Say Something, Anything

My primary role in JRS, aside from the training, blogging and obvious position as a leader of unimpeachable moral authority, is to deal with the myriad of appeals on which we are instructed.
Any casual reader will be aware that at present the bulk of these relate to Financial Stewardship, supplemented by the occasion Peer Review failure and a current clutch of proposed CCLF recoupments.
In addition to that there are, at any one time, a handful of peculiar individual disputes about which clients seek advice. I tend not to blog about these as they are usually too specific and confidentiality is at risk. In under an hour this morning we have received 3 of these. Much as I would like to provide the details of at least 1 – because it, and our propose solution, is funny – I won’t however – solely to protect the innocent.
What does strike me, having been doing this for a long time, is that LSC respondents seem increasingly unconcerned about the coherence (or ever relevance) of their own arguments. Whether this is as a result of a dictate from on high – “do a speedy response, content immaterial, we will refuse the right of Formal review anyhow” – born out of post JR bloody mindedness, or alternatively as a result of ever decreasing staff moral and consequent indifference, remains to be seen. (I suspect the former as even good RMs are saying stupid things you would not expect from them).
Certainly the culture in which disputes were honestly and robustly argued, in an atmosphere of professional understanding and respect, seems to be a thing of the past.
Do we need a regular feature here, a bit like Colemanballs in Private Eye, in which we give such examples a wider airing? If you have any for publication you know the number!

About Author: SP

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *