Jessica Starmer - BALPA's view (Update - Appeal decision)
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a professional context, I’ve used the law to win cases for people who, in my personal opinion, had little or no merit on their side and whose behaviour showed no integrity
Just great if you can earn a fat pile of cash playing the game I suppose.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
n_n
The law can indeed be an ass. The overwhelming majority view in discussions here has been that, on this occasion, it is. I happen to agree.
Arguments about the actual law aside, no objective observer who knows the facts and understands the relevant law would suggest Mrs Starmer wasn't quite lucky with the original tribunal.
The Appeal Tribunal has an important, but nonetheless very limited, function - to review the decision and decide whether the orignal tribunal was entitled to reach the conclusion it did. Unless the original tribunal made a mistake of law or came to a decision which was "perverse" (the legal test), an Appeal Tribunal has no power to interfere. ie The question is not 'Would we have come to the same conclusion?' but 'Was the original tribunal entitled to come to the conclusion it did?'
Re earning 'playing the game'.
I don't see it as a game, and those most directly involved in court cases (the parties) rarely do.
When I defend a pilot, it's no part of my job to believe or disbelieve his defence, and I don't allow any personal views I may form to influence the way in which I do the case. I don't try harder if I believe a client and 'throw the fight' if I don't. My opponent presents the prosecution case to the best of his ability, and the jury decides. SOP in the criminal justice systems of all civilised countries.
Similarly, when I'm instructed on behalf of someone wishing to bring or to defend a civil claim, my professional function is to advise whether they have an arguable case in law and, if so, to present it - not tell them what I think personally of the morality (or otherwise) of their bringing or defending the claim.
We aren't permitted to pick and choose briefs depending upon our personal views.
The barristers who appeared in the Starmer case may or may not have been sympathetic (on a personal level) to the side they represented. I have no idea. They are both employment law specialists so could just as easily been acting for the other side.
I'm preparing a fatal accident (aviation) case at the moment. A couple of days after receiving the brief, I was asked by solicitors on the other side if I could accept a brief or had already been instructed by their opponents. Had the solicitors asked in a different order, I'd have been on the other side. Some might see it as a game. I see it as doing my job as an advocate.
As for 'a fat pile of cash', I know many successful barristers doing all criminal work who would be delighted if their annual income matched that of a senior BA captain - and be in danger of hyperventilating at the thought of retiring at 55 on his/her BA pension.
(I hope we don't side-track this very interesting thread, but I couldn't let your comments pass without a response.)
The law can indeed be an ass. The overwhelming majority view in discussions here has been that, on this occasion, it is. I happen to agree.
Arguments about the actual law aside, no objective observer who knows the facts and understands the relevant law would suggest Mrs Starmer wasn't quite lucky with the original tribunal.
The Appeal Tribunal has an important, but nonetheless very limited, function - to review the decision and decide whether the orignal tribunal was entitled to reach the conclusion it did. Unless the original tribunal made a mistake of law or came to a decision which was "perverse" (the legal test), an Appeal Tribunal has no power to interfere. ie The question is not 'Would we have come to the same conclusion?' but 'Was the original tribunal entitled to come to the conclusion it did?'
Re earning 'playing the game'.
I don't see it as a game, and those most directly involved in court cases (the parties) rarely do.
When I defend a pilot, it's no part of my job to believe or disbelieve his defence, and I don't allow any personal views I may form to influence the way in which I do the case. I don't try harder if I believe a client and 'throw the fight' if I don't. My opponent presents the prosecution case to the best of his ability, and the jury decides. SOP in the criminal justice systems of all civilised countries.
Similarly, when I'm instructed on behalf of someone wishing to bring or to defend a civil claim, my professional function is to advise whether they have an arguable case in law and, if so, to present it - not tell them what I think personally of the morality (or otherwise) of their bringing or defending the claim.
We aren't permitted to pick and choose briefs depending upon our personal views.
The barristers who appeared in the Starmer case may or may not have been sympathetic (on a personal level) to the side they represented. I have no idea. They are both employment law specialists so could just as easily been acting for the other side.
I'm preparing a fatal accident (aviation) case at the moment. A couple of days after receiving the brief, I was asked by solicitors on the other side if I could accept a brief or had already been instructed by their opponents. Had the solicitors asked in a different order, I'd have been on the other side. Some might see it as a game. I see it as doing my job as an advocate.
As for 'a fat pile of cash', I know many successful barristers doing all criminal work who would be delighted if their annual income matched that of a senior BA captain - and be in danger of hyperventilating at the thought of retiring at 55 on his/her BA pension.
(I hope we don't side-track this very interesting thread, but I couldn't let your comments pass without a response.)
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL
Sidetrack I know but thanks for your comments.
Whilst I appreciate the principle and right of legal representation I still find that the actions of a defence lawyer defending what is to everyone else the "indefensible" quite stomach churning, especially as (if I am correct) Defence Barristers command far greater salaries than their colleagues employed by the CPS.
If this is true it surely leads to the higher achievers being employed largely on the side of the defence and therefore giving the lesser desirables in our society a greater advantage in court?
