Pebble wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Pebble wrote:Avoiding the actual question.

Well, I tell you what, you made the first claim that giving money out of pocket is called bribing (and presumably thus that he was trying to bribe her?) so you first provide the strength of evidence in support of that accusation you deem appropriate and I'll see if I can find something to match afterwards if you like.

Your assertion was that they offered to pay for her to work out of hours for them.

I quoted an article.

What actually precipitated this exchange was two words, which were "it isn't", in response to your claim "Giving money out of pocket is called bribing". I didn't feel like that was an overreaction at the time, and still don't.

In the general sense that the claim is worded it's categorically untrue, there are all sorts of times that one can pay out of one's own pocket for a service. It's normally called "buying" or "paying", this even applies to public servants, with it being perfectly legal to get a teacher to work out of hours as a tutor or a doctor to work privately out of hours.

One certainly doesn't see the intention for corruption, dishonesty or impropriety in someone who simply wants a dead relative released, is willing to go to judicial review over the matter (which ruled that not releasing the relative was improper) and is willing to openly talk to the press. That's not how bribers work in general, and I see no sign that despite this man being open about his offer he's been up in court for it.

Pebble wrote:Given that there is no mechanism for such payment to be legal - this was an illegal offer.

No, that's a non sequitur or leap of logic, in that the conclusion doesn't follow. It's most certainly not how the law works:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/23/contents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/23/section/1

b)P intends the advantage—

(i)to induce a person to perform improperly a relevant function or activity, or

(ii)to reward a person for the improper performance of such a function or activity.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/23/section/4

For the purposes of this Act a relevant function or activity—

(a)is performed improperly if it is performed in breach of a relevant expectation, and

(b)is to be treated as being performed improperly if there is a failure to perform the function or activity and that failure is itself a breach of a relevant expectation.

In summary, he has to intend for her to improperly perform her function for the offer to constitute bribery. He patently did not. He was not asking for her to bypass her job, he was asking her to do it. In fact judicial review later found that she was acting improperly in not doing it!

Anyway, this already feels like overkill for what is a pretty cut and dried issue relating to two words of tangential disagreement.

Pebble wrote:It is closed off in practice to "everyone else" since the service is overwhelmed. She is allowed to prioritise on medical grounds - the question therefore is on what other basis can she prioritise that is not preferential treatment for a special interest group?

The question was about what the Jewish community wants or demands. Not what the best method of delivering that is, or whether more money (by far) put into coroner's services would be required to bring everyone's service up to a speed that almost nobody actually wants.

Like most people in the UK, I don't want a funeral to happen immediately, some time to prepare so that people have time to make travel arrangements, get time off work and that kind of thing is desireable rather than undesireable. Funding a service that people don't actually want is a bad use of public money, but that doesn't mean the rights of minorities who stongly feel differently being ignored is automatically good practice. A bit of common sense is what's required, which appears to be what the law says. That reasonable accommodations should be made.

Pebble wrote:You appear to be suggesting that if something could in theory be available to all, then special interest groups are entitled to it even if it is not available in practice to anyone else - how could that not be seen as unfair by the average tax payer?

Within reason, yes.

And it can easily be seen as fair because everyone gets protection for things that are of fundamental importance to them, and frankly whether the average coroner delay is 3 days or 3.05 days just doesn't matter to almost anybody. Protection of minorities' rights has been held to be one of the defining features of democracy.

We can always quibble about what's fair in relation to how taxes are spent. People who work hard can always say that people who are healthy and out of work get more from the system by doing less. People who send their kids to private school or don't have kids or can't have kids still pay for the school system, people who don't go to university or can't get in to university still pay into the university budget.

There are endless "special interests" in society, and endless ways of disagreeing about what is the fairest (but undoubtedly imperfect) solution. However, freedom of religion and freedom of thought have been held to be very important values (they make it into the ECHR) in our tolerant and diverse society and so it has been held (in law) to be fair that where the state imposes a duty on individuals it does the best to reasonably accomodate their sincerely held needs.

