  I have posted not infrequently on how in apparently ever increasing numbers senior police officers of various constabularies have been caught out for corrupt practices.  This of course might be because society is more open and investigative journalism is more thorough and conclusive than in past decades.  On the other hand there might indeed, as I believe, be an increasing amount of this infection in the bodies of senior police officers and the institutions they control.  Scotland Yard seems to have more than its fair share of rottenness at its head.  Obfuscation and sheer lies are every bit as corrupting in police as is fabrication of evidence or the taking of bribes. The Birmingham 6, Hillsborough, Stephen Lawrence and countless other scandals both investigated, under investigation or to be investigated hit the headlines in a remorseless parade of shame.  Today is no exception. The castigating conclusion of a Met Chief Inspector of unimpeachable reputation`s claim against his employer was that a Metropolitan Assistant Commissioner "sought to disguise her involvement" and gave misleading evidence.  In addition A Deputy Assistant Commissioner was found to have given evidence that was "not credible".  The devastating conclusions by the tribunal continued with stating that another Deputy Assistant Commissioner gave evidence that "was so vague that we were unable to have any confidence as to his actual reason". 

That officers in the Met in such senior positions have had their evidence under oath so thoroughly discredited should lead to questions as to their suitability to remain in post.  Indeed IMHO the Met is now an institution no longer fit for purpose....to use a well known description by a previous Home Secretary.

When the result of the referendum has passed into history there should be action for a thorough investigation into the Met and if necessary the whole senior management structure should be up for reform.  Only when the senior ranks above inspector have been cleansed will the organisation be able to have the confidence of its rank and file and of more importance the public it is supposed to serve.

 

REFERENDUM DEBATE CONTRIBUTION

As an avowed Brexiteer who doesn`t wish to go door to door enthusing his neighbours the piece below from Civitas today might be of interest.

 

 

Press Release
Embargo: Immediate

Tel: 020 7799 6677

www.civitas.org.uk

Predictions that can't be proved correct one way or the other versus demonstrated facts available to all

The Remain camp has succeeded in making economic predictions about the economy the most important 'factual' battleground. This has allowed them to distract attention from the factual record of the Single Market. It also enables them to base their appeal for votes on the authority of the predictors rather than on the demonstrated evidence that is available to every citizen. The last thing they want is voters making up their minds after assessing the objective facts. A new commentary by the analyst Michael Burrage provides the latest objective facts concerning the growth of exports to the EU of 40 economies since the inception of the Single Market in 1993 up until 2015. It is a abundantly clear that the UK's compound annual growth rate of 3.44 per cent over the period is woeful compared with that of a large number of countries who are not even members of the Single Market. Burrage writes: "The economic argument for remaining in the EU pivots on the supposed benefits to members of the Single Market. It is because the UK must keep access to this market that it must put up with all the other costs, obligations and inconveniences of membership. And since non-members only have access to this market, while accepting many of these costs, obligations and inconveniences, non-membership is not thought to be a sensible option. "Curiously, none of those who use this argument, including David Cameron, ever refer to the published and readily accessible record, showing the impact of membership on UK trade or exports. The Prime Minister prefers to cite highly speculative forecasts of what might happen in 10 or 15 years time, as if what has happened over the past 23 years is not important. "Christine Lagarde, managing director of the IMF, might have directed him to the comprehensive database of her organization, but she preferred to tell him, and the British people of her ‘hunch’ that the consequences of Brexit would all be negative. "Shortly before her UK visit, the IMF Direction of Trade Statistics database was updated with the figures from 2015. They are used in the Table (visit the CIvitas website for a larger view of the table) which shows the growth in the value of the exports of goods to the EU since the formal inauguration of the Single Market in 1993 to 2015 of forty countries, all of which have been exporting to the EU under WTO rules, which according to Messrs Cameron and Osborne is ‘the worst possible post-Brexit option’. "They have not played any part in setting EU rules, have not concluded any trade agreements with the EU, and have not paid a penny for access to the Single Market. The UK meanwhile has been enjoying all the benefits of membership." Notes Michael Burrage is the author of Myth and Paradox of the Single Market and The Eurosceptic's Handbook, both published by Civitas in 2016. He is a director of Cimigo, which is based in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, and conducts market and corporate strategy research in China, India and 12 countries in the Asia Pacific region. He was a Fulbright scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, has been a lecturer at the London School of Economics and at the Institute of United States Studies, specialising in the comparative analysis of industrial enterprise and professional institutions. He has been a research fellow at Harvard, at the Swedish Collegium of Advanced Study, Uppsala, at the Free University of Berlin, and at the Center for Higher Education Studies and the Institute of Government of the University of California, Berkeley. He has also been British Council lecturer at the University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil, and on several occasions a visiting professor in Japan, at the universities of Kyoto, Hokkaido and Kansai and at Hosei University in Tokyo. For more information, contact Michael Burrage on 020 7101 2011 or Daniel Bentley on 020 7799 6677.

