If only I could find my training shoes

I’m not a runner. I can’t think of anything worse than deliberately choosing to go out to pound down a pavement in my running gear, crippled with a stitch, sweaty of groin, moist of brow, with that hot coppery sensation of burning lungs struggling against cold air. (Ah – the memories of P.E. at school. What a joy it is to have escaped that misery.)

However, I don’t live a million miles away from where this Parkrun malarkey has been taking place. I’m astounded at the extent to which the public seem to have got their knickers (or should that be leotard?) in a twist over this.

What I’ve really struggled with is why the public has reacted in the way they have. The parish council never said to Parkrun, or its members, that they couldn’t run in the park. They simply said, you can either pay a nominal fee for running together as a group – to cover hogging the changing facilities, showers etc. – or you’ll have to run in the park as individuals.

Personally, as a pedestrian who chooses to use my legs and feet as God intended, i.e. by walking, I’m not a huge fan of being swarmed by a large group of red-faced and sweaty individuals as I walk down the pavement or through a park. Single runners or those in twos (or even threes) are much less intimidating.

I’m all for encouraging society to get (or keep) fit and if huffing and puffing round a park is your thing, so be it. But if you want to do it in a huge group at the same time, and that group hogs the facilities paid for by parish council funds, don’t get all high and mighty about the prospect of being asked to pay a nominal fee.

As Dan Jones neatly summarised in the London Evening Standard:

[…] Parkrun […] encourages people to do something which, if had they any gumption, they could do for themselves: put one foot before the other and don’t stop until you feel quite ill.

[B]ecause we live in an age of communal bleating and acquired victimhood, [the prospect of Parkrun being charged] has caused an outbreak of toga-tearing and hiccupping grief across the country, oxygenated by that symposium of the feeble-minded which we collectively call social media.

[T]he childish over-reaction in this instance masks a basic unwillingness on the part of adults to act proportionately or independently. Run for a fee in the park, or run for free elsewhere. It isn’t a big deal.

Either way, get a f***ing grip.

Well said.

Can the gender pay gap give rise to a claim?

Guest Post

In July 2015 the Government launched an open consultation on the gender pay gap which currently sits at 19.1%. That means that for every £1 earned by a man, a woman will earn 81p.

Even though this is the lowest differential ever recorded it still demonstrates that the gender pay gap in the UK still needs addressing.

Ever since the Equal Pay Act was launched in 1976 it has been illegal for men and women to be paid differently for doing the same work; however this doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen.

This then raises the important question which is, given that this legislation has been in place for almost 40 years to prevent this type of discrimination at work, if it is still happening what sort of claims process will be available to individuals falling foul of this discrimination?

The open consultation aims to task organisations with more than 250 employees to publish gender pay information. The CBI are pushing back on this stating that the current voluntary approach for companies to disclose this information is working well enough and that the numbers of women on corporate boards has actually increased.

This remains an area to be debated.

Ultimately the Government is looking for ideas that will encourage women to seek higher status careers, support older working women - where the pay gap is particularly high, and to comprehensively modernise the workplace. A move to more flexible working is being studied as a way of progressing women into higher profile jobs with more earning power and companies are to be encouraged to seek flexible working options when advertising for senior positions.

David Cameron has stated that he wants to eliminate the gender pay gap ‘in a generation’. Historically, UK businesses have been evasive in disclosing the pay gap between their male and female colleagues so it will be interesting to see how the open consultation develops and how this may affect employment law in the future.

Of course as it is illegal to pay people differently for the same role based on their gender, when this data becomes available it raises the prospect of potential legal claims against discriminatory employers. How many of them there are and whether these claims will be successful remains to be seen but inevitably there will be test cases.

The most likely scenario will lie with individuals who are no longer in employment with the business as people who choose to sue their employer whilst still in employment could face further discrimination at work. This scenario is probably the most common that will be encountered and raises a huge number of conflicts. Employers will be keen to avoid this scenario and employees will, in most cases, be unwilling to antagonise an employer who might then find there are reasons for letting that individual go.

The entire process is fraught with difficulties and the need to professional legal advice will be paramount if awkward situations like this are to be avoided.

Interesting times lie ahead….

The Purpose of Disability Benefits

Guest Post

Disability benefits are set in motion to help people who suffer from unforeseen illnesses and injuries. A wide variety of situations may qualify a person to receive disability benefits. A worker who develops a severe illness or gets involved in an accident can qualify for disability. Many employers supply their employees with disability benefits as part of their benefits packages. The disability benefits cover a portion of the worker’s income until that person recovers from the illness and can return to work. The income portions vary depending on the insurance company. Usually the benefit falls in between 70 percent and 100 percent, and it may fluctuate over time. 

