Birmingham Post - Business Blog

Is "There's no smoke without fire" the worst phrase in the English language?

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:42:51 +0000

You may have seen press coverage recently of the newly-published autobiography of Dave Jones, now manager of Cardiff City. His story is not a happy one, although he emerges from it as someone of courage, dignity, forgiveness and basic human decency.

In 1999, when Mr Jones was the successful manager of Southampton, he was falsely accused of child abuse from a time when (in the mid 1980s) he worked part-time in a Merseyside school for children with educational and behavioural difficulties. The allegations were entirely made up - his (still anonymous) accusers admitted as much - by a group of former pupils at the school who were themselves in prison at the time. Despite there being no evidence against Mr Jones whatsoever, the allegations were made public, he lost his job and spent £400,000 clearing his name. His family went through goodness-only-knows-what trauma (including a visit from his local social services department to see whether his four children should be taken into care) and Mr Jones to this day endures deeply unpleasant chants from opposing 'fans' at grounds across the country. Tragically, Mr Jones believes that the news of his arrest caused his previously healthy father to fall into a coma from which he never recovered - something Mr Jones blames on the police leaking the story to the press.

And yet he was innocent. In addition to his accusers admitting that they concocted the whole thing (Mr Jones was one of a number of people against whom allegations were made, some of whom were wrongly imprisoned), one alleged at the trial that the police helped him to plug holes in his evidence.

At the end of the trial, the judge made a telling comment: "No doubt there will be people who are going to think there is no smoke without fire. I can do nothing about that except to say such an attitude would be wrong. No wrong-doing whatsoever on your part has been established."

If any good can come from this unpleasant tale, I would hope that society stops attributing guilt to people who have been accused (whether rightly or wrongly) but not found guilty of a crime. Lawyers, especially those involved in criminal defence work, are often pilloried for defending people who society assumes must be guilty. And yet, as Mr Jones's own experience shows, you only have to be falsely accused of a crime to appreciate the importance of the presumption of innocence in our legal system. As he himself admits "You know, that is a phrase that I used to use a lot. 'No smoke without a fire'. It just seems obvious that if there is a controversy surrounding someone, then something has to be wrong. But that is not a phrase you would hear me saying now. I have learnt the hard way that it is possible to be accused without there being a shred of truth". To help make the point, Mr Jones's book is simply called "No Smoke, No Fire".

That's not to say that those found guilty of crimes should not be punished in accordance with the law - rather, a serious plea that we avoid reaching our own judgment on people until the judicial process has run its course. I hope you agree.

So have you heard of Lord Lawrence Collins, Baron Collins of Mapesbury?

Fri, 29 May 2009 10:00:44 +0000

Unless you are a practising lawyer (or rather a practising lawyer who takes a keen interest in the identity of our senior judiciary), the answer may well be no. But, if you're interested, he's a very distinguished and successful commercial lawyer who has just been promoted to the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, the most important and powerful court in the UK (and, as it happens, for a number of Commonwealth countries as well).

This is actually quite important. Lord Collins has become one of the 12 most influential judges in the land, with the ability to make significant changes to the laws which govern your life. He is also the first solicitor to be appointed to the Judicial Committee and has enjoyed an incredibly successful and distinguished legal career combining academic brilliance (he edits the leading textbook on the conflict of laws - the complicated legal area governing the applicable principles when disputes involve both the law of England and Wales and that of another country) and commercial success, as this biography on Wikipedia suggests. I imagine that most interested commentators would consider his new role to be a thoroughly merited and deserved appointment.

Contrast this lack of fanfare regarding Lord Collins's appointment with the coverage in the American media of President Obama's decision to nominate Sonia Sotomayor to the US Supreme Court. Having spent five or so minutes on this web page of one of the main US broadcasters (picked entirely by random, other American news networks are available) and, in addition to Ms Sotomayor's academic and legal background, I know that she was born and raised in the South Bronx in a tough housing project, is inspired by her nurse mother (who raised her and her brother, now a doctor, single-handedly after their father's premature death) and her favourite baseball team is the New York Yankees.

