Despite myself, I have thoroughly enjoyed the wedding and all related festivities - street parties, flags and face painting, tiaras and shoes (particularly the shoes). I got up early, donned heels and a tiara and tottered off to position myself appropriately to view the full event with like-minded people - great fun and a glass or two of champagne to boot.
Hours of ogling hats and Christian Louboutins later, I have found little other than criticism of those who dare to enjoy a celebration of our monarchy, our country, our heritage or even just the fact that it was an extra day off work. Constant noises of disapproval, questions about how such an event can be appropriate with the country in economic crisis; complaints about the cost to the public purse; and so the list goes on...
Sadly, it seems that playful enjoyment of anything British is outlawed these days.
No it was not an expense free event. Yes, there was a serious case of overkill but, actually, it makes a pleasant change for the people of this country to have an excuse to throw a party, relax and legitimately revel in something that is ours.
I am no great fan of the monarchy. I am a hopeless romantic who loves a good wedding and can't resist snatching the chance to sit back and dream of what it must be like to be a real princess. The whingers of this country have stolen my right to legitimately speak my mind, to enjoy anything my country provides without the need to also offer justification, they have forced me to feel I must be independent and have convinced me that doing the washing is a man's job. Like hell am I going to sit quietly by while they steal this from me as well.
We are all entitled to our opinions and it is about time that they (yes, you know who you are) accepted that to object so vocally to those differing from their own is simply offensive. The volume of your disapproval does not make it more legitimate, if anything it makes it less so. Get over it. Move on and accept that freedom should apply to all.
Rant over.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Births, deaths, marriages and a nervous breakdown
How time flies when you're having a breakdown!
In the blink of a weary eye, almost 3 months have passed since I last felt brave enough to tentatively dip my toe into the blogosphere. I've acquired a niece, lost an uncle, been bored to tears by a wedding and existed almost entirely in what can only be referred to as a lawless parallel universe whilst having a bit of a nervous breakdown and debating the social acceptance of swearing.
My time in the lawless place has become increasingly surreal, going from sublime to ridiculous, with allegations of abuse, victimisation and harassment, countered by further allegations of the same. Good old-fashioned summary justice meted out at every opportunity with such gusto that the accused is not informed until the sentence is handed down and no right of appeal exists.
Cracking stuff!
So, the legal bit...
A respected organisation, lacking robust policies and procedures and failing to appropriately apply those it does have, considers it good form to fail entirely to make the 'accused' aware of any case against them and proceed to issue judgment (who knows on what exactly) and enforce sentence with no true right of appeal. Accused suffers damage in a number of ways, including tarnished personal and professional reputation and ill health.
In the meantime there are allegations of harassment against said organisation and others which are apparently investigated (though not a soul is spoken to about it) and "no case to answer" is agreed...by those who are...err...accused. No true right of appeal on this one either. Hmm...Fair? I think not.
At one point in the parallel universe a comment was made which, I think, sums up the problem pretty well. " little actual relevance in the real world" [whilst discussing law and natural justice]. The intention was to point out that whilst the law and the rules of natural justice may be all well and good, they really don't apply 'in-house'. In the light of some pretty serious allegations such a position is surely untenable and, to be blunt, downright stupid.
The law is very clear as far as I can tell and where there is clear evidence of harassment of an individual [by an individual] and that harassment is then supported and furthered, by the actions of an organisation, that organisation can become liable under the law for the same offence. Do these people care? It seems not or, perhaps, they simply don't understand the implications.
Harassment of an individual can take many forms. In all forms it is distressing for the 'victim'. It is something which is often not treated with the appropriate level of seriousness - particularly it would seem, within bodies connected to higher education. I guess the rationale is that intelligent people just aren't victims and that lawyers are tough as old boots so can take what is thrown at them - not true! Discriminatory? Potentially.
Lawyers can be just as vulnerable as anyone else. Yes, we are argumentative, often forthright, have little time for irrelevancies and like to get straight to the point (and deal with it). This doesn't prevent us from also being human and needing to be treated as such - both legally and morally speaking - by those who are in positions of relative authority over us and in whom we place our trust.
The saga in the parallel universe is ongoing. Question is, will commonsense prevail? Will parallel universe organisation ask someone to interpret legal issues for it and will the victim have their faith restored without the need to seek legal recourse?
She bloody well hopes so!
Harassment is serious. It has killed. The law prohibits it. We should all play our part to ensure that it stops.
That is all.
In the blink of a weary eye, almost 3 months have passed since I last felt brave enough to tentatively dip my toe into the blogosphere. I've acquired a niece, lost an uncle, been bored to tears by a wedding and existed almost entirely in what can only be referred to as a lawless parallel universe whilst having a bit of a nervous breakdown and debating the social acceptance of swearing.
My time in the lawless place has become increasingly surreal, going from sublime to ridiculous, with allegations of abuse, victimisation and harassment, countered by further allegations of the same. Good old-fashioned summary justice meted out at every opportunity with such gusto that the accused is not informed until the sentence is handed down and no right of appeal exists.
Cracking stuff!
So, the legal bit...
A respected organisation, lacking robust policies and procedures and failing to appropriately apply those it does have, considers it good form to fail entirely to make the 'accused' aware of any case against them and proceed to issue judgment (who knows on what exactly) and enforce sentence with no true right of appeal. Accused suffers damage in a number of ways, including tarnished personal and professional reputation and ill health.
In the meantime there are allegations of harassment against said organisation and others which are apparently investigated (though not a soul is spoken to about it) and "no case to answer" is agreed...by those who are...err...accused. No true right of appeal on this one either. Hmm...Fair? I think not.