Private Disability Benefits

Some consumers purchase private disability benefits because their employers do not offer them. Self-employed individuals may seek disability coverage, as well. Those disability benefits work the same way that other benefits work. The process of filing a claim is usually identical, and it involves a phone call to the insurance company and proof of the illness and restrictions. A certified medical professional will have to state a recovery period, and the specialist will have to clear the person before he or she can return to the labors of the job. 

Government Disability Benefits

Another form of disability benefits comes from the government. The government benefits cover a wide range of physical and mental illnesses. Just a few illnesses that the government disability benefits cover are cancer, HIV, diabetes, major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder. The process is lengthy with government benefits, but the outcome can be the same. The issuing party will either approve or decline disability benefits. 

Reasons that applicants have their disability benefits denied vary. Some of the most common reasons that the insurance companies and government entities use for denial are that the applicants are not disabled, the applicants are not disabled enough, the documentation was insufficient, the doctor did not substantiate the claim, and the person had the capacity to perform a different type of work. Unfortunately, some insurance companies give the ill parties the run around because they do not wish to pay benefits. In such cases, the applicants can seek the assistance of an experienced disability lawyer who can fight to have the decision reversed. Howie, Sacks & Henry is an example of a firm that fights hard for disabled people. A disabled person can schedule a consultation today for assistance.

Hyper-sensitivities and sensibilities: the real damage done by the Beeb’s handling of the Clarkson and Lowe incidents

From the London Evening Standard 12/05/14 | Sam Leith | "Hang the DJ? It’s panic time at the BBC"

[Would you expect to be sacked] if you thoughtlessly played an old record that contained th[e] [n] word on local radio? You’d think not. But that’s what happened to BBC Radio Devon DJ David Lowe, 68, after he broadcast a 1932 recording of The Sun Has Got His Hat On.

Mr Lowe says he didn’t know verse two contained the jaunty couplet: “He’s been tanning n****** out in Timbuktu./ Now he’s coming back to do the same to you.” But it did, and it was broadcast, someone complained and Lowe was dished for a word sung by someone else a decade and a half before he was born.

What we’re seeing is the news entering a weird sort of Clarkson n-word postmodern death-spiral. It seems pretty clear it’s not the PC-gone-mad brigade who claimed Lowe’s scalp. Rather, it was BBC managers panicking, precisely because of the Clarkson coverage, about the terrifying power of the PC-gone-mad brigade.

The BBC’s response to the Clarkson and Lowe incidents is as fine a piece of ill-judgement as you’re ever likely to see.

But an important point that I haven’t seen made particularly strongly so far is the real damage that the Beeb’s response is having. By panicking and falling over themselves to show that they’re ‘doing something’, they risk doing real damage to what really matters here – equality and race relations.

Surely responsible journalism, which should be one of the BBC’s overriding objectives, dictates that a calm and correct approach is called for on a topic as important as this. This is not a time for snap judgements and careless overreactions.

The BBC have a habit of slipping into ‘headless chicken’ mode, largely driven by an insatiable mania of being seen to do the ‘right thing’ and an innate desire to hush up any sniff of controversy. What the BBC should have done is tackle the issues head-on and encourage liberal debate so that the monumental shift in attitudes towards race, tolerance and equality that the world has been fortunate enough to see over the last few decades can be explored and properly celebrated.

Panic helps no one. And us licence payers deserve better, quite frankly.

Are Human Rights Improving or Regressing?

Guest Post

Around the world, human rights remain an important topic. Over the last 50 years, they have evolved from an abstract goal into a concrete set of rights that remain a major topic of activists, political leaders, and global journalists.

Today, human rights remain a controversial topic. A recent news article in the Mail Online was published with the headline “Human Rights an Affront to Justice”, arguing that payments sanctioned by the European Court of Human Rights had been given out to criminals, threatening the pursuit of justice.

Within Europe and the UK, human rights are often the subject of political debates and discussions. Throughout the world, however, they play a different role. Human rights are an important part of maintaining stability and quality of life in many of the world’s most dangerous and oppressive countries.

Foreign secretary William Hague spoke about the importance of defending human rights at the recent Conservative Party conference in Manchester. Hague praised non-governmental organisations, stating “human rights defenders languishing in the prisons of repressive regimes are not forgotten because of British NGOs.”

The importance of defending human rights becomes clear when confronted with a list of the countries that don’t uphold them. North Korea, Afghanistan, the Central African Republic, and many others are all guilty of ignoring essential human rights and oppressing people.

