Report comment

As I read the article, Mr Cameron isn't suggesting that all claims are spurious but that many of them are. His view seems to receive some support from the SRA's decision to refer a well-known claimant firm to SDT and from the journalist's referral to the "Al-Sweady inquiry, where many claims fell apart and there was evidence some claims were false." The prime minister also seems to be of the opinion (which I certainly share, as I'm sure do a great many solicitors) that firms should not bring claims which they know, or ought to know, are frivolous or false. A lot of people here seem to be getting unduly heated. May I therefore once again call attention to Michael Cross' article on another page? This raises very fairly the difficult question of how far a country can continue to confer all the rights and protections of the most civilized society in the world upon antagonists who reject the basic assumptions of such a society, seek to destroy it, and recognize no limits as to the cruelty and barbarity with which they pursue that end? Bear in mind that few ethical issues can be determined on a principle as simple as "Four legs good, two legs bad".