I also know that her background is mainly in commercial law (as is Lord Collins's), which commentators consider may mean that the Republicans will struggle to challenge her appointment, although there is concern as to whether a recent ruling on affirmative action (which is itself about to be considered by the Supreme Court) is correct. There is also much debate as to whether the possible appointment of the first Hispanic to the Court is a great day in American history, or whether the Democrats making this point are conveniently forgetting when they blocked an earlier (and Republican) Hispanic appointee. The identity of senior judges matters in the US in a way that just doesn't happen on this side of the Pond.

I have always found the contrast between how the UK and the US appoint its judiciary fascinating. I know it's fashionable for Brits to knock America as being litigation crazy but, behind every headline about people suing McDonald's because they didn't realise that the coffee was hot (although this story would appear itself to be an urban myth), there is one of the most advanced and democratic legal systems in the world. We don't have to copy America, but I can't help but wish that we took a bit more interest in who is appointed to judge over our lives.

Is this the 'acceptable' face of sexism?

Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:03:12 +0000

I may be guilty of abusing the Post's hospitality with this blog, but I'd welcome people's thoughts on an issue that's really irking me at the moment. The cause of my discomfort - St Andrews in Scotland.

For those who don't know it, St Andrews is a charming, quirky and characterful place in an obscure corner of Fife comprising lots of golf courses, three beaches (including, famously, the one at the start of Chariots of Fire), more history than you can shake a stick at and a wonderful university where, too many years ago than I care to remember, I managed to persuade the examiners at the Department of Mediaeval History to award me a degree.

It's a decision of Dr Louise Richardson, the university's new principal - or rather the reaction to it - that has got me worked up. The furore centres around a student society - the Kate Kennedy Club - which exists to maintain the traditions of the university and the town, uphold and improve relations between the two and raise money for local charities. It is perhaps best known for its colourful and popular annual procession of famous people from the university's past. It also attracts controversy because it refuses to allow female members

Until recently, the Club had the official support of the university. Dr Richardson has decided to withdraw that support because the University can no longer endorse a club "from which so many of our students are excluded at birth". To quote further from the announcement of the decision: "The official endorsement of any club or society which excludes people because of their gender or race would be completely at odds with the values of this university, and our commitment to foster an open and inclusive international community of scholars and students in St Andrews."

I should stress that I wholeheartedly agree with the decision, not least for the reasons given in the previous paragraph. However, not everyone agrees. Some of the comments on this web-page are quite strident and there are even rival Facebook groups (supportive of the decision; and against).

All of which has led me to this blog. You may think it a bit odd that I still care so passionately about what goes on at my alma mater, but St Andrews is that sort of place. I also accept that in the grand scheme of global problems "University principal in equality furore" may not be front page news, but if you've read this far I hope I've tweaked your curiosity.

What genuinely surprises me is that in the 21st century (or in the 20th for that matter) there is a groundswell of opinion that discrimination on the grounds of gender is justifiable and that decisions taken in favour of equality are somehow political correctness gone mad. What do people think?

There's something weird in your neighbourhood, who you gonna call?

Mon, 26 Jan 2009 17:12:59 +0000

First, apologies if you clicked on this in the vague hope that it might be about Ghostbusters, that classic of 1980s cinema with the annoyingly catchy theme tune by Ray Parker Jr. It's actually about something altogether more real and (perhaps) more worrying than ghosts - our political leaders and what many of you may consider to be a rather scary trait that a lot of them seem to have in common.

The scary gang includes half the current leaders of the G8 group of countries - Presidents Obama and Sarkozy and Prime Ministers Berlusconi and Medvedev - as well as 2 of the last 5 British prime ministers (Thatcher and Blair) and 3 of the 7 American presidents before Mr Obama (Nixon, Ford and Clinton). And if you're from north of the 49th parallel, you deserve a special mention because Prime Minister Harper is the first Canadian leader not to be part of the club for nearly 40 years.

The connection? They're all lawyers. That's right; not economists (Prime Minister Harper again) or physicists (Germany's Chancellor Merkel) or businessmen (Japan's Prime Minister Aso) or academics-turned-journalists (our own Prime Minister) - but lawyers (or lawyer-turned-media-mogul-and-football-club-owner in Mr Berlusconi's case). This is the profession that's the butt of all of those "How do you tell when a lawyer's lying? They're moving their lips" jokes and which appears to engender the same sense of public warmth and affection (I accept I may be using these phrases out of context) as tax inspectors, estate agents and, in current times at least, bankers.