Looking over the offenders, it becomes immediately clear that defending human rights goes hand in hand with protecting human decency.

With many parts of the world engulfed in war, some people believe that there has been little progress made in defending and ensuring human rights during the last half-century. Human rights as a concept – albeit not as a concrete legal term – have an interesting history that extends back far further than 50 years.

All of the world’s major religions explored and considered the importance of human rights and decency, albeit not necessarily under the banner of human rights. In some ways, the basic human rights that we respect and uphold today were outlined in the Ten Commandments.

The wars of the 20th century stand as important examples of what can occur when governments ignore human rights in favour of other priorities. The human rights that we benefit from today were, not surprisingly, established in the wake of huge destruction and human suffering during World War II and the Holocaust.

On the 10th of December 1948, just three years after the end of World War II, the UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The declaration is still the most important document on human rights, and the fundamental source for measuring whether or not human rights are still observed and respected today.

51 member states signed the document in December 1948 – a number that’s since grown to include 192 members of the United Nations. The document, which was as the time thought of as idealistic, has since been upheld by the International Court of Justice and the UN Security Council and is regarded as one of the most important documents for keeping the world peaceful and respectful of human decency.

Unfortunately, there are still many countries that do not observe or respect human rights. In many parts of the world, the rights given to women, children, and the poor are abused or ignored. Over 60 million people still live in extreme poverty according to the World Bank.

While the 30 fundamental human rights outlined in the 1948 declaration remain the same, the challenge of upholding these rights continues to trouble many of the UN’s member states. Governments are still forced to consider how to best uphold human rights using political, social, and economic means.

This article was written by Vannin Capital. Visit their website litigationfunding.com to learn more.

Stupid article headline of the week goes to…

… the Guardian.
I understand the need for the media to come up with provocative, inflammatory headlines to drive readership, but when it crosses over into stupidity, it rankles a bit.

Yes, there are key human rights issues involved in deciding whether or not to let people smoke on hospital premises.  Yes, there might even be some limited merit to the argument that the short-term benefits of an occasional fag in stressful situations might somewhat mitigate the long term adverse effects.

But let’s not kid ourselves: the consequences to smokers’ health and, more perhaps more importantly, the very real harm caused by passive smoking (yes – even outside), far outweigh those considerations.

Sometimes people need more stick than carrot when it comes to helping themselves. I think this is one of those occasions.

Jimmy Savile Zombie pulled from Amazon

From Breaking News.ie 21/10/2013:

Yes, that's right - online retail giant Amazon have been forced to withdraw a Jimmy Savile Zombie Halloween costume from sale after a flurry of complaints.

[…] Jimmy Savile, the late UK TV presenter alleged to have sexually abused hundreds of young girls in the 1970s and 80s.

The costume, which had been available on Amazon for £14.99, included a metallic blue shell suit, pink glasses, medallion, fake cigar, platinum wig, face paint and a bottle of blood.

It was described on the site as "perfect for bad taste parties, dead celebrities and Halloween".

However the outfit was heavily criticised by children's charities and is now listed as 'currently unavailable'.

After all of the revelations of 2012, I think it would take a ‘special’ kind of person to wear a Jimmy Savile outfit – irrespective of the occasion. In fact, anybody who ever felt the need to dress up as him was probably making some kind of cry for help.

While I guess a human rights argument can always be wheeled out to support the notion that people should have free choice as to what they wear in public, there’s a broader public policy argument at play too. Quite aside from that, selling a Savile outfit is a PR disaster for any business and, for individuals, I can’t think of a graver example of poor taste. Actually, those words don’t even come close.

Inevitably, though, you’ve got to think there’ll come a time when the concept of a Savile costume becomes less repugnant, notwithstanding the fact his unique (read: warped) style of fashion was never exactly in vogue.  If people are now in the habit of attending fancy dress parties styled as Adolph Hitler, I’m sure we haven’t seen the last of the Jimmy Savile lookalikes.

Now that’s a disturbing thought.  Halloween is scary enough without that prospect.

Pre-Approved Free Speech

Guest PostIt seems that around the United States, 1 out of every 6 major colleges have designated areas where students are "allowed" their Constitutional right for free speech. In these colleges, exercising your right to free speech requires a permission slip at least a couple of days in advance, as well as having the administration approve the contents of a student's speech.

A prime example of this hilarity recently took place at a California Junior College. As UCLA LAW Professor Stephen Bainbridge reported, “a student found his exercise of free speech shut down" on none other than Constitution day, quite possibly the worst and/or most ironic day of the year for a college to make such a bold restriction.

