Tag Archives: strike

Every Dog has its Day

The white heat of anger feeds the desire to fight the Government at every turn. And we have plenty to be angry about. Years of cuts. Years of politicians badmouthing us. Year after year of our working conditions being eroded. It is the unprecedented sense of fury that now means the Bar stand on the brink of unprecedented action. The sort of action about which I have always dreamt. So why would I say that we should pause now? Why would I say, again, let’s take what is on offer and come back another day?

Some will say I lack back bone, that I am a coward. Some will say that I have self interest at heart. Some will say that I was wrong to say we should back down last time and I am wrong to do so again.

And that is okay. I do not hold a right to be right. I am not someone with all the answers. I am just doing what we all must do, I am listening to the views of others; I am weighing up what I think to be important; I am considering what can be achieved; I am learning the lessons of experience; and I am making my decision.

I have voted to accept the offer.

In 2012 I wrote a very angry letter. It decried the imposition of Fee Scheme C by the CPS. It railed against how wrong it was. It foretold the end of adequate representation of cases on behalf of the CPS. It was signed by 90% of Counsel on the newly formed advocate panels from Manchester. It was sent to the Chair of the CBA, ironically Max Hill. I had meetings with Maura McGowan about it. I had all the anger knotted up inside me. And yet nothing changed. Importantly we carried on doing the work, myself included.

Many will think that this would be an argument in favour of taking action. Again, we have been ignored for years. But I now appreciate that the rhetoric of being abused dogs means nothing in the cold reality of our fight to improve remuneration. What matters is actually improving our remuneration, not Shakespearean speeches or fantasy fee levels. It is about making sure that someone called in 2012, called in the year I was writing angry letters, is paid for things like the second day of the trial, is paid something which is worthwhile to conduct an appeal from the mags and is paid something approaching a reasonable fee when a trial is adjourned.

Once we have achieved that, we can continue to fight to get even better remuneration. We can fight to restore some sense of value to cases with higher volumes of evidence. We can fight to get paid for unused material. We can fight to get paid for the work we do. These are battles to be won, these are battles that can be won. They will not be won all at once.

By mid-July, a point at which we would be mid “no returns”, we will have a new Prime Minister and a new cabinet. That shiny new Boris or Jeremy will have made a lot of promises to get that new job. Those promises will have been to the public about headline grabbing initiatives and tax cuts and to their fellow politicians about jobs in that new cabinet. Those promises will not included more money for the Bar. We have the certainty of an improved offer on CPS fees that we can lock down right now, and a timeframe when we know that we will have to go in battle once again should AGFS not be improved. We need to secure those improvements now, before the political chaos of modern Britain means that cases going unprosecuted is just a footnote to what may lie ahead in Brexit Britain.

The bravery which many talk about being lacking in the leadership of the CBA is in fact the bravery that the Bar show time and time again in being prepared to take action. It is not the route of a someone that lacks courage to stand down from the fight, knowing that they will have to step forward again on another day. And that is what we are doing.

I didn’t back down in 2012, I just didn’t achieve what I wanted. I won’t have backed down in 2022, even if I achieve what I want in 2019. This is a war to be won battle by battle, and on Tuesday the 3rd of September, every counsel who is on day 2 of a trial, every junior counsel who has their non-custody, non-sex case stood out through lack of court time and every junior member of your chambers doing an appeal will be reaping the benefit of having won this battle and the battles that went on before.

That’s why I voted yes to the offer. I do so knowing we will probably be called upon again to act. I do so knowing that there are still cases which are not properly remunerated. But I believe this to be the best way. If I am wrong, if more people believe that we can do better by fighting on in this battle, I will be alongside you, refusing returns and taking part in whatever it takes. But I take the view that we can fight alongside each other now, or after we have secured this win. And I would much rather do what we didn’t do in 2012. I would much rather we improved things now.

WHY I THINK WE SHOULD REJECT THIS DEAL by Simon Csoka QC

Whilst Simon and I disagree on the way forward I am more than happy to host this blog written by him. It is very important that everyone who is voting equips themselves with as much information and viewpoints as possible. The act of disagreeing is a healthy way to make a decision.

I am struggling to understand how anyone can see this deal as anything other than shameless divide and rule. I do not underestimate the immediate impact that the conditional increases from September will have on junior juniors who prosecute.