Is it any wonder that the Police and CPS seem to have grave difficultly in securing convictions in what, on the face of it, seem pretty safe cases for the prosecution? Or is that symptematic of the make up and nature of our juries particularly in the Inner Cities? (source friends who are Police and one CPS Solicitor).
As for pay, the only Barrister that I am familiar with earns in excess of £250000pa. He defends mostly criminals involved in organised crime.
I'm told he does rather well! Good luck to him but the sour tatste remains in many peole's mouths at the though of such high rewards for ensuring our streets are populated by criminals??
Happy to recieve a pm if required.
Best wishes
NN
Sidetrack I know but thanks for your comments.
Whilst I appreciate the principle and right of legal representation I still find that the actions of a defence lawyer defending what is to everyone else the "indefensible" quite stomach churning, especially as (if I am correct) Defence Barristers command far greater salaries than their colleagues employed by the CPS.
If this is true it surely leads to the higher achievers being employed largely on the side of the defence and therefore giving the lesser desirables in our society a greater advantage in court?
Is it any wonder that the Police and CPS seem to have grave difficultly in securing convictions in what, on the face of it, seem pretty safe cases for the prosecution? Or is that symptematic of the make up and nature of our juries particularly in the Inner Cities? (source friends who are Police and one CPS Solicitor).
As for pay, the only Barrister that I am familiar with earns in excess of £250000pa. He defends mostly criminals involved in organised crime.
I'm told he does rather well! Good luck to him but the sour tatste remains in many peole's mouths at the though of such high rewards for ensuring our streets are populated by criminals??
Happy to recieve a pm if required.
Best wishes
NN
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, NN, you fall into error when you assert that
I'm afraid it's just not so. Most criminal defence lawyers are remunerated via the Legal Aid cheque. As a recipient of same from time to time, I can assure you that what Legal Aid pays doesn't even cover the costs of opening the office door in the morning. The only compensator in my experience is that Legal Aid, unlike some clients, does pay accounts promptly.
Defence lawyers command far greater salaries than their CPS colleagues
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It doesn't matter how much lawyers get paid for doing their job.
It doesn't matter that JS didn't read her T's and C's to discover she wasn't automatically entitled to 50% PTWK as a mother.
It doesn't matter that she lives in the middle of nowhere.
It doesn't matter that she 'leapfrogged' over more senior colleagues .
It doesn't matter how few hours she has.
It doesn't matter that she has no respect or feels no obligation for the employers who gave her a cadetship.
It doesn't matter how she became the second Mrs Starmer or her 'family values'.
It doesn't matter what she chooses to do next in her career; there are plenty of Airbus operators who will snap both her and her husband up - doubt if BA will ever employ their daughter(s) though.
................at the end of day, and yes it galls me, she brought an argument that was correct; in this country it is legal to have a career and a family irrespective of age or professional experience.
So legally correct but in my opinion oh so morally wrong but that is just my sense of british fair play; I've never seen the employer/employee thing as an US and THEM but more of a symbiotic relationship where trust and respect are earnt on both sides and not automatically given.
Nice girls finish last and JS is def winning!.
It doesn't matter that JS didn't read her T's and C's to discover she wasn't automatically entitled to 50% PTWK as a mother.
It doesn't matter that she lives in the middle of nowhere.
It doesn't matter that she 'leapfrogged' over more senior colleagues .
It doesn't matter how few hours she has.
It doesn't matter that she has no respect or feels no obligation for the employers who gave her a cadetship.
It doesn't matter how she became the second Mrs Starmer or her 'family values'.
It doesn't matter what she chooses to do next in her career; there are plenty of Airbus operators who will snap both her and her husband up - doubt if BA will ever employ their daughter(s) though.
................at the end of day, and yes it galls me, she brought an argument that was correct; in this country it is legal to have a career and a family irrespective of age or professional experience.
So legally correct but in my opinion oh so morally wrong but that is just my sense of british fair play; I've never seen the employer/employee thing as an US and THEM but more of a symbiotic relationship where trust and respect are earnt on both sides and not automatically given.
Nice girls finish last and JS is def winning!.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airrage - its legally OK to do all sorts of things that are not RIGHT. Are you suggesting that the law is the only arbiter of our world - that the law makers have thought of every possible thing?
Its not illegal cut your own leg off with a saw, but it doesn't mean because it isn't against the law you should do it without any recourse to morality or common sense.
Starmer has "cut the legs" off of future women pilots and of the company she works for. This was supported by BALPA, and paid for inpart by me
. Morally and decently it is wrong. Playing the law for an individuals advantage to the loss of all others in this case is not morally winnable.
Its not illegal cut your own leg off with a saw, but it doesn't mean because it isn't against the law you should do it without any recourse to morality or common sense.
Starmer has "cut the legs" off of future women pilots and of the company she works for. This was supported by BALPA, and paid for inpart by me
. Morally and decently it is wrong. Playing the law for an individuals advantage to the loss of all others in this case is not morally winnable.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been saying for sometime that BA will regret employing so many Cadets who have had no RAF experience.
