That is probably the most effective insult, as well. Just remind him how peripheral he really is. A true tinpot’s tinpot. But, sadly, very good at rousing dangerous bigots and outright fascists into action.
- 1
- 1
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I think I actually genuinely forgot he existed. Otherwise I'm sure I would have at least thought about some kind of joke.
Even Paradox have a dim view of him to be honest. You have to go into the reeds of the alt fascist option to get him in power, and that's as a mechanically worse and secondary alternative to the default Kings Party with Edward and DLG.
This may well be the only AAr ever to star or have Mosley in a majority role.
- 2
The traditional option is of course the Spode characterisation. But then im still behind with Cheesolini’s exploits, so lord only knows what would pass as par for the course in the menagerie by the time it might actually make a bit of sense to include him.
Of course, you do already have Cheesolini – so Mosley is just an own-brand version.
And probably entirely justifiably so. In Labour, maybe he would have made a somewhat ‘dynamic’ cabinet minister if he had been a bit more level headed. People certainly spoke of him in ‘future Leader’ terms. But by the time he’s running round with the BUF, I can’t imagine he’d have actually been any good – even where good means, well, whatever Mosley thinks ‘good’ means…
Hmm. Yes, could well be. Which, to be fair, is probably because it takes a whole load of butterflies to get him anywhere near power. The only other Mosley TL I’m aware of is a vignette in the book The Prime Ministers Who Mever Were (edited, incidentally, by Francis Beckett, whose dad John was one of Mosley’s Labour—>BUF followers). That one takes a similar line of attack to here (have him stay in Labour) and ends with him (iirc) serving for decades and forming the United States of Europe.
I’m sure there are a few of the customary abortive timelines over on the AH boards that star him. But yeah, think it’s probably rarer in an AAR…
- 2
So just started to hopefully catch-up, though from what I can tell last I read was on page 40 so I have a wee bit of catching up to do. Now at Page 54, which in practical terms means the Cuban crisis of December '63. Absolutely last thing I read was the "fall" of Khruschev, where I note that Mikoyan once again dodges all the rain in the Red Square. I am wondering if he will keep that going.
All in all the whole series of episodes reminds me why I absolutely loathe the modern parlance of people being "allies" to one another. Don't folks realise how fickle allies are at the best of times. It's like no one has ever read history ... oh, wait In any event this was altogether a thoroughly believable representation of "allies in practice"
I loved the Red-Adder episode.
Also in "A trip to the shops" (post 969) I happened to really fall in love with this line: "Not for the first time that week, it was raining in Ystradgynlais" There is just something about that line that perfectly encaspulates living on the western side of Great Britain, especially the sticky-out bits (for me, Cornwall, but I suppose Wales also counts ). In a way though it was a bit heart-braking. I know this was written 18 months ago, but read today this entire little post strikes rather close to home, if you know what I mean. I was talking to my father just last week how here I am at 43, I remember inflation in double-digits. Folks five years younger than me mostly don't, and there is a brooding sense of things being unsettled that looms over this little post like the sun-defying clouds.
Anyways, before I go altogether gloomy, I wnat to emphasise have enjoyed catching up thus far - congratulations to both @DensleyBlair and @99KingHigh for their superlative work.
I am not sure when my next trance of catch-up will be. Depends on how things go. Might even be later today
All in all the whole series of episodes reminds me why I absolutely loathe the modern parlance of people being "allies" to one another. Don't folks realise how fickle allies are at the best of times. It's like no one has ever read history ... oh, wait
In any event this was altogether a thoroughly believable representation of "allies in practice" I loved the Red-Adder episode.
Also in "A trip to the shops" (post 969) I happened to really fall in love with this line: "Not for the first time that week, it was raining in Ystradgynlais" There is just something about that line that perfectly encaspulates living on the western side of Great Britain, especially the sticky-out bits (for me, Cornwall, but I suppose Wales also counts
). In a way though it was a bit heart-braking. I know this was written 18 months ago, but read today this entire little post strikes rather close to home, if you know what I mean. I was talking to my father just last week how here I am at 43, I remember inflation in double-digits. Folks five years younger than me mostly don't, and there is a brooding sense of things being unsettled that looms over this little post like the sun-defying clouds. Anyways, before I go altogether gloomy, I wnat to emphasise have enjoyed catching up thus far - congratulations to both @DensleyBlair and @99KingHigh for their superlative work.
I am not sure when my next trance of catch-up will be. Depends on how things go. Might even be later today
- 2
Yes, more is coming from me -- I'm just stuck in hyper-work until mid-September, hopefully I'll be ready to produce by then.