Pebble wrote:For example heart transplants are in theory available to all heart failure patients. The jewish community believe that life must be preserved at pretty well all costs. So a special interest group could demand that their 90 year old patriarch should be transplanted, while 20 year olds die on the list. You could make the same argument that said special interest group would be happy for all to have access to same day transplantation.

I expect they would be happy for everyone to get a heart transplant, and I'd say that anyone saying otherwise is doing so without evidence and being extremely uncharitable.

Of course the difference here is that the 20 year old and their family also have a sincerely held belief that they want to go on living, they really care about the issue, and they also have a fundamentally protected (in the ECHR) right to life. So this time there's a competing moral and legal tension which means that other grounds are needed to settle the issue. In that way it's entirely unlike coroners releasing bodies where most people have no desire for a marginal improvement in their average wait time (and I've already pointed out the potential issue with the minority who exceptionally do).

Yeah but it's a dry heat.

Excellent response - now actually addressing the issues.

Thommo wrote:

Pebble wrote:If the Jewish community considers this a big deal - they can always ask to fund extra resources in return for a same day service.

They did. She refused. She's been found in court to have broken the law regarding her duty at least once, if not more times.

This came up in the other thread Carl started on this same topic, I think: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2610867.html

This was the actual starting point - where you clearly missed any detail in my claim - and suggested that an individual inducement was the equivalent of a comprehensive arrangement.

Thommo wrote:

One certainly doesn't see the intention for corruption, dishonesty or impropriety in someone who simply wants a dead relative released, is willing to go to judicial review over the matter (which ruled that not releasing the relative was improper) and is willing to openly talk to the press. That's not how bribers work in general, and I see no sign that despite this man being open about his offer he's been up in court for it.

You are right it is not a bribe - since there is no statutory impediment to offering inducements, however the code of conduct would still prevent acceptance.[/quote]

Thommo wrote:Like most people in the UK, I don't want a funeral to happen immediately, some time to prepare so that people have time to make travel arrangements,

Amazing your insight into what most people want. I see such people daily - the delay in getting pms done causes considerable distress, the uncertainty, the fear that vital evidence will be lost, the not knowing.

The issue is what the jewish community consider reasonable

http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2018/01/legal-threat-over-coroners-refusal-to-prioritise-religious-burials

"The Jewish Chronicle reported last month that in a separate incident one woman made 210 phone calls to the St. Pancras Coroner's Office before being assured that her father would be buried four days after his death."

"Rabbi Asher Gratt, who volunteers for AYBS, said: "It beggars belief that we should be going through these sort of issues in a democratic society.

"We have had such a good relationship with every single coroner other than her. We could pick up the phone and call them in the middle of the night, and they would go out of their way to help.""

Why should coroners have to put up with this - are they paid enough to have to give over their whole lives to one special interest group? Should this level of abuse of access be tolerated?

Pebble wrote:This was the actual starting point - where you clearly missed any detail in my claim - and suggested that an individual inducement was the equivalent of a comprehensive arrangement.

That wasn't what started the exchange about bribery, which is what we were talking about there, in fact. But I don't suppose it really matters.

Pebble wrote:Amazing your insight into what most people want. I see such people daily - the delay in getting pms done causes considerable distress, the uncertainty, the fear that vital evidence will be lost, the not knowing.

I don't think the sarcasm adds a lot to be honest.

If you think you know better, then fine, provide some evidence by all means. I'm sure it would be quite informative if you have personal knowledge of how much extra delay on post mortems (in what are presumably cases of unexplained death) is caused by Jewish and Muslim orthodoxy. If you simply disagree, also fine.

Pebble wrote:The issue is what the jewish community consider reasonable

http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2018/01/legal-threat-over-coroners-refusal-to-prioritise-religious-burials

"The Jewish Chronicle reported last month that in a separate incident one woman made 210 phone calls to the St. Pancras Coroner's Office before being assured that her father would be buried four days after his death."

