Imposing their views

[ProfessorDavey]

Facts are often terrifying

Not when they aren't facts at all, but in fact, factually wrong.

A judge or magistrate making a judgement in court based on their own self interest rather than the public interest would likely be struck off were that found to be the case. For example this from the Code of Conduct for Magistrates (a legally binding Statutory Instrument).

"Integrity

2.—(1) A member must in the performance of his duties act—

(a)solely in the public interest."

[Nearly Sane]

Not when they aren't facts at all, but in fact, factually wrong.

A judge or magistrate making a judgement in court based on their own self interest rather than the public interest would likely be struck off were that found to be the case. For example this from the Code of Conduct for Magistrates (a legally binding Statutory Instrument).

"Integrity

2.—(1) A member must in the performance of his duties act—

(a)solely in the public interest."

Wow, you are entirely gullible.

[ProfessorDavey]

Wow, you are entirely gullible.

So do you think that a magistrate shouldn't act solely in the public interest NS. Do you think that it is acceptable for a magistrate to act in a manner that benefits them privately but is not in the public interest NS?

Because the law doesn't - from later in the same document.

"Conflict of intersts

4.—(1) A member must ensure that he does not act in any way in which there is or might reasonably supposed to be a conflict of interest between his duties as a member and his private interests."

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

No it isn't - it is a well established convention that organisations have responsibilities that aren't merely cumulative individual responsibility. And this is why it is commonplace to take legal action against an organisation and this can be the case in situations where there is no suggestion of individual negligence. In fact you can take retrospective action against an organisations (with its current board and employees) even when the original harm occurred years ago and involving a completely different set of board members and employees.

This is because you cannot detach the corporate ethos and responsibilities from what individual employees do. When you work for a organisation your ability to take decisions that you might take in a private setting is curtailed by your responsibility to the organisation.

The corporate ethos and responsibilities are decided by individuals in the organisation - these individuals are either complying with the conventions and/or most persuasive individuals in wider society or complying with the most persuasive individuals within the organisation, mixed with a bit of the decision-maker's own morality and outlook and rational. 

[Nearly Sane]

So do you think that a magistrate shouldn't act solely in the public interest NS. Do you think that it is acceptable for a magistrate to act in a manner that benefits them privately but is not in the public interest NS?

Because the law doesn't - from later in the same document.

"Conflict of intersts

4.—(1) A member must ensure that he does not act in any way in which there is or might reasonably supposed to be a conflict of interest between his duties as a member and his private interests."

You still struggling with difference between ought and is?

[Steve H]

Wow, you are entirely gullible.

There is such a thing as gullible cynicism, you know.

[Nearly Sane]

There is such a thing as gullible cynicism, you know.

and the idea that institutions exist outside of people?

[ProfessorDavey]

You still struggling with difference between ought and is?

No I'm not - just because something doesn't always happen doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. And it is the 'should' that defines the relationship between an individual when working on behalf of an organisation.

What is clear is that when working for an organisation (whether public or private) you are expected to act in the interests of that organisation, not through self interest. And if there is a conflict then the organisational interests must take precedence (except in rare circumstances involving the organisation acting outside of the law) and if a person working for an organisation choses to act through self interest rather than organisation interest that may well be a disciplinary offence. Point being that how individuals act when working on behalf of an organisation should (and virtually always will) be different to how they would act when in an entirely private capacity.

[ProfessorDavey]

There is such a thing as gullible cynicism, you know.

Indeed there is. NS has boxed himself into a corner in trying to argue that black is white. He is trying to argue that because some employees or members of organisations don't abide by the rules and restrictions expected of them by that organisations that those rules and restrictions somehow don't exist. They do and their impact is that individuals when acting on behalf of an organisation are expected by that organisation to put aside their self interest and act in organisational interest. And that demonstrate that organisations culture, responsibilities, ethos etc exist outside of the narrow self interests of those who work for that organisation.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

So do you think that a magistrate shouldn't act solely in the public interest NS. Do you think that it is acceptable for a magistrate to act in a manner that benefits them privately but is not in the public interest NS?

Because the law doesn't - from later in the same document.

"Conflict of intersts

4.—(1) A member must ensure that he does not act in any way in which there is or might reasonably supposed to be a conflict of interest between his duties as a member and his private interests."

What is in the public interest would be a subjective evaluation influenced by personal morality and preferences.

For example, in the 2019 Maya Forstater case, a tribunal judge decided gender-critical views were not "worthy of respect in a democratic society" - so presumably did not see it being in the public interest to protect people from discrimination if they expressed gender-critical beliefs.

But in a 2021 appeal another judge ruled "gender-critical" views were protected under the Equalities Act 2010 and therefore Maya Forstater had been discriminated against. The employers who were  taken to court in this case said they believed that their primary aim was for their organisation to be inclusive so we have individuals in positions of influence in the organisation deciding what the corporate ethos should be.

We also have people saying the Equalities Act 2010 does not go far enough as it allows single-sex spaces to be protected if this can be objectively justified.