And yet the leading economic powers in the world, and many others, have a lengthy track record of electing lawyers as their leaders - with the 44th president of the United States being the latest example of that trend. All of which begs the question: why?

Apart from some flippant attempt at suggesting that there may be a link between the general unpopularity of both, I must admit that I'm not sure that I have an answer. I don't think that being a lawyer makes you any more or less qualified to run a country than doing something else; and I don't think lawyers are any more or less likely to be interested in politics than anyone else. But I do find the question intriguing. I also feel a bit sorry for the Canadians - 40 years of being run by lawyers seems a longer punishment than most judicial systems dish out for murder.

A "great and inspiring instrument"

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:17:49 +0000

Amid all of the news stories regarding the significant problems which face the planet as we approach the end of the first decade of the 21st century, a recent landmark anniversary of what many consider to be a major achievement of the previous century seems to have passed by relatively unnoticed.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was 60 years young on December 10th last year (in fact, Human Rights Day is 'celebrated' on the same day every year) but, given the general lack of press coverage, I think all but the most ardent of news junkies can be excused for missing the big event.

The idealist in me can't help but be saddened by this. The Declaration is an incredible document - in the words of the United Nation's third Secretary-General, U Thant, which I have borrowed for the title of this blog, a "great and inspiring instrument". It is well written, remarkably free of the pomposity that is all too common in legal documents and, most importantly of all, encapsulates some incredibly important rights. It also remains hugely relevant to life today. After all, it's not as if we live in a world that is free from human rights abuse. Indeed, nothing could be further from the truth. If the daily news isn't depressing enough, I would suggest Human Rights Watch's website for a comprehensive but sombre summary of mankind's current inhumanity to itself.

But the Declaration is far from perfect. Perhaps its biggest weakness is that, of itself, it doesn't have any significant legal effect. It isn't a convention or treaty which creates, or obliges its signatories to pass laws creating, legal rights and obligations. It's more of a statement of the signatories' intent; an intention that critics say has been followed up more by breach than observance in many cases.

In the UK, the Declaration was the original precursor to the European Convention on Human Rights and the relatively recent Human Rights Act. This act, which finally made express provision for human rights in UK law, has been particularly controversial, with various sensational stories about the law respecting the supposed rights of wrongdoers and criminals over and above innocent victims.

And these concerns do raise an important point about human rights. If they are to be protected, then the rights must apply equally to everyone, irrespective of whether or not that person would respect your rights in return. One of the many criticisms (and the Christmas Day blog from the Post's own Tom Scotney on this issue certainly packs a punch) which can be levelled at Channel 4 for its decision to allow Iran's President Ahmadinejad to deliver the alternative Christmas message was that this was allowing the president a platform which was in marked contrast to Iran's own record on human rights; in particular, its recent treatment of 2003 Nobel Peace Laureate, Dr Shirin Ebadi.

The question for us as a society is whether this sort of tension is worth the freedoms which underpin it. I firmly believe that it is. I hope you agree.

Time for New Priorities? Make it hurt the Banks more to push the Liquidiser Button.

Sun, 30 Nov 2008 14:01:01 +0000

(Blogged by David Bailey and John Clancy)

The government is making clear that 'Fairness' is the agenda which should drive the way we all deal with the consequences of the recession and how we get out of it. Business Secretary Peter Mandelson is also thinking about which strategic firms need to be saved.

As a consequence, we believe that Lord Mandelson now needs to take centre stage (in the same way Alistair Darling has recently) and deliver an Industry Rescue Statement to take emergency action before the recession bites too deeply.

He needs to commit the government to taking immediate action on how any Administration, Administrative Receiverships, and Liquidations actually take place to ensure that first priority is given to employees of a business instead of the business's bank.

The banks' attitude to small and medium-sized businesses in trouble over the last few months in particular is an indication that, yet again, they live in a bygone world and new emergency legislation is now required to ensure that they are brought up sharp and fairness is injected into the agenda: and fairness based upon what is good for the economy as a whole.

