Search Results for: marriage foundation

Boxing Clever

I wasn’t planning on any Christmas blogging. There are better things to do, like drink sloe gin, eat vast amounts of all sorts of things, and play with the childrens’ new toys. But then my Xmas was intruded upon when a family law related “news” item wafted into my dreams when the radio alarm went off at 6. I pretended I hadn’t heard it and went to make a turkey curry, but the one time I go to check my phone I see Adam Wagner has flagged it for me via twitter (damn you Adam ;-)).

So darn you Coleridge J with your festive gay marriage bah humbugs. It’s because of you I’m christmas blogging. Thankfully my children have lapsed into an early sugar induced coma so I have not had to cut short my playtime, but I have been ignoring my spouse in preference for my laptop screen just like an ordinary night, when really I should be cajoling him into playing monopoly or scrabble against his will (he escaped from the post it note game this afternoon by volunteering to wash up).

I’ll keep it short, Johnny Depp is on the telly. To summarise, what Coleridge said I’ll quote from the BBC report:

Sir Paul told the Times newspaper: “So much energy and time has been put into this debate for 0.1% of the population, when we have a crisis of family breakdown.

“While it is gratifying that marriage in any context is centre stage… but it [gay marriage] is a minority issue.

“We need… a more focused position by the government on the importance of marriage.”

If you’re running an argument that family and wider society is breaking down because people don’t know how to make long term commitments to one another any more, and if you think that the celebration and encouragement of an institution that allows couples to make a public, legally binding and lifelong commitment to one another is a good thing, it doesn’t make any sense to limit your efforts to promote membership of that institution to certain parts of society only.

And if your view is really that equal marriage is a minority sideshow that doesn’t matter why engineer a situation where it becomes front page news on Boxing Day again? When I first heard Coleridge speak about the Marriage Foundation the message on gay marriage was “we’re not going there” (see here where the FAQ still says “We have nothing we want to say in the current debate”). Now the plan seems to be to slipstream on the gay marriage press coverage whilst still not coming out with a position on it. Or perhaps alternatively its less of a plan and more a case of one too many sloe gins before bumping into a journalist on the tube. Who knows. The result is much the same. Continue Reading…

Judgment without opinion

Legal Cheek reports today on how Judges [are] Threatened With Disciplinary Action For Blogging About Their Day Job – Even If They Do So Anonymously. You can read the original story on Trevor Coultart’s blog, himself a Magistrate. The Magistrate behind the well known The Magistrate’s Blog has yet to formulate a plan, although there are masses of comments suggesting firstly that there are a good few blogging magistrates out there, and secondly a good deal of irritation at this pronouncement.

In essence, Guidance has been issued to all judicial office holders (not just Magistrates), clearly warning them off blogging (although it says its not a ban IMHO this is a bit of a fig leaf). The guidance is brief so I’ll set it out here in full:

Blogging by Judicial Office Holders

Introduction
This guidance is issued on behalf of the Senior Presiding Judge and the Senior President of Tribunals. It applies to all courts and tribunal judicial office holders in England and Wales, and is effective immediately.

Definitions
A “blog” (derived from the term “web log”) is a personal journal published on the internet. “Blogging” describes the maintaining of, or adding content to, a blog. Blogs tend to be interactive, allowing visitors to leave comments. They may also contain links to other blogs and websites. For the purpose of this guidance blogging includes publishing material on micro-blogging sites such as Twitter.

Guidance
Judicial office holders should be acutely aware of the need to conduct themselves, both in and out of court, in such a way as to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.

Blogging by members of the judiciary is not prohibited. However, officer holders who blog (or who post comments on other people’s blogs) must not identify themselves as members of the judiciary. They must also avoid expressing opinions which, were it to become known that they hold judicial office, could damage public confidence in their own impartiality or in the judiciary in general.

The above guidance also applies to blogs which purport to be anonymous. This is because it is impossible for somebody who blogs anonymously to guarantee that his or her identity cannot be discovered.

Judicial office holders who maintain blogs must adhere to this guidance and should remove any existing content which conflicts with it forthwith. Failure to do so could ultimately result in disciplinary action. It is also recommended that all judicial office holders familiarise themselves with the new IT and Information Security Guidance which will be available shortly.

Now. I have some issues with this. I don’t hold judicial office, and if I did I would be extremely careful about what I published generally and in particular anything concerning my judicial role (whether that be online or otherwise). BUT – I can think of at least one commenter on Pink Tape who makes valuable contributions from time to time but does so anonymously in order not to compromise his/her judicial impartiality, and at least one commenter on Pink Tape who does so quite openly, drawing on judicial experience to back up opinion. Both hold strong views, and both are unerringly measured and balanced and thoughtful in what they say. I think their comments enrich the blog. There are of course a number of other judicial office holders who read but do not comment.

Continue Reading…

Scandalous!

Who knew? “Scandalising the court” whatever that may be, may be no longer. The Law Commission are consulting about it (here).

The consultation document, which I’ve scanned tonight, is really interesting reading (not quite interesting enough for me to finish it on a Friday night mind you), but my instinctive reaction is that the judiciary / court system should be as much subject to scrutiny, challenge and ridicule as any other institution. I don’t buy any argument for special protection, the judiciary are big enough and ugly enough to look after themselves (although I suppose they are in a position from which it is difficult to defend themselves – such as for example Coleridge J, who was subject to both criticism and complaint for comments made in connection with his Marriage Foundation, but since a complaint is pending, can’t publicly respond.

By serendipitous coincidence, my West Virginian husband has just sent me a link to a gem of a video which serves as a reminder that the state of justice in this jurisdiction could me so much worse. The article and clip in the Huff Post relate to a divorce finance hearing in a local court in West Virginia, in the course of which the judge rather loses his cool (understatement of the year – don’t turn your volume up too high). I did once spend a day in a West Virginian court, and I have to say it was pretty novel, but nothing quite as astonishing as in this video clip. You might recognise the universal Litigant in Person  character with his trademark plastic bag, but the judicial style and process (ahem) is scarcely recognisable in comparison to our own – and the legal representative for the wife seems (bizarrely) to barely respond to the conduct of the judge (I’d have been delicately suggesting recusal to avoid an appeal but perhaps I shouldn’t apply my experience to what is evidently a very different legal system). I especially like the theatrical entry and exit of what I think is the local Sheriff. Interesting to note that the video recordings of such proceedings are apparently accessible and available for publication but that, according to the accompanying article, the judge is protected from suit even if not from criticism.  NB Video clip is long – but worth watching the whole thing.