2012 seemed to start suddenly, with the media deciding which stories they wished to pursue.
One of the stories ‘selected’ by mainstream media was the removal of breast implants in England. The story is essentially this. There have been an increasing number of reports over the safety of breast implants manufactured and supplied by the French company Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP). These implants have been alleged to have a potential rupture failure rate of 7%, and to have been manufactured (for cost cutting reasons) using industrial as opposed to medical grade silicone, amongst other materials. Mike Farrell, in his ‘Law Blog One‘, an interesting blog which has now reached its first anniversary, considered the situation both in terms of breach of contract and in terms of common negligence. Outside the scope of his discussion was when a defendant might run a concurrent claim under contract and tort in litigation, but the discussion was indeed an interesting one. The discussion could be expanded, pardon the pun, with a due consideration of remedies, including damages.
The media decided not to cover the #SpartacusReport, a Report looking at the views of disabled stakeholders looking at the proposed reforms of welfare system in the Welfare Reform Bill. Various excuses were offered by anchors in the news as to why this was not newsworthy, despite trending for most of the day on Twitter, compared to Anthony Worrell Thompson’s shoplifting offence, including there had been no celebrity endorsement. Sue Marsh showed limitless energy in rebutting every negativity during the day, including finding the support of comedians, and did a remarkably impressive day of campaigning, with Kaliya Franklin of ‘Broken of Britain’. Due entirely to independently-funded research, the authors of the Report have alleged serious failings in the development of proportionate policy for disabled citizens, partly on the way information has been provided to the legislature. Yesterday was extremely liberating in terms of the sharing of information on Twitter, despite a media blackout of the Report on the mainstream TV news, as Susan Archiband elegantly described in her blogpost yesterday on ‘Twitterland’.
In a sense, it sometimes feels as if the law is protecting sometimes the wrong sort of defendant. Access to justie was a recent theme of the Guardian’s blog on #Leveson, for example.
Their live blog reported yesterday (9 January 2012) the following:
4.19pm: Leveson says he is attracted to the idea of speedy and cheap resolution of disputes between members of the public and newspapers.
Mohan replies: “I think swifter access to justice is an interesting point and a mediating arm of the PCC [could help with that].”
He says he would be in favour of a “kite-marking system” on newspapers that might have a knock-on effect on advertising rates.
There has been much criticism from #Leveson that people who have most access-to-justice are the ones that have “deep pockets”. In a different end of law, according to a detailed blogpost, a leading American lawyer, Vince Megna, has protested against fee-limiting arrangements introduced in the US law. Megna apparently is a familiar figure in the US profession, widely known as the “lemon law” king. Lemon law, as he helpfully explains on his website, is “the body of law that offers protection to owners of motor vehicles with recurring mechanical or other problems that are not resolved within a reasonable time by the dealer or manufacturer”.