Any pragmatic strategy against us by the MOJ and Treasury is to determine what is the least costly way of defeating any disruption by the Bar. The CPS advocacy budget should inevitably always be less than the defence advocacy budget. Multihanded cases mean that there are more defence advocates per case. An extra refresher on short cases, appeals and interlocutory hearings make huge differences to junior juniors but are not particularly costly from a Treasury point of view. Paying properly for the prosecution of large cases would require massive investment. There have been no increases for over 20 years. In fact, there have been cuts. Inflation amounts to 73% since 1998: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator . The reality is that to even to get back to the position in 1998, there would have to be a doubling, at least, of the CPS advocacy budget. I fail to see how taking this offer provides any prospect of that occurring. It will be a cold day in hell first.

Likewise, in relation to AGFS we are 73% down by inflation and actual fees are at best no more than half the remuneration in 1998. It would require an increase in the budget of at least 300% to restore current incomes to the level in 1998. Does anyone believe that there will be a 50% increase let alone a threefold one?

I say this in order to put into perspective how easily pleased we can be. It’s rather like a badly treated dog that is overjoyed when its abusive owner occasionally pats it on the head. At least a dog does not congratulate itself when its abusive owner pays it some attention.

There is no commitment in the joint CBA and MOJ press releases for there to be any extra investment. I fail to see why remuneration for unused material or PPE would amount to extra money as opposed to simply a redesign within the current budget. This applies largely to AGFS but there is no reason why the redesign of the CPS scheme would not follow the same premise with some illusory increases.

The justification provided for suspending action is that the offer to increase prosecution fees will be withdrawn. This is taken seriously by the CBA. If it is a genuine threat, then the same would apply in a few months time. The blackmail then would be along similar lines irrespective of whether it’s a modest increase to the defence or the prosecution. We would be played off against each other on each occasion. A credible threat by the Bar to stop working is being averted by a very modest spend. This is a superb model for the MOJ “going forward” to deal with any dispute. For us, it provides no realistic prospect of ever achieving any significant improvements.

I have not attended any of the meetings with the LAA or MOJ. Perhaps the CBA are right. I doubt it but I cannot be sure. But it is better to test our opponent now than get into an intractable position in 6 months time. The threat of “push it to the members or lose it” has been used for many years. Each time we have ended up with appalling fees. Each iteration of the new AGFS was presented by the MOJ to the Bar Council and Circuit Leaders on the basis that we will only make this offer if you push it for us. Each time the leaders said it was impossible to get more. Each time we got more by not doing what the leaders were being told to tell us to do. Scheme 11 is dreadful. If we had done what we were told originally, we would have got a scheme that was worse that scheme 10. That too, was pushed by the Bar Council and Circuit Leaders as an achievement. Ultimately, we believed scheme 11 was bad, we were told it was good, the CBA now accept it was bad having told us last year to vote for it.

It seems to me that the whole process now starts with an expression of bad faith. One the one hand an acceptance that prosecution fees are wholly inadequate and unfair but a refusal to increase them unless we do hereafter exactly what the MOJ propose. It demonstrates that the MOJ is motivated by pragmatism and by the Treasury. It is not governed by doing what is fair. Who would rationally believe otherwise? We only get near to what we want when it becomes cost effective. The reality of the collapse of the criminal justice would be very costly. We are not obliged to prop it up. We told them we would no longer do so with these derisory fees. Now we are saying we will continue to accept cases even though we have only been offered a fraction of what we asked for. The proposed amendments to the AGFS scheme were supposed to be a stop-gap. We are now told to give up without any commitment to the stop-gap, let alone a proper solution. The collapse of the criminal justice system is now no more than a remote prospect thanks to our acquiescence.

I fear that the real problem is that this shambles of an AGFS scheme was largely designed and then pushed by CBA and the Bar Council. We were told on multiple occasions to vote for it last year and the year before. We were told that the fee projections were scaremongering. This self-inflicted fee cut (which is still presented as a fee increase by the Bar Council) is preventing any effective representation in negotiations. It’s all too easy for the MOJ to claim (as they did last week) that they made further investment last year. I cannot believe that the advocacy spend is actually greater. We can only base it on our own experience. We can’t see the data. There needs to be some acceptance of the huge failure last year so that we can move forward.

I cannot have any faith in the MOJ when they have dictated that the CBA cannot disseminate contrary views to its members. Any deal that has to be pushed by the CBA on MOJ terms is not worth having.

The CBA now argue that the Government will be persuaded by November to make significant increases to AGFS. A year ago they claimed that Scheme 11 was the best we were going to get. Nothing has changed except a belief that this time it will be different. They now believe that we will do much better but do not explain why.

