Human Rights Act / Health and Safety

spen666

ConsciousPilot wrote:

IMO it is not the H&S act that is at fault. The people who are responsible for overseeing / implementing H&S in the workplace appear to be so consumed with fear of legal action that if there is even a hint of risk then it must be banned. Instead of berating the H&S (or HRA) we should be looking at the reason why lawyers are willing to pursue even the flimsiest of cases (mcdonalds case in point). Restricting the amount of money to be made by the legal profession may help to restore some common sense.

The McDonalds case- was not a flimsy case at all. It was a very serious and balanced judgement. The media have grossly misreported that case ever since the case some years ago

Its not lawyers to blame. Its those who instruct them. Lawyers don't invent cases, lawyers are instructed by their clients.

The blame in HRA cases is with the court for allowing so many silly cases to be upheld. It was always said by the Government at the time the Act was introduced that silly cases would not succeeed. - how wrong they were. The courts get themselves so they can't see the wood for the trees

OffTheBackAdam

Blame the "No win, no fee" system for that.
The law industry lining each others pockets.

spen666

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

Blame the "No win, no fee" system for that.
The law industry lining each others pockets.

The No win No fee system was forced on the legal profession by the government.

The Profession were very opposed to the scheme

That was one of the doings of the previous Tory government in the 1990s

ConsciousPilot

spen666 wrote:

Its not lawyers to blame. Its those who instruct them. Lawyers don't invent cases, lawyers are instructed by their clients.

That will be why we have these "ambulance chasers" and adverts encouraging people to claim for any perceived grievance. Why not not make a claim..? after all, you cannot lose and might stand to gain some money (as well as the legal profession)

spen666

ConsciousPilot wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Its not lawyers to blame. Its those who instruct them. Lawyers don't invent cases, lawyers are instructed by their clients.

That will be why we have these "ambulance chasers" and adverts encouraging people to claim for any perceived grievance. Why not not make a claim..? after all, you cannot lose and might stand to gain some money (as well as the legal profession)

Firstly, let me make it clear that I am not involved in a field of law where no win fno fee work is even permitted.

The ambulance chasers cannot take on a case without being instructed.

RThere is a world of difference between instigating a case and advising /encourage people to instigate cases.

Johnny G

spen666 wrote:

The McDonalds case- was not a flimsy case at all. It was a very serious and balanced judgement. The media have grossly misreported that case ever since the case some years ago

The "McDonalds coffee" case seems to have entered urban myth and is often quoted in "H&S-gone-mad" type articles, but this is a classic straw man argument. There's a good link about it here:

http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

or here:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

spen666

Johnny G wrote:

spen666 wrote:

The McDonalds case- was not a flimsy case at all. It was a very serious and balanced judgement. The media have grossly misreported that case ever since the case some years ago

The "McDonalds coffee" case seems to have entered urban myth and is often quoted in "H&S-gone-mad" type articles, but this is a classic straw man argument. There's a good link about it here:

http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

or here:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Thanks for the links