Are Courts Finally Beginning to See Fathers as Equal Parents?

Guest PostWhen a couple separates or files for divorce, their first thoughts should be about how to create the best possible situation for their children. Studies have shown that children can be greatly affected by their parents’ divorce- the results include a drop in grades, changes in attitudes or behaviour, or even depression.

In an ideal situation, both parents would come to an amicable decision which would result in both parents having equal responsibilities and time with the kids. Unfortunately, this is not the case in many divorces or separations; and often both parties cannot reach an agreement on temporary custody of the kids. This is when the court steps in.

The Family Law Act states that “each parent has parental responsibility for each of their children until aged 18”. The law acknowledges the importance of the parental responsibilities of both the mother and the father to their children. The court encourages both parents to come to an agreement with the best interest of their children in mind. Separation of the parents will greatly affect the overall well-being of the child so it is vital that the parents establish a relatively conflict-free parenting relationship. However as mentioned, if they cannot agree on certain arrangements, the court makes orders about parental responsibilities.

There are four types of parenting orders that are issued by the Family Court: Orders about parental responsibility and decision making, orders about with whom the child will live, child maintenance or child support orders and orders about the communication and time spent with the parent the child does not live with. When issuing these orders, the Family Court does so in the best interest of the child.

However, in a report on Channel Ten’s The Project, they concluded that the social perception of divorced couples is that fathers have been cast as the ‘secondary parent’ while the mothers assume the primary parenting role. Fathers say that there is a discrimination against men when it comes to granting parenting orders and that the mothers always end up in a better situation as far as the children are concerned. They also say that “there is no equality and no equal balance between men and women in court”.

This inequality between parents in court, where mothers were seen as the primary parent, appears to be changing, particularly in the last few years. Family consultants are now being brought in to determine what is best for the child/children. Other important factors are also considered, such as the physical and mental health of the parent, the willingness of the parent to support and facilitate the child’s on-going relationship with the other parent, the ability of the parent to provide the basic necessities of the child, the ability of the parent to send the child to school/provide good education as well which parent is able to provide the best guidance for the child. The judge also takes into account the plan of the parent for their child and the permanence and stability of the family unit in which the child is proposed to live. They also consider reports of domestic violence, abuse and neglect if there has been any. In consideration, courts have begun to weigh up all these factors to determine which parent should be the primary caregiver of the child, as opposed to simply favouring the mother.

This post was contributed by the team at Aitken Partners Law Firm.

Accidents can just happen: tragic but true

From BBC News 14/08/12:

[A teacher], Glennroy Blair-Ford, 45, was on a Kent school trip in Devon when he broke his neck while taking part in a sporting event commonly known as welly wanging.

A judge said it was a "freak accident" and dismissed his claim against outdoor pursuits centre firm CRS Adventures.

Lawyers for Mr Blair-Ford, formerly of Bromley, south-east London, argued that he had been asked by centre staff to throw the welly adopting an "unsafe" method.

An unsafe method of throwing (ahem – wanging) a welly? I don’t know: how about balanced on a pointed stick above a pit of snakes? Throwing a welly boot seems fairly innocuous doesn’t it? But freak accidents are the worst – and the toughest to come to terms with.

They said his injuries were "a logical and foreseeable consequence" of a 6ft tall, 15 stone teacher throwing the welly backwards through his legs using the requested method.

The 45-year-old is unable to move his body below the neck and requires ventilator support 23 hours a day, as well as being dependent on others for all aspects of day-to-day life.

Mr Justice Globe rejected the claim and ruled there was "no foreseeable real risk" of injury from welly wanging.

As tremendously tragic as this story is, thank goodness common sense prevailed. It’s a symptom of the modern age to look for blame in all instances (and when nobody can be found, to look a bit harder until someone is). But sometimes (as here) accidents can just happen.

And that kind of makes this tragedy all the more… tragic.

Mr Blair-Ford and his insurers now face a large legal costs bill.

The judge ordered an interim payment of £100,000 to CRS Adventures pending a final assessment of the total amount.

Double ouch.

Family of brain-dead teen seeks permission for euthanasia

From the Onion:

The parents of 13-year old Caitlin Teagart have decided to end her life, saying she can now do nothing but lay on the couch and whine about things being "gay."

The tragedy is we were all like that once. (Some more than others perhaps).

Still, one painless injection and that’s it. Preferable to puberty any day, I guess.