- 2
First of all – wonderful to have you back with us, @stnylan. Glad to hear you’ve started reading again, and I look forward to having you along again in the present soon.
The Crisis itself was a fun one to do. A novel idea to try the ‘real(ish)-time’ approach – one hampered by tech problems and all sorts of other things – but ultimately I think a fair way of making the drama a bit more interesting. The SU themselves will be going dark for a little bit in the near future. Life post Khrushchev calls for something of an inward turn…
I don’t think it’s even possible to say the word ‘ally’ within spitting distance of the Kremlin…All in all the whole series of episodes reminds me why I absolutely loathe the modern parlance of people being "allies" to one another. Don't folks realise how fickle allies are at the best of times. It's like no one has ever read history ... oh, wait
Thank you! I’m glad you enjoyed it. A lot of fun to write at an otherwise difficult time.
The Commonwealth ‘65 updates I enjoyed writing a lot. It was a time where I’d been struggling to get back into the swing of things after recovering my laptop, the near-death of which had abruptly killed a string of momentum that could well have seen Echoes vol 1 finish in early 2021 – though in hindsight, I’m glad it didn’t. I thought that writing in a different style than usual would help keep things fresh, and I’m happy to say others seemed to agree. I plan to make them a five-yearly thing, in-timeline. After the (actual) conclusion of vol 1, I will do a Commonwealth ‘70 series.Also in "A trip to the shops" (post 969) I happened to really fall in love with this line: "Not for the first time that week, it was raining in Ystradgynlais" There is just something about that line that perfectly encaspulates living on the western side of Great Britain, especially the sticky-out bits (for me, Cornwall, but I suppose Wales also counts
And you’re right, of course, that Jemima’s trip to the shops has since publication assumed all sorts of other significances so far as our own world is concerned. I remember you asking back towards the start of this project (probably during the first weeks of Johnson’s so-called premiership) whether I intended any of it as satire. The answer has always been, and remains, no – but it’s becoming increasingly hard to ignore the resonances between this world and our own…
Thank you, my friend! As I say – wonderful to see you back around the old place.
Next work from me will probably be mid-September too, I’d say. Looks like finale week is only going to end up being, what… two years late?
Looking forward to the resumption of Dicky’s slow ascent, anyway. We need more pantomime villains about.
- 2
- 1
Now that I've finally voted, I have a leg to stand on here, so just to say: last weekend to vote in the ACA's, folks! Please do take a little time to show your favourite authAARs how much you appreciate their work. (And, it goes without saying, but voting for this old beast is not required.)
forum.paradoxplaza.com
Q2 2022 ACAs
Well color me blue and give me a hedgehog - we're over a week into July already! :eek: That means it's time for the Q2 2022 ACAs! The ACAs are as before hosted under the supervision of me, your friendly AAR fan Nikolai. This time around you...
- 2
I wonder if the brutish film industry went so hard against nukes in this time line? Culminating the fabulous yet fabulist The Day The Earth Caught Fire, a lot of people hated the things.
Where is the british policy regarding nuclear weapons, icbms and submarines in the 60s?
Where is the british policy regarding nuclear weapons, icbms and submarines in the 60s?
- 2
Good question. My gut feeling is: probably. Though I’d have to qualify that by stressing the different cultural status (for want of a more tactful phrase) nuclear weapons have in this TL than our own. So far nukes have been used once, ‘tactically’, in Korea – and then even the U.S. army were so horrified they said never again. So while everyone has these big stockpiles, it’s less clear whether anyone is ever actually going to use them (everyone declined to over Cuba/Germany, of course – and that was only 3 years ago relative to where we are now). I’d say there’s probably still the sense of existential threat, but it’s also a bit more abstract.
The anti-nukes movement in Britain was historically pretty strong, however. Recall the role anti-nuclear sentiment generally had in toppling Mosley after Windscale (though plenty of people took a softer ‘Atoms for Peace’ stance that was anti-nuke but pro-nuclear power). A lot of those people were culturally active New Left types, so it’s very probable that a ‘nuclear threat’ (whether weapons or power) would have had a pretty strong hold over the public imagination between the years 1957–64 at the very least.
After that, though, it may be a case of the bogeyman changing. We’re still in a relative period of international peace, so I think it will take the next crisis before we really see what the nuclear future looks like. There was some fairly serious talk after 1964 of (limited) multilateral disarmament, so if the threat begins to disappear, the culture may have to find different things to be scared of…
Another good question. I think @Wraith11B had some thoughts a while back (by which I mean something like 2 years ago) on the likely importance of subs to British defence, taking note of among other things the heightened importance of the GIUK gap in any hypothetical transatlantic standoff. I’d be interested to hear any intuitions he has.
