Do we want what is fair or what is legal?

Do our law makers have the wisdom and foresight to tackle the big questions our society now faces? And, just as important, can they assert their authority over the 'Court of Public Opinion'?

Leveson, privacy and piracy

Last week Mr Justice Leveson likened Twitter and Facebook to pub chatter and confirmed that he did not intend to consider regulating them in the same way as the press. Their rise has been so recent that the likes of the NOTW probably didn't have the time to learn any social media dark arts. Yet they are not a legal problem-free phenomenon, and maybe Leveson knows not to bite off more than he can chew. Twitter users  crushed the superinjunction in 2011 (and arguably flipped the bird to the English courts in the process). The Internet has remarkable power in the hands of the general public. A single 'Dark Day' from Wikipedia and friends last month convinced several US law makers to change their minds on voting through the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the United States.

Writing in the Guardian about the Legal Aid Bill, Titan tweeter Lord Prescott warned that anti-hacking privacy claims (such as those brought by him and the likes of Sienna Miller, Brian Paddick and so on) would not be possible if no-win, no-fee arrangements are to be rewritten under the proposed legislation. He alleged that the politicians pushing the bill through Parliament have been unduly influenced by the insurance sector and media majors. Is he right? And what can/will the general public, with its growing recognition of its collective online power, do to halt the change?

Bonus culture and pension pots

The Court of Public Opinion certainly spoke loudly this past week in relation to the large bonus awarded to RBS chief executive Stephen Hester. It benefited from the intervention of politicians, of course: Ed Miliband obliged by raising the issue for Commons debate; while Vince Cable, Lord Myners (former 'City minister') and others stoked the fire. Despite a seemingly legitimate legal claim to the £963,000 share bonus, Hester felt compelled to decline the award. Commentators now speak of the whole of the City being under renewed pressure to hold back on bonuses or face a deeply unpleasant backlash from Austerity Britain.

The concept of the bonus itself is under attack - witness how London Underground staff are derided in the free papers so beloved of the commuting public for their demands for cash bonuses simply for showing up to work during the Olympics. Britons now openly ask the question: what is fair and reasonable remuneration? They are evidently prepared to contemplate the idea that employers may renege on payments contractually due to employees.

This is a question that will undoubtedly come before our judges, who themselves have just announced that they may take legal action if their own pension arrangements are altered. Certain public sector unions have already taken strike action on this issue, as have the workers who make Marmite. The argument goes, of course, that the public purse and the company pension funds cannot afford to keep the generous promises made by the politicians and execs of yesteryear.

How will we reconcile legal and fair?

Will our law makers - both judges and politicians - have to decide and then enforce what is legal in all these matters? Or, spurred on by the Hester - and now Goodwin - incidents, will public opinion beat them to it and demand outcomes that it perceives to be fair? Will the same rules be applied to banking execs as Tube drivers, teachers and senior officers of our courts? I am fascinated to see whether and in what ways public opinion will trump legal argument. I also wonder whether keen public debate will enable us to get beyond the gesture politics and simplistic newspaper reports that we have become so used to.