Brain-Dead Teen, Only Capable Of Rolling Eyes And Texting, To Be Euthanized

Black (pepper) Friday

From CBS News.com 25/11/11:

A woman shot pepper spray to keep shoppers from merchandise she wanted during a Black Friday sale, and 20 people suffered minor injuries, authorities said.

The incident occurred shortly after 10:20 p.m. Thursday in a crowded Los Angeles-area Walmart as shoppers hungry for deals were let inside the store.
Police said the suspect shot the pepper spray when the coverings over the items she wanted were removed.

"Somehow she was trying to use it to gain an upper hand," police Lt. Abel Parga told The Associated Press early Friday.

Holy Cripes. That’s what I call an unfair advantage. And for stores that complain about ‘challenging trading conditions’ and just how intense the competition is, they should try being a shopper!

He said she was apparently after some electronics and used the pepper spray to keep other shoppers at bay.

Officials said 20 people suffered minor injuries. Fire department spokesman Shawn Lenske said the injuries to least 10 of them were due to "rapid crowd movement."

Ah – so that’s what a stampede is euphemistically called now.

Parga said police were still looking for the woman.

The store remained open and those not affected by the pepper spray continued shopping.

Well, let’s just hope that they managed to pick up a bargain or two after all. I also hope PC Plod caught up with her (she’s sure to have been captured on CCTV if she was anywhere near an electronics cabinet).  And America being America, it wouldn’t surprise me if a few of the disgruntled shoppers were in a litigious mood!  Roll on the lawsuits, I say.

Commonwealth Games 2010–The Preparations

From the Telegraph 23/09/10:

Indian government officials claimed that Tuesday's collapse of a footbridge near the Commonwealth Games Stadium, which left 27 people injured, could have been caused by the failure of components supplied by a British company.

Oh really? And what about *that* ceiling – did the Brits supply that as well? 

­Delhi chief minister Sheila Dikshit (are you freaking kidding me?!?) attempted to play down the seriousness of the bridge collapse. "These minor glitches do happen," she said. "Something maybe dripping, some tile may collapse, it doesn't mean the entire Games are bad."

 

[The aptly-named] Dikshit said the authorities had decided not to rebuild the bridge and would instead create a new path for the spectators to enter the venue. She confirmed that compensation payments would be made to those hurt in the bridge collapse.

However, the minister's stance is at odds with the majority opinion in India, with some commentators calling the series of calamities a "humiliation" and one newspaper carrying the banner headline 'National shame' on its front page.

Oh it’s surely not that bad? Oh wait… yes, it is!

Children to be fingerprinted as part of library loan process

From The Telegraph 28/05/10:

Students in Manchester are having their thumbprints digitally transformed into electronic codes, which can then be recognised by a computer program.

Under the scheme, pupils swipe a bar code inside the book they want borrow then press their thumb on to a scanner to authorise the loan. Books are returned in the same way.

But critics said they were “appalled” at the system, developed by Microsoft which is also being trialled in other parts of the country.

“This is quite clearly appalling,” said Phil Booth, national coordinator of NO2ID, a privacy campaign group.

“For such a trivial issue as taking out of library books the taking of fingerprints is way over the top and wrong.

He added: “The money for such a system could be spent on actual school resources. How about some more books for the library instead?

Things aren’t that simple, of course. If resources are being directed at monitoring loaned books . Potentially, this system could allow for the school library loan processes to be automated to a far greater extent than they are currently.

Overall, I’d say this one isn’t quite as ludicrous as it initially appears. The idea of substituting a library card for a finger print is convenient – particularly for kids. 

"We have researched this scheme thoroughly. It is a biometric recognition system and no image of a fingerprint is ever stored. It is a voluntary system,” she said.

"The thumbprint creates a mathematical template. All parents have been written to and we have told them what the system is all about. From the responses we have had there has been overwhelming support."

If I were a parent, I don’t think I’d have an issue with this.  Moreover, children in schools all around the country are already fingerprinted as part of the payment system for school dinners.  I think NO2ID should focus on frying bigger fish quite frankly.

Extreme Pornography and Sex with a Squid

From This is Swansea

A Mumbles man has appeared in court charged with possessing an "extreme pornographic" image of someone having sex with a dead octopus or squid.

Andrew Charles Dymond, of Dunns Lane, is also alleged to have had images which showed a person performing sex acts with horses and dogs.

The 46-year-old, who faces a total of 25 porn charges, entered a unanimous no plea when he came before Swansea magistrates.

The charge involving the sea creature states the image was of someone "performing an act of intercourse with a dead animal, namely an octopus/squid, which was grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character".

