Anyway

I think Tamsin should be thanked for her hard work over the past 3 years. I don't think anyone is blaming Tamsin for the decisions of Pitchford or Mitting. If she has that impression I think we need to assure her that, that is not the case.

Whatever is happening between Jane and Tamsin is quite odd. The less said the better I think.

i didn't send it yet, and today this email turned up from Shamik: Dear all,

I've been waiting for instructions and am now in a position to reply on
this issue.

Since the meeting on 7 March none of my clients has expressed any
objection to Tamsin continuing as co-ordinator for the group. I would echo
what Ruth has said, it is a difficult and time consuming task which Tamsin
has done well. RLRs other than Tamsin are generally not funded to attend
preliminary hearings - so far - but have either attended (or boycotted)
whenever instructed to do so; being co-ordinator does not place Tamsin's
clients at any advantage and has not disadvantaged any of my clients.

The co-ordinator issue will need to be discussed at a meeting of CPs and
RLRs after the 21 March hearing by which time I anticipate other lawyers
will have taken their own clients instructions.

For the time-being Stafford has asked me to pass on the following with a
request for a discussion after the 21 March hearing:

         **  "As far as the issue concerning Tamsin's representation of

another client is concerned that's a matter for her and her
clients. Working together with other CPs has not been not
plain sailing but as far as I have seen Tamsin has been
doing a good job at holding it all together.

The email from the spycops communication group refers to a "meeting of
CPs" that took place on 20 January. This was not a meeting of all CPs, I
didn't attend. Please could the spycops communication group confirm how
many CPs and lawyers attended the meeting in January where the change of
co-ordinator role was discussed? Please ask them to circulate the minutes
of that meeting including how the decision on rotation and also 2-year
period was arrived at. The only minutes I've seen are of the legal update
meeting where the word "diversity" is mentioned at the end but there's no
context. For them to refer to diversity now, after we have been chastising
them for the lack of diversity for the past 3- 4 years is patronising to
the point of almost being offensive.

There is a difference between a group of CPs (COPS/spycops communications
group etc) expressing a view - which is no problem - and that group
claiming to speak for and communicate with all CPs, which has happened
here and has happened in the past. They are overstepping the mark here. No
group exists that represents/speaks for or can speak to all CPs."**

Shamik

Rotating the role of co-ordinator is a no brainer.