Author: Sara N.

I am a freelance copywriter who would love to make the transition to a more jounalistic type of writing. I enjoy researching and writing about a variety of topics with my main areas of interest being politics, particularly the law, and I am also interested in psychology, photography and films.

Gove shocked by heckling headteachers

As Michael Gove attended the conference for the National Union of Headteachers he appeared to be taken aback by jeering and heckling aimed at him by the members of the union. During the question and answer session Gove was ruffled by ironic laughter and groans that were the frequent response to his answers.

The National Union of Head Teachers passed a ‘no confidence’ motion in the policies proposed and adopted by Gove, however, he remained steadfast in his belief in the policies and stated that he was striving for higher standards in schools.

When informed that, under his policies, teachers were suffering from stress due to SATs and OFSTED inspections, his response was less than sympathetic. Even when headteachers told him of their own experiences, including feeling that they were working within an environment of ‘bullying and fear’ whilst waiting for OSTED inspections and the subsequent results. Another example of the stress was reported by a headteacher who explained that in her school a governor with 20 years of experience ‘dissolved into tears’ when the school had to cope with SATs and OFSTED in one week. Still Gove seemed unmoved, even though the stress caused by his policies is shown to be affecting not only paid members of schools but also volunteers such as school governors.

Rather than accepting that his policies have caused upheaval and stress, and conceding that he could consider revising them, Gove instead insisted that the problem was that he had not communicated his ideas effectively. He would not be making any changes to his policies whether or not there was a problem with him expecting high standards and this was causing stress.

The overwhelming feeling that came from the question and answer session was that Gove was uninterested in the levels of stress that school staff were facing. He would not change his policies simply because headteachers were suffering and did not wish to work with people who were not happy to be constructive rather than just critical.

The general secretary of the National Union of Head Teachers, Russell Hobby, described the session as ‘bruising’. It is not just the National Union of Headteachers who have lost confidence in the government’s plans for the education system. The three biggest teachers’ unions, ATL, NUT and NASUWT, have also been vocal about their dislike of the policies and are planning regional strikes in response to the continuing dispute over pay, pensions and workloads.

It would appear that Gove has made his position clear and will not be backing down. It is also clear that the biggest unions in the country are not willing to accept this position and will continue to fight for what they believe teachers deserve. Evidently, a rough journey lies ahead, whatever the outcome and whoever ends up being victorious.

Anonymity of the accused in rape cases

In light of the recent arrest of Tory MP Nigel Evans for rape and sexual assault, the Government may be questioning itself as to why it decided not to extend anonymity in rape cases to the accused. If it had taken up this issue and made changes to the law in order to protect people accused of rape and sexual assault then the public would not currently be aware of Nigel Evans arrest. The only time the public would become aware was if he was convicted.

The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 introduced anonymity to victims of rape and sexual assault. This created a lifelong ban on their identity being revealed unless they choose to identify themselves. This anonymity is given to victims largely due to the stigma that comes with being a victim of such an intimate and violating offence.

Anonymity for men accused of rape is not a new idea conjured up by the latest coalition government. It was introduced in 1976 by the Labour Government and repealed by the next Conservative Government in 1988. The Liberal Democrats included it in their 2006 party policy and the current coalition Government proposed introducing it into law only a few years ago. The topic was dropped without being taken forward on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence that a new policy was needed.

Granting anonymity to a person who is not yet guilty of a crime arguably coincides with one of the fundamental principles of the law in the UK – the notion of being innocent until proven guilty.

There are clear grounds for the argument that men accused of rape should remain anonymous unless they are proven to be guilty by a court of law. The stigma attached to being accused of rape or sexual assault is such that it affects the accused’s entire life and their family’s lives. The accused may lose family and friends, their job, be subjected to violence or harassment or have to leave the area in which they live. This is particularly true of a person in the public eye whose accusations are documented throughout the media. If a person is found to be innocent or the accusations are withdrawn then there is often less media attention surrounding this type of story. Many will therefore be assumed guilty, even without trial. Many people believe that a person should not have to experience this if they have done nothing wrong. If they remained anonymous this would never happen.

However, there are also reasons why the accused should be ‘named and shamed’. Arguably, being accused of rape or sexual assault is no worse than being accused of other offences such as child murder. If anonymity is given to one offence then a snowball effect may occur and anonymity demanded for all sorts of offences. One of the features of the justice system in the UK is that it is open to the public. If people accused of crimes are given anonymity then the public will no longer be able to attend criminal court and have the access to the legal system that is currently in place.

Granting anonymity to an accused means that there can be no public appeals for more victims to come forward. In cases such as that of Jimmy Saville, this could have been potentially disastrous. If he had been alive and capable of being prosecuted a lack of victims could have meant that charges were never brought against him. The fact that the allegations came to light after his death would mean that had anonymity been in place the public would never have been made aware of the accusations.