"Rabbi Asher Gratt, who volunteers for AYBS, said: "It beggars belief that we should be going through these sort of issues in a democratic society.

A person has acted unreasonably, yes. 210 phone calls is excessive. I would repeat that I have no idea why she acted so unreasonably, whether this was out of distress or simply being a bully hasn't really been delved into anywhere I've seen. Grieving people do strange things.

We don't make laws based on that though, nor do we make generalisations about whole communites from one or two individuals. In fact Mary Hassell has also been found to have acted unreasonably as well. This conflict is of no benefit, there are clearly a lot of quite aggrieved bereaved individuals and the taxpayer is out about quarter of a million pounds. The dispute could undoubtedly be resolved in a way that would work just fine. The solution is sure to involve tolerance and reasonable compromise, rather than some kind of adoption of arbitrary rules that are then officiously applied.

Pebble wrote:"We have had such a good relationship with every single coroner other than her. We could pick up the phone and call them in the middle of the night, and they would go out of their way to help.""

Why should coroners have to put up with this - are they paid enough to have to give over their whole lives to one special interest group? Should this level of abuse of access be tolerated?

Being able to call out of hours isn't abuse though, there are two very different things - a person who called 210 times over a few days and a wider provision for out of hours work. There is also a very great difference between being able to call someone in the middle of the night in exceptional or occasional circumstances and them giving up their whole life. One call every year would be vastly different from one call every hour, to the point of there being no real comparison between the two.

That second issue has already been decided by judicial review at the highest level - and Hassell was found to be in the wrong. Coroners should be prepared to provide out of hours service because it's a statutory duty. Of course that doesn't justify bullying and of course one hopes the chief coroner and senior judges had enough knowledge of the actual commitment that entails to not be taking coroners whole lives away.

"Special interest groups" or indeed "people of devout religion" as some others might have it should be tolerated for a pretty simple reason - the utter and spectacular history of failure of religious intolerance, that as we all know culminated, in extremis, in all too many wars, tragedies and other appalling things. Society works better when people can be a bit flexible and accommodating.

Bryan Cranston Sean Lock is looking good these days.


[Image taken from the article]

Thommo wrote:

Pebble wrote:Amazing your insight into what most people want. I see such people daily - the delay in getting pms done causes considerable distress, the uncertainty, the fear that vital evidence will be lost, the not knowing.

I don't think the sarcasm adds a lot to be honest.

If you think you know better, then fine, provide some evidence by all means. I'm sure it would be quite informative if you have personal knowledge of how much extra delay on post mortems (in what are presumably cases of unexplained death) is caused by Jewish and Muslim orthodoxy. If you simply disagree, also fine.

I do happen to know from direct experience that the muslim population are pretty tolerant. The want immediate burial and will ask that their wishes are complied with, if one feels unable to comply they are sad but it ends there. However, it is well known that the effort of justifying a delay in doing what is demanded will often delay the care for others to a greater extent than simply complying with being bullied. So bullies know how to bend the system to their demands, in so doing they piss everyone off. I certainly have plenty of experience of that from certain quarters - I have not documented who has been responsible by belief sets, but have a very clear impression.

I do not have personal experience of the delays caused in the coroners office, but if one considers that almost every home death will require some sort of sign off, I imagine in Camden that is not a small workload.

Thommo wrote:

Pebble wrote:The issue is what the jewish community consider reasonable

http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2018/01/legal-threat-over-coroners-refusal-to-prioritise-religious-burials

"The Jewish Chronicle reported last month that in a separate incident one woman made 210 phone calls to the St. Pancras Coroner's Office before being assured that her father would be buried four days after his death."

"Rabbi Asher Gratt, who volunteers for AYBS, said: "It beggars belief that we should be going through these sort of issues in a democratic society.