RISK OF SEXUAL HARM NOTICE//MIRTH IN THE MAKING part 2

On January 25th I commented on a police action that was beyond being sublime and ridiculous.  The case has now progressed to the ranks of Alice in Wonderland although police would say that Alice would be at risk.  Perhaps Kafka would have appreciated the nonsense produced from that super efficient constabulary that protects the worthy citizens of North Yorkshire.  In this case under threat of a long period in custody if he disobeys a man must tell police 24 hours before he has sexual intercourse.  It is a presumption that it is heterosexual intercourse under discussion and that the man might masturbate without notice to anybody if he feels the urge. It is beyond belief but then that is how Kafka gave his name to such idiotic officialdom. 

OFF TOPIC//MICROSOFT, POWER AND E.U.

I`ve been writing this blog for almost seven years and until a couple of weeks ago had never gone "off topic" but my recent experience with Microsoft has so irritated me that the following can be taken as a simple story of personal frustration or an example of how a multi billion pound organisation with reprehensible practices is never  mentioned in the same sentence as alleged international tax evaders eg Google, Amazon, Starbucks etc either because it`s clean and/or its magnanimous founder is the greatest ever charity giver the world has ever known.  

About two years ago my main PC......I have another spare.......running on Windows XP Pro needed replacing.  I bought another  running on newly installed Windows 8.1 from a national supplier.  After about a fortnight the PC developed a manufacturing fault and I opted to return it for a full refund. During that period I realised I much preferred XP to 8.1 but knowing it no longer had support had a local dealer build me a new PC with Windows 7 Pro.  So far so good. Meanwhile I had my spare PC also upgraded to run on Windows7.  Using that machine a few months ago I took a deep breath and allowed Windows 10 to be downloaded to it.  After using it occasionally I decided that for my purposes I preferred Windows 7 and although after the four week simple uninstall process had expired eventually returned that machine to Windows 7.  Meanwhile like all Windows users I was receiving notices to upgrade free to Windows 10  each time closing down the page.  That was until a few days ago when after leaving my office I noticed upon return an hour later that the screen showed a page stating Windows 10 upgrade.  I thought at first that this doesn`t apply to my PC; I have not authorised anything but to be sure and against the usual  do not turn off instruction I pulled the plug because there was no other way to halt the process.  Yesterday I was at the machine when the upgrade instruction came through with no way to halt an upgrade to Windows 10; an upgrade I definitely did not want.  Only by going to Microsoft support was I able to have an operative  remove all data informing an upgrade.

On a personal level this intended imposition of an operating system I did not want was an annoyance but on a grander level it exposed me to the power and control of this financial monster; something I have rarely experienced.  The more I hear D. Cameron making his argument to remain in the E.U. and using the answer of all these organisations agree with me   to make his case whatever the question I wonder just how much control do we as citizens have in this  supposedly democratic country. 

J.P.s ARE NOT PARROTS

During my time on the bench I had the enormous benefit of having had as  colleagues four first class District Judges. Each one in his and her own way was a superb communicator, teacher and advisor. One common factor that each of those people emphasised to the bench as a collective and to me personally was that our powers in court were identical to theirs. This certainly boosted my confidence when I became a chairman and I have no reason to think that many colleagues did not have similar experiences.