At one point in the parallel universe a comment was made which, I think, sums up the problem pretty well. " little actual relevance in the real world" [whilst discussing law and natural justice]. The intention was to point out that whilst the law and the rules of natural justice may be all well and good, they really don't apply 'in-house'. In the light of some pretty serious allegations such a position is surely untenable and, to be blunt, downright stupid.
The law is very clear as far as I can tell and where there is clear evidence of harassment of an individual [by an individual] and that harassment is then supported and furthered, by the actions of an organisation, that organisation can become liable under the law for the same offence. Do these people care? It seems not or, perhaps, they simply don't understand the implications.
Harassment of an individual can take many forms. In all forms it is distressing for the 'victim'. It is something which is often not treated with the appropriate level of seriousness - particularly it would seem, within bodies connected to higher education. I guess the rationale is that intelligent people just aren't victims and that lawyers are tough as old boots so can take what is thrown at them - not true! Discriminatory? Potentially.
Lawyers can be just as vulnerable as anyone else. Yes, we are argumentative, often forthright, have little time for irrelevancies and like to get straight to the point (and deal with it). This doesn't prevent us from also being human and needing to be treated as such - both legally and morally speaking - by those who are in positions of relative authority over us and in whom we place our trust.
The saga in the parallel universe is ongoing. Question is, will commonsense prevail? Will parallel universe organisation ask someone to interpret legal issues for it and will the victim have their faith restored without the need to seek legal recourse?
She bloody well hopes so!
Harassment is serious. It has killed. The law prohibits it. We should all play our part to ensure that it stops.
That is all.
Monday, February 7, 2011
The little people
Apparently the little people of this [not so] wonder[ful] land are about to be penalised even further by a Government that is crammed full of idiots detatched from reality and screwed over, yet again, by a society that quite simply doesn't give a shit (or at least doesn't have the balls to stand up and be counted).
What do the more vulnerable and economically challenged amongst us have to look forward to? Well, currently that would be the sweeping (and somewhat ludicrous) reforms to legal aid which have been proposed by the imbeciles who reside in Westminster.
The proposed reforms are likely to affect tens of thousands of people each year. Access to free specialist legal help would be severely restricted in the areas of:
What do the more vulnerable and economically challenged amongst us have to look forward to? Well, currently that would be the sweeping (and somewhat ludicrous) reforms to legal aid which have been proposed by the imbeciles who reside in Westminster.
The proposed reforms are likely to affect tens of thousands of people each year. Access to free specialist legal help would be severely restricted in the areas of:
Employment (other than in cases of discrimination);
Housing (unless the home is at immediate risk);
Immigration (other than detention cases);
Debt (unless the home is at immediate risk);
Welfare benefits;
Education; and
Consumer law advice.
Don't think it sounds important enough? Well think again. Cutting legal help across these areas of scope will be likely to cause untold damage across the sections of society who need help and support the most. It is likely to prevent true access, or indeed any access, to justice for anyone on a low income or in receipt of benefits if they have a problem which falls into one of the listed areas of 'scope'.
The impact of restricting free legal help may not seem too bad if you've got pots of money and a flash Ministerial post but if you are an unemployed victim of domestic abuse, with learning difficulties, huge debts and nowhere to turn for help then you might feel differently. You might feel the need to pop into a local advice agency to seek support, you might need to have things explained to you more than once, you might not be able to afford or cope with the intricacies of legal expenses insurance as the government would like and you might just find yourself in a right old pickle and with even more problems and greater vulnerability as a result.
In their infinite wisdom, the Ministry of Justice are proposing to slice and dice free specialist legal advice and representation, mix it all up in a big pot of telephone advice lines, legal expenses insurance and make-do generalist advice on the front line. They, in their ivory towers seem to think that people who have low earnings can somehow to afford to pay 30% of their income towards legal costs...this is before they start to think about paying their rent or mortgage and feeding themselves. Another option is apparently to purchase legal expenses insurance - what planet do these people live on because it sure as heck isn't the same one as me. I'd love them to let me in on the secret of how you can afford that on benefits or minimum wage - I can't and I earn what is considered an almost reasonable wage!
Having been so angered by the increasing injustice of the way justice is rationed in this, the armpit of the universe, it led me to ponder what alternative cost savings could be made by the MoJ? Perhaps scrapping the LSC and allowing solicitors to manage funds allocated to them direct by government? This would get rid of ridiculous amounts of administrative work and allow concentration on the provision of much needed legal advice. It would save time, it would save money and it would increase efficiency. Regulation for solicitors is already in place and accounting to the government could easily be accommodated - lets face it solicitors are obliged to account for their funds anyway.
Maybe its not the most workable idea, maybe it just requires a little more thought and fine tuning or maybe i'm mad as a hatter. Who knows.
I do know that what is happening is wrong and that somebody needs to make the voices of those who are not capable of shouting, heard.
Having been so angered by the increasing injustice of the way justice is rationed in this, the armpit of the universe, it led me to ponder what alternative cost savings could be made by the MoJ? Perhaps scrapping the LSC and allowing solicitors to manage funds allocated to them direct by government? This would get rid of ridiculous amounts of administrative work and allow concentration on the provision of much needed legal advice. It would save time, it would save money and it would increase efficiency. Regulation for solicitors is already in place and accounting to the government could easily be accommodated - lets face it solicitors are obliged to account for their funds anyway.
Maybe its not the most workable idea, maybe it just requires a little more thought and fine tuning or maybe i'm mad as a hatter. Who knows.
I do know that what is happening is wrong and that somebody needs to make the voices of those who are not capable of shouting, heard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)