For Love or Money, LGBT-Style

In most developed nations, a civil partnership is common between same-sex relationships. The US and the UK have pioneered in recognising same-sex marriages, which the LGBT community applauded. However, before this happened, many LGBT couples have applied for civil partnerships, and in the UK, they face the dilemma of choosing between a glorious entitled position of happily-wed, or the recognition of only a partnership having immense benefits for each other.

In Australia, civil partnerships provide them rights to cohabitate, parenting and adoption, and even entitlements in terms of medical emergencies or other forms of emergency troubles. In the UK, same-sex married couples also enjoy the same benefits, and even more, but the benefits are only available in the United Kingdom. Australians need to return to their home, and if they married in the UK, they do not enjoy the benefits of civil partnership in Australia anymore.\

Well, I think it is really absurd to have an Australian civil partnership and a marriage title at the same time. The situation is similar to “for love or money”, except the “money” part is actually the benefits same-sex couples receive in terms of societal security. Marriage is the best expression of love, and if legally-recognised, it earns respect.

Given the perspective, it is an unfair choice. Every couple wants to be recognised as they marry, and the split of rights in many countries is just one of the many possible problems LGBT communities face in the future.

Corporations, Capitalism and Probable Human Experiments

Ever heard of Thalidomide? It is a drug that allows pregnant women to cope with their morning sicknesses every morning. A drug distributor called Distillers had introduced the product to the public. It was manufactured by Grunenthal and they claimed no side effects to the user and their haul. 

However, in a few years, over 10,000 children were born with defects and deformities. Studies showed that it was the effects of Thalidomide on the children. Eight British individuals are currently pushing their cases against Grunenthal, and Distillers, which Diageo Scotland owns.

With a few manipulations here and there, this collective case may go nowhere except the provision of compensation. But as far as public shaming will go, companies will remain companies. Grunenthal still manufactures Thalidomide because it helps treat other diseases such as leprosy and myeloma, and the public will still need it.

Most probably, the eight British individuals will only receive monetary compensation.

But then again, when you look at it, this is how corporations and capitalism work. With money having a high qualitative value for people, a few deformed children from a discreet human experiment will be alright. Allow a legal challenge to shame the organisation, but then, the public, and the government, still need them. Money will always win, and the public can look past the company’s reputation, and the cycle begins again.

The FTT and Your Pensions

Why is the UK government, namely Chancellor George Osborne, greatly furious about the EU’s FinancialTransaction Tax proposal? It will impose taxes on shares and derivatives, which Osborne said was unspecified in the proposal. Osborne was furious that they had been given only five minutes to review the proposal. He said it had the potential to drive away investors from the United Kingdom.

All this is happening at a highly-inconvenient time; the UK’s economy is recovering as property values continue to boom and the economy, not just the services, but manufacturing and infrastructure, is slowly improving. This means the foundations of the UK economy rests on new investors. But the FTT, with its added ‘surprise’ expenses due to tax, may put off investors planning to start or do business with the United Kingdom.

You do know that when the FTT hits shares, companies will need to cost-cut. The first thing that gets hit is everyone’s pensions. Rather than pay you less, employers will instead cut off their contributions to your pensions because of the reduction of investors, or reduced share-buying by investors, which contributes greatly to operations of any business.

Your pensions are also “riding” on some stocks, funds and other financial instruments from the companies that grow them. Financial instruments the Financial Transaction Tax will directly affect, and this will definitely affect your pensions.

An Irony of Anti-Slavery Laws and Immigration Control Laws in the United Kingdom

Today, I read in BBC that UK MPs are wanting to back the Modern Slavery Bill published in November and have it more protection for children, enhance legal support and compensation for its victims. The BBC report said that MPs wanted Traffickers and Slavemasters to face possible life sentences under the new law, and to simplify criminal offences to help convict suspects faster.

Those convicted of serious offences can get a maximum of 14 years life sentence.

The irony of this is that it targets enforced prostitution, forced labour, domestic servitude at home and forced criminal activity, yet immigration laws couldn’t even provide justice for foreign domestic helpers, who are being physically and psychologically abused by their UK employers, according to a Human Rights Watch report.

