Friday 10 May 2024

‽istis ponders ‘reasonable’ (weekending May 11th 2024)

 

‽istis ponders ‘reasonable’ (weekending May 11th 2024)

This weekending ‽istis has pondered ‘reasonable’ and ‘reasonableness’, triggered initially by reading the UK Government latest guidance for CICs (‘Community Interest Companies’).[i]

Under the section ‘Your Community’, the following can be found:

‘The CIC legislation states that any group of individuals may constitute a community if they share a common characteristic and a reasonable person might consider that they constitute a section of the community.’ (my italics)

‘However, a company which benefits a group which may be clearly defined, but which a reasonable person might not consider to be a genuine section of the community (e.g. “my family”, “my friends”, or “regular drinkers of ABC beer”), is unlikely to be eligible to be a CIC.’

In the section on Directors’ remuneration there is this:

‘CIC directors’ remuneration should never be more than is reasonable…’ (my italics)

Thinking also about risk assessments has also led to further consideration of ‘reasonableness’, not least in relation to reasonable precautions, mitigations or control measures to reduce hazards, reduce the likelihood of danger arising from hazards or the severity of impact should something occur.

Wondering where else ‘reasonable’ and ‘reasonableness’ might be referenced, a basic internet search came up with these:

·         General definition: a) ‘based on or using good judgment and therefore fair and practical’, e.g: ‘If you tell him what happened, I'm sure he'll understand - he's a reasonable man.  He went free because the jury decided there was a reasonable doubt about his guilt.’

b) ‘acceptable’, e.g: ‘We had a reasonable journey. We have a strong team and a reasonable chance of winning the game.’[ii]

·         Legal definition: ‘just, rational, appropriate, ordinary or usual in the circumstances. It may refer to care, cause, compensation, doubt (in a criminal trial), and a host of other actions or activities.’[iii]  And this definition is followed by definitions of specific types of reasonable, including: ‘reasonable doubt’, ‘reasonable care’, reasonable reliance’, reasonable speed’, ‘reasonable wear and tear’.

·         ‘Any attempt to understand the use of the notion of ‘reasonable’ in international legal discourse starts with a recognition of a profound ambiguity, which is reflected in this quotation from a decision of the International Court of Justice: ‘What is reasonable… in any given case must depend on its circumstances.’[iv] 

·         ‘Reasonable adjustments for workers with disabilities or health conditions. Employers must make reasonable adjustments to make sure workers with disabilities, or physical or mental health conditions, are not substantially disadvantaged when doing their jobs.’ UK Equality Act 2010/.

For example in relation to people who are disabled: ‘Reasonable adjustments can mean alterations to buildings by providing lifts, wide doors, ramps and tactile signage, but may also mean changes to policies, procedures and staff training to ensure that services work equally well for people with learning disabilities.’[v]

And then ‽istis pondered who a ‘reasonable person’ might be.

·     The ‘Ministry of Injustice’ website[vi] suggests that ‘The history of the reasonable person test began in the old English law and was first used in a civil lawsuit Vaughn v. Menlove in 1837’ which includes the notion of a ‘prudent’ person:   ‘An action lies against a party for so negligently constructing a hay-rick on the extremity of his land, that in consequence of its spontaneous ignition, his neighbour's house is burnt down. And upon pleas of not guilty, and that there was no negligence, held, that it was properly left to the jury to say whether the Defendant had been guilty of gross negligence, viewing his conduct with reference to the caution that a prudent man would have observed.’

And what appears to be one subjective term bumps into another: prudence… 

From another source which also highlights the use of the term in legal matters:

‘Did the person show the same level of care and caution as an ordinary person would in similar circumstances? Essentially, this is the question posed to the jury when applying the reasonable person standard.’

- and - 

‘The reasonable person is different from the average person. The average person may not always be reasonable.’[vii]

It seems interesting that this source (Prosper Law) suggests that: 

‘The reasonable person test is purely objective…’ explaining ‘the defendant’s specific knowledge (is) irrelevant. What matters is what a reasonable person should have known, what actions would have been reasonable in the given circumstances, and what steps the defendant took.’ ‘A reasonable person is someone who acts how most people in their community would act in a specific situation.’

