We all expect that the rule of law in the court will be transparent and objective based on the existing constitutional laws based on morality and public conscience. However, one court in Massachusetts clearly shows the lack of modernity in the state’s constitution by upholding the man’s reveal of a woman’s ‘upskirt’ photo to not violate anything, not even the privacy of the woman.
The story, according to a Guardian article, upheld the defendant who took photos of skirts of women riding the Boston subway on the argument that the women were not nude or partially nude.
A lower court had upheld charges against the man who took the photos of videos of women’ skirts and dresses notably their undergarments. The Supreme Court overruled the decision, which had Beacon Hill lawmakers to pledge to change and modernize the law.
According to the lawmakers, the existing law only protects people in dressing rooms and bathrooms when nude or partially nude, but it does not protect clothed people in public areas. According to the court, not anybody wearing a skirt, dress or the like covering specific parts of her body is considered partially nude.
The Supreme Court of Justice said that it recognizes such conduct to be a form of misbehaviour and illegal, but they are not because of the way state law is written.
Posted by: Chad in Law
on February 17th, 2014
A great chunk of tax, about £2 billion a year, goes to legal aid, which allows taxpayer money to provide barristers, solicitors and other law professionals partial fees, which makes access to the law faster and swifter for people. This also allows reputable claims management companies such as NoWinNoFeeAdviceLine to provide no win no fee claim services for people with injury claims.
Apparently, the UK government plans on cutting the spending of £2 billion yearly by £250 million. Many legal personnel are protesting this because it can affect the quality of legal representation and access in the United Kingdom. However, MPs are saying the effects of the cuts will be very minimal in the entire industry.
In a ‘compensation culture’, which the United Kingdom has right now, it is possible to demand compensation from any construction company who happens to injure even just the skin of your body. Such a case is equivalent to £2000 if proven properly, including pain and suffering. Cutting the budget would reduce petty cases like these, but it also has its consequences.
The appearance of petty cases is a gauge that the UK legal system is working for the people and not just for certain individuals. If this is gone once the legal aid cuts come in, it could mean that only those in the middle to high classes in society will afford the legal help they need.
The European Court for Human Rights or ECHR is the last guardian of people who fell victim to many human rights violations either by an individual, companies or criminals. Privacy is declared by international law a basic human need, and defamation is punished by law sternly. However, the ECHR’s previous rulings are impeding on individuals’ and medias’ freedom of expression cases.
I’ve read this in the article here regarding Hugh Tomlinson QC’s reaction regarding the previous rulings of the ECHR are “hampering investigative journalism” in Europe.
Freedom of expression involving investigative journalism can lead journalists to the boundaries of privacy. But in most cases, parties involve agree to expose their own privacy to a certain degree that the journalist can compensate.
However, declaring a person’s fame to be a factor in a human rights defamation case is downright wrong. Speaking in a professional point of view, I would say that a person’s fame has nothing to do with defamation. If the data found by another person is true, then it is true. If it isn’t, then the case can be considered defamation, especially if the other person bred a “media circus” around a falsely-founded issue.
These new criteria of the ECHR could make for ironic twists if they will not change these in the future. Tomlinson was right; the way the information is obtained and the fame of the person have no relevance.
Colorado and Washington are the two US states first to declare recreational marijuana as legal. However, experts are concerned about tangled laws. The Controlled Substances Act of 1870 declares that anybody in possession of marijuana, including those who manufacture or sell it, are considered criminals.
According to experts, it names those who use the drug as law-abiding criminals. They said that it was law-breaking done with state regulation and licensing.
Marijuana became legal when Deputy Attorney General James Cole issued a memorandum that advised federal authorities about how to respond to state-permitted marijuana trade, which effectively allowed manufacturers and buyers free trade without having any legal consequence.
Cole had made clear that eight “enforcement priorities” authorities had to make sure buyers and sellers observed to prevent the smuggling of the drug across borders and falling into the hands of cartels and organised crime groups.
It was in 2011 that authorities issued a clarification on licensing marijuana for licensed medical use. Authorities still considered online advertising of the drug as outlawed because it enticed minors to use the drug.
Other unresolved problems about marijuana include employers having the right to sack people who make use of legally-purchased marijuana. Authorities could still consider criminals under parole consuming marijuana to have violated their conditions.
The United Kingdom’s strict immigration policies had left the Archbishop of Westminster Vincent Nicholson to comment on the contradicting policies a government who claims to support and value the family had imposed. According to the Archbishop, the new rules are “inhumane” and are splitting apart families.
In reality, the UK government had anticipated that at least 17,000 UK families may be split because of having illegitimate partners.
The new rules indicate that British partners who earn more than £16,000 will be qualified to introduce a non-EU partner in the United Kingdom. The partner must have permanent residence in the country for five years before the government grants them citizenship.
According to a leaked official Home Office document, the government plans to cut down at least 30,000 from the 106,000 a year immigration of people from different countries in the world.
The UK is also concerned about the new EU countries who have a poor start having access to the UK’s network. According to British Prime Minister David Cameron, the new rules will ensure that the new EU countries are first qualified by having at least 75% of UK’s GDP before they are admitted into the country.
According to Hungary’s EU Commissioner for Employment Lazlo Andor, the UK’s new immigration laws are “very selfish and xenophobic”. The UK’s new immigration laws, which may help contribute to its market and economy, also weakens the EU’s spirit of unity.