On nuclear weapons themselves… Britain has weapons – and more importantly, the Eurosyn has the H-bomb. So in a sense it’s sort of out of British hands. Bevan’s nuclear policy is handily a well publicised matter of historical record, so I would guess at the least that he probably came into office in 1961 pushing multilateral disarmament, realised this wasn’t going to happen in 1963/4, then cautiously began to push for it again after the Crisis. But that’s a matter of conjecture, and obviously he died before anything actually happened, so for now the weapons still exist. Lewis as I’ve written him is pretty pro-nuclear, so for the immediate future there’s that. But the Left Opposition and a fair amount of the LUPA will be well against.
Last edited:
- 1
- 1
Without having glanced to a Wikipedia page, and going strictly off of memory, OTL, the Brits and the US combined to come up with Polaris which was the British SLBM. I don't think the British ever developed an ICBM of their own: there's not a whole lot of space in the Isles to shuffle them off to to force the enemy to devote missiles in counter-force missions unlike in the US and Soviet Union.
Thus, SLBMs in Britain are strictly for the guaranteed response. It's only with Trident (another joint US/GB effort) that the missiles become super accurate and worries about first strike capabilities emerge.
I'd imagine subs take on a level of priority for TTLs Britain. It goes with their system rather than a large surface fleet of capital ships. Their objective: prevention of the Soviets and Americans to leave their shores is best executed by subs. The surface fleet is a supporting arm, running convoys and also anti-submarine warfare (always a British strength).
Thus, SLBMs in Britain are strictly for the guaranteed response. It's only with Trident (another joint US/GB effort) that the missiles become super accurate and worries about first strike capabilities emerge.
I'd imagine subs take on a level of priority for TTLs Britain. It goes with their system rather than a large surface fleet of capital ships. Their objective: prevention of the Soviets and Americans to leave their shores is best executed by subs. The surface fleet is a supporting arm, running convoys and also anti-submarine warfare (always a British strength).
- 2
Thanks, @Wraith11B. Really useful to hear your thoughts on the matter. I wonder how things might differ with a Euro-focused Britain rather than a US-UK nuclear arrangement? The OTL Polaris agreement was obviously a big sticking point in British relations with De Gaulle, and by extension the EEC. How Eurosyn coordinates its defences and its deterrents is likely quite an important question, particularly after the somewhat reduced showing over 1964/5.
Equally, much of the support for nukes which did come from the Labour left (and it wasn’t much) was predicated on the fact that a British-operated system would reduce reliance on the US’s own deterrent. So without that here, opposition might be given more of a free reign. But even then, by the mid-Sixties opposition to a British deterrent had largely solidified as party consensus, even under Gaitskell. Nuclear testing is already beyond the pale, so stockpiles may soon follow for the further portions of the mainstream Left.
More broadly, the question of: what is the Eurosyn for? is going to come up again as we hit the Seventies. I think defence will be a big part of that, and probably help demarcate the various arguments along party lines.
Equally, much of the support for nukes which did come from the Labour left (and it wasn’t much) was predicated on the fact that a British-operated system would reduce reliance on the US’s own deterrent. So without that here, opposition might be given more of a free reign. But even then, by the mid-Sixties opposition to a British deterrent had largely solidified as party consensus, even under Gaitskell. Nuclear testing is already beyond the pale, so stockpiles may soon follow for the further portions of the mainstream Left.
More broadly, the question of: what is the Eurosyn for? is going to come up again as we hit the Seventies. I think defence will be a big part of that, and probably help demarcate the various arguments along party lines.
- 2
- 1
I am making attempt #7 (I think) to catch up with this and I have just got through the Death (politically and literally) of Bevan. It is of course excellent and the tone of the below is just because the Britain depicted seems so awful and grim, it is no way a reflection on the quality of the writing.
My starting point has to be that when the SWMF and the rest find out that the actual cause of Aberfan was local people making awful decisions and deliberately ignoring instructions from the 'suits' at British Coal they are going to feel pretty silly making all those demands. Obviously they wont, it is a cause now and such things are famously immune to things like facts so I'm sure things will carry on regardless. This is not to say that British Coal weren't to blame, clearly they were responsible and there is plenty of blame to go around, but if you follow the chain of events that led to the disaster all the key actions (and inactions) were by people at the colliery. Put it another way the disaster would still have happened even if the mine had been under worker control from the day after the revolution.
