Sorry but I feel I need to get this off my chest.

In the case of 'Thomas and others' about ICA/SDA and equal treatment between men and women in matters of social security, Slade LJ presented opinion on the concept of the "Principle of Proportionality, the Spirit of rather than the letter of the law and, the Aim in View of legislation". On reading this decision I was filled with a new enthusiasm for the job in the certain knowledge that representatives would now hold another string of authority at appeals/revision/supersession etc. etc. etc. Armed with these concepts, I pursued cases with and without a European dimentions.

Just occasionally - but only occasionally, a tribunal Chair or two has paid 'lip service' but little else to proportionality and none to the other aspects. Appeals to Commissioners have proven even less fruitful as this of seed of promise has shrivelled on the dry gound of apparent disinterest or, one is reluctant to suggest, lack of understanding.

Did I over-estimate the importance of these concepts or or did I simply misunderstand? Is it now time to re-invigorate these points at appeals? Am I alone or are there others out there who feel disappointed by the impotence of what should be important and helpful principles? NAWRA workshop perhaps?

There, I feel beter now I've said that. Thank you.