Brass Band Logo

NJH Music Logo

Some of the contents of the pages on this site are Copyright © 2016 NJH Music
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: City of Oxford appeal - walking on eggshells.....

Ok, hello people.  Ermm...you don't know me, so I'd best introduce myself.
I play 2nd bari for COSB, and formerly (at least in term-time) of
Aberystwyth Silver Band.  I know that this is an _extremely_ thorny issue,
but I'd like if I may to add a few comments to Alastair and Cameron's,
particularly about "Natural Justice".  Yet again, as them, these are my
views and not necessarily COSB's; I hope I can be as even-0handed as
possible iin a very difficult situation.....
Ok, that's over with, so I'd like to quote from The Oxford Dictionary of
Law, being the clearest and concisest in my library.....
"NATURAL JUSTICE - Rules of fair play, developed by courts of equity to
control the decisions on inferior courts and then gradually extended (esp.
in 20th Century) to apply equally to the decisions of administrative and
domestic tribunals and of any authority exercising an administrative power
that affects a person's status, rights or liabilities.  Any decision
reached in contravention of natural justice is void as _ultra_vire_ (Latin
- lit. 'beyond the powers'(?)).  There are two principal rules.  The first
is the rule _against_bias_ (i.e. against departure from the standard of
even-handed justice required of those who occupy judicial office) -
_nemo_judex_in_causa_sua_ (no man may be a judge of his own cause.)  This
means that any decision, however fair it may seem, is invalid if made by a
person with any financial or other interest in the outcome or any known
bias that might have affected his impartiality.  The second rule is
_audi_alteram_partem_ (hear the other side).  It states taht a decision
cannot stand unless the person affected by it was given a fair opportunity
to state his acse and to know and answer the other side's case."

Phew - that's that done!  Neither I or any other can say definitively that
there was a bias in the appeal room, and very much fair play to the member
of Redbridge for leaving the room whilst the matter was discussed.
However, I am under the impression that the meeting started a fair while
before our band reps were told it would start; therefore, whilst not
saying
that the matter wsas discussed during this time, I can't say that it
wasn't either.  It does rather leave itself open to an accusation of
unfair play.  Likewise, it is unlikely within an area to get a completely
fair hearing, whether consciously or unconsciously on the part of the
local committee.  Human nature being what it is, everyone is bound to have
an opinion, and there is no surefire way of saying that those opinions,
held openly or not, will not affect the decisions made on a day such as
that.  The only way of doing that as far as I can see is to have the
decision made by someone who is hearing _both_sides_ for the forst time -
something appreciably difficult in the close-knit world of brass banding.
So that justice can at least be _seen_ to be done, and not leave itself
open to accusations of bias, which such discrepancies inevitably will.
Likewise I would feel it very unjust were there a member of COSB on the
committee - I would hope that they would absent themselves permanently for
the duration of the case - nemo judex in causa sua.
Also questionable is the discrepancy of disqualifying us by one rule, and
then seemingly disregarding another by not relegating us.  Again, as much
as for the L&SC committee as ouselves - it leaves them open to all sorts
of accusations.
The point about audi alteram partem - Whilst it was good that we were
allowed to appeal, perhaps we should have been privy to the reasons the
decisions were taken, so that we might answer them.  By keeping this sort
of thing secret, once more it seems as though there was something to
hide.  Especially as I am given to understand that someone said off the
record (is there ever such a thing?) that the decision had been made prior
to our appeal being heard.  I _think_ there is a thing that runs "every
man is innocent until proven guilty".  _SO_ <deep breath>, while we have
proved our case and cleared our names in the committee's eyes, we are
still stuck with a verdict (in Cameron's words) of "three years hard
labour", which, as with the case of the Saudi Nurses, gives the impression
to the rest of the world that we are guilty.  I'm not saying we're
blameless - it was an honest mistake - , but perhaps the verdict should
have been manslaughter rather than murder? (ok, perhaps not the best
analogy...!)
The point made about only kicking up a fuss about rules when they affect
us badly is not something I can well answer, having been on the mailing
list for a total of three days.  However, I will say that it is very
difficult for everyone to see the failings in a system until it causes
someone injury.  Maybe not the best way, but merely human nature.  Back to
the nurses - did anyone give a hoot about the Saudi Judicial system until
it affected something or someone close to home?  If you notice news items
on a foreign tragedy, there is usually at the end something saying "..and
no Britons were involved."  As though that's the most important thing!!
As Huw Edwards said in a talk at the beginning of term, people tend not to
take notice of things unless they affect them.  Unfortunate, but true.  I
always remember the Aber secretary complaining about registration rules.
the common joke was that they'd probably ask for DNA samples next. But
they got simplified - it's all on registry printout, as far as I'm
aware...
I hope that all this awful mess can be cleared up with the minimum of
acrimony, and in the end leave a better system for bands in the future...
Yours
Beth


--
unsubscribe or receive the list in digest form, mail a message of 'help' to
listserver@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Services] [Contact Us] [Advertise with us] [About] [Tell a friend about us] [Copyright © 2016 NJH Music]