Duty of care

There was a story in the Herald the other day about a father whose daughter had not received any English tuition in the run up to her exams. Dad, a toolmaker, had employed a private tutor and having had to part with his hard-earned cash through no fault of his own had sued the council for compensation.

Rather than pay him off, as is normal in these kinds of thing, the council had turned up at the Sheriff Court and argued, apparently with a straight face, that they had no duty of care to the child.

This isn't the first time this kind of thing has happened. Connoisseurs may remember the attempts made by the Health & Safety Executive to argue that they had no duty of care to rail passengers. Likewise, the Inland Revenue have tried to absolve themselves for any responsibility for advice they give to taxpayers.

You have to just stand back in admiration at the sheer brazenness of the way in which the state can on the one hand bang you up in jail if you fail to send your children to school, while at the same time arguing that they don't actually have to do anything as menial as actually educating the little buggers once they're there.

Really, truly, the state is not your friend.

Comments

[Al]

I might have understood if the school didn't have a dedicated Physics teacher, but to not have an English teacher for ten weeks? How on earth did they manage that?

[obnoxio the clown]

It must be something in the water, my daughter has had only substitute English teachers for well over half a year. As a result, her English marks are far below all the others.

Still, it's OK, because the state knows best, and if she can't speak English, she'll be no different from anyone else of her generation.