One aspect of the job that one quickly learned was whilst not necessarily parroting pronouncements like a ventriloquist’s dummy one should be somewhat circumspect in anything one said from the bench whether eg it was the manner in which an informal warning was given about an offender`s future behaviour or an explanation in rather simple terms to somebody whose comprehension was thought to be slightly wanting. It would certainly have been beyond my personal remit to have followed the example of a Deputy District Judge [MC] Bennett at Westminster Magistrates` Court (The Times behind its paywall) who declared from the bench a few years ago, after having found guilty of careless driving a lorry driver whose offending caused very serious injury to a cyclist, that he would be writing to then Mayor Boris Johnson to consider the layout of the accident location to improve safety for cyclists. Or the anonymous District Judge at Portsmouth Magistrates’ Court who voiced his criticism of the closure of Fareham Magistrates` Court. Such statements whilst not often reported do happen from time to time as this from 2012 indicates. In Northern Ireland they have their own way to justice but for a District Judge  to criticise a local M.P. takes a certain amount of chutzpah. There are however times when Big Brother does wade in when the authorities  consider matters have gone too far.  In 2013 District Judge Tim Pattinson was certainly thought to have gone too far at Oxford Magistrates` Court in his remarks re the RSPCA.  Interestingly enough that organisation has been forced to change its prosecution policy as a result of the Oxford case and others. 

It`s my opinion that J.P.s are more likely to be officially castigated for speaking out of turn no matter the accuracy or benevolent intention of any extraneous remarks cf a District Judge.  Be that as it may the day when official pronouncements have to be followed parrot fashion like those of parliamentarians in North Korea would be a very sad day indeed. 

NO JUDGES SO NO TRIALS

Last Thursday 2nd June I posted on the recently completed selection procedure for judges.  It seems that the MOJ might have miscalculated supply and demand.  Whilst to the man on the fabled Clapham omnibus judicial salaries might appear to be an unobtainable  small fortune, to those aspiring beaks who currently inhabit the ranks of the legal profession the numbers are just not enticing enough to make the move from appearing in front of the bench to sitting upon it.  In two regions crown court cases have been postponed owing to the lack of suitably qualified judges; in East Anglia and Kent. 

On all fronts our judicial system seems to have more problems than can be solved. With there no longer being a level legal playing field and equality of legal arms now a part of history perhaps we should allow for trial by combat.

PERVERSE NON PUNISHMENT FOR A HIGH CLASS PERVERT

Amongst the most disturbing of the many high profile criminal cases reported this week is that of Patrick Rock who was convicted of downloading indecent pictures of young pre pubescent girls.  As a retired J.P. my personal experience of such cases is necessarily very limited. They inevitably end up at crown court.  However I do recollect sitting on a few first appearances where barristers for the accused attempted to persuade us not to send to the higher court arguing that the images involved were grade 1.  My thoughts therefore on the Rock case are those of a middle class parent and member of society.

It seems that the judge`s decision to sentence him to the lowest possible outcome; a conditional discharge, was based upon the idea that Rock, being a public figure, would suffer personal, professional and public humiliation by the mere fact of being found guilty.  I find this perverse.  This man did not just operate on the fringes of power; he was an active participant at the very top.   He had previously advised  Michael Howard, when he was Home Secretary,  where he was responsible for developing policy to protect children from sexual abuse on the internet.   Therefore there can be no doubt that he was well aware as to what constituted illegal pictures of children.  That in itself is an aggravating feature of enormous significance.  He has been placed on the sex offenders` register for two years.  

The level of punishment imposed seems to be saying to the public that if you`re an important public figure loss of reputation is a sufficient outcome.  This strikes me as an affront to us all.  Justice must be even handed to the highest and the lowest in society.  When there seems to be deviation from that principle questions need to be asked as to whether the rottenness in our society with regard to children`s social services to which I have previously alluded has now extended under judicial cover to the courtroom.

NUMBER CRUNCHING

A veritable trove of sentencing and criminal statistics has recently been published by the Ministry of Justice.  For those interested in number crunching the tables provide a fascinating insight into what has been happening and the trends over the last 12 months and more.

OPEN SELECTION PUBLISHED BUT NOT FOR J.P.s

Politicians and therefore governments have become obsessed about representation.  100 years ago they couldn`t give a damn.  Selection from a coterie of public schools, aristocracy, landed gentry and the old boy network was a virtual guarantee of appointment to the upper echelons of the military, judiciary and civil service.  All that fell apart in 1914, received a further push during the Ramsay MacDonald, Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain national governments which held office from 1931 until 1940, was further sidestepped in 1945 and suffered its near death blow under Harold Wilson.  Ever since 1997 actual positive actions have been taken with varying degrees of success to ensure that in all spheres of our society there was equal opportunity for every individual to rise to his/her maximum potential irrespective of race, creed, colour, sexuality and laterally gender.  As a refreshing example  of this rainbow society, earlier this week we learned that the newly appointed Master of the Rolls is Jewish, is openly gay and  is married subsequent to having been in a civil partnership.    And we know all this because the MOJ has today published  the "Judicial selection and recommendations for appointment statistics April 2015 to March 2016".  