Dymond is also alleged to have made 14 indecent photos of children, as well as possessing an additional 57 images.

Four of the allegations state he had images showing an act which would or was likely to result in "serious injury to a person's breasts".

A further charge makes the same allegation but in relation to someone's genitals.

Leigh Davies, defending Dymond, said: "This is a case that's probably better dealt with in the Crown Court".

Magistrates declined jurisdiction.

As perversions go, Dymond doesn’t seem to be prejudicial as to which he (allegedly) favours and it certainly promises to be an interesting case.  The relatively new provisions relating to extreme pornography are still somewhat controversial - particularly amongst civil libertarians - who feel that outside of child pornography, consenting adults should be broadly free to enter into and record their sexual antics for dissemination without restriction. 

Favourite stories of the day

Here are two of my favourite news stories that have been floating about today:

From The Register 24/03/10:

"Facebook gives you the clap: Official"

The sharp rise in syphilis cases in Teesside has been partially attributed to social networking sites which incautious locals are trawling in search of casual sex.

According to the local Evening Gazette, the number of reported cases jumped to 30 last year, up from less than 10 in 200 8. Professor Peter Kelly, executive director of public health for NHS Tees, said that "reports from doctors and nurses diagnosing and treating patients suggest some sufferers are using social networking sites to find and arrange meetings with new lovers".

Now I'm a FB user, let's hope I won't be doing my own stint in the STD clinic.

And secondly this brarmer from the Guardian:

The police have issued a warning for harassment against an airport worker after he allegedly took a photo of a female colleague as she went through a full-body scanner at Heathrow airport.

The incident, which occurred at terminal 5 on 10 March, is believed to be the first time an airport worker has been formally disciplined for misusing the scanners.

A Scotland Yard spokesman said: "Police received an allegation regarding an incident that happened at Heathrow Terminal 5 on March 10. A first-instance harassment warning has been issued to a 25-year-old male."

The BAA employee took a photo of his co-worker, Jo Margetson, when she inadvertently went through a scanner.

"I can't bear to think about the body scanner thing," she told the Sun. "I'm totally traumatised. I've spoken to the police about it. I'm in too much of a state to go to work."

 

But I really love the headline comparison for this story between the Guardian and the Sun:

"Airport worker given police warning for 'misusing' body scanner"

and

"I love those gigantic t**ts"

Canned Mosquitoes

From CPD Webinars 09.02.08:

A woman has been awarded compensation after she was unfairly dismissed from her job for raising health and safety concerns after fleas bit her.
Waitress Maria Moon, 46, was fired from her job at Hafan y Môr holiday centre in Pwllheli, Gwynedd in May 2008. The tribunal accepted that the reason she had been sacked was because she raised health and safety issues after suffering the flea bites in a chalet where she lived.

In May 2008 she was dismissed, allegedly because management found that the coffee shop was overstaffed.  It was decided by the tribunal that although there was overstaffing no-one else was seriously considered.  The tribunal said, it was far more likely that her dismissal was triggered by her having raised health and safety issues.

This reminded me somewhat of that infamous stunt Bill Gates pulled last week at the TED (Technology Entertainment and Design) conference in a bid to raise the profile of his charitable work in third world countries. On stage, he released into the unwitting audience a jar full of mosquitoes claiming: “I brought some mosquitoes - we’ll let them roam around the auditorium. There’s no reason only the poor should experience this…” 

Good ol’ Bill.

Suffice it to say, it didn’t do much to raise public opinion of Gates who was later labelled “a d*ck” on TWiT and probably far, far worse by everyone present in the auditorium. The mosquitoes were allegedly vetted to be free from malaria but who knows what other nasties they might have been carrying. 

A lot of commentators have pointed to the fact that Gates should have been able to find a more acceptable way to get his point across. Interestingly, the debate on TWiT highlighted the fact that it’s illegal under both state and federal law to bring mosquitoes (or other disease-carrying vectors) into the California from abroad. John C. Dvorak also claimed that he knew “2 or 3 people” who have filed complaints against Gates in respect of his on stage antics.  However, this obviously presupposes that the mosquitoes were ‘sourced’ from outside the state.

Worthy though the topic might be, his method was a touch extreme; had I been in attendance and went home with mosquito bites, I’d been pretty darn angry. An analogy was also drawn between Gates’ mosquito stunt and laying on a lavish buffet when, after your guests have gorged themselves, smugly admit you’ve laced it with salmonella as it “shouldn’t just be citizens in third world countries who have to contend with such problems”. Interesting point.