Still, it does seem appropriate that worker control and the autonomy movement is all based on people using lies and emotion to push an agenda they already had and which would not actually help those it pretends to be about. I expect to see a great deal more of this going forward as others jump on the bandwagon. Cornish Tin for the Cornish! Whatever they do in Rutland should stay in Rutland! And so on and so forth.
A minor point perhaps but I find myself wondering how the Commonwealth manages to do Tribunals and Judicial Reviews and so on. I believe the Judicary has been neutered and 'reformed' into compliance so I can't see them being a particularly trusted source for a tribunal lead. The government just appointing one works, but seems a bit counter to the rhetoric and again surely lacks legitimacy. I think/hope that means it is a committee of the People's Assembly, which could be fun if the 'wrong people' get involved and start asking awkward questions.
Looking at the complete sham of an election as always voting seems pointless given the horrific choices available. As PJ O'Rourke said "Don't Vote! It Just Encourages the B*stards." and a low turnout might at least slightly remind them of their lack of legitimacy. Oh I know there is a small difference between the factions on how industries are organised, but it appears the choice is crap service under useless central planners or crap service under incompetent union shop stewards. It's hard to get excited either way.
In any event congratulations on your continued sterling work and well deserved awards, it is time I take a short break to allow my equilibrium to recover before diving into the election.
My starting point has to be that when the SWMF and the rest find out that the actual cause of Aberfan was local people making awful decisions and deliberately ignoring instructions from the 'suits' at British Coal they are going to feel pretty silly making all those demands. Obviously they wont, it is a cause now and such things are famously immune to things like facts so I'm sure things will carry on regardless. This is not to say that British Coal weren't to blame, clearly they were responsible and there is plenty of blame to go around, but if you follow the chain of events that led to the disaster all the key actions (and inactions) were by people at the colliery. Put it another way the disaster would still have happened even if the mine had been under worker control from the day after the revolution.
Still, it does seem appropriate that worker control and the autonomy movement is all based on people using lies and emotion to push an agenda they already had and which would not actually help those it pretends to be about. I expect to see a great deal more of this going forward as others jump on the bandwagon. Cornish Tin for the Cornish! Whatever they do in Rutland should stay in Rutland! And so on and so forth.
A minor point perhaps but I find myself wondering how the Commonwealth manages to do Tribunals and Judicial Reviews and so on. I believe the Judicary has been neutered and 'reformed' into compliance so I can't see them being a particularly trusted source for a tribunal lead. The government just appointing one works, but seems a bit counter to the rhetoric and again surely lacks legitimacy. I think/hope that means it is a committee of the People's Assembly, which could be fun if the 'wrong people' get involved and start asking awkward questions.
Looking at the complete sham of an election as always voting seems pointless given the horrific choices available. As PJ O'Rourke said "Don't Vote! It Just Encourages the B*stards." and a low turnout might at least slightly remind them of their lack of legitimacy. Oh I know there is a small difference between the factions on how industries are organised, but it appears the choice is crap service under useless central planners or crap service under incompetent union shop stewards. It's hard to get excited either way.
In any event congratulations on your continued sterling work and well deserved awards, it is time I take a short break to allow my equilibrium to recover before diving into the election.
- 3
What do they do in Rutland?
A good question, which links into my own ones a while back about the law, proffesional lawyers, the inns of court, magistrates, parliamentary supremacy and precedent (after all, everything that happened prior to the revolution was decided in an 'unjust' land we shouldn't reconfise the legal authority of etc etc).
Then again, I'm not entirely sure I would be confident piecing together exactly what might happen if most barristers and solicitors (middle and upper middle class in this period) left in the 20s and 30s, all the judges are dead or in exile, the law Lords are obviously not a thing, neither is the privy Council, the idea of parliamentary supremacy or...goodness...
@Le Jones can you sort this out?
- 2
In terms of things relevant to the Commonwealth? Cement and Iron Ore. Also the largest walking dragline excavator in the world Sundew, which was named after the winner of the Grand National. As I'm sure the Grand National has been banned as the wrong sort of fun I'm sure in Echoverse it's got some awful worthy name, probably named after a mining martyr of some sort who no-one had ever heard of.
I'd guess that Parliamentary supremacy is still a thing, or at least People's Assembly supremacy, but only in theory and it's never really been tested. One of those "you have that power as long as you promise to never use it" things.
I could see arbitration being much more prevalent in civil disputes that seems to fit the vibe of the times, and on a practical level less of the pre-revolution arbitrators are likely to have fled and it's a system that doesn't require lawyers or indeed much in the way of precedent.
