Great Britain: “The Government was accused of ‘caving in’ over drugs yesterday following the disclosure that the Home Office is about to pay out tens of thousands of pounds to prisoners because they were forced to stop taking heroin or other opiates in jail. ….The inmates, who were dependent either on heroin or the heroin substitute methadone, claimed they suffered ‘trespass’ and clinical negligence by the Prison Service in being forced to endure ‘short, sharp’ detoxification programmes resulting in ‘cold turkey’ symptoms. They were said by their lawyers to be ‘upset’ by the short time they were allowed to stay on opiate drugs while on remand or following the start of sentences.” And in case you were wondering: “The claimants’ case is being funded by taxpayers through legal aid.” (Neil Tweedie, Daily Telegraph, Nov. 13; Dominic Kennedy, “Payouts for prison drug addicts”, Times Online, Nov. 13). More: James Slack & Matthew Hickley, “Outrage after drug-addicted convicts get £700,000 compensation”, Daily Mail, Nov. 13.
Posts Tagged ‘United Kingdom’
UK free speech, cont’d
Too much liberty of expression survives in that country for the government’s liking:
New laws to clamp down on racism are being prepared by the Government after the leader of the far-right British National Party was cleared of stirring up racial hatred by attacking Islam.
Gordon Brown swiftly pledged to bring in tougher powers to raise the chance of convictions in similar cases, calling the BNP’s statements offensive.
His intervention came after an all-white jury decided that Nick Griffin, the BNP chairman, broke no law when he condemned Islam as “a wicked, vicious faith” at a secretly filmed meeting.
Plans for an offence of incitement to religious hatred were thrown out in a rare Commons defeat for the Government in February after a campaign led by the comedian Rowan Atkinson.
(Andrew Norfolk and Greg Hurst, “Race-hate laws to be changed after BNP case fails”, Times Online, Nov. 11). More: Feb. 4, etc. Comment: Rod Liddle.
UK: Publishing grifter’s photo = violating her human rights?
Jewelers in Kensington, West London, have been repeatedly victimized by a conwoman who poses as a wealthy shopper from Dubai and scoops up thousands in merchandise when novice clerks are distracted. The latest victim of the scam, jewelry designer Isabel Kurtenbach, says she asked police about posting a store-cam photo of the thief to warn other shops, and was told not to because it would be a violation of the perpetrator’s human rights. (Evening Standard, Oct. 26; Daily Telegraph, Oct. 27)(via Zincavage). Subsequently, the Lord Chancellor said the police’s advice had been “plainly wrong” and that storekeepers had every right to post such photos. (Guardian, Oct. 30).
U.K.: “Force muzzles dogs to protect suspects from bite injuries”
“Police dogs are being muzzled to prevent them from biting criminals. Instead of clamping their jaws around the legs of suspects, the dogs are trained to leap at their targets and disable them with a flying butt. … The policy follows a rise in compensation claims against forces from members of the public, and even serving officers, who have been bitten by police dogs. One force, in Greater Manchester, has paid out £59,000 in five years to 36 bite victims.” (Ben Leapman, Daily Telegraph, Oct. 15).
New Times column — age-bias law
My new column in the Times Online is up. First paragraph:
So now Britain has its own law banning employers from considering workers’ age in most job situations. If your experience follows ours in America, the results will include a range of unintended consequences, some of which will worsen the plight of the workers the law was meant to help.
(Walter Olson, “If the US experience is anything to go by, be sceptical of Britain’s new age-bias laws”, Times Online (U.K.), Oct. 18, newer link and reprint). I treated this subject at length in my 1997 book The Excuse Factory and did a USA Today opinion piece back then exploring some of the ways the law backfires against older workers. The new British law has been getting some attention in the States, in part because of the news item about the company that has banned office birthday cards as potentially ageist (Oct. 13) and the one about the recruiting agency (Oct. 17) that is barring use of any of a list of words including vibrant, dynamic, gravitas, ambitious, and hungry to describe potential employees.
Trespassers and skylights, UK edition
Birthday cards actionable?
Perhaps not, but a UK insurance firm isn’t taking any chances. With new laws in place prohibiting age discrimination and age harassment, Alan & Thomas insurance brokers has barred the circulation of birthday cards signed by the entire staff, who occasionally write jokey statements about the perils of aging.
Julian Boughton, the firm’s managing director, said: “The new rules outlawing age discrimination are a potential minefield for both employers and employees. Every business should be taking action. Often employees don’t realise the implications of what they are writing.”
A member of staff said: “I think it’s stupid really. People like to joke about other people getting older, and it’s only a bit of fun.”
The Employment Equality (Age) regulations 2006 came into force on Oct 1, prohibiting direct or indirect harassment or victimisation on the grounds of age.
Neil Gouldson, an employment law specialist at the Manchester-based firm Rowe Cohen, said: “Gags in birthday cards about people being ‘over the hill’ will need to be curbed.”
(Richard Savill, “Firm halts office cards for fear of ‘ageist’ comments”, Telegraph (UK), Oct. 12) (h/t F.R.).
Online gambling ban
Very big breaking news: UK libel laws narrowed
One of the few places where the UK is more litigious than the United States is in its infamously broad libel laws, which put the burden of the proof on the defendant to prove the truth of a statement, resulting in multiple instances of “libel tourism,” which we’ve noted previously: e.g., Aug. 1, Jan. 6, 2004, and, most notably, by Saudi businessmen hoping to preclude investigations into their relationship with terrorists, Oct. 26, 2003. (In contrast, in the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled that, to avoid “chilling effects” on First Amendment speech rights, a public-figure plaintiff must prove an intentional or reckless falsehood.) Britain’s top court sided with the Wall Street Journal Europe and created a legal defense whereby a speaker who “behave[s] fairly and responsibly” in reporting on a matter of public importance will not be liable for defamatory statements. (Aaron O. Patrick, “U.K. Court Backs WSJE in Libel Ruling”, Wall Street Journal, Oct. 11; Lattman). This moves the UK much closer to the US in its libel law.
I am not the first to note that, while academics and courts of all stripes recognize the potential chilling effects of litigation on First Amendment rights, courts have been reluctant to acknowledge the chilling effects of litigation on other rights and economically productive activity.
UK: False rape accusations
If the charges of rape turn out to be bogus — worse yet, if they have led to the locking up of an innocent defendant later exonerated — should the accuser still enjoy the privilege of press anonymity? The case of Warren Blackwell, jailed for three years for a crime he never committed, vs. “Miss A”. (Carol Sarler, “Do fake rape victims have a right to anonymity?”, Daily Mail (U.K.), Sept. 13; Michael Horsnell, “Man jailed over sex attack clears his name”, The Times (U.K.), Sept. 13). More: accuser’s name is disclosed, prompting further controversy (Strange Justice, Oct. 23).