Author: Nikki Petken You may recall SA Law’s blog on 25 September 2009, in which we confirmed that the High Court had ruled it was legal for employers to force workers to retire at the age of 65. The government has now made a dramatic u-turn and proposed that the current default retirement age of 65 is scrapped in the UK from October 2011. The implications are that employers would no longer be able to dismiss staff because they had reached the age of 65. The current position is that an employer can meet with an employee 6 to 12 months before their 65th birthday and notify them of their intention to retire them at that date. An employee is entitled to put forward their case not to be retired but the only obligation on an employer is to consider this. It is the employer’s discretion as to whether or not to terminate employment. Groups that have long campaigned for the default retirement age to be scrapped have welcomed the decision. Marion Birch, Chief Executive of Age UK Hertfordshire has told SA Law, “Older people are one group of society that are not protected from discrimination by legislation so we are delighted that people over the age of 65 will have full employment rights for the first time. Age UK Hertfordshire is pleased that the Government is finally sweeping away this discrimination against older people and will be allowing individuals the dignity of choosing when to retire.  Enabling people to work and contribute their skills for longer not only keeps them active, it also makes economic sense as our population ages.” Given the length of notice required to notify an employee of their intended retirement, it is likely that these measures will come into force from 6 April 2011. The main concern appears to be the length of time in which employers will need to come up to speed with the new law. Really they have only just got to grips with the retirement process and employers will need to deal with their new workforce at that time in particular; •    reviewing policies and practices such as benefits to ensure these are not discriminatory to employees over the age of 65 years; •    consider alternatives to forcing retirement such as adjustments to role, variation of terms or flexible working. If you have any questions about the new retirement plans, do not hesitate to call Nikki Petken on 01727 798023

Excerpt from:
New Government: New Plans for Retirement

Author: Chris Cook In an article on the BBC this week, it has been found by a team of Manchester University researchers, as part of an Occupational Medicine survey, that only one in 20 doctors is following Government guidance on how long patients should be signed off work. The research focused on 113 GPs operating in one health trust in England and reviewed practices when dealing with hernia repairs, hysterectomies and heart attacks.  In spite of national guidance, it was found that there is a huge variation as to the length of time that employees are signed off for similar conditions.  Most doctors surveyed had not received training in respect of sickness certification and a third of the doctors were unaware of the Government guidance on recommended sick leave periods, which are set out on the Department of Work and Pensions website .  The study leader, Dr Richard Roope, commented that “We need to get across to GPs and patients alike that ‘being signed off’ may actually be bad for the health of the patient, their employer and the country as a whole”. In light of the recent swine flu epidemic, it is particularly important for employers to be able to rely upon the guidance provided by their employees’ doctors so as to ensure an adequate workforce over the festive period.  This recent survey suggests a clear lack of training on how long employees need to recuperate before returning to work, leading to a large number of inconsistencies in the recommendations given by doctors.  Employers are advised to consider using the services of occupational health or alternatively external consultants if they have any doubts as to the views of employees’ doctors on the issue of when any such employee will be able to return to work. New “fit note” scheme As some of you will be aware, the Government is proposing to replace sick notes with “fit notes”, which will involve doctors needing to set out what an employee is able to do.  It remains to be seen whether the introduction of the proposed new “fit note” scheme will focus doctors’ minds on giving employers more accurate guidance on return to work dates, and perhaps more importantly give recommendations on what can be done to facilitate an earlier rehabilitation to work.

Read the original: 
According to University Survey: Doctor’s are not following sick note guidance…

Author: Chris Cook The Government has this week published an article in “Building a society for ages” that its date to review the current default retirement age of 65 will be brought forward from 2011 to 2010.  The reason for the change is to reflect the “change in economic circumstances” that has arisen since the default retirement age was introduced when the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations came into force in 2006. According to the BBC, the vast majority of the workforce retire before reaching the age of 65, although 1.3 million workers remain in work beyond state pension age.  It is apparent that many more than that would work beyond that age if their employers were prepared to let them do so. Prime Minister Gordon Brown explained: “Evidence suggests that allowing older people to continue working, unfettered by negative views about ageing, could be a big factor in the success of Britain’s businesses and our future economic growth.” There has been a mixed response to the Government’s move.  The Confederation of British Industry expressed their disappointment at the move, stating that the default retirement age helps businesses plan for the future.  However, the TUC received the news much more positively, stating that “Employees should have choice - neither forced by employers to give up work, nor forced by inadequate pensions into working longer than they should.” Although the Government intends to ask both employer and employee groups their views on the default retirement age, it now seems likely that in light of the Prime Minister’s comments, the default retirement age will either be raised or removed completely.