On opening the statistical tables one is presented not only with the ethnic backgrounds of the year`s appointees but also their gender and age.  Not much surprise there then?  The surprise is that that  information is published also of the applicants` eligible pool, numbers of applications and those short listed.   But what is not published is the same subdivisions of those appointed as Justices of the Peace.  Gender, age and ethnicity of magistrates per se has been freely available for many years and although the numbers re J.P.s are much higher than for the paid judiciary I would question this omission.  Government officials and senior judicial figures often correctly use the term "judiciary"  in reference to us, their colleagues on the lowest rung of that profession. J.P.s are subject to the same levels of professional and personal conduct as their full time civil service employed colleagues. And despite the realities, government when it suits its arguments, still refers to magistrates` local representative nature in their communities.  Why then has there not been full disclosure of magisterial applicants` details etc in line with the rest?  Is this not just another indication that local justice for local people is no longer relevant with a third of courts closed and with non local District Judges presiding over ever increasing numbers of courtrooms?

A TALE OF CONTEMPT

Another J.P. who blogs with astute observation referred on May 21st to dealing with contempt of court; a subject which has been known to cause  legal wires to buzz.  I`m sure many former colleagues have their own stories. 

My favourite such recollection was after sending somebody down for six weeks I was told, “I`ll get you; you cunt”. The offender was told to say no more or he would be in bigger trouble and to go with the officers. Immediately his lawyer stood up and enquired with half a grin on his face if a written apology would help. He was told if indeed his client could write and the apology fitted the circumstances having it before the bench prior to 1.00pm might save his client additional time inside. At 12.50pm it was presented to us; an unctuous apology in childish handwriting. At 1.50pm preparing for the afternoon sitting in the same courtroom our L/A asked me for the defendant’s apology so that it could be put in the court file. As I was going to keep it as a souvenir I enquired why she wanted it. “ If you`re found with a knife in your back sir, we`ll know who to look for”.

Perhaps we have less dignity to stand upon than our senior colleagues; perhaps we have learned to ignore the mouthings from those who appear before us……does that in any way diminish respect for the law and the legal system in the eyes of the public? If the answer is in the affirmative then we should be less reticent about applying the law of contempt.

PROMOTING CHANGE OR MORE DANGEROUS DOGS ACTS BUT DON`T BLAME US

Transform Justice is a lobby organisation funded philanthropically and run on a tight budget by a former magistrate who left the judiciary many years ago.  Its purpose is:-

"Transform Justice was set up in 2012 by Penelope Gibbs, a former magistrate who had worked (successfully) to reduce child and youth imprisonment in the UK. The charity will help create a better justice system in the UK, a system which is fairer, more open, more humane and more effective. Transform Justice will enhance the system through promoting change – by generating research and evidence to show how the system works and how it could be improved, and by persuading the public to support those changes and practitioners and politicians to make them".

These are laudable aims by any account and are so astutely worded that one would be a fool to simply argue against them.  "Transform Justice will enhance the system through promoting change". The question to be put is what kind of change.  Below are a few quotes on "change". 

Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future.

John F. Kennedy (1917-1963) Thirty-fifth President of the USA

You must be the change you wish to see in the world.

Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) Preeminent leader of Indian nationalism.

It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.

Charles Darwin (1809-1882) English Naturalist

Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.

James Baldwin (1924-1987) African-American writer.

To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often.

Winston Churchill (1874-1965) British politician.

You can't expect to meet the challenges of today with yesterday's tools and expect to be in business tomorrow.

Unknown Source

Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.

George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) Irish writer.

When it becomes more difficult to suffer than change -- then you will change.

Unknown Source

To exist is to change, to change is to mature, to mature is to go on creating oneself endlessly

Henri Bergson (1859-1941) French philosopher.

When you're finished changing, you're finished.

Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) American statesman, scientist and philosopher.

Generally speaking those who oppose change are  history`s losers.  It is the quality of change that makes for a better world or a better life.  And so it is with legislation.  The Dangerous Dogs Act  1991 is considered by many to have been a change in the law so ill thought out that it created as many problems (or more) than it solved.  The common term used in such circumstances is the law of unintended consequences.  

