The Law & The State
“An equal application of law to every condition of man is fundamental.” –Thomas Jefferson to George Hay, 1807. ME 11:341
“The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.” –Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, “Political Economy,” 1816. ME 14:465
I have noticed a very disturbing trait amongst Public Servants who have forged their careers in the low grade politicised Public Service that was welded in the Blair/Brown years. That of evading the Law and indulging in extra curricular activity to ensure that targets are met and political favour (and promotion) maintained.
I have particular personal experience of this, but as other investigations are being carried out into the public servants concerned, I would highlight the case of a Doctor who blew the whistle on unsafe practices in Abergavenny Hospital featured on Channel Four News last night. She thought she was protected under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA).
The aptly named Aneurin Bevan Health Board decided to follow a course of action that I certainly recognise. Remember that somebody nearly died in this incident. The Health Board decided that its sacred cow reputation and targets were far more important than this Doctor. Dr Lucy Dawson brought two employment tribunal actions against the Health Board, on how they dealt with her whistleblowing on unsafe practices. PIDA is quite clear that the whistle blower is protected under the Law. The Health Board along with many other NHS Trusts then followed a well worn and illegal path.
Rather than be exposed at a Tribunal, lawyers acting for the Trust offered a pay off that was contingent on signing a gagging order. Dr Dawson then made the fatal mistake of relying on the Law (PIDA) to protect her and refused to sign .
The Trust and its Legal fee earners then started a smear campaign, never mind the truth, the Sacred cow must be protected at all costs.
Anybody who goes up against the State will tell you, you cannot win. It is impossible because the State will array against you its vastly superior financial resources to win its case by attrition until you throw the towel in. Failing that a campaign by extra judicial means will be commenced against you. If a medical professional can have her seventeen year hospital career terminated, what chance the man in the street.
Dr Dawson terminated her claim against the Health Board on the grounds of cost and now works as a locum. The State won, not because Justice was on its side but because it could buy the result it wanted.
We now have a legal system that is out of the financial reach of the vast majority of the population other than the very rich or the desperately poor. Parliament can churn out as many bad Laws as it likes because they are impossible to defend and when the Law is used as a weapon to crush and oppress we are living in a tyranny.
A solution has to be found to this. A Libertarian relies on the just application of fair Laws that are equally applied called ‘Equality of Arms’. If Parliament cannot prevent its Laws being so widely disregarded by powerful agencies of the State, it is up to the general population to combine and seek a legal remedy through a voluntary Legal Defence fund, until public servants start losing their jobs and are prosecuted for breaking the Law and using extra curricular methods.
In a few short weeks Landlord Nick Hogan was released from jail for ‘flouting’ the smoking ban, by public subscription. Imagine if the public servants involved in the Dawson case knew that there was a good chance they would go to jail.
If twenty million of us paid into a legal fund at a pound a week, the Dr Dawson’s of this world might succeed. Not have to withdraw because of costs.
Do you think that the face of the State would change ? I think it would.
Andrew P Withers
August 5, 2010 at 13:47
-
everyone who has any reason to be greatful to the decent staff in the NHS
can contribute to a reward fund for Dr Lucy Dawson, and give two fingers to
the state. I’d like to see that on the news.
- August 5, 2010 at 10:20
-
Just Eighteen
Of course he did it at his mum’s instigation! Can I prove
it ? No.
- August 4, 2010 at 22:01
-
G, well, you could probably find a kind person who would go round and beat
the shit out of your ex-stepson for twenty quid.
- August 4, 2010 at 20:03
-
A brief comment. Legal insurance under house insurance is, as a commentator
above rightly observed, quite tightly restricted. Usually it relates to mainly
to issue in respect of the house itself (eg a boundary dispute) but even then
there are restrictions. For example, there has to be a reasonably favourable
advice from a barrister about the prospects of success before it kicks
in.
From memory, it is quite hard to make it apply to a workplace
situation, or one such as this.
I merely add a salutary tale. I let the house insurance on my house run out
last year, it was not from choice – I was actually too penniless to renew it,
courtesy of my ex wife ( I’m not exaggerating. That’s actually true. I don’t
want to go into the details. As I write I have
-
August 4, 2010 at 22:34
-
When you say teenage, do you mean under 16? If so, his mother is legally
and financially responsible for him.
