there is also always a danger responding to Pete and co sends the threads off in the same old, same old. But in a way Pete can demonstrate how the Kansas clerks approach the law that could only really be better represented if they were posting themselves. So to my mind it is relevant as long as it stays on topic. The real risk is that people respond in a way sends us all down that same old well worn path. Now Pete has shown us some of the things that he claims feed his sense of injustice , such as the narrowness of the vote. I question that: I believe his objections would be voiced every bit as strongly if the vote been unanimous. But I can also see how the closeness of the decision can be used to feed the sense of injustice. And it is clear that he does not appreciate that any sackings that might occur - have any actually taken place? - are to do with failing to do the job they have agreed to do and are being paid to do.

The law is the law: my view is that clerks and whoever are at liberty to break it as long as they are prepared to pay the price. I don't know what that is: if it is purely a fine then I think we can expect to see lots of law-breaking because there are plenty who are opposed who would cover the fines. On the other hand, if it involves leaving the job or imprisonment I think we will see many fewer cases.