Trick or treaters could face up to 10 years in prison

Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:53:10 +0000

OK, I admit I may have exaggerated slightly but there is (I hope) method in my hyperbole. Of course, if you read this after Halloween it might be too late - you or your kids may already have committed a crime or crimes.

Here's why: trick or treat involves kids demanding something (it tends to be money, chocolate or both round my neck of the woods) from their neighbours. If you don't provide the treat, then a "trick" might be played on you. It's the trick, or the threat of it, which might result in a crime or crimes being committed.

And the risk applies to kids and parents alike. Children over the age of 10 can be guilty of crimes (between 10 and 14, they have to know what they are doing was illegal); and parents or guardians (indeed anyone) can be guilty of aiding, abetting or inciting a crime if, for example, they encourage or persuade someone to commit a crime (even where none is committed). So here are three possible crimes to get you thinking:

Deliberately trick or treating a home or family who you know dislike Halloween (perhaps on religious grounds) could constitute harassment and a possible 6 month jail sentence.

Destroying or damaging someone else's property (admittedly a particularly nasty trick) can amount to criminal damage. In very serious cases - a really, really, nasty trick if you like - you can face imprisonment of up to 10 years, although 3 months and/or a fine of up to £2,500 is more common.

Heck - and I must admit to having missed this lecture at college - "wilfully and wantonly" disturbing someone by ringing their doorbell "without lawful excuse" is also a crime punishable by a fine. So don't ring the door of someone you know doesn't want to play ball.

And if you think that's all a bit extreme, the mind boggles at the possible offences when kids try to raise money for a Guy, bonfire and some fireworks...but that's another story.

A happy Halloween to one and all.

Seeing Brum as others see us

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:06:19 +0000

I have just read this article by Matthew Parris, the former MP and distinguished columnist, which was written during the recent Tory Party Conference.

A significant chunk of those attending seem to have avoided Brum for the best part of 20 years or so. The main thrust of the article is that most of the conference was pleasantly surprised to find that Brum is a really nice city and that Brummies are really friendly. Mr Parris also contrasts "the light and space and the indefinable modesty of Birmingham" with Manchester's "snivelling swagger".

The comments on the article make interesting reading, with a number of disgruntled Mancunians raising strong objections and a number of other people suggesting that this is just another example of a London-centric journo patronising the provinces.

I will leave it to Manchester to defend its own honour - my main point is to disagree with those Brummies who feel patronised. Although I can understand where they are coming from, I think the article is good news. What's wrong with a (admittedly London-based) high-profile journalist who hasn't been to our city in ages forming a great impression of the place and telling the rest of the country about it?

Ever since I've moved here, I have received "jokey" comments from friends and family about Brum. And let's face it, if your main impressions of the city are formed by the views from either Spaghetti Junction or New Street Station, you're unlikely to have a positive opinion. I would suggest that the challenge for our civic leaders is to ensure that, on his next visit, Mr Parris can't help but comment even more favourably. At least he didn't compare us (in contrast to Manchester) to a "celestial public lavatory" from which I can only assume that he didn't park his car in one of our less than salubrious city centre car parks.

The credit crunch - Catch-22 for the 21st century?

Thu, 09 Oct 2008 11:02:28 +0000

Am I the only person to wonder whether there is a potentially worrying paradox at the heart of the rescue packages being cooked up by global governments and central banks? Here's what I mean:

• In simple terms, the credit crunch has been caused by banks lending money to one another. The problem is that the loans were "bad" as opposed to "good".

• Banks have now stopped lending to each other. The lack of funds to enable global business to happen is causing severe problems all over the world. Rather scarily, you get 1.14 million hits in a quarter of a second if you type "economic meltdown" into Google (call me superstitious if you will, but I didn't feel like using the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button when I conducted that experiment).

• The "solution" is to enable banks to lend to one another again.

• But banks lending to one another was what caused the problem in the first place.

• So, doing nothing causes "economic meltdown" and doing something has the potential to create an even bigger problem.

I suppose we've all got to hope that the global banking community has learned its lessons. And we might take some comfort from the promise that national and international regulators won't let things get so bad again. The problem is not banks lending money to one another per se; that is an economic necessity in the 21st century economy. They just have to make better lending decisions.