A person has acted unreasonably, yes. 210 phone calls is excessive. I would repeat that I have no idea why she acted so unreasonably, whether this was out of distress or simply being a bully hasn't really been delved into anywhere I've seen. Grieving people do strange things.

210 is an extreme, but pushing the system to ensure you get what you want is standard practice as outlined above.

Thommo wrote:

Pebble wrote:"We have had such a good relationship with every single coroner other than her. We could pick up the phone and call them in the middle of the night, and they would go out of their way to help.""

Why should coroners have to put up with this - are they paid enough to have to give over their whole lives to one special interest group? Should this level of abuse of access be tolerated?

Being able to call out of hours isn't abuse though, there are two very different things - a person who called 210 times over a few days and a wider provision for out of hours work. There is also a very great difference between being able to call someone in the middle of the night in exceptional or occasional circumstances and them giving up their whole life. One call every year would be vastly different from one call every hour, to the point of there being no real comparison between the two.

I have no idea how many out of hours calls she has had to field, do you? I would be surprised to learn that she has only had to deal with 1 or two a year. I have much less interaction with the community than she has and certainly field more than that. (PS just in case you are getting the impression that I have anything against orthrodox jews, other than against any fundamentalist group, I don't - I do understand where they are coming from and am happy to ensure equal access and to show appropriate sensitivity at all times).

Thommo wrote:"Special interest groups" or indeed "people of devout religion" as some others might have it should be tolerated for a pretty simple reason - the utter and spectacular history of failure of religious intolerance, that as we all know culminated, in extremis, in all too many wars, tragedies and other appalling things. Society works better when people can be a bit flexible and accommodating.

Positive discrimination is not required for equality. Once equality is delivered anything more than this is preferential treatment. The sins of the past need not be remedied by overcompensation.

Pebble wrote:I do happen to know from direct experience that the muslim population are pretty tolerant. The want immediate burial and will ask that their wishes are complied with, if one feels unable to comply they are sad but it ends there. However, it is well known that the effort of justifying a delay in doing what is demanded will often delay the care for others to a greater extent than simply complying with being bullied. So bullies know how to bend the system to their demands, in so doing they piss everyone off. I certainly have plenty of experience of that from certain quarters - I have not documented who has been responsible by belief sets, but have a very clear impression.

I do not have personal experience of the delays caused in the coroners office, but if one considers that almost every home death will require some sort of sign off, I imagine in Camden that is not a small workload.

Thanks for that, interesting.

Pebble wrote:I have no idea how many out of hours calls she has had to field, do you? I would be surprised to learn that she has only had to deal with 1 or two a year. I have much less interaction with the community than she has and certainly field more than that.

I have no idea, although I doubt it is at either of the extremes I mentioned. What I'm saying is it matters, and I don't think it's fair to assume that the requirement for out of hours work means she must give up her life, so I don't see a genuine dichotomy there. If we could find evidence that it really would be an unreasonable burden, then I would agree that is at least some justification for her behaviour. I hope the inquiries (the previous one and the current one) will consider such factors.

Pebble wrote:(PS just in case you are getting the impression that I have anything against orthrodox jews, other than against any fundamentalist group, I don't - I do understand where they are coming from and am happy to ensure equal access and to show appropriate sensitivity at all times).

That's fair enough, in your position I'd probably want to make that clear as well. For the record, no I didn't get any impression of discrimination or something similar from what you'd written, just disagreement.

Pebble wrote:

Thommo wrote:"Special interest groups" or indeed "people of devout religion" as some others might have it should be tolerated for a pretty simple reason - the utter and spectacular history of failure of religious intolerance, that as we all know culminated, in extremis, in all too many wars, tragedies and other appalling things. Society works better when people can be a bit flexible and accommodating.

Positive discrimination is not required for equality. Once equality is delivered anything more than this is preferential treatment. The sins of the past need not be remedied by overcompensation.