Privacy Law – In Need of a Legislative Broom?

From Outlaw 03/02/09:

Parliament will investigate privacy law in the UK and may give the law a 'nudge', Justice Minister Jack Straw has said. A select committee of MPs will look into how the law has developed and how it is being implemented by courts, he said.

How has the law developed? I can think of some fairly colourful responses to that. For the present, however, I think the following would all be particularly apt:

· Slowly  · Painfully  · Inconsistently  · Awkwardly

· Incoherently 

There are a bunch of other words I could include but a list has to stop somewhere. Of course, many of these descriptions are also applicable to how the law has been implemented by the courts.

“Historically, the UK has not had a law of privacy, but one has emerged in recent years that has combined confidentiality laws covering the exchange of information with human rights laws protecting the right to a private life.

Courts have ruled in several cases that the publication of information violates these laws, and
these judgments will form the basis of future rulings.

That case law was ferociously attacked last year by powerful Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre [in the aftermath of Mosley v NGN Ltd [2008] EWHC 1777] who condemned the fact that it had developed through the courts and not through Parliament.

Straw has told Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights, though, that a committee of MPs will look into the development of the law.”

Recent developments in privacy rights in the context of ‘celebrity newsgathering’ have illustrated that the law has now swung to opposite end of the spectrum whereby the courts have been inclined to attach more weight to the individual’s right to privacy than to the right to freedom of expression for the press. This change has happened relatively quickly: in 2002 both the Flitcroft and Theakston cases saw a ‘naming and shaming approach’ for celebrities caught in compromising situations robustly endorsed by the courts. Since Campbell and now Mosley, however, the approach has clearly changed.

The current test which evolved out the wealth of jurisprudence in this area essentially involves examining whether the individual had a reasonable expectation of privacy in all the material circumstances. If that is the case, there is then a need to move on to balance the right of privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR with the right to freedom of expression pursuant to Article 10. An inherent part of this balancing act is determining whether there is countervailing public interest that can justify the intrusion.

Mr Justice Eady has come in for a lot of ‘stick’ in recent times – not least in the aftermath of the Mosley decision. Eady J has had heard the majority of high-profile cases in this area and because of this, it’s no surprise that he was very much at target in Dacre’s scathing attack last year.

The Times notes how far-reaching Mr Justice Eady’s contributions to this area of law are perceived to be:

“Mr Dacre told the audience at the Society of Editors’ annual conference in Bristol that the judge’s “amoral” judgments, in this and other defamation and libel cases, were “inexorably and insidiously” imposing a privacy law on the press.”

Moreover, “[Dacre accused Eady J] of bringing in a privacy law by the back door: the judge, he said, had used the Human Rights Act against the age-old freedom of newspapers to expose moral shortcomings of people in high places.”

So what’s the Justice Minister’s take on privacy?

Again from the Times:

Lord Lester of Herne Hill, one of the Joint Committee members, asked Mr Straw where he stood on privacy: the Mail interview, Lord Lester said, gave the impression that Mr Straw would like to weaken the Human Rights Act, “so as to make it easier for the press to make unwarranted attacks on personal privacy”.

Straw did not say where he stood — other than backing the forthcoming privacy review. But he did indicate support for the Act’s critics. “Those of us keen to ensure that the legacy of the Human Rights Act continues and thrives need to be alive to that criticism — and respond to it,” he said.

The realisation of privacy rights under English law is essentially achieved via a blatant shoehorning of privacy rights into the law of breach of confidence. Have Parliament finally recognised the need for a legislative broom to sweep clean the detritus of confusion which plagues the law relating to privacy?

Without doubt, it’s high time for a review at the very least and considering afresh whether legislating is the way to go. Whether this leads to a ‘Privacy Act’, though, is another matter entirely. Ironically, this area of law has weathered greater uncertainty than it’s currently plagued with and it could be argued the courts are actually demonstrating a greater degree of creativity and recognition of wider societal issues when adjudicating than ever before. For instance, the case of David Murray v Big Pictures Limited [2008] EWCA Civ 446. involving photos taken of J.K. Rowling’s son as well as the application of the Harassment Act 1997 in respect of compromising photos published on an aggrieved former-lover’s Facebook profile illustrate that the jurisprudence is developing in a way that is factoring-in modern technologies and the privacy implications that the internet and social networking brings with it.  The equivalent could certainly not have been said in the early days of wiretapping by police nor in how the courts dealt with early forms of harassment via telephone.