That having been said, I'm not sure that Alistair Darling or Henry Paulson had any other viable alternative. One the apparent universal truths in messes like this is that it is never the people who took the bad decisions who seem to suffer. A global economic meltdown would have far more serious consequences for the average man and woman in the street (who Sarah Palin calls "Joe Six Pack and Hockey Moms" in what may show a marked lack of appreciation of the true diet and exercise regimes of a lot of people in the industrial world) than it would for (with apologies for the stereotype) the Ferrari-driving-champagne-swilling-bonus-earning City trader who helped contribute to the problem.

I'm sure I'm not alone in wishing as speedy a resolution as possible to the crisis. For what it's worth, I'd also quite like an apology from the traders who got us into this mess in the first place.

The risks of buying a camera on eBay

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:19:26 +0000

In all the brouhaha surrounding the ongoing problems in the world economy and (in Brum at least) the Tory Party conference, a rather odd story appears to have avoided as much coverage as it perhaps deserves.

It concerns the bizarre tale of a 28-year old delivery man in Hemel Hempstead and a camera he had bought on eBay and taken on holiday. On his return to Blighty, he downloaded his holiday snaps only to find pictures of rocket launchers and missiles which he definitely hadn't taken. He then went to his local police station, where, according to reports, the story was initially treated as a joke.

Imagine the poor chap's surprise when Special Branch descended on his home a few days later - interviewing him and his family on 5 separate occasions - before allegedly seizing his camera and computer (which were replaced at a cost to the public purse of £1,000). It turns out that, in addition to the rockets and missiles (which might be on their way to al-Qaeda), the camera is supposed to have contained details of al-Qaeda cells in the UK as well as the encrypted computer system used by MI6 agents working abroad.

Leaving aside my concerns that this appears to be the latest in a seemingly never-ending-list of 'confidential information found in laptop' stories - but how on earth did this happen? - one particular aspect of the story gives the lawyer in me significant cause for concern: I don't think that Special Branch had any right to confiscate his computer. This may well contain all sorts of personal information from the trivial (his favourite music) to the more serious (bank accounts) which are none of the police's business.

We are all entitled to private lives and this bloke had done absolutely nothing wrong. In fact, he appears to have acted in an entirely proper and civically-minded manner. The disruption to his private life and invasion of his privacy seem entirely disproportionate.

In making this point, I hope I am not coming across as naïve. Security and the need to protect us from terrorism is of huge importance, and will inevitably involve restrictions on our freedoms from time to time. However, the police's actions in this case seem over-the-top. Having satisfied themselves that the bloke hadn't committed a crime and wasn't a threat to national security, why didn't they remove the photos from the computer and leave things there?

I end with an apology for the fact that this blog is somewhat circumspect in its factual summary. That's because the police have forbidden the "shocked family" from speaking to the media. I can't help but wonder if he's hoping that the computer doesn't end up on eBay in a few months' time.

Should we take kids on holiday during term-time?

Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:14:01 +0000

Whilst I don't have kids of my own, and so have not yet faced the dilemma, I am aware of the difficulties many parents face paying the mark up which travel firms charge during the school holidays. And whilst watching the coverage of holidaymakers stranded by the collapse of XL over the weekend, I was struck by how many of the families affected had children who would otherwise be at school.

In England, government policy is to allow up to 10 days of term time holiday per year, although individual schools' rules may vary and you need the school's permission in any event.

Opinion is divided as to whether or not it is a good idea. On the one hand, the educational purists argue that taking kids out of school is not to be condoned at any cost and that maximising a child's educational opportunities has to be the priority. The government is certainly not in favour. On the other, there is a strong argument that travel can broaden the mind and that it is better to have some experience of travel (be it within the UK or abroad) in term time rather than none at all.

It is certainly a contentious issue. Lots of parents feel that they are priced out of the holiday market at peak times; the travel industry responds by arguing that prices are simply a reflection of supply and demand - holidays will cost more during busy periods.

A key concern for me is the question of how it all affects the child in question. We are fortunate enough to live in a first-world economy which provides schooling for everyone - although I must admit to not feeling that fortunate on a number of occasions during my time at school. Education presents everyone with a fantastic opportunity - and in simple terms, the better you do, the more choices you have as to your chosen career when you are older. Maybe my views will change in time, but I would have thought that the potential benefits of making the best of your education outweigh those to be gained from two weeks in the sun.