The Justices in Texas are sharply split on the subject of removing the abortion law in the state, but the law remains upheld by the court after opponents said that a third of the state’s abortion clinics had stopped providing abortions for women. The justices voted 5-4 to uphold the right of women to have an abortion in Texas
Justice Stephen Breyer said that he expected the issue to return to the Supreme Court after it is heard in the Court of Appeals in New Orleans. The court would hear the arguments of the dissenting justices and the law will remain in effect until the Justices resume to hear about it again.
In the early hearings of the Texas legislature, a trial judge said that blocking the law was blocking the woman’s right to want an abortion. However, three judges overruled the judge on the basis that it would only have women go through more effort to obtain an abortion, but it will not end the procedure or revoke the right.
Planned Parenthood and other Texas abortion clinics said that the measure meant that it would stop a third of the clinics in the state to stop their abortion services. They said in just a few days after the injunction’s lift, one-third of Texas’ facilities for abortion had stopped providing proper healthcare for women and others were forced to reduce the numbers of patients receiving care.
Posted by: admin in Law
on October 17th, 2013
Many Nigerian musicians faced great danger in the loss of profits and copyrighted work as some companies do not reward artists for the use of their media. The problem had been on for many years in Nigerian history. However, the Copyright Society of Nigeria or COSON had promised artists that their works will be protected against the abuse and exploitation of local organisations.
The Head of COSON’s communications, media and strategy Chibueze Okereke said that it will take legal action against organisations who continue such practices that deter the right of Nigerian artists. Copyright infringement is a serious crime according to Okereke and may mean the loss of product copyrights rightfully owned by the artists.
COSON said that the action from their organisation against media companies had been long too late, but it said that it will firmly follow its resolve in ensuring that all organisations obey the laws regarding copyrights to prevent costly legal action against such organisations.
Nigeria’s Laws of the Federation in 1990 had firmly stated that copyrights belong to the artist and any replication or use of the item should be with permission from the artist. However, because of the lack of a regulating and enforcing body, many original music from Nigerian artists have been used indiscriminately by local Nigerian media.
Posted by: admin in Finance
on October 1st, 2013
The Financial Conduct Authority said that the results of its investigation were disappointing as 12 out of 18 firms had failed to comply properly to refunding mis sold PPI to customers. The FCA estimates the 18 firms responsible for 16% of the country’s overall mis sold PPI numbers.
One of the firms already investigated was referred to enforcement action and might possibly face a fine for their activities. The remaining 12 firms might face enforcement action or adjustment.
PPI is an insurance policy designed to help you repay a loan and mortgage but because of the manner banks sold them, they became useless throughout the United Kingdom. If you want to know your total recompense for PPI, consult with a PPI compensation calculator for more information.
The Financial Ombudsman Service had confirmed that many firms and financial companies are still “dragging their feet” in addressing PPI claims. The FOS reports that it had received a total of 266,338 PPI claims in the first two quarters of 2013. The 26% increase in claims, still in favour of customers, means banks have not adopted the example set by the FOS.
To avoid difficulty in making your PPI claim, it is highly advised that you seek help from PPICalculatorCo.co.uk‘s claims experts. Under a no win no fee basis, it is highly recommended to help you get started on your claim.
A civilian contractor and former military man Aaron Alexis had shot at least 12 people in a US Navy Command Complex on Monday. The United States mourns for yet again another mass killing that has no motive. In light of the Sandy Hook shootings, the call for stricter gun laws in the United States continues.
Analysts call the United States’ gun laws as “the most relaxed in the world”. They said that Alexis was discharged from the US navy in 2011 after multiple breaches for similar rampage shooting incidents. However, Alexis was never once convicted.
Records said that Alexis shot at the tires of vehicles in 2004 out of frustration in Seattle. Police said that his attack was “fuelled by anger”. The two contractors who had “mocked” him owned the vehicles. He pulled out the gun after he walked out from the conversation with the two contractors.
Police also accepted his apology in September 2010 when he shot his pistol at the roof of his apartment that almost killed a woman living in the upper room. He said that pistol fired accidentally when he was cleaning it and forgot to check that it was loaded. However, according to reports, Alexis never apologized to the woman and did not notify about the gunshot.
Many people continue to push gun laws in the United States to become stricter as guns in the irresponsible hands of people could lead to more mass murders in the long run.
Older Posts »
The Tchaikovsky biopic’s filmmakers and producers avoid the heavy hand of the law by censoring certain parts and a great majority of the Russian composer’s sexuality in the biographical film. The increasing efforts of the government to ban “gay propaganda” had prompted many filmmakers and other media producers to censor certain parts of their films to avoid undesired clashes.
Pyotr Tchaikovsky, the world famous classical composer from Russia, is believed to have been gay. However, the biopic’s screenwriter Yuri Arabov said that Tchaikovsky was not gay. According to him, Tchaikovsky grew up without a family and public opinion about him being gay brought about such an infamous reputation next to his name.
The Tchaikovsky biopic was partly funded by the government. However, it was requested that the biopic downplay or avoid discussing the sexuality of Tchaikovsky completely.
The government’s new law banning gay propaganda and education to minors raised concerns about self-regulation and compulsory censorship especially in the media. The Russian government’s Ministry of Culture plays a major role in financing Russian-made movies. Most of these movies are patriotic or historical.
However, some agree that Tchaikovsky was not gay. Alexander Poznansky, who wrote books about Tchaikovsky, said that the composer was never gay in the first place. Most of his books were written based on the diary of the composer and the composer’s brother.