Revenge Porn: Why Peers Don’t Like It

Some people met the news about the revenge porn law’s disapproval by the peers of the British parliament. I met it with a slow disappointment, but eventually, I realised what was in store for the United Kingdom if the revenge porn law was approved. 

Let’s define terms first. Revenge porn is when a former partner uploads to a public network media explicit in nature that both of them have produced. However, in publishing law, all parties who had partaken in producing a medium must have the approval of both parties in question. This means that the victim is also part-owner of the produced media and has a veto on the publishing of such.

This is the law that British peers are trying to use instead of having the revenge porn law. The revenge porn law incriminates anybody who had uploaded explicit media that could tarnish the reputation of another party, namely the victim. This gives the victim the right to litigate the suspect or uploader because of damages to privacy.

However, it is similar to Google’s defiance against the EU data laws that allow people to erase their online histories because it damages the private lives of such persons. If we have the revenge porn law, journalists will have limited rights to publish material especially with exposes and documentaries. It commits damages to personal privacy.

So, until the definition of revenge porn, cyber bullying and other new terms the internet has come up with is put into the constitution, we will never have a good chance of having good governance in the internet. This may work for the worse, or for the better.

The Benefits of Revised Renting Laws in the United Kingdom

After reading an article in The Guardian regarding people who are calling for the government to revise the laws on renting in the United Kingdom, I found myself thinking about the possible benefits it could bring. Apparently, any revision entitles change and improvement, but still, it is not perfect. Revised renting laws could bring the following options to UK tenants.

1.    Prevent “Revenge” Evictions

The Guardian article told about the story of Andrezj Koper, a tenant of Fergus and Judith Wilson. The latter couple had been infamous because they used the rights of landlords abusively. It was described in the article that Koper had been evicted because he only wanted to have the boiler in his rental home repaired. A revision of laws could better protect tenants from such situations. Apparently, the UK property laws do not obligate landlords to give a reason for eviction.

2.    Enforce Landlord Responsibilities

Many of these infamous revenge evictions, as far as I am concerned, refers to the Landlord trying to evade their responsibilities to tenants. Here is a full list of landlord responsibilities, and these need to be reinforced. The UK legislation must realize that tenants are still customers,

and that landlords need to act like proper business personnel who provides service.

3.    Improve the Economy

Renting is the best option for moving professionals and their families, and avoiding a hundred-thousand streak of evictions yearly could improve the economy. With stability in terms of landlord-tenant relationships with proper laws in place, industries could have mainstay employees, and property prices could even increase.

Corruption in Qatar’s FIFA 2022 Becomes Controversial, Qatar Seeks Legal Action

The football governing body might strip Qatar of its right to stage the 2022 World Cup in the country should evidence point out that Qatar had used corruption to win the vote. However, Qatar is considering all its options, including filing a legal complaint against FIFA for not recognising its bid.

According to legal observers, Qatar has no right to litigate FIFA because it had wavered its right to legal action when Qatar won its bidding and signed away its right to take any form of legal action.

Information regarding Qatar’s corruption involves former FIFA Vice President Mohamed Bin Hammam, a Qatari, had paid bribes totalling £3m to influence football administrators all over the world.

Qatar had denied all corruption allegations against it involving winning the FIFA bid. Initially, FIFA had wanted to cast a re-vote, but before it was pointed out that all countries staging the World Cup had to abide by FIFA’s code of ethics, which wavers all legal action against FIFA’s actions if FIFA had decided to withdraw the stage.

Legal observers also said that FIFA’s Ethics Committee could hear Qatar’s appeal, but they pointed out that it was not a court of law and even the Court of Arbitration of Sport could not handle the dispute.

FIFA had hired US attorney Michael Garcia to investigate the 2022 vote and 2018 vote to find any traces of corruption. Garcia is about to end his investigation this week.

Source

GCHQ Has Been Violating Political Securities for A Long Time

According to MP Caroline Lucas and Lady Jones of Moulseccomb, GCHQ had been eavesdropping on MPs and peers on a blanket basis, along with other communications from political personalities in the United Kingdom. Their complaint is based on a rule introduced in 1966 by the former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson, which advises British intelligence agencies not to tap the phones of MPs and peers unless there is a national emergency.