The only thing that changed was the threat of massive disruption. If we call the action off, then the threat will never again be taken seriously. It will have taken nothing more than loose change in Treasury terms to defeat a Bar that was united. Who is to say that the Bar could even be led out to battle again? We instinctively feel that we are being led into another capitulation just as we are winning. I think most of us are getting too cynical to be led out by any fighting talk after this. It’s action now or never.

SIMON CSOKA QC

The Mistake They Made

There are many that believe that making of a single offer in respect of CPS fees and AGFS is a tactical masterstroke by the MoJ or the Government, that this is a tactic of divide and conquer which we are fools to fall for.

I believe it may be the single biggest mistake “the Government” side of these negotiations have ever made.

Each time we have been involved in days of action and no returns up and down the country prosecution counsel have received very similar letters (an example of which is here) telling us that those briefed on behalf of the prosecution should not be involved in the proposed action as the complaint about AGFS is nothing to do with the CPS.

Can you see where I am going yet?

Joining the two issues together is the biggest mistake they could have made. The CBA have made it perfectly clear that the action will be suspended as a whole. That is the term stipulated by the Government. The CBA have also made it perfectly plain that, should the reviews not happen in a timely fashion or should the outcome of the reviews fail to produce new money to cure some of the ills of AGFS, then the action will return. And that, logically, should be all of the action. Defence and Prosecution briefs.

No matter what the outcome of the vote, the CPS have allowed their own argument to be torpedoed. What they have always sought to set apart, this offer has joined together. Rather then dividing us, this offer produces the unanswerable case that action in support of changes to the AGFS is action taken by the whole of the criminal Bar, no matter which side of the courtroom they are due to sit on.

I would also venture to suggest that it would be incumbent on those that prosecute to support those that defend should the decision be to accept the offer. That support is at its most crucial if it should come to us taking action again. I imagine it would be very difficult for the CPS to take back that which they have given by that point but the offer is a global one, if the Government renege on their promises of a speedier review or fail to set right that which is wrong they should face the chaos of both Prosecution and Defence action.

This need not divide us. It provided us with a stronger lever with which to apply pressure. It turbocharges the impact of no returns and days of action. And it was all the Government’s idea….

Autumn Days

As the first days of autumn come tumbling down and the optimism of summer is shaded by the gloom of an oncoming winter we are, yet again, responding to another consultation about the graduated fee scheme.

My first reaction was that I had been consulted previously. And my response was a robust, two fingered retort. I was instantly jaded that this process had to be the subject of a further consultation when it seemed to make more sense that we were simply provided with a new scheme, worked out with those that represent us.

At least the consultation process has, belatedly, allowed some further number crunching. And the proposed £15 million injection would actually be a £8 to 9 million injection if last year’s billing data was used. This has caused outrage. This has prompted some to suggest that the Bar have been totally had over.

I have to confess I don’t share that outrage. Not over that. The reality is that the case mix and the pages contained within those cases is only broadly predictable. In a year’s time we may do a retrospective comparison and find that the new money was in fact £17 million. Or £5 million. That is just the nature of the beast.

That is why I had this to say at the time of the last ballot:

“I make it crystal clear that what matters is not the figure of £12 million or 6.6% or 1%. It is what we can see we are getting paid for the case. And whether that is enough we cannot say until we see the new figures in the boxes. And if they are not right, I will be the first to say we reject them.”

So I wanted to see a consultation that showed lots of worked examples. Tables that showed what we got paid under a scheme that included PPE, what we get paid on the current scheme and what we will get paid with new money in the scheme. That is the only way the practitioner with a mortgage to pay, a family to feed and a life to lead can assess this material.

This consultation is not packaged in this way. And that concerns me. How are we to decide about these things in the abstract? It is the figures in the boxes which really matters, what we are going to get paid for the case. Until I am provided with this information then I am not going to respond positively to this consultation.

But this is not the source of outrage. But that is not to say I am not outraged.

When we were presented with this proposal we were told that things had to move quickly. We were told that the current scheme could not be delayed but that part of the reason to take this offer was to enable an October implementation. That was absolutely fundamental. We would take work remunerated inadequately for a short period of time as a gesture of goodwill, goodwill which we believed was being reciprocated. I have no doubt that this is what the Bar Leadership were being told.

And now there is no prospect of that happening. We are told that it is going to be December, at the earliest, before the new money comes into the scheme. My goodwill was a brown leaf dangling from a horse chestnut tree. It is now already compost. This is not acceptable. This delay undermines the whole process.

