On Aug 25, 11:40*pm, " wrote:
On Aug 23, 12:34 am, John B wrote:





On 22 Aug, 18:00, Edward Cowling London UK

wrote:
He is a rare example of a union leader who actually does his job
instead of chasing a knighthood.

His job is to pointlessly victimise millions of Londoners?

His job is to protect the interests of his members. If victimising
Londoners is, in his view, the best thing to do to protect his members
his duty is clear.

Personally, I think it's a short term attitude that will bite him later.

Well yes, because that attitude has given such a good future to the
miners, British car workers, etc !!

I can still remember the Fiat advert having a go at British Leyland
(remember them). It was "Built by robots, not by Robo's".

Soon the anecdote will be about Public Sector public transport (remember
them) ?!

I know this is my second plug of the week, but (partly inspired by MIG
here) I wrote a piece along those lines for one of my more serious
writing gigs the other day:http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/200...to-dislike-bob...

The comments are interesting - they're a good reminder that while the
skilled-well-paid-craft-union element of the RMT rankles, the union
does also stick up for the poor sods who get paid a quarter of a
driver's salary to clean up Metros and puke.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot orgwww.johnband.org-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have been away for a few days, so was unable to reply before now.

The person who replied that to criticise Bob Crow for representing his
members' "interests" is akin to criticising defence lawyers for
defending murderers is quite wrong. I am a (largely) defence lawyer
(barrister). *If my client who is accused of murder tells me that he
committed the offence but can I please get him off anyway will be met
with the simple reply: I cannot represent him on a "not guilty" plea
if he is guilty.

I never suggested that you would. You would get the best deal that
you could in the circumstances. Might plead mitigation, draw
attention to lack of evidence of premeditation etc etc. The point is
that the murderer gets representation, and it's someone's job to
provide it.

The corollary of that is, when Bob Crow's members
come to him with some ridiculous claim he should tell them where to
get off. *It is quite wrong to suggest that defence lawyers are simply
paid mouthpieces without the abilty, indeed duty, to advise their
clients accordingly.

It's equally wrong to claim that a union would support a member with a
riduculous claim. They can't afford it, for a start.