In contrast for criminal cases I can see the continental inquisitorial system being popular with Moseley, it's a much more active role for the state in "seeking out" justice and again doesn't need existing judges or any reference to the common law. And it is much easier to weaponise as a tool to help terrorise and suppress opponents, which also probably appeals.
- 1
- 1
I’ve thought about this for an unhealthily long time, (the effects of good writing and good ideas) and I think that @El Pip has something in the inquisitorial rather than adversarial approach. That, in a slightly different form to our continental cousins, was our approach historically, with the local nobility (or, in many cases, such as County Durham, the diocese) presiding over hearings in which they asked the questions, aided by whoever did the admin. The accused (for criminal matters), as well as the plaintiff in neighbourhood disputes etc, was expected to answer questions directly from the arbiter of facts. The notion of our modern(ish) professional, adversarial system was really a Georgian artifice. Hilariously, just before I abandoned a chaotic common law practice for the lure of the corporate life (c’mon, generous bonus, paid holiday, BUPA for me and the family, no weekends prepping cases, what’s not to like?!) the junior members of Chambers were reporting that many disciplinary hearings and criminal courts, often a defence lawyer free zone (thanks to the collapse of Legal Aid) are almost reverting to a more medieval inquisitorial system. I note that the Armed Forces Act 2006 formerly stated that summary hearing in the UK military is inquisitorial rather than adversarial (that’s left to the Court Martial).
I also think that you’re right in surmising that the Inns of Court, senior judiciary, most of the bar and probably the more established solicitors (the central London and market town old boys) flee from the Commonwealth. But some, and it would be enough, just, would remain; there is probably a thesis (if not a book) on the role of lawyers in, frankly, causing trouble in revolutions around the globe, and I think you’d get enough loony lefty lawyers (Cripps is the shining example, but don’t rule out Clem Attlee) throwing their lot for the hope of advancement and the chance to throw a wrecking ball at the British (by which we mean English and Welsh, with Scotland and NI each having distinct systems) Legal System.
Combining the two themes that I swirl around, the obvious answer, I think, is the Magistracy, configured and made politically pure and free from decadent and anti-proletarian feudalist notions. Let me explain why…
To our foreign observers, the Magistrates are the lowest rung in the ladder of UK criminal courts. They are, in the main, manned by a lay tribunal. Although professional Magistrates (we call them District Judges, formerly known as Stipendiary Magistrates) exist, and are, indeed, growing, they are a small minority. They are also very good. But, their rarity means that in most cases the person deciding the facts, as well as passing sentence, will be not be legally qualified. To aid them they have a legal adviser, often (but not always) a quite junior solicitor or barrister who is either a) genuinely motivated by the work or b) frankly couldn’t get another gig (the pay is terrible).
But who are these lay judges, these community-minded figures, these dispensers of the people’s justice? (sighs) Sadly, they tend to fall into two types, and this will, I hope, illustrate how the Commonwealth would make this work. The first type, the (sadly accurate) stereotype, particularly in the era we’re talking about (although I saw them as a pupil in the mid 2000s) are the rural squirearchy, a truly odd mix of local gentry, retired professionals (think Doctors, military, civil servants, so regimental or club ties feature heavily) who are ‘something in the community’. For them, sitting on the bench is probably something that they ‘get the nod’ to do (I should know, I’ve had it, since retiring from advocacy), and their Friday session sitting on the bench is often prefaced by a nice lunch in the county town with their friends. These types, as I shall illustrate, are, frankly, a complete and utter runaway train when asked to get their teeth into something controversial. Mercifully, most of these will be disenfranchised by the Commonwealth. Which leaves…
The lefty academic / union type. In a similar vein to the lefty lawyers who would do the Commonwealth’s bidding, you’d absolutely get these pitching into the delivery of justice and this is, I think, who Mosley would fill his courts with. These are the types who join councils, volunteer for local good works, or are given this as a reward for years of being truculent/of service to the Party/industry. This is who would ride to the rescue, the Magistrates Courts becoming something like “Regional Investigation Centres,” but using the existing estate and processes. Defence lawyers (and there wouldn’t be enough) would be discouraged, if not prohibited; apart from the legal advisers, it would be a lawyer-free area. These would have to be party members, would ensure that standards are maintained, would probably spy on the Magistrates (or whatever the Commonwealth would call them – “Community Investigation Arbitrators” or something like that) and could, if given enough power, be utterly terrifying characters. I don’t think they’re left alone to run the courts, my instinct is that this is too much power to place in one individual: the totalitarian love of overlapping spheres means that some form of lay judges continues. The notion of community justice would remain, but morphed into something dominated by the party and the state.
