In my judgement

A lot of confusion appears to have grown up around the BA/Unite injunction. A few things need to be made clear.

First, as to spoilt papers, section 231 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992 says

"As soon as is reasonably practicable after the holding of the ballot, the trade union shall take such steps as are reasonably necessary to ensure that all persons entitled to vote in the ballot are informed of the number of (a) votes cast in the ballot; (b) individuals answering yes to the question, or as the case may be, to each question; (c) individuals answering no to the question or as the case may be, to each question; and (d) spoiled voting papers."

So, the law is the Union *must* provide a result including the numbers of spoilt ballots. Unite, though, maintain they did take the reasonable necessary steps to give the statutory results. What was argued in court, as can be seen from the Judgement, was whether the steps taken were in fact those "reasonably necessary" or whether they were insufficient.

Indeed, what we are up against, then, is not necessarily a failure to comply with the act, but the British common law system, wherein the courts get to interpret the meaning of such bits of law as 'reasonably' - many laws operate on a basis of trying your level best to comply, and hoping not to reach a court case which will confirm one way or another the legal practice (a lot of copyright work is like that).

Anyway, this is the most important point. The judge wasn't even making a ruling on whether the union's actions were legal, merely whether there was likely to be a case to answer

In the end I consider the arguments as to whether the statute has been complied with give rise to properly arguable issues for trial. The matter is not so clear as Mr Hendy would in my view have it. I certainly cannot hold that the union's likelihood of success is overwhelming. I have regard to my assessment of the likelihood of success at trial, and at present I am inclined to think that the union may well have failed to put in place an adequately analysed system calculated to ensure that all reasonable steps were taken to communicate with relevant members as soon as reasonably practicable the relevant items of statutory information. The point to my mind is an arguable one.

That's it, it's not a ruling, it's just an injunction based on the likelihood that BA *might* win the court case and so be subject to severe unjust detriment were the injunction not to be granted.

So, the law puts the test of reasonableness into the hands of the judges. But look at it this way - imagine if a journalist had to notify anyone likely to be identifiable in their copy at least a week in advance of publication, and had to show them that article in final draft and in full. Imagine if they could get an injunction based on the likelihood that there was any inaccuracy (including placing of commas or semi-colons) or if they felt that that they had not been properly informed of the process. We'd say clearly that was an inhibition on freedom of speech, and so this is on the freedom to strike.

A century

"[It] is a vast military centre and militarily defended city in every sense of the laws of war, written or unwritten, as applicable to aerial warfare. We have no wish to destroy indiscriminately or to injure or kill women and children, or other non-combatants"

Israel Spokesperson? Hamas spokesperson?

No, German Zeppelin commander in World War I, called Mathy, talking about London. This is a man who commanded a raid that killed 109 civilians exclusively by dropping small incendiary bombs on Russell Square, through Clerkenwell and on into Hoxton - densely populated civilian areas all. On Portpool Lane a high explosive bomb killed four children and injured six adults.

A night earlier, another Zeppelin had bombed its way along the Kingsland Road from 10,000'. No military targets were in view.

Mathy claimed the British had posted an anti-aircraft gun under Saint Paul's, trying to use a historic monument as a shield. The British deny this. Sounding familiar?

In fact, if you travel on the C2 bus, you pass Regent's Park barracks, and then, onwards a little, less than two hundred yards i.e. missing distance) is a Church and an Infants school. Is the British government cowardly hiding it's military installations in civilian areas? or doesn't that matter, they'll be bombed anyway.

The Jury's out

Well, as young Master Osler observes, they've gone and done it - they've abolished trial by jury. I do not exagerate.

Here's how it will go - having established a precedent by abolishing it for fraud trials, they'll wait awhile, and then when, say, a tricksey rape or murder case comes to court, or where a jury passes what ministers perceive to be a perverse verdict, they'll turn around and say:

Well, we can conduct trials like we do fraud cases. We've accepted the principle of juryless trials; and we can see they work, we're just extending a working model.

And there we have it, creeping abolition. All from the change management manual. Convince people the current system doesn't work (by breaking it if need be) and then implement the one you want.

This is already underway with ASBO's with their extension to organised crime - after all, ASBO's work don't they, we've already accepted the principle? Exactly.

Couple this with on-the-spot fines (a one way ticket to corruption is you ask me - "Would you like to pay an £80 fine, risk going to court and paying a £180 fine, or pay me £20 to forget all about it?" Sayeth the Rozzer).

The fact is, juries should be the jewel in the crown of the left - we don't like judges, can't trust the police, but can trust the honest decency of common folk to come to the right verdict. Any left worth its name should defend juries, and indeed make their greater use a central plank is winning the law'n'order vote - if it's confidence in the criminal justcie system people lack, real experience of jury service would do more to modify that than a million technocratic reforms.

The travaills of the Home Office tell the truth about technocracy and bureaucratic responses to social questions - incompetence and inefficiency will always out as people who know the truth of totalitarian states would tell you - they were crap, they could efficiently eprsecute someone but their dream of total control was beyond their reach.

Still, clear red water is available - a sensible left would build it's law'n'order strategy around juries, around getting more common folk ionto a justice system built on sound values.