According to Lucas and Lady Jones, there is no clear sense of emergency in the UK when the tapping were begun. They said “The Wilson doctrine is a fundamental doctrine of public policy. It not only protects the rights and privileges of elected politicians, but it also protects the privacy of their communications with their constituents.”

The complaint of Lucas and Lady Jones adds up to the pile of cases pending against the GCHQ. The spy centre had viewed a great deal of communications people and suspected criminals. According to the Snowden report, the information was also shared with the NSA, including phone call recordings, email inboxes and even social media entries.

Human Rights law firm Leigh Day had filed the case on behalf of the two MPs.

Lucas said she was deeply concerned about GCHQ’s spying on members of parliament, especially their very personal issues against other constituents. It may also erode trust in the UK’s government and security system.

Source

Corporations Benefit From Laws, Not You

Let’s examine the reality of a situation and use an example to justify the meaning of many things in society. Your brother just graduated from college and had landed a job as a highly-paid architect. He receives praises and word from your parents. However, you are in college and are in need of an apartment to live closer to your school. Your brother also needs the same. Your parents will prioritize your brother because he becomes the new breadwinner of the family. You? You just have to bear with what options are left for you and you completely understand that your brother pays for your tuition and is the priority.

In an economy, corporations make the bills run and circulate all over the UK. This is not just the UK, but in any country whatsoever. If you think of it, laws are built around corporations so that they can promote proper competitiveness to raise an economy. Consumer rights are prioritized because if consumers lose confidence in the corporation’s products, we end up with a lower economy.

Sometimes, government policies will clash with ideals. The UK tapping into the Muslim finance market signifies a goal to increase the economic output of the country, and some money into the pockets of politician friends. The recent UK Rail Union Vs. Privatized RailFranchises case marks the trend that ‘friends’ and ‘breadwinners’ of the government prioritize the profitable returns, never the individual’s concerns.

This is not a bad thing, but this is a reality that most people, especially the common person, will have to deal with.

Possibly, We Won’t Be Seeing More No Win No Fee Claims Companies?

I admit, a claims management company was invaluable for getting me the compensation I needed for a medical negligence claim. Indeed, they are very helpful, but they are turning out to be quite large nuisances especially in terms of cold calls or text messages. However, recent news suggests that claims handlers have a lower population today than during 2008 to 2011.

According to a government-sponsored research, CMCs have dropped in population by 50% in 2013. Authorities attribute this to the peaking of PPI complaints and £13.3 billion finally paid back to consumers from the current £25 billion PPI bill. This might also be due to the new independent medical board ensuring the quality of injury and negligence claims to rescue insurance companies from raising their medical premiums due to fraudulent claims.

No Win NoFee* compensation claim handlers had been the primary suspects for introducing fraudulent or non-existing PPI claims and injury compensation claims, namely whiplash. But according to the survey, most of the claims handlers succeed in 97% of all approved and existing cases for PPI claims and injury compensation.

It is possible that that spike in CMCs in the previous half decade was fuelled by consumer legal contempt against their banks. But then again, the UK has a “compensation culture” that will always help consumers, and help CMCs, gain legal ground and increase in population.

Laws Protect Individual Expression, and the Freedom of Other People, Or Does It?

I’ve read this article from a Dubaian ex-prisoner regarding self-expression and it gave me some insight on modern laws.

Individuals have their own ways of expressing themselves. The more freedom people have, the happier they are. In a romantic relationship, people enjoy each other’s company because they’re free to become who they really are as there is acceptance from both sides. People can love their governments better if they have more freedom to express themselves.

However, not everyone can accept an individual, which is why there are laws in place. These laws protect the integrity of another person, especially in cases where there is behaviour or expression that cannot be accepted by the majority of people.

In the modern world where the internet exists, anybody could express themselves, much to the chagrin of people who do not appreciate these forms of expression based on culture, beliefs, religion and other ways of thought. Laws protect people from this particular form by raising issues that defame their own image. It is a right of an individual to protecthis or her own image by litigation.

However, the law is only accessible to people with power. Governments can shoot down individuals who do not agree with the status quo using laws. It is a direct violation of human rights if the government does not respect the wishes of the majority in certain cases and if it expresses itself with harsh laws that vindicate individuality.

In a sense, the individual protection by law could be trampled with by power, which makes laws both a protective wall, and a wall that also serves as a prison of the individual.