Recently  Transform Justice posed the question; "Can we curb our addiction to the short prison sentence?"  Nowhere in the piece is the word magistrate written and this is rather strange.  Nowhere are statistics quoted.  An extract is taken from Sentencing Council`s "Consultation on draft guideline for Imposition of Community & Custodial sentences"..........  "suspended sentences are being imposed as a more severe form of community order where the offending has not crossed the custody threshold."  This is indeed disingenuous and unworthy of the authors and TR.  Within the consultation are listed the clearly defined steps sentencers must employ before the imposition of custody and the basic first hurdle is that custody is the only option its threshold having been breached.  From my own experience it is new J.P.s and the probation officers  who write pre sentence reports who often do not understand this.  I have lost count of the number of times I personally, a single J.P., have told probation after reading a PSR sentencing option which goes from recommending a community order to a suspended custody order that there must be a clear breach of the threshold before that option can have validity.  Speaking from the position of magistrates if they are unaware that Suspended Sentence Orders are being imposed against defined structural decision making, the blame must fall at the feet of their legal advisors and those who design training and/or appraisers` courses.  

On short sentences whether or not suspended there is a clear difference between those imposed at magistrates court or at crown court.  By the very structure of our system they are used with much greater frequency in the former where in 2014 73,993 were imposed [up to 6 months] of which 30,058 (40.6%) were suspended. At crown court there were 9,227 sentences up to 6 months and a total out of all crown court sentences of 22,921 suspended. Of these SSOs no record is available of their length.  Another surprising omission from government statistics is the total number of breaches of SSOs  and their consequences.  To argue against short custodial sentences which are suspended without knowledge of the consequences of their being breached is myopic indeed. 

There are only two consequences of the raising of the minimum custodial sentence to 12 months as some would wish; either all boats in the water would rise on the rising tide or the safety of the public and the concept of punishment per se would be at risk.  The decimation of a national probation service, the unavailability of legal aid,  the disgrace of our prison system, the continual pressure on budget of our whole judicial system including enforcement of all kinds.......police, border agency etc are such that any tinkering with the current processes is liable to have far reaching consequences; some unpredictable.   But what do politicians care?  The next election is their priority and if our legal and judicial system is showing signs of collapse blame the Opposition or the EU or multi national tax evaders or immigrants or benefit scroungers or dangerous dogs but don`t blame us.

JUDICIAL OBSERVATIONS

Within the legal world it is widely known that the numbers of  magistrates have fallen dramatically in the last few years.  This decline has been inevitable.  One does not have to have had the abilities of a Nostradamus or the resources of Channel 4 "Dispatches" to have predicted this radical change to the way in which this and the previous government viewed the institution.   Eight years ago there were just a little under 30,000 active J.P.s; today they number fewer than 20,000. The reasons for the decline are the reduction in cases brought to the lower courts, the closure of about a third  of court buildings and the  resulting difficulties of J.P.s travel arrangements, the deliberate employment of increasing numbers of professional District Judges(M.C.), the skewed age profile of the magistracy and to a lesser extent the resignation of magistrates owing to their opposition to the previous regime`s removal of the level legal playing field for the poorer in our society by the restrictions on legal aid and the imposition of non means tested court charges.   I cannot recollect publication of the numbers of resignations prior to the announcement earlier this week.  It seems that this is going to be a bumper year where J.P.s for whatever reasons have shown two fingers to an appointment which I`m certain they were proud and pleased to have originally accepted. Perhaps the damning verdict of the The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) earlier this week that the criminal justice system is near breaking point is connected to the disillusionment of former colleagues.  When the financial resources to a system are reduced to the bare bones  for functionality there cannot be any surprise when that system collapses under the minimum disturbance to its already failing processes. Those who have been shouting "wolf" for the last decade have been vindicated in their pessimism.  It is hard to see there is a way back for what used to be a the most highly respected justice system in the world.  We are all the poorer individually, nationally and internationally for that. 

But all is not doom and gloom for errant judicial office holders.  According to a statement from the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) instead of being kicked out for actions which might until now have been deemed incompatible  for a  judge or magistrate with expulsion  being the result it seems that a suspended sentence might now be considered the  appropriate sanction.  