So legal actions and decisions are based on the wording of the available legislation - and these can be different from personal individual ethical or moral considerations influencing individual judges as they do their job.

[Nearly Sane]

Indeed there is. NS has boxed himself into a corner in trying to argue that black is white. He is trying to argue that because some employees or members of organisations don't abide by the rules and restrictions expected of them by that organisations that those rules and restrictions somehow don't exist. They do and their impact is that individuals when acting on behalf of an organisation are expected by that organisation to put aside their self interest and act in organisational interest. And that demonstrate that organisations culture, responsibilities, ethos etc exist outside of the narrow self interests of those who work for that organisation.

long boring drivel

[Nearly Sane]

No I'm not - just because something doesn't always happen doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. And it is the 'should' that defines the relationship between an individual when working on behalf of an organisation.

What is clear is that when working for an organisation (whether public or private) you are expected to act in the interests of that organisation, not through self interest. And if there is a conflict then the organisational interests must take precedence (except in rare circumstances involving the organisation acting outside of the law) and if a person working for an organisation choses to act through self interest rather than organisation interest that may well be a disciplinary offence. Point being that how individuals act when working on behalf of an organisation should (and virtually always will) be different to how they would act when in an entirely private capacity.

Witless

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Indeed there is. NS has boxed himself into a corner in trying to argue that black is white. He is trying to argue that because some employees or members of organisations don't abide by the rules and restrictions expected of them by that organisations that those rules and restrictions somehow don't exist. They do and their impact is that individuals when acting on behalf of an organisation are expected by that organisation to put aside their self interest and act in organisational interest. And that demonstrate that organisations culture, responsibilities, ethos etc exist outside of the narrow self interests of those who work for that organisation.

Incorrect - the people working in the organisation decide the culture, ethos etc and they decide it based on self-interest. They want their organisation to continue existing so they still have a job to go to - which may mean that they need to keep their customers or voters happy by following their voters' or customers' ethics.

Or they want wider society to follow a particular culture or ethic because they feel it is the morally right thing to do and they want to influence society to be in tune with their own personal morality.

[ProfessorDavey]

What is in the public interest would be a subjective evaluation influenced by personal morality and preferences.

For example, in the 2019 Maya Forstater case, a tribunal judge decided gender-critical views were not "worthy of respect in a democratic society" - so presumably did not see it being in the public interest to protect people from discrimination if they expressed gender-critical beliefs.

But in a 2021 appeal another judge ruled "gender-critical" views were protected under the Equalities Act 2010 and therefore Maya Forstater had been discriminated against. The employers who were  taken to court in this case said they believed that their primary aim was for their organisation to be inclusive

We also have people saying the Equalities Act 2010 does not go far enough as it allows single-sex spaces to be protected if this can be objectively justified.

So legal actions and decisions are based on the wording of the available legislation - and these can be different from personal individual ethical or moral considerations influencing individual judges as they do their job.

I think there is a difference between individual judges differing in their interpretation of the law - surely interpretation of the law is within the public interest, even if there are differences of professional opinion - and something being in someone's private or self interest.

I think you are misinterpreting what 'public interest' means in these cases - it is about interpretation of the law as part of the decision. That a judge may deem something to be an entirely private matter does not imply that their legal decision on the matter does not mean they are acting outside of their public interests obligations.

Clearly if one of the judges had a conflict - for example they were a trustee of an organisation with an interest in the matter, or had campaigned in a private capacity on one side or the other of the debate, that may be a cause for concern. They'd certainly be required to declare this and potential might have to step down from the decision.

[ProfessorDavey]

Incorrect - the people working in the organisation decide the culture, ethos etc

No they don't - in many cases organisation culture, ethos etc is, at best, established by a tiny subset of Directors and sometimes is historic and pretty difficult to change.

and they decide it based on self-interest.

No they don't - if they actually have a say (see above) any shift in organisational culture and ethos would be based on what is in the best interests of the organisation and employees etc would engage in that debate on that basis. If people working for an organisation only acted in self interest then they'd give themselves pay rises, extra holidays, perks etc etc. But that may not be in the best interests of the organisation.

[ProfessorDavey]

long boring drivel

Any chance of you actually engaging in a debate NS.

[ProfessorDavey]

Witless

Clearly not

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think there is a difference between individual judges differing in their interpretation of the law - surely interpretation of the law is within the public interest, even if there are differences of professional opinion - and something being in someone's private or self interest.

I think you are misinterpreting what 'public interest' means in these cases - it is about interpretation of the law as part of the decision. That a judge may deem something to be an entirely private matter does not imply that their legal decision on the matter does not mean they are acting outside of their public interests obligations.

Clearly if one of the judges had a conflict - for example they were a trustee of an organisation with an interest in the matter, or had campaigned in a private capacity on one side or the other of the debate, that may be a cause for concern. They'd certainly be required to declare this and potential might have to step down from the decision.

In the context of your definition of self-interest, yes the judge may make a different decision in his job compared to the decision he would make for himself personally.