The message is simple. We start the ball rolling towards a resumption of “no returns”. The MoJ should be told that this is a consequence of yet another broken promise. And that our goodwill is going to have to be bought again. With less online consultations and more money.

We Are Right

Here we are again. No new work being undertaken. The prospect of days of action. No returns to return. Headlines and news stories. Unity and strength. Division and failure.

I support the action proposed by the CBA. I support it to the hilt. I have now been at the Bar for 25 years. Not once in that time has a single fee for work done ever been increased due to inflation. We have had different ways of being paid, different versions of different ways of being paid and then brutal cuts to fees that the Government had previously decided were appropriate remuneration.

That is 25 years of being undervalued and being treated with contempt.

Enough.

The action should not be about maintaining the status quo. We should not be wedded to being paid per page. It is becoming increasingly difficult to assess how many pages some forms of digital evidence represent. It is taking up a disproportionate amount of time to argue over page counts. As smartphones become ubiquitous and a domestic iron seems to have the processing speed of Mr Babbage, the way evidence is gathered has outstripped the notion of payment per page of paper.

Part of not maintaining the status quo is recognising that fees which have not been increased for inflation and have been subject to cuts so that they are now worth 40% less (in real terms) than when they were first deemed to be appropriate remuneration are not the basis for the figures to go into the boxes of any newly designed scheme.

The MoJ have said it themselves. They described the current AGFS as archaic as they rushed to paint the Bar as being protectionist purveyors of self-interest. I, for once, wholeheartedly agree. The scheme is very old. The level of remuneration we receive for a case is massively out of date. It is not kept up with inflation. And did I mention it has been cut?

So it is the right time to design a new scheme, with new architecture. If we tear down a building to build something modern which is fit for purpose in a low carbon, high tech digital age we do not use the same bricks, the same floor boards, the same single glazed window units and asbestos tiles. And so it is with the scheme which came into force on 1st April. The Bar did their bit by trying to design something modern, the MoJ have built something belonging in the last century.

This is why we are right to take this action and the government response that we helped design this scheme is not a reason why we cannot reject it.

I entirely understand that the Judiciary have to maintain an independence from the actions of the Executive. I also hope that the Judiciary realise that we do a heck of a lot more for a heck of a lot less money than would have been the case when many of them were in our shoes. As I said, I have been doing this job 25 years. When I was trained, when many of the senior Judiciary would have been junior barristers, I had to be concerned about learning how to draft advices on evidence and appeal. And that was about it for written work.

During this week, as well as doing a trial, I have drafted two skeleton arguments, one basis of plea, an adverse verdict report, a bad character response and edited an ABE interview. None of that was work the Bar did twenty years ago. Certainly not with the frequency we now endure. Each year that passes, each year that diminishes our fees by dint of inflation, sees an increase in the workload required by statute, practice direction and order of the Court.

All of that in a working week which follows a period when I have spent two Saturdays in the last eight weeks attending training courses designed to improve our system in relation to sex cases and vulnerable witnesses. I am not seeking to invoke sympathy. I do a worthwhile job and accept that I have to do it properly. But those who think they know what we do, how we do it and what we get paid for it may be thinking of a life at the Bar which is long gone.

Even if a Judge was appointed last year they should remember the steady creep of increased workloads matched by the steady reduction in fees. And I am not going to begin to add in some of the working conditions we face. As Judges they have to maintain their independence. As women and men who are assisted by capable advocates producing skeleton arguments and agreed facts, their hearts and minds should be with us. Their independence does not mean that they should not be able to see through the MoJ spin.

Any Judge who wants to understand more about our position need only ask. I, and many others, would only be too glad to tell them the unvarnished reality. The same offer can be extended to any politician. Or Tax Barrister.

We do not take this action lightly. There will be members of the Bar who are immediately put in financial peril by taking this action. Clients are being disadvantaged. Solicitors are having to deal with fall out of the action, continuing to do their best for clients in incredibly difficult circumstances. But we must take this action. And it has to succeed. If we fail, we do not fail ourselves, but we fail the future. We fail the future of a diverse judiciary. We fail future victims who will be cross-examined by a lower quality advocate. We fail future defendants who will be represented by de-motivated advocates who are the face of an under-valued and under-funded system.

Difficult Days

There’s many a slip twixt cup and lip, so the old saying goes. Is this just a drop in the saucer or are we sitting here with hot, scalding tea in our lap?