I end, if you’ll indulge me, with a tale from my pupillage in the early stages of the Brown premiership, this recollection prompted by the chat about Rutland. Rutland was, and is, a bit of a judicial desert, apart from a Magistrates Court in Stamford most of the local crims went to Leicester or, deliciously, and to keep it going as a viable court, Corby. Corby Magistrates Court was closed under the Cameron Government’s austerity drive, but it was wonderful. It looked, from the outside, like a community hall or a library, in short it lacked anything of the Victorian grandeur or majesty of many of our older court buildings. There were no vending machines, no Styrofoam cups, no desperation or pervading smell of pee, but a charming old matronly type who made everyone cups of tea in a variety of mugs that she’d acquired / had donated over the years. I went up, one rainy Thursday, to act as the sole legal rep for a family of Eastern Europeans charged, among a very long list of crimes, with nicking money from a clothes recycling charity. They were also alleged to have siphoned off fuel from cars and boats parked at Rutland Water (“love every drop”). Ahem.
The family, this gang of Romanian would be Corleones, were clearly ‘on the rob’ to some degree. My role as their advocate (which would have been a nightmare had they turned upon one another) was made impossible by the lack of, oh, what’s the word…ah yes! The lack of any evidence offered by our lovely Crown Prosecution Service. I therefore, until the Crown deigned to tell us what it was saying that we had done, strongly advised my wards to indicate no plea. This, essentially, is where we refuse to say what we intend to do when a case is likely to be sent up to the Crown Court (the proper courts, the next rung on the ladder, complete with legally qualified judges). This is a perfectly legitimate measure when you lack sufficient information. Does it look shifty, well, yes, but in this case I believed, as I still do, that it was madness to do anything else until I had seen the evidence against my people.
Anyhoo, we walked the few metres from our conference room (it was a cupboard) to the rather bijou courtroom, when the Magistrates entered. They were led by a fiery, tweed wearing, pearl necklace woman, with Princess Anne hair and, I s**t thee not, a riding crop. She stormed in, demanded ‘plea before venue’ (so, clarification on whether or not we accept guilt, before working out if it could stay in this lower court or go up to the Crown Court). This triggered a ten minute discussion (it was an argument, in which the legal adviser to the Magistrates, very junior, essentially refused to do his job, and speak), in which I threatened all sorts. Even the Prosecutor accepted that I was right on the law and that the CPS hadn’t finished preparing the case. Five more minutes of argument, including a threat to send me to the cells (another cupboard, but this one next to the tea making matron, so hardly a punishment) later, and our chair of the bench, let’s call her, in homage to Sharpe, ‘Dame Henrietta Simmerson’, relented, and this only because the prosecutor and I advised her, tactfully, that calling defendants ‘dirty bloody foreigners’ and suggesting that as they were all guilty she could and should get on with issuing their community service now wasn’t, perhaps, the pure, unbiased tribunal to which the family was entitled. With no ceremony, no informing the defendants of the outcome, date of next hearing etc, Lady Simmerson stormed out of the room leaving a confused, elderly chap (let’s call him ‘Bert’) to wrap things up, badly. It was a remarkable experience and I was delighted to be retained on the case by our instructing solicitors.
A week later, and I went back to Corby. Instead of Lady Simmerson (it was fox hunting season, so she was probably out chasing small animals or peasants), the chair was a former union man from the (closed) local steelworks, complete with weird Glaswegian-Northamptonshire accent. If I thought Simmerson was too tough, this guy was in another league. Very much ‘a man of his hands’, he looked as though he had the ability and willingness to bench press me and the prosecutor. He knew his stuff though, and dispatched my crims to the Crown Court efficiently, having taken a (now, mercifully, informed) not guilty plea with what was one of the scariest tellings-off I have ever seen before guilt was established. He invited counsel to have a chat in Chambers (the storeroom) after the hearing and told us all about his story. Very much a union man, his presence on the bench had come through his union basically encouraging senior members to get involved in local justice. The confused elderly chap, our ‘Bert’ from the previous week, then wandered in (probably looking for the portaloo) and told his life story. He had been a local fireman and had been encouraged to his role by the FBU.
I also think that you’re right in surmising that the Inns of Court, senior judiciary, most of the bar and probably the more established solicitors (the central London and market town old boys) flee from the Commonwealth. But some, and it would be enough, just, would remain; there is probably a thesis (if not a book) on the role of lawyers in, frankly, causing trouble in revolutions around the globe, and I think you’d get enough loony lefty lawyers (Cripps is the shining example, but don’t rule out Clem Attlee) throwing their lot for the hope of advancement and the chance to throw a wrecking ball at the British (by which we mean English and Welsh, with Scotland and NI each having distinct systems) Legal System.