Does Brum need its own Boris Johnson?

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:10:30 +0000

Say what you want about London's mayor, and Boris appears to have friends and foes in equal measure, but you can't argue with the fact that he is a high-profile figure Just look at the press comment following his cameo at the closing ceremony in Beijing - he seems to have the knack of increasing the press comment on London simply as a result of being Boris.

Which got me thinking: would Brum benefit from having its own directly-elected Mayor?

Central government is certainly keen on the idea. A recent white paper, with the admittedly less-than-snappy title of Communities in Control: Real People, Real Powers , is the first step in its latest effort to encourage more of us to have referendums on whether or not to have elected mayors. Only 13 towns and cities do so at the moment, and the powers-that-be appear a bit stumped as to why more of us haven't jumped on the bandwagon.

After all, even without the changes proposed in the white paper (which may not become law), mayoral campaigners did not have to overcome particularly steep obstacles in order to force a referendum on the issue - all you currently need is 5% of the local population to sign a petition. 7 referendums have taken place since 2004 and only one - Torbay - was successful.

One problem appears to be a lack of interest in the issue amongst the electorate - only 18% of the voters in Bury bothered to vote in their referendum earlier this year (but 60% of those who did rejected the idea). A similar explanation may well apply to the Birmingham Mail's unsuccessful campaign earlier this year - it only raised 12,000 of the 36,000 signatures it needed. The government's response in the white paper? Only require 2% of the population to ask for a referendum.

So are elected mayors a good thing? The answer perhaps depends on who's mayor. Paul Dale, the Post's public affairs editor, is a fan. The main arguments in favour: a powerful figure with a clear electoral mandate has to be better than the slightly haphazard committee system of obscure backroom deals we have at the moment (see Paul's blog for a detailed explanation of how Brum is currently governed) and may spark greater interest in how the city is run. The main argument against? No-one appears to be that bothered.

What do people think?

The new homes conundrum

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:53:53 +0000

Imagine that in July of last year you were deciding on what career to pursue. You may have thought that building new houses sounded like a sure-fire winner. The government had just announced that 3 million new homes needed to be built by 2020 (with 2 million of those to be built by 2016). What's more, they were going to be zero carbon and sustainable, suitable for the environmental problems faced in the twenty-first century and helping to save 15 tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2050. In other words, an exciting and dynamic industry producing not only a much-needed product but doing so in an exciting and innovative way. Sounds like an ideal industry for someone looking for an exciting and varied career.

What a difference 12 months makes. Now is not a good time to be a housebuilder. Significant job losses and redundancies have been announced (at least 5,000 in the last few weeks), share prices are in free fall and, to quote one managing director, "It's sh#t out there and getting sh#ttier by the day and there's no sign of when the sh#t is going to lift."

This raises the very simple question (to which there doesn't seem to be an obvious answer): why on earth has this happened? Although the credit crunch has made finance less available and more expensive, that does not seem of itself to be a sufficient explanation as to why such an industry whose product is in so much demand should be in such difficulties. There is lots of talk of bubbles bursting (which strikes me as a bit too trite to be really convincing) and of the speed of collapse taking everyone by surprise, but I can't be the only one who thinks the whole situation is both desperately tragic and somewhat bizarre.

We live in a country with lots of people, too little space and an inadequate housing stock. We need more (and better houses) and yet our (previously very successful) housebuilding industry is staring over the abyss of what is being decribed as the biggest fall in house prices since the Great Depression.

Caroilne Flint, the Housing Minister, recently announced plans to rejuvenate the sector including 'rent now, buy later' schemes for first-time buyers with a household income of less than £60,000 as well as committing to buying unsold housing from the private sector for affordable homes but concerns remain as to whether this will be enough.

In all of the confusion, one thing is certain. If the country is to have 3 million new homes by 2020, we need people to design and build them. We need our housebuilders to stay in business.

