Dick Pudlecote has thought up an entirely fictional dilemma of the sort that only the last 12 years of reform could have given us.
In short, he posits the situation of an owner of a transport company who discovers that one of his drivers is illliterate. The DVLA seemingly felt the need to provide every assistance to overcome this "disability" and grant him a driving licence. He, meanwhile, is conscious that sacking the driver will expose him to a claim for unfair dismissal, severe dyslexia being one of the conditions specifically covered by the Disability Discrimination Act.
The dilemma is completed, of course, by the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, which makes him responsible for an accident caused by the driver's inability to read a road sign.
How perfect. How completely perfect. The Government, through one arm, grants the necessary documents for someone to do a job for which they are clearly unsuited. A different arm of the State, operating under rules set down by the Government, then bars him from dismissing the employee. Finally, a further arm of Government makes him personally liable for the employee's accidents.
There is a message here for all putative employers: Don't.
Perfect! Presumably the employer just has to wait for his employee to kill someone. Then he has to go to court and let a judge arbitrarily decide which bits of the law will be applied. If he's lucky he gets off, if he's unlucky he gets sent down for manslaughter. There doesn't appear to any rational or morally significant criterion to adjudicate.
ReplyDeleteThis comes of the Government's inability to understand that when you legislate for someone to have a right, you do not only give them a freedom, you deny someone else a freedom. Combine that with the legislative promiscuity of this Government and you get Dick Pudlecote's dilemma.
There's a lot this Government doesn't understand....
ReplyDeleteYes, like government.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link, Patently - you summed it up very succinctly. :-)
ReplyDeleteNo worries, Dick!
ReplyDeleteAlbert: So, [best John Cleese voice] apart from Government, business, banking, economics, and defence, what have the Romans ever given... oh sorry, what doesn't this Government understand...?
Democracy and morality are missing from your list.
ReplyDeleteAnd the aqueduct. Don't forget the aqueduct.
ReplyDeleteI assume the aqueduct is a metaphor for quantitative easing.
ReplyDeleteOooh - clever!
ReplyDeleteErr, I mean, yes, that is exactly what I was thinking of.
In which case, is the source of the water in the aqueduct in the future?
ReplyDeleteWater flowing backwards in time to supply current needs?
ReplyDeleteWell, it's about as believable as the Treasury economic forecasts on which the current strategy is based ;-)
Which is another way of saying that the aqueduct is another thing this Government doesn't understand.
ReplyDeleteI worked for a firm that paid out £5000 in injury compensation to a person who was slightly injured when the ladder they were standing on collapsed. He sued for dangerous equipment.
ReplyDeleteThe person who fell was also the same person who had signed a H&S check the week before to confirm that the ladder was in full working order. In court that was deemed irrelevant.
Just one of many over the years..
Hang on a secundus. The Romans didn't make allowances for weakness. Their roads were straight. Still this obviates the need for many road signs.
ReplyDeleteMaybe we need a new Labour strategy of straightness? Straight roads, straight talking, straight laws, straight away, straight hair.......
Some denarii for your thoughts, Patently, although I realise this driver had no talents.
Sorry Measured, new Labour would never accept your new Labour strategy of straightness. Straight roads, straight talking, straight laws, straight away, straight hair.......might be construed as "homophobic".
ReplyDeleteI did also realise the 'straight' strategy would be an anathema to this Government of No Talent(s). I am concerned though that 'they of small minds' may have to consider a tax on the ownership of curly hair, to be described as a comb resistant levy, to fill their coffers.
ReplyDeleteBack to the post, Patently collated brilliantly the relevant points in Puddlecote's scenario. So if one is liable for being law abiding, why not be naughty? Albert, go easy on the quotes. ;-)
Measured, the danger of a "comb resistant levy" is that it may lead to people using environmentally unfriendly technologies to become straight-haired, thereby hastening the end of the world.
ReplyDeleteAs for being naughty, there's nothing naughty about disobeying an unjust law, on the contrary, it is naughty to obey an unjust law
I have a collection of quotes to support that if you're interested...
Albert, consider yourself hired as my lawyer.
ReplyDeleteMeasured, I think Albert has raised the main problem. If ever there was a government that was completely bent in every manner, it is this one. Oh - and please stop giving them ideas for new taxes!
Bill - sadly believable.