More here: 
Default Retirement Age to be Reviewed

The justice secretary has apologised to the families of the two murdered French students for the ‘serious failures across the criminal justice system’ that left one of the defendants free to kill when he should have been incarcerated. Dano Sonnex and Nigel farmer were found guilty at the Old Bailey of the murders of students Laurent Bonomo and Gabriel Ferez. At the time of the murders Dano Sonnex was subject to a warrant for his arrest and recall to prison for breach of his probation licence conditions. read more

View original here: 
Straw apologises for probation failings

A thousand serviceman who say they suffered ill health because of Britain’s atomic tests in the Pacific in the 1950s won a crucial High Court victory yesterday that paves the way for them to sue the Ministry of Defence.

See more here: 
Nuclear test veterans win right to sue Government

While we do not  yet live in a dystopic society, the dysfunctional nature of modern life; forged on an anvil of oppressive religion and laws devised to suit the needs of the ruling elite of times past, leave us in 21st century Britain with more laws than the  apparatus of the state can remember, let alone operate effectively.  Britain leads the world in the covert and overt surveillance of its people with more CCTV cameras than any other country on earth, a raft of anti-terror laws and criminal and quasi-criminal laws pumped out  of Westminster almost daily as politicians regulate a society that is moving dangerously close to being one of the most over-regulated  in Europe and, possibly, the world…  a society which has seen civil liberties eroded significantly over the past ten years of Labour rule. I am no Tory but I marvel with no pleasure at how a Labour government, elected on the back of a promise to represent the less fortunate in our society, should enact laws which are being misused by councils and petty officials and which are being used to slowly take away the rights and freedoms we once enjoyed. We talk blithely about British justice being the best in the world - it does have many good qualities - but our legal profession is in danger of being reduced to the role of undertaker and embalmer to a once more free country. So what of lawyers and our role in this world? Lawyers are under no more of a duty than plumbers, dentists and taxidermists, to act for society as a whole, to act as a bulwark against oppressive government rule, to take an active and professional interest in freedom and civil rights  and the truth of the matter is that most don’t. We don’t have one legal profession, we have many. We have two branches to the ‘profession’: solicitors and barristers,  each  with different duties and responsibilities.   ‘Magic Circle’  and other corporate-commercial lawyers - as is their right - rarely, if ever come across civil liberty issues - save when a client faces the prospect of prosecution for a white collar crime.  These lawyers represent the interests of business, individuals or corporate entities and government. Private client lawyers generally represent the interests of those who wish to create trusts, optimise their income or avoid tax or purchase property, commodities or goods and they too are, generally, not involved in individual issues of civil liberties.  That is their chosen field of law. That is the work they are trained to do. Listening to those who represent the profession talking about independence, about professionalism, about leading the world in the provision of legal services is enjoyable, but is it any more than ‘hype’ or  ‘blether’ as we say North of the border?  If lawyers in the business and wealthy private client sector don’t render a high quality service, there are plenty who do and who will, gladly, relieve those who don’t of the responsibility for doing so. So, what are we left with in terms of lawyers who take upon themselves the duty and responsibility for representing the less fortunate, those who face prosecution for a crime they didn’t commit, those who need advice in a contentious divorce, those who need the help that our government should provide? What are we left with of a legal profession of 140,000 and more lawyers who have the skills, the knowledge, the desire to ensure that our civil liberties are maintained, that law is applied according to law, that the police act properly, that other officials do not abuse their powers? I don’t know the precise answer, but I doubt that it would amount to much more than 15-20 per cent of the profession, if that. And then what do we do to enable these remaining lawyers to act effectively? What does the government do to help these remaining lawyers?  The government has reduced legal aid in criminal law, family and other civil law fields where there is a demonstrable need for the skills of a highly trained lawyer to represent the vulnerable.  Law Centres can barely function without charitable support and civil liberty organisations, often staffed by lawyers, have also to rely on charity to operate, to protest in a reasoned manner when government acts unfairly or acts to reduce our freedoms. It is a disgrace to our nation that we are in danger of returning to the days when ‘Justice’ was open only, like the doors of The Ritz Hotel,  to those of means, power and influence.  It is a disgrace that legal aid in criminal, family and some civil areas where the vulnerable need protection is being reduced to a point where experienced lawyers are just not able to work for the money provided. Not all lawyers are the ‘fat cats’ beloved of the tabloid press. If a barrister or solicitor, after years of expensive training and now faced with the prospect of huge education debt,  is not able to afford to do this much needed work - the vulnerable will ultimately go unadvised and unrepesented in civil matters, the innocent will not receive proper representation when prosecuted for serious and complex crime and, I venture to suggest,  the police and public officials will feel more confident about using the extensive powers they enjoy in the knowledge that their use is unlikely to be contested by an experienced lawyer -  leaving the burden on judges to redress the balance of strong against weak in court. This may sound extreme - and to some extent I have chosen language carefully to paint a bleak picture -  but those in the profession I have talked to in recent months paint a very bleak picture of our future if we lose the talents of experienced lawyers simply because they cannot afford to do this much needed work. What is ‘justice’ when the strong are well represented and the weak not? Over to you……? Finally… I leave you with this rather chilling piece by Ian Parker-Joseph of The Libertarian Party UK: Just who is planning the violence in London next week? update “When Police Commanders are reported to have said of the over hyped expected violence at the G20 marches that they are ‘up for it’, I seriously begin to wonder whether our prediction that the Government, and the Police, are actually looking to provoke the expected clashes. An article in the Guardian Friday evening tells us: Yesterday, the Metropolitan police was understood to have contacted a number of protest groups warning that the main day of protest, Wednesday, 1 April would be “very violent”, and senior commanders have insisted that they are “up for it, and up to it”, should there be any trouble. Is this what you would call responsible policing?”