Now, though, privacy issues seem to rank much higher on the list of priorities.  Currently, privacy concerns have been elevated to an all time high by virtue of the rise of the internet as a publishing medium, the Web 2.0 phenomenon and society’s voracious appetite for celebrity gossip which has fuelled the ever-more aggressive and intrusive behaviour of the press.  Also, in direct response to the Mosley case, perhaps it’s been recognised that the jurisprudence has developed in a direction which is now no longer deemed suitable and legislation is required to ‘nudge’ it back on track.

The use of the ‘legislative broom’ may help in certain areas to sweep clean and clear up the awkward uncertainty such as the apparent conflating of the right pursuant to Article 10 of freedom of expression with the ‘public interest defence’ in some judgements.  Whether privacy law which is more favourable to the press is the right approach to be taking going forwards, however, seems less clear.

In any event, the Times concludes: If legislation is mooted, then it will be an irony to think that Mr Justice Eady himself — when on the Calcutt committee that reported in 1990 on privacy — favoured a privacy law. The difference is that any new law would not be seeking to curb the press but to free it.

'Tasered' Pensioner Under Review

From: CPD Webinars 26/01/09:

A police watchdog has been reviewing the case of an 89-year-old man, who was shot with a Taser gun by officers.

Police claim they used the 50,000-volt stun-gun as the pensioner was threatening to cut his throat with a piece of glass after he had walked out of a local residential home into the street in Llandudno, Conwy.

The attending officers fearing he might kill himself shot him with the taser as a preventative measure. Afterwards he was taken to hospital to recover from a minor glass wound.

North Wales Police received an official complaint from the pensioner’s family and have was referred it to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

North Wales Police said afterwards that the officers had made a judgement to protect his life and it was now up to the watchdog to decide whether to hold an investigation.
They said that the use of the Taser was the "safest and most appropriate" option.  It is understood [the OAP's family] felt that police should have given themselves more time to talk to him.

It always difficult to judge these situations if you weren't present at the material time or even privy to all of the facts.  Determining whether the deployment of a taser in any given circumstance was a reasonable and proportionate course of action for officers to take strikes me as a very inexact science.  Still, that doesn't stop everyone else casting aspersions and jumping in with their two cents' worth so what the heck. 

I should think that the level of controversy surrounding the wider roll-out of tasers across police forces in the UK have put police very much on their guard when it comes to deploying them.  If nothing else, they surely know that any situation in which a person is tasered is going to be ex post very closely scrutinised.  On the facts, though, I don't think the police should be automatically criticised, notwithstanding the fact that "tasering an 89 year old" sounds a little harsh.  I'm presuming here that the police did try to speak with the man before reaching for the taser and that they acted in a responsible and appropriate manner.  If a man who is clearly acting in an irrational, disturbed and dangerous manner - he was, after all, holding a broken piece of glass to his throat - surely disabling him is the right course of action.  Sometimes a 'wait and see' policy isn't always viable with a potential suicide victim.

Too fat for execution?

From USA Today 05/08/08:

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — An inmate scheduled for execution in October says he's so fat that Ohio executioners would have trouble finding his veins and he might not be properly anesthetized.

Lawyers for Richard Cooey argue in a federal lawsuit that Cooey had poor veins when he faced execution five years ago and that the problem has been worsened by weight gain.

They cite a document filed by a prison nurse in 2003 that said Cooey had sparse veins and that executioners would need extra time.

"When you start the IV's come 15 minutes early," wrote the nurse who examined Cooey. "I don't have any veins."

The lawsuit, filed Friday in federal court in Columbus, also says prison officials have had difficulty drawing blood from Cooey for medical procedures. Cooey is 5 feet 7 inches tall and weighs 267 pounds, according to the lawsuit.

Cooey, 41, was sentenced to die for raping and murdering two University of Akron students in 1986. A federal judge granted him a last-minute reprieve in 2003. In April, he lost a challenge to Ohio's lethal injection process when the U.S. Supreme Court said he had missed a deadline to file a lawsuit.

Cooey's execution is scheduled for Oct. 14.

I think it's safe to assume that few members of the public are going to have much sympathy with Cooey.  For what it's worth, I'm not a pro capital punishment kind of guy, although I have to admit I don't completely disagree with it in all circumstances either.   There might be an element of validity in Cooey's argument or it might just be an increasingly used and perhaps topically appropriate attempt to wriggle out of the death penalty.  Cooey's argument, of course, centres around the fact that should the first stage of the injection process fail, that is, the anaesthetic,  his death will be excruciatingly painful and contrary to basic human rights.  Personally, I think a painful death is far less agonising than waiting on death row for however long, just waiting to die.