But ‽istis is not sure how we might know how most people in a community would act…

And all of this has led ‽istis to wonder what most people would do if they were:

·      the President of Russia when contemplating the future of the ‘special military operation’/war against Ukraine[viii]

·      the UK Chancellor and Prime Minister looking to find the money to fund the 'Rwanda scheme' in an attempt to ‘stop the boats’[ix]

·      asked today to vote to stay in or leave the EU[x]

·      the President of the United States considering the continuation of the supply of weapons to Israel[xi], the Prime Minister of Israel contemplating widening/deepening an assault in Rafah

·      a 'hopeless and broken' despairing member of The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)[xii] 

and you might like to add your own specific situations that come to mind.

‘Most people would…' seems a pretty important notion!

Links to democratic processes and the common ‘50%+1’ threshold criteria for ‘winning’ (or to qualify as a majority, or 'most') will need further pondering, but perhaps it is no wonder that the capacity to influence, to persuade, to create consensus, to shape the zeitgeist[xiii] (not least through social media or publicity or information or propaganda - delete as appropriate) - seems such a sought-after power…

And ‽istis wonders whether you consider yourself ‘reasonable’; whether you do what most people would do…  and then whether that is always a good thing‽[xiv]  

©‽istis

NB: further reflections and comments linked to this week’s theme and past blog entries to be found on X/Twitter with replies, retweets (which don’t necessarily indicate approval, sometimes the very opposite!) and ‘likes’: @Pistis_wonders.  X/Twitter ‘follows’ and respectful comment and dialogue welcome...  


[iii] https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?typed=reasonable&type=1

[v] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reasonable-adjustments-a-legal-duty/reasonable-adjustments-a-legal-duty

[xi] https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/09/middleeast/biden-weapons-deliveries-israel-reaction-intl/index.html & https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-news-04-30-2024-f5e14fd176d69f9c4e23b48f3ab5af6a  

[xii] https://www.ipcc.ch/ & https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperature: 

'Hundreds of the world’s leading climate scientists expect global temperatures to rise to at least 2.5C (4.5F) above preindustrial levels this century, blasting past internationally agreed targets and causing catastrophic consequences for humanity and the planet, an exclusive Guardian survey has revealed.

Almost 80% of the respondents, all from the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), foresee at least 2.5C of global heating, while almost half anticipate at least 3C (5.4F). Only 6% thought the internationally agreed 1.5C (2.7F) limit would be met.

Many of the scientists envisage a “semi-dystopian” future, with famines, conflicts and mass migration, driven by heatwaves, wildfires, floods and storms of an intensity and frequency far beyond those that have already struck.

Numerous experts said they had been left feeling hopeless, infuriated and scared by the failure of governments to act despite the clear scientific evidence provided.

“I think we are headed for major societal disruption within the next five years,” said Gretta Pecl, at the University of Tasmania. “[Authorities] will be overwhelmed by extreme event after extreme event, food production will be disrupted. I could not feel greater despair over the future.” '

Thank you Damian Carrington, The Guardian Environment Editor.

[xiii] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/zeitgeist

[xiv] Defining what is ‘good’ or ‘right’ – a work in progress; oh, and while we are at it: what do you mean by ‘what’…‽ Is is, is? Well it might be if might is might… Darkened room lie down beckons - perhaps, possibly, maybe save for those who are fighting in Ukraine; on a small boat; rueing loss of apparent advantages linked with EU membership and perhaps feeling duped; homeless or grieving in the Holy Land; consumed with frustration and a sense of powerlessness despite/because of knowing the findings from climate science, etc. and the so many, many people who may be facing situations and experiences that most reasonable people might find unreasonable…   


at

‽istis ponders a pause (weekending July 27th 2024)

  ‽istis ponders a pause (weekending July 27 th 2024) This weekending ‽istis is pondering a pause, after 5 years of weekly posts (aside f...