Read this before suing your builder

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 18:48:31 +0000

One of the (rather unpleasant) clichés of life as a lawyer is that economic hardship can be good for business. During boom times, lawyers who specialise in running disputes supposedly twiddle their thumbs as deal after deal is drafted and negotiated. Everyone is too busy trying to do the next deal to worry about what might have gone wrong in the last one. When the deals dry up, or so the thinking goes, people start re-examining the bottom line and dispute work takes off.

The truth is rather more mundane, but it's against that background that I offer the cautionary tale of Mr and Mrs Western. In 2005, they bought a new house in Essex. It had problems - about £20,000 worth. Because it was a brand new house, the Westerns had the benefit of insurance from the National House Builders Council - the NHBC. This contains a dispute resolution procedure which Mr and Mrs Western followed. They won, which is how we know the cost of putting things right.

However, the Westerns had also employed a building surveyor to help them with their case. His fees came to £7,000 and the Westerns wanted to be compensated for that expense. The builder was more than happy to fix the dodgy work, it just didn't want to pay the £7k as well.

Here's where things started to go wrong for the Westerns. They tried what they thought was the proper next step and appointed an arbitrator to decide things. The builder disagreed - both sides in a dispute need to agree to arbitration and the builder denied ever reaching any agreement. The dispute revolved around the precise wording of the NHBC documents. Ultimately, it went all the way to the High Court for a judge to decide whether or not the arbitration should proceed.

The judge agreed with the builder. In his judgment last month he found against the Westerns and ordered them to pay just over half of the builder's costs of taking the case to court (these came to £4k).

To make matters worse, the judgment explains that the builder had not actually been back to the Westerns' house in the meantime. They had refused him entry until the question of the surveyor's fees was resolved.

So, over a period of about two years, Mrs and Mrs Western have lived in a duff house, been through three different dispute resolution processes and, despite their underlying case being strong (the house has faults which the builder has agreed to put right), are over £11,000 out of pocket (they will have their own solicitor's costs on top of the surveyor's fees and the £4k paid to the builder).

Litigation is a risky business. It's great when it works; and more often than not a nightmare when it doesn't. The Westerns must be wondering what they have let themselves in for.

Are we talking ourselves into recession?

Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:34:30 +0000

Last Thursday, I was a guest at Drivers Jonas's annual crane survey for Birmingham. As its name suggests, this is a review of development in Brum's city core (measured by the number of cranes in the skyline) over the past 12 months. The survey results themselves were upbeat. This isn't a surprise (or shouldn't be) - there have been (and continue to be) lots of cranes in the sky.

And the survey wasn't all doom and gloom for the next 12 months. Although the residential market is going to slow significantly (just how many more studio apartments does the city centre need?), there is plenty of Grade A office space coming on stream.

However, the people I talked to over breakfast were uniformly downbeat about prospects for the next 12 to 24 months. Predictions ranged from the jokey - "I will be spending a lot of the next 12 months reducing my golf handicap" - to the downright suicidal - "It's 1929 all over again".

It's not just Brum's property and construction industries that are worried. A quick scan of the headlines suggests that people are concerned about at least some or all of the following: house prices are falling; interest rates are on the up; the price of fuel and food is increasing radically; you can't get a mortgage for love nor money; America's economy seems to be in an even worse state than ours; and the great and the good all seem to be predicting doom and gloom.

If you believe the pessimists, we are either in recession already or headed that way at a rate of knots. But, with all the authority I can muster from having got an A in an economics exam 21 years ago, I'm not so sure.

Hopefully more persuasively. I've also come across this very interesting article by Anotole Kaletsky in which he (with a lot more authority, knowledge and ability than I can) challenges the assumption that America is in recession. His basic argument is that a downturn in the housing and banking industries is just that: a downturn (albeit a painful one) but not a recession.

I can't help but wonder if the same argument doesn't apply to the UK. That's not to decry the difficulties people are facing, or that we live in challenging times, but are we really in recession? To pinch the definition used in Kaletsky's article - "A recession is a significant decline in activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, visible in industrial production, employment, real income and wholesale-retail trade. A recession influences the economy broadly and is not confined to one sector." - the argument goes that we have not actually seen evidence of that.

Which brings me onto the question posed at the start. If we are not actually in recession, isn't there a danger that we will convince ourselves that things are worse than they really are? What do people think?