Read the rest here: 
Cry God for Harry, St George and England (not forgetting Wales)….

While I am no fan of babies and young children being wheeled into pubs at weekends by chino and blazer wearing parents, I do have some sympathy with the idea - should their babies be involved in a serious crime and then be eliminated from police enquiries as a *prime suspect* - that the DNA of their child should be DELETED from the Police DNA database. Unfortunately…it would appear that I am not joined in this not unreasonable view by our increasingly pantomime Home Secretary. The BBC reports that… “A baby had its details held on the controversial DNA police database, Jacqui Smith has confirmed. The home secretary said the youngest person to have a DNA profile held on the database was less than a year old and the oldest was over 90. It is understood the sample would have been taken to eliminate the baby’s DNA from a crime scene.” The BBC continues to report… “In December the European Court of Human Rights ruled the UK should not indefinitely retain the DNA and fingerprint records of people who were not convicted of a crime. Following that ruling, Ms Smith announced changes to the way the database operated - and said the government would take “immediate steps” to remove the DNA profiles of children under 10 from the database.” I am not a specialist in DNA but I know people who are - Cellmark - who help me keep my free mag Insite Law free. I cannot imagine it will take that long to remove this baby’s DNA and all the other DNA records kept for innocent people - but knowing this government they will probably lose the password to the encrypted file, assuming, of course, they haven’t lost the entire datebase itself. *** From Twitter 9.30 pm nipclaw @ Charonqc DNA - how many cases do these twits have to lose in Strasbourg at our expense. If they’ve got any spare dosh, revive legal aid.

Excerpt from: 
Baby DNA retained on Police database to reduce UK crime wave…

I have just been at The Institute of Political Psychiatry in London listening to a most interesting paper. I wasn’t able to tweet the entire conference but I was able to record Professor Strangelove’s extraordinary statement on my mobile phone. Statement from Dr Strangelove MB, CH, FRCP, FRSA Emeritus Professor,  Institite of Political Psychiatry, London “I have come to ze conclusion, after many years of research, to conclude that zis government is ill, sick in ze head and has Political Asperger Syndrome.  I define zis in ze traditional way, but with ze variants… it is an autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Governments with PAS therefore show difficulties in social interaction and have restricted, stereotyped patterns of behavior and interests. Governments suffering from this syndrome also tend to believe that they are unassailable and have a tendency to wish to over regulate the lives of those they govern. One of the unfortunate side effects of PAS is memory loss and this often presents by a total inability to recall the manifesto on which they were elected in the first place. We have noted, in a study of dictatorial regimes in other parts of the world, zat some patient governments also exhibit a tendency to forget where data is or lose it. There is also a tendency to blame others for failure.  Zat is all I haff to say on ze subject today. More research is needed.  There is no cure.”       

See the original post:
British Government diagnosed with PAS - Political Asperger Syndrome…