Combining the two themes that I swirl around, the obvious answer, I think, is the Magistracy, configured and made politically pure and free from decadent and anti-proletarian feudalist notions. Let me explain why…
To our foreign observers, the Magistrates are the lowest rung in the ladder of UK criminal courts. They are, in the main, manned by a lay tribunal. Although professional Magistrates (we call them District Judges, formerly known as Stipendiary Magistrates) exist, and are, indeed, growing, they are a small minority. They are also very good. But, their rarity means that in most cases the person deciding the facts, as well as passing sentence, will be not be legally qualified. To aid them they have a legal adviser, often (but not always) a quite junior solicitor or barrister who is either a) genuinely motivated by the work or b) frankly couldn’t get another gig (the pay is terrible).
But who are these lay judges, these community-minded figures, these dispensers of the people’s justice? (sighs) Sadly, they tend to fall into two types, and this will, I hope, illustrate how the Commonwealth would make this work. The first type, the (sadly accurate) stereotype, particularly in the era we’re talking about (although I saw them as a pupil in the mid 2000s) are the rural squirearchy, a truly odd mix of local gentry, retired professionals (think Doctors, military, civil servants, so regimental or club ties feature heavily) who are ‘something in the community’. For them, sitting on the bench is probably something that they ‘get the nod’ to do (I should know, I’ve had it, since retiring from advocacy), and their Friday session sitting on the bench is often prefaced by a nice lunch in the county town with their friends. These types, as I shall illustrate, are, frankly, a complete and utter runaway train when asked to get their teeth into something controversial. Mercifully, most of these will be disenfranchised by the Commonwealth. Which leaves…
The lefty academic / union type. In a similar vein to the lefty lawyers who would do the Commonwealth’s bidding, you’d absolutely get these pitching into the delivery of justice and this is, I think, who Mosley would fill his courts with. These are the types who join councils, volunteer for local good works, or are given this as a reward for years of being truculent/of service to the Party/industry. This is who would ride to the rescue, the Magistrates Courts becoming something like “Regional Investigation Centres,” but using the existing estate and processes. Defence lawyers (and there wouldn’t be enough) would be discouraged, if not prohibited; apart from the legal advisers, it would be a lawyer-free area. These would have to be party members, would ensure that standards are maintained, would probably spy on the Magistrates (or whatever the Commonwealth would call them – “Community Investigation Arbitrators” or something like that) and could, if given enough power, be utterly terrifying characters. I don’t think they’re left alone to run the courts, my instinct is that this is too much power to place in one individual: the totalitarian love of overlapping spheres means that some form of lay judges continues. The notion of community justice would remain, but morphed into something dominated by the party and the state.
I end, if you’ll indulge me, with a tale from my pupillage in the early stages of the Brown premiership, this recollection prompted by the chat about Rutland. Rutland was, and is, a bit of a judicial desert, apart from a Magistrates Court in Stamford most of the local crims went to Leicester or, deliciously, and to keep it going as a viable court, Corby. Corby Magistrates Court was closed under the Cameron Government’s austerity drive, but it was wonderful. It looked, from the outside, like a community hall or a library, in short it lacked anything of the Victorian grandeur or majesty of many of our older court buildings. There were no vending machines, no Styrofoam cups, no desperation or pervading smell of pee, but a charming old matronly type who made everyone cups of tea in a variety of mugs that she’d acquired / had donated over the years. I went up, one rainy Thursday, to act as the sole legal rep for a family of Eastern Europeans charged, among a very long list of crimes, with nicking money from a clothes recycling charity. They were also alleged to have siphoned off fuel from cars and boats parked at Rutland Water (“love every drop”). Ahem.
The family, this gang of Romanian would be Corleones, were clearly ‘on the rob’ to some degree. My role as their advocate (which would have been a nightmare had they turned upon one another) was made impossible by the lack of, oh, what’s the word…ah yes! The lack of any evidence offered by our lovely Crown Prosecution Service. I therefore, until the Crown deigned to tell us what it was saying that we had done, strongly advised my wards to indicate no plea. This, essentially, is where we refuse to say what we intend to do when a case is likely to be sent up to the Crown Court (the proper courts, the next rung on the ladder, complete with legally qualified judges). This is a perfectly legitimate measure when you lack sufficient information. Does it look shifty, well, yes, but in this case I believed, as I still do, that it was madness to do anything else until I had seen the evidence against my people.
