Refusing to work for inadequate rates is entirely defensible.

Withdrawing labour in the course of a trial is professionally indefensible.

That is denying the access of others to justice.

A surgeon would not do that and nor should we.

In all the heat of legitimate fury, please please let none of us forget that fundamental principle.

In short, we must fight on with all the spirit and skill that we possess, but only within the law and
the standards which govern our existence.

Nigel Pascoe QC


One thought on “THE DIFFERENCE

  1. A surgeon, faced with outrageous alterations to his conditions, would be able to say “I refuse to work next week, for one day, so you get my point.” In those circumstance his or her list would be canceled. The administration have that option with a day of action. So the situation you paint in “Mr Jinks” is not one that has to happen. And the surgeon analogy is not apposite. The more accurate analogy would be the surgeon, faced with chronic underfunding that was placing the health of his patients at risk, who had the choice to do nothing other than talk to an unlistening administration or to take action. When talking has failed the surgeon has to take action. It will save patients in the future. It is the right thing to do.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s