JCIO Message:
“Following advice from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) legal team, we are informing all parties involved with the judicial conduct process of a change in advice regarding the use of suspension as a disciplinary sanction.
The Lord Chancellor’s (LC) and Lord Chief Justice’s (LCJ) disciplinary powers are set out in Section 108 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.    Previously, we have operated on the basis that the LCJ can suspend a judicial office holder as a sanction, with the agreement of the LC, as an option for any action that constitutes serious misconduct, but may not warrant removal from judicial office.  This was on the basis of reading 108 5 c) of the Act as a stand alone criteria, giving the LC and LCJ the ability to suspend a judicial office holder for the purpose of maintaining confidence in the judiciary.
However, in light of advice given on an ongoing case, the MoJ legal team have looked at this provision and have raised a concern about how suspension is currently being applied as a sanction.  Their interpretation of the disciplinary powers set out in Section 108, in accordance with the parliamentary counsel’s explanatory notes, is that the suspension can only be issued in a specific set of circumstances.  They have explained that S 108 5) needs to be read as a cumulative set of circumstances and 108 5 c) cannot be relied upon separately to issue suspension as a sanction in any circumstances outside those listed in this section.  The explanatory notes for this section state:
Section 108: Disciplinary Powers

317. Section 108 will form the basis of a disciplinary system in relation to senior judicial office holders in England and Wales and the holders of offices listed in Schedule 14. In accordance with the section the Lord Chancellor may only exercise his statutory powers to remove judicial office holders in accordance with prescribed procedures (which are defined by section 122 as procedures prescribed by the Lord Chief Justice with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor in regulations made under section 115 or rules made under section 117). Following the formal disciplinary process the Lord Chief Justice may formally advise or formally warn or reprimand, a judicial office holder, but only in accordance with prescribed procedures and with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor. As provided in subsection (3) this does not affect the ability of the Lord Chief Justice to speak informally to any judge about any matter of concern, or to issue general advice or warnings to the judiciary.
318. The Lord Chief Justice may also, with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor, suspend a judicial office holder from exercising the functions of his office if the office holder is subject to criminal proceedings; is serving a sentence for a criminal offence; is subject to disciplinary proceedings following a conviction; or if, following a criminal conviction, it has been decided not to remove the judicial office holder from office, but the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor agree that a period of suspension is required in order to maintain confidence in the judiciary. Senior judges may be suspended during proceedings for an Address in Parliament to remove them from office. Office holders who are listed in Schedule 14 may be suspended during criminal or disciplinary investigations, prior to any conviction.

This advice has no impact on the process for interim suspension pending the outcome of an investigation. 
The MoJ legal will continue looking at this matter and advise us of any implications this may have in going forward.  I will be in touch as soon as we have any more advice.
End of JCIO Message

Perhaps we shall soon have appointed judicial licensing officers to oversee their clients during their period of rehabilitation.   

A LITTLE OFF TOPIC WITH THE E.U.

Down to earth now from the surrealistic event that many holidays are especially those with funny money and unbearably hot temperatures.  Flying over the same area on the very morning when  another plane was blown out of the sky was not at all comfortable.  This blog by its very purpose has touched on political points only when matters of the application of justice and associated considerations have been applicable. This morning after the holiday nights before, I had intended focussing on the school attendance appeal at the high court; a topic on which I assume every J.P. in the country has had experience.  But that was until I read of the E.U. by way of the President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker`s decision to invoke the rule of law mechanism to override the decision of a nation`s parliament.  There will be those who comment that extreme right wing parliamentary decisions have no place in any E.U. country.  But wasn`t the whole European concept to ensure that cataclysmic right wing nationalism of the 1930s could never be repeated?  

Nationalism is part of the bedrock of all nation states.  It could be argued that attempts to suppress such ideologies have been shown to be futile when the authoritarianism that imposed the suppression was weakened. The collapse of the USSR and the fragmentation of   the former Jugoslavia   are just two examples. The resulting conflicts were disastrous.  

Like the steam from a boiling kettle finding an outlet in the spout or the power derived from steam engines large and small being usefully directed the phrase "let off steam" has become a pithy way of describing  excess to be dissipated  as eg the parliamentary assemblies in Scotland and Wales have, so far, allowed their civil societies to function with those for or against full independence being able to join together co-operatively.  

It`s all very well for Mr Junckers to spit fire and brimstone at Poland and Austria but if Marine Le Pen becomes the next French president I doubt she would bend to his tirades. Nationalism is part of the living breathing nation state.  It functions beneath the surface everywhere and is kept under control by democratically elected governments. By attempting to throttle it the E.U. has presided over its biggest increase in popularity  all over Europe since 1945.  For that single reason I will be voting OUT on June 23rd.    

SUN SEA AND SAND