The Public Liability Scam

Art Fairs have always been a seriously expensive risk for the participants. And no matter how hard they try to keep the wall prices down, from the public's point of view everything on offer seems terribly costly, even at the 'affordable' fairs. This is because the overheads are gigantic: hiring the venue, raising and striking the stalls, paying the staff and advertising, no matter what the style of show may be.
I took part in one such fair, The Big Art Fair, in London's Alexandra Palace, 1994. The expense wasn't too great as we were allowed to enter a fixed number of paintings and they would be hung wherever there was room. The fact that the organisers forgot to insist on a maximum size, resulting in a certain chaos, is another story.
There is something about the Aly Paly that seems to attract artists and businessmen with grandiosity problems the way flames attract moths. Another such fair, the Great Art Show, took place there in 2006. I know all about that because again, dear readers, I could not resist.

Having paid a large fee to hire a stall, I found there had been a 'sea change'. During the intervening years, the creep of litigation culture had engulfed the art world; Public Liability Cover was now mandatory for all exhibitors - another expense to eat into our tiny earnings.
I took part in what I swear will have been my last art fair ever, in the sweltering summer of '09, Chelsea Old Town Hall. Before, during and after forking out our hire fees, we the artists were continually reminded by the organiser that we Must Have Public Liability Cover - checks would be made, and if we were found to be without our figleaf we would be out on the street.
In the event, no such checks were made, but it all made it look so obvious that the litigation industry has everyone by the balls. Even little local art trails now expect all artists to have Cover.
A friend of mine who has set up an erstwhile empty shop in South Bristol as a low-rent artspace also has to have a certificate of cover - her landlord insists. And I'll bet the Council are doing the same to him.

It was not so when I took over a Marylebone High Street shop for a month under the wing of Alternative Arts, back in 1995.
I have spoken to the Government Department for Business, Innovations and Skills (http://www.direct.gov.uk/) and they could tell me nothing about the reason for this new and onerous demand, but the Health and Safety Executive (http://www.hse.gov.uk/) were able to tell me "This is not a health-and-safety matter in law. It is only optional."
The Citizens' Advice Bureau was able to assure me that "There is no known single original source of this necessity, just a general move towards the requirement by companies."
As the country grows more litigous?
"Yes, as the country grows more litigous."
This can only get bigger and more invasive; it has not reached some kind of plateau, that is certain. As long as law firms recognise the chance of turning a profit and the American culture of blame smothers any sense of our personal responsibility it can only get worse. Artists who have no material possessions (most of them) have nothing to lose by risking a court appearance over some brat's stubbed toe, and they should stand against this. Unfortunately it tends to be those with their own car, computer or even house who find themselves in this position; they do have something to lose if a stranger suffers a broken high heel or bangs a head on a low ceiling and is incapable of simply communicating, asking for an apology, as we used to do ten years ago.