If not, try beating him with a stick until he wishes he’d never met you
and would willingly give you his next 50 Giros in exchange for his hide.
-
August 5, 2010 at 02:06
-
yup – when all else is lost and no hope remains – direct action might
just work.
Post of a few days ago (“the good bits of Britain”) means of course in
fact we get shafted – and then WE say “sorry”
- August 4, 2010 at 19:01
-
re OH @ 1 :
Didn
-
August 4, 2010 at 18:30
-
A government that is big enough to give you everything………is big enough to
take everything from you.
-
August 4, 2010 at 19:01
-
Just a shame they never seem to get the first bit right, eh?
- August 4, 2010 at 17:44
-
“We now have a legal system that is out of the financial reach of the vast
majority of the population other than the very rich or the desperately poor.
”
Not only the very rich & very poor, but also politicians. The 4 x
expenses fiddlers currently being prosecuted were on Legal Aid for their claim
that they were immune from prosecution because they claimed “Parliamentary
Privilege”
- August 4, 2010 at 18:09
-
The MPs in question qualify for Legal Aid because they are
defendants. Would it be fair to have to find your own legal costs when a
fine or loss of liberty are at stake.
If Crown Immunity was dropped then
the taxpayer would pay the taxpayer damages or the corporate body would be
taken to court, just as in meaningless trials against rail companies etc.
Only if Directors of government bodies could be fined or gaoled for errors
would things change for the better. But consider the “government policy”
defence: Parliament is still sovereign and it should be the electorate and
not the courts that punishes the offending government or offers remedies or
both.
- August 4, 2010 at 18:59
-
It would not be a pointless exercise to sue The Crown employee
responsible if the punishment were not financial, ie. a damn good
thrashing, confiscation of his house, pension, etc.
-
August 4, 2010 at 19:13
-
How many other people, (allegedly) caught fiddling expenses can try to
use the
- August 4, 2010 at 17:41
-
“If twenty million of us paid into a legal fund at a pound a week, the
Dr Dawson
- August 4, 2010 at 18:12
-
August 4, 2010 at 18:57
-
20 million might last a couple of months, if you’re lucky.
-
August 4, 2010 at 16:42
-
Legal insurance is part and parcel of my home insurance. Check your
policies
Exactly check your policies you will find that your
- August 4,
2010 at 16:58
-
Then the removal of Crown Immunity would seem to be the best thing to
campaign for, right?
-
August 4, 2010 at 18:56
-
You are entirely correct, Sir or Madam. Were it not for the threat of
fire, I would not have house insurance. It is a con.
- August 4, 2010 at 16:26
-
The problem is finding somebody to administer it and judge which cases are
worthy – unless perhaps, if you contribute – you get to vote on who gets the
dosh on the basis of their representations?
I gave Mr Hogan
-
August 4, 2010 at 16:25
-
Yes of course it would change
-
August 4, 2010 at 16:25
-
‘We know have a legal system…only the very rich…’ etc?
It’s been like that for the last 1000 years.
- August 4, 2010 at 16:21
-
Interesting and thought provoking as ever Anna.
I did my little bit for Mr Hogan at the time. Nick was released but the
government still got it’s money anyway.
My proposal would be that when a public body or even a large corporation
starts legal action against an individual member of the public the court
should determine how much the individual can afford to pay for their defence.
The public body would then only be allowed to spend the same amount. This
shoudl result in equality of representation.
I realise this is probablt impractical but at least it would be fair, and
the lawyers wouldn’t like it which is a bonus.
- August 4, 2010 at 16:21
-
Legal insurance is part and parcel of my home insurance. Check your
policies
- August 4, 2010 at 18:31
-
August 4, 2010 at 18:52
-
Wait until you come to use it for anything more than a consumer argument
over a faulty TV, or some such like. Cost are capped, and cover only lasts
for the period of cover, ie a maximum of 12 months. If you start a case in,
say, the 10 month of your policy, your case will not even have seen the
light of a Court Ushers clipboard before your policy expires. No problem,
just renew the policy? ‘I’m so sorry, Sir, I’m afraid your cover does not
include on-going cases; that’ll be 500 quid, please. Cancellation Sir, No
problem, just need a 3 month notification of your intention to cancel to
avoid the 200 quid cancellation fee’.
Come on OH, you know ‘the man’ is not going to help you in your hour of
need.
{ 26 comments }