A further argument put forward for accused people to not be granted anonymity is that it is disrespectful to the victim. This may be true in cases where the accused is guilty, however, in cases where the allegations are false and the accused is entirely innocent the lack of respect appears to be aimed at the accused rather than the other way around.

It is unlikely that this issue will be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. Any form of censorship should not be taken lightly and granting anonymity to a person accused of a crime has an effect on the way the justice system works. The Coalition Government may now be regretting the decision to shelve the idea in the light of the recent accusations; however, to rush into a change in the law is likely to be reactive rather than a logically decided and necessary amendment.

Is Britain behind the world in legalising same-sex marriage?

The past two weeks would be regarded as a success by same-sex marriage campaigners. With significant developments in Uruguay, France, Ireland and New Zealand the number of countries recognising and allowing same-sex marriage is increasing. So where does this leave Britain? Is it falling behind other parts of the world in this issue or is it an unnecessary waste of time because civil partnerships have been established for many years now?

 

April 11

The lower house in Uruguay voted in favor of legalising same-sex marriage. The result came a week after the senate  passed it by a wide majority and makes Uruguay the third country in the Americas to legalise same-sex marriage.

 

April 12

France’s upper house voted in favour of legalising same-sex marriage, meaning this country is also well on its way to having same-sex marriages. However, the decision was taken amidst lively debates and strong protests. Whether it passes the next stage will be interesting to see.

 

April 14

Same-sex marriage was on the agenda for debate in Ireland, with an overwhelming majority of 79% voting for constitutional reform allowing gay people to marry. 78% of people also voted that the constitutional amendment be directive rather than permissive. Meaning that, if adopted, the constitutional change will require laws to be made allowing same-sex marriage, rather than merely permitting laws to be made to allow same-sex marriage.

 

April 17

New Zealand legalised same-sex marriage with the result of both MPs and members of the public bursting into song to celebrate. New Zealand has made history by becoming the first country in the Asia Pacific to legalise same-sex marriage.

 

Where is Britain in the process of legalising same-sex marriage?

With so many controversial ideas and policies being discussed and implemented recently, the issue of same-sex marriage seems to have been somewhat forgotten. However, it was only in February that MPs in the Commons voted in favour of marriage equality (Same Sex Couples) bill with a majority of 225. This was the second reading in the Commons, meaning that the legislation has now progressed to the committee stage where it will be scrutinised and amended. Once this stage is finished it will be reported and the third reading in the Commons will be carried out. If the bill passes this it will then progress to the House of Lords to begin the same process.

This bill has therefore still got a long way to go before it becomes legal for same-sex couples to marry, if the law is ever passed at all. Conservative MP David Burrowes predicts that there will be great opposition once it reaches the House of Lords.

 

Is same-sex marriage necessary in Britain when civil partnerships are legal?

The Civil partnership Act 2004 made it legal for same-sex couples to enter into legally recognised partnerships. To many people this has bridged the gap that left same-sex couples unable to be recognised by the law, however, there are major distinctions between civil partnerships and marriages which mean that there is a convincing argument that civil partnerships are not equal to marriage.

Firstly, whilst civil partnerships are legal they arguably do not hold the same social standing as marriage. The distinction also forces same-sex couples to ‘out’ themselves whenever they are required to state their marital status. This may not appear to be a significant issue, but many same-sex couples live in fear of being discovered and many believe that ‘outing’ themselves will lead to prejudice and discrimination.

On a more practical level civil partnerships do not grant couples the same financial rights as married couples, for instance pensions are generally lower for a surviving civil partner than for a surviving spouse.

Civil partnerships are not recognised around the world, even in countries that either allow same-sex marriage or some form of civil partnership, so there is no guarantee that a couple civil partnered in the UK will be recognised as a legal couple in other parts of the world. For example, in Sweden and Portugal same-sex marriage is legal, but they do not recognise civil partnerships as a legal relationship. This causes restrictions on travel and the possibility of moving abroad as a couple.

The law surrounding civil partnerships is not as settled and so there may be areas that still cause confusion legally. Civil partnerships are dissolved rather than divorced and adultery is not recognised as a legitimate reason to file for dissolution. This has two implications: firstly, this may feed into the stereotype that gay people are promiscuous and the stigma that civil partnerships are not as important as marriages; and secondly the vast amount of law surrounding marriage may not be applicable to civil partnerships, promoting uncertainty and the possibility for civil partners to be treated very differently by the legal system.