They should make it clear that all the offences, such as the slavery of children and adults, child exploitation, exploitation, trafficking and facilitation of modern slavery only applies to victims UK nationals. In any case, domestic helpers have no access to justice, simply because their employers could confiscate their personal information and have them imprisoned inside their homes.

The committee should call for the rights of immigrants as well. But that won’t be politically pretty today, especially with the UK’s net migration targets.

Lloyds Using Loopholes to Cut Consumer PPI Refund Amounts

The PFCA, a trade body that represents claims management companies, accused Lloyds of “short-changing” consumers by exploiting a legal loophole that saved millions of pounds in redresses. 

Lloyds cites a regulatory provision called “alternative redress”, which allows them to assume the customers who were mis sold PPI had purchased a cheaper, regular premium PPI policy. Single premium PPIs cost more than regular premiums, which makes all the difference in the compensation consumers receive.

The PFCA said that despite Lloyds using the loophole, most consumers were satisfied with the PPI refund they receive.

PPI Expert Cliff D’Arcy said that Lloyds had saved more than £60 million in redresses the previous year. He said “Frankly, I’m amazed that this problem has existed throughout the last year and hasn’t emerged into the light.”

Some consumers who had received their PPI refund had revealed that the banks have treated the mis sold financial product into a regular-premium PPI policy. When referred to the Financial Ombudsman, consumers found that Lloyds owed them an additional £500-1,000.

The survey undertaken by the PFCA revealed that Lloyds had been exploiting the legal loophole since February 2013, with 25% of PPI refund offers from the bank using the regulatory provision.

D’Arcy described it as a “scandal coming out of a scandal.”

Should Laws Prioritize Lesser or Necessary Evils?

Ethical legal problems arise when two conflicting arguments appear in a certain case. One argument may be against the morals where the law is built and the other argument pertains to the right of the individual in terms of emotions, physical and means of survival. Abortion is one of these cases. In Spain, a proposed law for abortion had stirred public protests. It defies tradition, religion and the right to life, but it also violates the right to a safe decision of an individual already existing in the legal system.

If you think of it, public concern depends on what they define as lesser or necessary evils. A necessary evil is something that lessens the suffering of parties involved in a certain scenario. Euthanasia is also an ethical issue because medical professionals and hospitals swore themselves to save the lives of people, but if the victim asks to end their life, the lesser evil is to end the patient’s life, but is contrast to the medical responsibility a doctor has.

However, if country laws prioritize lesser or necessary evils, loopholes will exist everywhere. Every person could just state that a person declared a right to die even without the person actually saying it. It could be tools of murder hidden in laws for people in power. With a few interjections of laws, they can protect themselves by invoking these lesser evil or necessary evil situations.

 It is difficult to ascertain the level of objectivity and subjectivity laws should have to make a perfect legal system. But in some cases, the answer is very much obvious when to go for the lesser evil choice.

The Difficulty of Implementing the Copyright Infringement Law

The internet is the biggest avenue for media today because its networks extend all over the world, and easy-to-upload file formats that compress audio, videos and photos make it easier to share original content online. However, it also makes it easy to share someone’s original content online. Copyrights protect the artist, or at least it should. But no one could blame its lack of implementation in the modern world.

Copyright infringement is when a person, establishment or company makes use of any form of media produced by an artist or a recording company to promote any venture they have, even something as menial as uploading a song to set a mood to my personal blog. You will have to pay royalty fees to their record labels, which ensure the artist gets paid their share for being involved in your promotion.

While all this is good business, it does not bode well with modern ideology. Many competitors in the independent department, including games, are giving away their media for free. They do not talk business, but they talk about support. They ask for donations and consider their media as something that the world should only know, but they do not focus on profit.

This is a direct challenge to the recording industry, which focuses on ensuring they get all their profits by approaching listeners on a business-scale model. This challenges copyright laws as well because listeners will only respect these laws if they find the media compelling.

Only a new model of retailing media will be the best way to implement the copyright infringement law. I think maybe if record companies started adopting the models used by independent musicians, meaning they go against them on their own level, they can have a fighting chance.