Couple the cadet employment with the PC policy of employing women, in a profession that they clearly are not suited to, and look what happens.
Couple the cadet employment with the PC policy of employing women, in a profession that they clearly are not suited to, and look what happens.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Dear Chap
I am thrilled that my attitudes amuse you but I can assure you they are genuine.
I have nothing against these dear ladies, but not in the flight deck, especially one who has not "earned her crust" in Her Majesty's Armed Forces.
I am thrilled that my attitudes amuse you but I can assure you they are genuine.
I have nothing against these dear ladies, but not in the flight deck, especially one who has not "earned her crust" in Her Majesty's Armed Forces.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you check out Lord F's posts, he don't think guys should be in the cockpit either unless they've been in the military first. Extreme minority opinions like that don't do no harm, nobody takes them seriously.
It's women like Mrs Starmer that put the cause of women pilots back years. All take, no give. Compromise? Forget it. They make it harder for women to get sponsored training, worry companies about employing them and give ammo to the folk who're prejudiced against women pilots.
It's rough on women who ain't like that.
Just my two cents.
It's women like Mrs Starmer that put the cause of women pilots back years. All take, no give. Compromise? Forget it. They make it harder for women to get sponsored training, worry companies about employing them and give ammo to the folk who're prejudiced against women pilots.
It's rough on women who ain't like that.
Just my two cents.
I am a figment of my own imagination
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lord F_H is merely a passing angler casting an opportunistic fly. JS not a nice girl using the law to it's maximum with scant regard for anybody else but herself. Sadly also representative of a great number of the new generation.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Too far from the equator
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tip of the iceberg
If anyone thinks the Starmer story is bad , wait another couple of years. I have always been happy to fly with female pilots , they are no different to males - some good , some bad , some keen , some bored.
I do , however , think that BA got it badly wrong with the male/female balance of intakes in the late 90's. There were a disproportionate number of females being taken in. Surely noone can honestly claim that more of them were applying than males ?
However , that is all water under the bridge now.
The problem lying dormant at the moment is that , like J Starmer , most of these ladies will naturally want to start families at some stage. Nothing wrong with that , of course , but the demographics make it a little more complicated. There are over a hundred in the same age bracket , and they will mostly put off the kids until well established in BA , either as SFO's on long-haul or even captains on shorthaul.
It may not happen , but chances are that at least 30-40 will be pregnant at the same time , and all will be instantly grounded.
BA is used to dealing with large numbers of intakes/training , but I think this particular hiccup will provoke much soul-searching and finger-pointing. The politically correct brigade will not, of course , get it in the neck. The pity of it is , that BA were very slow to employ their first female crew , and, if my memory serves me correctly , it was not until the late 80's that they pinched some Direct Entry girls from Dan Air and then splashed them all over the papers as their own little triumph!They have mismanaged the PC thing ever since.
I do , however , think that BA got it badly wrong with the male/female balance of intakes in the late 90's. There were a disproportionate number of females being taken in. Surely noone can honestly claim that more of them were applying than males ?
However , that is all water under the bridge now.
The problem lying dormant at the moment is that , like J Starmer , most of these ladies will naturally want to start families at some stage. Nothing wrong with that , of course , but the demographics make it a little more complicated. There are over a hundred in the same age bracket , and they will mostly put off the kids until well established in BA , either as SFO's on long-haul or even captains on shorthaul.
It may not happen , but chances are that at least 30-40 will be pregnant at the same time , and all will be instantly grounded.
BA is used to dealing with large numbers of intakes/training , but I think this particular hiccup will provoke much soul-searching and finger-pointing. The politically correct brigade will not, of course , get it in the neck. The pity of it is , that BA were very slow to employ their first female crew , and, if my memory serves me correctly , it was not until the late 80's that they pinched some Direct Entry girls from Dan Air and then splashed them all over the papers as their own little triumph!They have mismanaged the PC thing ever since.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kotakota: ~ CAA UK figures ........ 11 000 male and 500 female
~ BA figures............... 2980 male and 152 female
Looks to me like BA hiring policy was a reflection of what was happening in the industry.
Looks to me like women don't have a 'toe in the door' never mind a foot.
The difference I believe between JS and most women pilots is that JS didn't establish herself in the company before taking maternity leave and then demanding 50%PTWK........as someone posted earlier 'all take and no give'.
~ BA figures............... 2980 male and 152 female
Looks to me like BA hiring policy was a reflection of what was happening in the industry.
Looks to me like women don't have a 'toe in the door' never mind a foot.
The difference I believe between JS and most women pilots is that JS didn't establish herself in the company before taking maternity leave and then demanding 50%PTWK........as someone posted earlier 'all take and no give'.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to mention that almost any article featuring flight crew in BAs in-house newspaper features a picture of a female pilot. Also the in-flight magazine 'pilot of the month' section features a woman every other month. BA, and one manager in particular, have been pushing the female pilot cause for at least 5 years and now its come back to bite them