In order to bring legal partnerships between same-sex couples up to an equal footing with heterosexual couples it seems that same-sex marriage is necessary. To ensure that all citizens enjoy the same rights the same law is needed, not a substitute that seems to be very similar, which is arguably what the Civil Partnership Act is. However, if equality is what is being strived for then the issue of civil partnerships also needs to be addressed. It would not be an equal situation if same-sex couples have the choice of either a marriage or a civil partnership, whilst heterosexual couples are restricted solely to marriage.

Changes to the law on dangerous dogs

Amidst news of the death of Margaret Thatcher, the death of the young girl Jade Anderson, who was mauled to death by dogs when she went to a house to visit a friend, was largely overlooked. Yet this story is of great significance when it comes to light that no crime was committed and so there will be no consequences for the owners of the dogs.

The problem with the current law

The Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced in 1991 and attempted to set out what a ‘dangerous dog’ is, as well as allow for the prosecution of owners, or people in charge, of the dog if the animal were to attack somebody.  The law has come under heavy criticism for not wholly achieving this aim.

Certain types of dogs were made illegal to own: Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Braziliero. However, the legislation recognises that it is not so much the name or breed of the dog but its temperament that makes it dangerous. Therefore, it is the characteristics of the dog and whether it resembles any of the four types of banned breeds that will determine whether it is dangerous or not. If any breed of dog were to demonstrate violent tendencies then the courts may insist on its destruction; however, owners may also request that the dog be exempt. It was also made illegal to breed any dog for the purpose of fighting.

The legislation also makes it an offence for a dog to be out of control in a public place or a non-public place if the dog is not permitted to be there. This would include any person’s house who had not given their permission for the dog to be there. ‘Out of control’ is not specifically defined in the Act but references to injuring a person or there being reasonable belief that a dog may injure someone are made. It has therefore been interpreted that ‘out of control’ means either that the dog has attacked or attempted to attack a person.

This arguably leaves a huge gap in the legislation, namely the situation where a dog has not been categorised as dangerous but nonetheless attacks somebody on the property on which it is housed. This is the unfortunate situation Jade Anderson found herself in. She was attacked by dogs at a house she went to visit where the dogs were permitted to be.

For this reason no actual offence has taken place and so the police are not looking to make an arrests as they are bound by this wholly inadequate piece of legislation.

Does the law need reform?

There are hundreds of thousands of dog attacks in Britain every year and many of these will take place in areas where the dogs are permitted to be and so will not be covered by the legislation. Thankfully the majority of cases will be minor, however, when there are no consequences for the owners when a person is killed by dogs there is a deep injustice in the system. This feeling has been reflected by an e-petition entitled ‘Justice for Jade’, which has received over 9,000 signatures.

Whilst the law is arguably fairly adequate for classifying dangerous dogs and prosecuting owners of dogs out of control in public places, there is a strong argument that any dog in the right (or rather wrong) circumstances could be dangerous, whether it has demonstrated characteristics of the four types of banned breeds or not. Allowing people to have potentially out of control dogs on their premises not only puts themselves and their families and friends at risk but also unsuspecting people who are required to visit the property – the postman/woman, a delivery driver, gas or electric meter reader. There are numerous people who are legally allowed access to private property and the law should protect these people. Of course, changing the law so that owners can be prosecuted will not stop people having out of control dogs on their property, however it may make some people reconsider whether their dog is safe to own if they are aware that they face prosecution of a fine or imprisonment.

What is the government proposing?

The Government has been proactive since the death of Jade Anderson and has published draft proposals for new legislation. These proposals allow for owners to be prosecuted if their dog attacks somebody on private property, whether it be their own or someone else’s. The requirement that the dog is not allowed to be in the area has been removed, which should, in theory, close the loophole. The consequence of a conviction under this new law would be a maximum of two years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.

What about trespassers or burglars?

At this stage the new law will still not cover situations in which burglars or other trespassers are attacked. The debate surrounding this issue is still ongoing as many believe that people should have the right to protect themselves and their property, using dogs a guard if they wish. Others believe that if a person trespasses or commits an offence they should still be owed the same duty of care to be protected from dangers such as dogs. It will be interesting to see whether this part of the legislation changes on its way through the process or whether it will remain that burglars and trespassers are not protected.

The proposed reforms appear to keep the satisfactory parts of the law – any dog may still be regarded as dangerous, regardless of breed, if it demonstrates the correct characteristics.  It also appears to rectify the unsatisfactory law currently in place by closing the major loophole was left open by the previous law. However, there is no timetable for when this new legislation may appear on the statute books. Hopefully this draft proposal will not merely be a reaction to the tragic death of a young girl and will be taken through the stages as quickly as possible so that people can be brought to justice and workers who are required to enter private property can feel safer in their work.