Let us know what you think of it.

There are many aspects to the ongoing argument about legal aid cuts. Perhaps the most compelling is simply that the proposed cuts will not result in costs savings for taxpayers, but instead higher costs on the state.

Aside from the moral arguments about potentially removing access to justice for between 500,000 to 650,000 cases, Citizens’ Advice advise that for every £1.00 of legal aid spent on benefits advice, the state saves up to £8.80, and for every pound of legal aid spent on employment advice, the state saves up to £7.13.

A survey of some 6,000 businesses has unsurprisingly found that many consider that UK health & safety law compliance costs are making British business uncompetitive. Clearly, this is a controversial area as healath & safety is vitally important but few would argue against simplifying the rules, which are overly complex. Calls for this are increasing following the publication of Lord Young’s report, “Common sense, common safety” which is well worth a read and which has led to the beginning of a different approach being rolled out over the next 18 months by the Health & Safety executive.

Is there any area of law left not susceptible to a challenge on Human Rights grounds ?

Many would say that some rights for teachers to be able to discipline school pupils are long overdue, and the Government seems to have acknowledged this in the Education Bill. However, before this Bill can even become law, commentators are suggesting that the proposed laws, including rights for teachers to search pupils for weapons or drugs or delete photos from mobile devices may breach human rights.  As with many potential Human rights arguments, parts of the Human Rights laws can be argued either way. A pupil may argue that their right to privacy is being breached but the school can counter argue that it has a duty to other pupils to prevent bullying or harassment. All in all, this is common sense gone mad !

For advice on managing your trade risk, contact us.

Up to now, injunctions forbidding certain specified actions have not included social media but often have included other forms of media such as TV, radio or print.

The groundbreaking High Court Order which includes facebook and twitter, in fact does nort relate to a celebrity case but instead a court of protection case, which will typically relate to sensitive issues relating to children or others who are legally vulnerable.

It should be remembered that part of the difficulty with social media and the internet generally is that there can be jurisdictional issues. Whilst an injunction order may include and relate to legal entities which are not UK based, it is another matter whether in reality there will be implications for non-compliance by an entity outside the jurisdiction.