But the decision he makes in his official capacity is his interpretation of ethics and policy in statutes based on his understanding, capabilities and inclinations. And the statutes he is interpreting are decided by individuals within the legislature, who debated and persuaded and voted for what they thought was right.

So it means every organisation and system comes back to the individual. And those individuals would have the same inclinations in whatever organisation they joined - whether religious or non-religious. The personalities of the individuals in an organisation determine the organisation's ethos - if some individuals in an organisation put in place a system to check the amount of influence any one individual can have - great - but those checks and balances systems can be discarded or altered or circumvented later by other individuals in the organisation, if they are so minded.

[ProfessorDavey]

In the context of your definition of self-interest, yes the judge may make a different decision in his job compared to the decision he would make for himself personally.

Indeed, so we have established that a decision someone may make on behalf of an organisation isn't necessarily the same as they would make when acting in a purely private capacity.

But the decision he makes in his official capacity is his interpretation of ethics and policy in statutes based on his understanding, capabilities and inclinations. And the statutes he is interpreting are decided by individuals within the legislature, who debated and persuaded and voted for what they thought was right.

But the organisational system puts in checks and balances specifically to ensure that those individual biases (so to speak) do not dominate. So in the case of the legal system - firstly there is usually a route for appeal and secondly many decisions are taken by a panel of judges etc, not a single person. This is specifically to iron out concerns over individual private views impacting a decision.

So it means every organisation and system comes back to the individual.

Not really - as the organisation defines and sets out the relationship between the individual and that organisation, which as we've seen, may expect behaviours that are not the same as those deemed appropriate when that individual acts in a private capacity and will expect the individual to act in accordance with the organisational interests not their private interests.

Sure, there may be opportunities for individuals reshaping that relationship between organisation and individual (e.g. through changes to ethos, code of conduct etc) but these will still be fundamentally framed on the basis of what is in the organisational interests.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

No they don't - in many cases organisation culture, ethos etc is, at best, established by a tiny subset of Directors and sometimes is historic and pretty difficult to change.

I did not say all the individuals in the organisation have a say - but the subset you refer to who determine the culture and ethos are individuals in the organisation - the argument being made was that persuasive and influential individuals determine what an organisation or a religion is perceived to stand for in any particular geographical location. 

No they don't - if they actually have a say (see above) any shift in organisational culture and ethos would be based on what is in the best interests of the organisation and employees etc would engage in that debate on that basis. If people working for an organisation only acted in self interest then they'd give themselves pay rises, extra holidays, perks etc etc. But that may not be in the best interests of the organisation.

No, because self-interest tells them that the organisation would not survive if they paid themselves too much because overheads and taxes need to be paid for the organisation to survive and for them to have a job to go to. They would also recognise that the organisation needs to retain people who are capable of making strategic decisions that will help the organisation survive so those key people might need to get a greater share of the rewards to entice them to stay with the organisation.

[Nearly Sane]

Clearly not

And witless emoji

[Nearly Sane]

Any chance of you actually engaging in a debate NS.

When you present anything coherent I will

[ProfessorDavey]

And witless emoji

Yawn

[ProfessorDavey]

When you present anything coherent I will

Double yawn

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Indeed, so we have established that a decision someone may make on behalf of an organisation isn't necessarily the same as they would make when acting in a purely private capacity.

And we have established that the people in organisations decide the organisation's ethos - so it is people who are held accountable for their decisions. The legal side of it is just that organisations can be a separate legal entity with their own separate bank accounts that will pay out any financial penalties but it is still individuals who are held accountable for the decisions they make on behalf of the organisation.

But the organisational system puts in checks and balances specifically to ensure that those individual biases (so to speak) do not dominate. So in the case of the legal system - firstly there is usually a route for appeal and secondly many decisions are taken by a panel of judges etc, not a single person. This is specifically to iron out concerns over individual private views impacting a decision.

The panel of judges are still individuals who determine the outcome. You might get 3 judges in a panel who all agree with each other, and if you then had a 2nd panel with 3 judges and they all agreed amongst themselves that the 1st panel was wrong, what you are seeing is the effect of individuals on an organisation or system.   

Not really - as the organisation defines and sets out the relationship between the individual and that organisation, which as we've seen, may expect behaviours that are not the same as those deemed appropriate when that individual acts in a private capacity and will expect the individual to act in accordance with the organisational interests not their private interests.

Firstly, the organisation does not define anything - the individuals in the organisation with power and influence define the relationship and can change the relationship depending on their power and influence.

Secondly, the argument as I saw it was not about private interest versus the organisational's interest. It was about self-interest in wanting the organisation to continue to exist so that the member of the organisation still had a role in the organisation, with the associated power and influence of that being part of the organisation allowed that person to exert on others. 

Sure, there may be opportunities for individuals reshaping that relationship between organisation and individual (e.g. through changes to ethos, code of conduct etc) but these will still be fundamentally framed on the basis of what is in the organisational interests.

Disagree - it is based on the self-interest of individuals in the organisation who want the organisation to continue to exist for the benefits it affords them either financially or in terms of status or influence on others.