Rescuing Democracy in the United Kingdom from our current Elected Dictatorship

You will notice that, since New Labour came to power, not a single leading Cabinet member or party 'heavy hitter' has appeared on the programme (BBC's Question Time). Spin, not face-to-face confrontations with the voters, is the Government's chosen method of communication. Ordinary people are dangerous. Ordinary people might ask a question which throws a politician 'off message'; the Cabinet member might reveal himself or herself to be a human being like us, and not a programmed android. Worse still, he or she might tell the truth.

Ann Leslie - Daily Mail, September 16, 2004

WWW silentmajorityspeaks.com

Pupils could use bullying law to sue teachers

Michael Howard challenges “distorted” culture of political correctness - dropping the Human Rights Act in a blitz on compensation

In a speech today (August 26, 2004) in Stafford, Conservative leader Michael Howard set out how the next Conservative Government will "change the culture" of Government in order to turn back the tide of political correctness. He acknowledges that "not all the answers to the problems posed by political correctness lie in the hands of politicians" but adds that "there are specific measure that we can and will take to challenge it." These include:

A review of the Human Rights Act which is being "roundly abused";
A consultation on how the Children Act is working in practice to "restore the balance of power between parents and bureaucrats";
A freeze on civil service recruitment meaning that there will be "fewer bureaucrats to push out regulations";
The implementation of "sunset clauses" for many regulation to ensure that only those "that are clearly necessary will survive"; and
Measures to protect teaches and "return to them control of the classroom."

He will say that what is also needed is a "change of culture". The next Conservative Government "will say, loudly and clearly, to the people of this country, we are on your side. We will support doctors, teachers, nurses, policemen and the ordinary man and woman on the street. We will say to them, we agree with you. Enough is enough. You should be free to lead your lives as you see fit. We will only intervene when the need to do so is clear and necessary. We will end the culture of regulation, interference and centralisation which is destroying our sense of community. Once again, government will serve the people. It will no longer be its master." Read Michael Howard's full speech here.

Compensation 'blackmailers'

Leading Judge attacks claimants who cost every family £500 a year

by Steve Doughty, Social Affairs Correspondent - Daily Mail - August 4, 2004

Compensation seekers are blackmailing councils by launching thousands of legal cases over minor accidents which are cheaper to settle than fight, the Master of the Rolls warned yesterday. Lord Phillips, England's most senior civil judge, said many pastimes and activities enjoyed by millions were being banned by authorities over-reacting to the threat of being sued.

He called on Britons to have a 'balanced' approach to potentially risky everyday activity to stop the soaring number of compensation payouts. Insurance analysts estimate the cost has reached £10billion a year - £500 for each family.

According to figres from Lord Phillips, the number of low-level compensation claims, involving minor accidents like injuries in falls, soared by 9% in the last year from 101,000 to 110,000. "The population should have a reasonably balanced approach to indulging in these pastimes," he said. "They should not expect that if they have an accident, which is always liable to happen, that there must automatically be somebody else who carries the can. There is almost a blackmail going on here. Local authorities cannot afford to fight a claim. It is cheaper to settle. If you are too obsessed about the risk of getting sued, you can take steps which stop people enjoying the kind of pastimes that they always have in this country."

His remarks, made in an interview with BBC news, come amid increasing concern over the impact of fast-growing numbers of compensation claims on public bodies and voluntary groups.

Lord Phillips went on: "How about mountain climbing? Is that dangerlus? How about climbing a tree? Children climb trees. Local authorities have got to cut down any attractive tree they know children are climbing up because the child might fall out of the tree. These are just examples of becoming too obsessed about the risk of being sued and taking steps which stop people enjoying pastimes people always have done in this country."

Critics want a clampdown on 'blame and claim' advertising and limits on the use of 'no-win-no-fee' payment deals by lawyers. They have also called for rules to free voluntary groups from the threat of being sued over minor incidents.

Lord Phillips also warned claimants that, although judges would continue to decide claims on their merits, those who sued should not expect 'huge payouts'. Despite increasing evidence that organisations and councils are trying to minimise legal costs by cutting services and activities, and settling claims out of court, ministers claim the number of compensation culture claims is falling. They have responded to growing worries about the impact os such cases in recent months by denying that the problem exists.

The Home Office insists that public and voluntary bodies are affected not by waves of claims but only by fear of them. A new law, proposed by Tory Julian Brazier and backed by a number of senior Labour figures, which would have restricted the impact of the compensation culture, was allowed to fail last month before reaching the statute book.

The Promotion of Volunteering Bill would have spared groups like Girl Guides and sports organisations much of the threat of compensation litigation by making participants sign a form accepting that they would not sue over accidents. The Government has also ignored calls for compensation curbs from its red tape watchdog, the Better Regulation Task Force.

Earlier this year, the organisation called for restrictions on claims advertising and limitations on the no-win-no-fee system by which lawyers have found large jumbers of clients hoping to win compensation in court.

Do you want rules to free voluntary groups from the threat of being sued over minor incidents?

Agree strongly
Agree
Disagree
Disagree strongly
Don't know
Don't care

Please click one of the links above to cast your vote

Current results

Compensation Class

by Laura Clark - Education Reporter, Daily Mail, September 7, 2004

A new legal duty on schools to prevent children being bullied could lead to a flood of compensation claims, it emerged yesterday. In future, heads will be breaking the law if they fail to prevent pupils being victimised. But union leaders and lawyers fear some parents and pupils will see the new requirement as an opportunity to take schools to court.

Britain's booming compensation industry already costs schools £200million a year - enough to pay for 8,000 extra teachers. Now pupils will be able to use the duty, introduced under the 2002 Education Act, to bolster their cases in court. Lawyers believe it could even be used by truants to sue schools for failing to keep them in lessons. They say the legal duties are so vague they could be used as a stick to beat head teachers and governors over almost any aspect of school life.

Mark Blois, of solicitors Browne, Jacobson said law firms would seize on the Act when constructing cases. 'They would be stupid not to,' he said. 'It is only a matter of time before parents and children become aware of the duty and it feeds into the popular consciousness. But this is far wider than just bullying. This is such a broad duty you could hardly criticise an irate parent writing letters of complaint about other matters such as truancy. Head teachers now have a range of powers available to them to deal with truancy. If they are not using those powers, the question might arise as to whether they are failing to discharge their obligations. My fear is that this will become a stick for parents to beat head teachers with. Even if they don't issue proceedings, they still make a nuisance of themselves and dealing with complaints takes resources away from teachers.'

He said part of the problem was the 'vague and unclear' wording of the requirement which created the conditions for a surge in legal challenges. The Department for Education and Skills published its legal guideline yesterday, introducing a requirement on schools to 'safeguard and promote' the welfare of pupils. It is primarily intended to protect children from abuse but also covers issues including 'pupil health, safety and bullying'.

A survey for the DfES found 87% of 12 to 15-year-olds and 68% of 16 to 19-year-olds said bullying was a problem in their school. ChildLine says it gets more calls about bullying than any other issue. Chris Keates, acting general secretary of the NASUWT union, warned that unscrupulous solicitors will count on schools settling out of court. 'When this clause was first put in the education bill, there was a totally different climate and there wasn't such concern over the growth of the compensation culture,' she added.

But a DfES spokesman stressed: "The intention of the new statutory duty is not to make teachers liable to prosecution or disciplinary action," He pointed out that schools have 'always had a duty of care toward their pupils.'

Do you agree that schools should have the LEGAL duty to prevent children being bullied?