Anyhoo, we walked the few metres from our conference room (it was a cupboard) to the rather bijou courtroom, when the Magistrates entered. They were led by a fiery, tweed wearing, pearl necklace woman, with Princess Anne hair and, I s**t thee not, a riding crop. She stormed in, demanded ‘plea before venue’ (so, clarification on whether or not we accept guilt, before working out if it could stay in this lower court or go up to the Crown Court). This triggered a ten minute discussion (it was an argument, in which the legal adviser to the Magistrates, very junior, essentially refused to do his job, and speak), in which I threatened all sorts. Even the Prosecutor accepted that I was right on the law and that the CPS hadn’t finished preparing the case. Five more minutes of argument, including a threat to send me to the cells (another cupboard, but this one next to the tea making matron, so hardly a punishment) later, and our chair of the bench, let’s call her, in homage to Sharpe, ‘Dame Henrietta Simmerson’, relented, and this only because the prosecutor and I advised her, tactfully, that calling defendants ‘dirty bloody foreigners’ and suggesting that as they were all guilty she could and should get on with issuing their community service now wasn’t, perhaps, the pure, unbiased tribunal to which the family was entitled. With no ceremony, no informing the defendants of the outcome, date of next hearing etc, Lady Simmerson stormed out of the room leaving a confused, elderly chap (let’s call him ‘Bert’) to wrap things up, badly. It was a remarkable experience and I was delighted to be retained on the case by our instructing solicitors.
A week later, and I went back to Corby. Instead of Lady Simmerson (it was fox hunting season, so she was probably out chasing small animals or peasants), the chair was a former union man from the (closed) local steelworks, complete with weird Glaswegian-Northamptonshire accent. If I thought Simmerson was too tough, this guy was in another league. Very much ‘a man of his hands’, he looked as though he had the ability and willingness to bench press me and the prosecutor. He knew his stuff though, and dispatched my crims to the Crown Court efficiently, having taken a (now, mercifully, informed) not guilty plea with what was one of the scariest tellings-off I have ever seen before guilt was established. He invited counsel to have a chat in Chambers (the storeroom) after the hearing and told us all about his story. Very much a union man, his presence on the bench had come through his union basically encouraging senior members to get involved in local justice. The confused elderly chap, our ‘Bert’ from the previous week, then wandered in (probably looking for the portaloo) and told his life story. He had been a local fireman and had been encouraged to his role by the FBU.
- 4
- 4
I was indeed going to suggest the magistrates in some way, however, my experiences in criminal law being what they are, I was really hoping it would be someone, anyone, else.
The modern magistrates Court system (which I should point out handles most cases these days) is an insane blend of the worst kind of loony leftie and rightie tighte old boy clubs that my own father not only wrote a strongly worded letter in response to being asked to join, but actually sent it.
The modern magistrates Court system (which I should point out handles most cases these days) is an insane blend of the worst kind of loony leftie and rightie tighte old boy clubs that my own father not only wrote a strongly worded letter in response to being asked to join, but actually sent it.
- 2
I always like to remember that a certain Gaius Julius Caesar was a lawyer.
But in fairness to your profession, it hardly any surprise if one thinks about it. I mean, which other profession in public life is devoted to studying actually how a system works, and how to exploit its faultlines on behalf of their clients? This point of view exists as much for plutocratic corporate type in Slaughter & May and Cravath, Swaine & Moore and their fellow travellers as it would for the most impassioned defender of the public working today for whatever pittance Legal Aid gives, or even for free. Its a profession who modus operandi is the discovery and exploitation of the weaknesses of the system.
So really, when a lawyer finds the path to revolution the lawyer is only doing what comes naturally.
And poetically this also means the professionals most likely to be able to defend a system are ... the lawyers.
- 3
I demand a picture of Lady Simmerson! Are you sure it was proper fancy dress and that they hadn't rousted out the local dominatrix?
- 2
And he was AMAZING at it. Have you read his speeches in the senate about legal queries, trials, the defence of personal rights and the rule of law being key to civilization?
There are many reasons why that man ended up taking over the entire empire but a core one was how good he was at using the system for his benefit, and convincing everyone else that it was for their benefit too.
- 2
- 1
- 1
Getting back to the discussion of legal systems, I have to say that I'm certainly glad of the one I'm in. Sure, I get annoyed with having to write out my probable cause statement for DUIs and Domestic Assault. Most everything else though is just sworn testimony to the magistrate. It's very different in other states that don't have the Common Law basis.
- 2