I don't agree that it is positive discrimination or preferential treatment. It looks like reasonable tolerance to me. The previous ruling which you also seem to disagree with came out with that view as well, and I guess we'll see what happens in the current inquiry.

ETA: Some more articles I read about her that I found interesting in that they shed wholly different perspectives on her. They have nothing in particular to do with this conversation, but I'm just going to append them anyway, for anyone who feels like a few minutes' Saturday morning reading:

An article from the time of her appointment, giving a very different view on her career as it was then:
http://camdennewjournal.com/article/mar ... &sq=nurses

An article from someone at the University of Manchester:
http://www.projects.law.manchester.ac.u ... ear-tread/

Thommo wrote:

I don't agree that it is positive discrimination or preferential treatment. It looks like reasonable tolerance to me. The previous ruling which you also seem to disagree with came out with that view as well, and I guess we'll see what happens in the current inquiry.

I suppose I would see listening and providing reasons for any delay, while visibly being seen to try to be as expeditious as possible should be sufficient.

It is when such efforts are deemed inadequate, that relations are likely to breakdown and the perception of bullying arise.

When reasonable accommodation is replaced by a "right" to prioritisation I have a problem.

Thommo wrote:

That's fair enough, in your position I'd probably want to make that clear as well. For the record, no I didn't get any impression of discrimination or something similar from what you'd written, just disagreement.

This is intriguing. On an apparently anonymous forum, you feel that my having argued that the Jewish community should receive equal treatment with anyone else required clarification.
I have suggested that this community is particularly well organised at influencing the behaviour of public bodies - I doubt that would be taken as a criticism.
Yet, you are right such is the sensitivity of the community to perceived negativity, that a degree of paranoia creeps in.

I wouldn't read too much into it. I was just trying to be supportive because I don't want this thread to become acrimonious, as I don't think that would do any of us any favours and I'd rather we have a constructive chat and a nice Saturday, which is how I perceived the new route our conversation was taking. I was interested and pleased to read your account of perceptions surrounding Post Mortems, for example.

Nobody wants to think people are perceiving them as prejudiced and a bit of clarification seldom hurts.

Thommo wrote:I wouldn't read too much into it. I was just trying to be supportive because I don't want this thread to become acrimonious, as I don't think that would do any of us any favours and I'd rather we have a constructive chat and a nice Saturday, which is how I perceived the new route our conversation was taking. I was interested and pleased to read your account of perceptions surrounding Post Mortems, for example.

Nobody wants to think people are perceiving them as prejudiced and a bit of clarification seldom hurts.

Ok - though the second sentence was the support component.

Seems the tribunal has ruled:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43922000

A London coroner has been ordered by the High Court to change her "cab-rank" queuing policy for handling burials after it was ruled "unlawful".

LOL. I await Carl's meltdown with anticipation.

A sensible, and entirely predictable, decision.

Injustice singh is an idiot. So some get a better service than others. Wrong on so many levels.

Ach, I hoped for more passion and expletives.

On topic, is getting an immediate funeral a "better service" than not? Surely a "better service" would be everyone getting the funeral when it suits them?

He doesn't sound like an idiot to me. He seems to be pretty highly esteemed, but I admit I don't know all that much about him, perhaps Carl knows more?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabinder_Singh_(judge)

Thommo wrote:He doesn't sound like an idiot to me.

But look at his name?!

CarlPierce wrote:Injustice singh is an idiot.

I think his actual title might be The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Singh if that makes a difference.

Carl was making the bon mots.

He does also seem to agree with the chief coroner and previous hearings at various levels that Hassell has been involved in regarding the law. I tend to agree with Tracer Tong that this decision was eminently predictable.

PS: I'm perfectly aware you're joking, but I haven't had enough coffee to join in yet.

ronmcd wrote:Ach, I hoped for more passion and expletives.

On topic, is getting an immediate funeral a "better service" than not? Surely a "better service" would be everyone getting the funeral when it suits them?

I agree with that. Provided 'anyone' can ask for the fast service - without favour.