There are some things that have not changed. Have not changed one iota. As I see it dual contracts are still a poor outcome for the Bar. The second cut, imposed on 1st July, is still a bad outcome for the Bar (and solicitors). The fight against the second cut is strategically an important step in bringing dual contracts to an end before they begin. These two judgements remain unaltered. 

It also remains the case that I believe the alternative proposed by those against the taking of direct action at this time, and in this cause, is insufficient, of itself, to ensure the future of the Bar. I see no argument yet made that persuades me regulation about referral fees will be enough to secure our future. We have seen it before with Carter – the greatest threat to our source of work is inadequate remuneration to those that provide us with work. Thereafter our remuneration for that work is of paramount importance. Securing appropriate remuneration is therefore key to our survival. It is also vital to the provision of proper and skilled representation in the police stations, in the lower courts and in the most serious of cases. 

None of that has changed. 

It is folly, however, to pretend that the issuing of the second protocol is not a significant event. If any proponent of action tries to brush it off as anything other they are plainly, palpably wrong. 

It was obvious, and I apologise if this needed pointing out in advance, that the possibility existed for a change in tactics by those corralling the solicitor profession. Did I expect this change at this time? No. 

Am I disappointed by this change? The honest answer is yes. I accept and acknowledge that I am something of an extremist in this regard. I believe that we should all, barrister and solicitor alike, walk out of court until such time as Legal Aid is put on a sustainable footing. I believe Sir Anthony Hooper and I have in common the belief that the Government will only listen when we withdraw our labour. And nothing amounts to a greater withdrawal than courtrooms sitting largely vacant. 

So I am disappointed. Recently I addressed solicitors in Manchester and urged them to stay out of the police stations and out of the courtrooms. Maximum disruption provided the maximum opportunity for success. 

Direct action can and does work. We saw that, to our benefit, with the previous policy of no returns and we saw the first sign of that with yesterday’s meeting. 

(As an aside, the furore over who was there and who was invited was a storm in the said teacup. All it served to highlight was a need for communication between the “leaders” with each other and between the associations and their members.)

So my next question is whether the change to the second protocol diminishes the prospect of success? There are two ways to look at this. The first is to say maximum disruption equals maximum prospect of success and therefore the answer would have to be “yes, it diminishes the chances”. On the other hand if maximum disruption is unsustainable then sustainable and significant  disruption becomes the next best scenario.

Again I make it clear, I believe the step change has come too soon. The timing is poor, for reasons I will develop in a moment. I am confident that the leadership of the CLSA and LCCSA have taken this step in the best interests of what they hope to achieve and as a result of developing circumstances. My sense of disappointment and dismay is not the same as a sense of betrayal. 

Is the second protocol capable of success? The answer is yes, if it is widely adopted. And there is a prospect that this will be more widely adopted than the first action. I would suggest it would be folly for any solicitor committed to the first protocol to reject this one out of hand. It may encourage some of the doubters to come on board. We will see.

Now for the big question. Should the Bar sustain a commitment to support this action? Nobody is going to fall off their chair when I answer “yes”. I go back to my aims as stated at the outset. I look at what I can do and not at circumstances that are beyond my control. Does the Bar adopting no returns and refusing new work strengthen the effect of direct action? Overwhelmingly, yes it does. 

I return now to the question of timing. It is a crying shame that the first protocol was not persisted with to overlap with the introduction of no returns. Now that would have been almost the perfect storm for the MoJ to weather. My sense of regret in that regard is deep. 

The more important question of timing is one of perception. The perception created is that the Bar is now being expected to shoulder the greatest burden. We, generally speaking, earn the lion’s share of our income in the Crown Court. That work is created by new work and returned work. The current direct action turns off both taps. If solicitors feel the economic pain of bills to pay and staff to face we have mortgages and families. 

Perception does create a skewed picture in this regard. Not undertaking new work in the Crown Court still will have a significant financial impact on solicitors. Their HCAs will be underused. Their clients will still be being turned away. Poaching will still be a risk. The system is such now that the Crown Court workload subsidises less profitable police station and Magistrates’ work. So the second protocol is not all jam for the solicitors. Far from it.

The perception is still very important. We may all be lawyers but we are also, mainly, humans too. Cold, hard logic is not always where decisions are made. Anyone dismissing this perception as nonsense does the owner of the perception a grave injustice. 

That being said, the implementation of the second protocol does shift the comparative burden. I am afraid the suggestion that those following the protocol should brief out Magistrates’ trials to the junior Bar does not ease the burden signicantly. It is a well meant gesture. Gestures do not pay the rent. 

So it is both the reality of a shifted burden and a perception of hardship falling only one way. 

So, what am I saying? I do not ignore the fact that the second protocol changes the situation. It is a development which could cause people to change their mind. No doubt in the coming days there will be meetings of solicitors that will allow them to reflect and make decisions. The Bar should do the same. 

And I’m afraid that means another ballot……please do not throw things. It is the only sensible way forward. People should not claim to speak for others, everyone should be allowed to speak for themselves. And that requires a ballot. 

The ballot should be organised quickly and should conclude in a short space of time. In the meantime I would still invite my colleagues to respect the decision made recently. That is why I will still not accept new work and will not accept a returned brief. 

If a new ballot is organised then I would respectfully suggest the Bar should ease the burden on itself. I would suggest a new protocol that the returns policy only applies to trials. That, in some way, reflects the shift made by the solicitors. 

I have no doubt that some will say I do not have all the answers. You would be wary of me if I claimed I did. These are not easy times. We are all trying to find solutions. Time once more for the Bar to consider and to speak. 

Paddington Bear and His No Returns Dilemma 

Yesterday I Tweeted about the fact that I was a 44 year old barrister watching Paddington Bear on my iPad whilst on the train. This provoked nearly 60 responses on Twitter. Far more than any uttering I may have made about Legal Aid and the CBA ballot (ok this may be a lie, but it helps me make the point and gives me a cracking title so cut me a bit of slack).  

The last two weeks have seen urgent and urging missives flying hither and thither about the decision that faced the criminal bar. Ultimately 45% of CBA members voted in the ballot. A pretty decent turnout for a general election but a surprisingly low number for the effort put in by some on both sides of the divide. I don’t ascribe to the “you can’t just snipe from the sidelines, stand for office” line (which comes as no surprise, as I am someone who sits on the sidelines like the worst kind of father of a seven year old footballer), however clicking a link and filling in a form was not the most arduous of commitments for the CBA membership. 

I suppose it may not represent lethargy and apathy. People may have been turned off by this endless, bitter battle against cuts in recent years. People may have abstained, finding neither the wording of the question nor taking no action as representative of their own view. That is not to criticise the question. It is just a realistic analysis of what some may have thought. 

However, the CBA is a representative body and they asked their membership how they wanted that representation to be performed. There was a democratic vote and the decision was in favour of direct action. To their massive credit the CBA Exec have acted upon this and produced a protocol. Furthermore, and I cannot emphasise how grateful the “yes” campaigners should be for this, they have indicated that they will individually observe the protocol. I commend them for the dignity of that response and for the leadership it shows.

We cannot ignore the fact that some voted yes, some voted no and some did not vote. So what are individuals to do? The CBA represent their membership, they do not govern them. 

I suppose there are four options. 

  1. Work as normal. 
  2. Observe the protocol in its entirety.
  3. Only adopt a policy of “no returns”. 
  4. Only adopt a policy of no new work post 01/07. 

If you have read any of my non-animated-bear related posts you will not be surprised that I urge everyone, including the “no” voters and the abstainers to adopt the protocol in its entirety. I have seen little by way of people saying that the recent cut is a positive thing. So the aim of the action will be laudable, to one extent or another, in the eyes of most. This is the approach the CBA membership have chosen, the choice being made in the most appropriate fashion. 

I was vehemently opposed to the deal. However, once the membership had been balloted, I did not agitate for further, continued action. It would seem the view from the North is often, collectively, a militant one. Not for one moment did anyone try to derail the deal by carrying on action post the ballot on the deal. By the same measure that bound us to that, perhaps the doubters will engage with the current action. 

As far as those that do not want to adopt the protocol, and I urge you to think very carefully about that, then perhaps it will be important for you to consider whether you are would be prepared to take a case which you know is available because other people are observing the protocol. What would you do, you may ask yourself, if offered a return in Manchester? These are matters for individuals to decide. The only thing I ask is for you to think about it. 

A profession committed to “no returns” is capable of speeding this matter to a conclusion. I welcome the announcement by the BFG, the CLSA, the LCCSA, the HRBL and the CBA of a joint approach on this issue. Long overdue and entirely the right way forward. (In case you are wondering, the HRBL is the Home for Retired Bears in Lima. Aunt Lucy is with us, all the way).

Perhaps the threat and reality of “no returns” adds a little of Paddington’s hard stare to the negotiators’ armoury?