France Has A Draconian Law On Terrorists And Nationality

French President Francois Hollande is to pass a Draconian law that would leave French terrorists stateless.

As I recall, the United Nations specified that no criminal or terrorist may be stripped of their nationality despite their faults.

The law was drafted following the Paris attacks last November, which killed 130 people. Wanting tougher legal punishment for Jihadis, the French government needed the law. Or maybe not.

The National Assembly passed the legislation last Wednesday.

Local and international analysts criticised the law for being draconian and divisive. According to FT writer James Blitz, it strip terrorists of their nationality, which can create a divide in the country as France has its own share of immigrants.

Not everyone in the French government agreed to the enactment of the law though. Justice Christiane Taubira, France's Justice Minister, had resigned after the enactment of the law. According to French Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron, he was "philosophically uncomfortable" about passing the law.

Terrorism is a serious crime. Many governments have passed proposals introducing new and devastating laws against terrorists to quell down the numbers of militants heading abroad to fight with extremist groups.

The new law passed by France may only encourage terrorism as it also victimises nationality. We'll just have to wait and see.

UK Justice System The Most Unaffordable To Date

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd was the first lord Chief Justice to say that UK's civil justice system is only for the rich now. Well, that's because they cut our legal services benefit. Now, we're forced to represent ourselves.

After reading the Lord's report, the £780m spending for modernising the courts with new technology was well-spent.

However the new budget and the technological upgrades themselves have made the price for justice higher for the lower tiers of society.

The progression of costs have been too steep, to be honest. I have to agree with him when he said that the access to justice has become marginalised.

What may be causing this situation?

To be honest, no one knows. But I can speculate one thing.

There is a need to modernise the laws in the UK. Another is, to protect the UK from possible economic troubles, public legal services spending had to be cut.

Another way is that it solves the problem of piling cases in the UK courts. While modernisation through technology improves the quality of service and time needed to process a case, it also reduces the number of petty to medium-serious cases coming in.

But then, why are judges saying that their work had increased significantly in the last three years?

It's a weird UK nowadays.

The UK's Intent To Push Away Its Whiplash Personal Injury Reputation

Europe recognises Britain as Europe's whiplash capital because almost every road accident injury receives compensation for every minor soft tissue troubles despite some being exaggerated and fraudulent.

Soft tissue injuries, which include whiplash, have no immediate symptoms making them difficult to detect. However, it merits significant personal injury compensation because it could lead to severe disabilities without treatment.

The absence of immediate symptoms may allow fraudsters to exaggerate their claims and gain illicit compensation.

To combat this, UK chancellor George Osborne proposed the increasing of the small claims court limit and abolishing all road accident "minor" soft tissue.

With the court's ability to pay out £5000 instead of £1000, Osborne intends to minimise the costly damages of whiplash and other exaggerated personal injuries from road accidents.

Several groups, including the Select Transport Committee and the Law Society, mentioned that victims in small claims courts will be forced to represent themselves. Without sufficient legal advice, the proposal violates their right to justice.

Also, several other soft tissue incidents merit a higher value of compensation. Facial scarring from road accidents can merit more than £20,000. These include emotional and psychological damages compensation aside from personal injury recompense.

Prenuptial Agreements: Why Is It Necessary?

It's a well-known fact, or it would prove itself later on, that you and your in-laws would have trouble agreeing on some or all things. But one thing's for sure; your in-laws will fiscally help you and your spouse land a new property before your wedding, should you need one.

The only problem is, they're worried that you, should your parents not have contributed anything to help you get that property, would get a piece of that estate given the UK's divorce laws.

That's where the Prenuptial Agreement comes in.

Division of Properties

Prenuptial Agreements give you and your spouse the ability to divide assets amongst yourselves before your marriage ceremony and it often happens right after you present your partner with a ring, or vice-versa. Before you obtain a marriage license, in-laws or your parents may demand both of you to sign a prenuptial agreement.

This had led to the increase of 10 per cent among Britons asking for a prenuptial agreement.

Rightfully-Owned

It is within the right of in-laws to ask both of you to sign a prenuptial agreement. While it may leave a slightly bitter taste in the mouths of each of you after the endeavour, protecting investments is a human nature.

Your parents or your soon-to-be-in-laws just want to protect their children. I'd like you to see it in a way that they aren't wanting to make a bad start with you. But like you, they love their child as much as you do and they're doing their best to protect him or her.

Finally, They Investigate These Sharia Courts

The Tory MPs admitted it; Sharia court investigations weren't part of the plan. I can recall a few years back, these Tories wanted to make UK a financial market for the Middle East and Arabian countries by inculcating Sharialaw-based Islamic financing. While not destructive, it has alarmed me that over time, Britain turns into an Islamic nation. That's where the money is anyway.

"Sharia Councils Working In a Discriminatory and Unacceptable Way". Duh.

If that wasn't obvious, I don't know what is. While we may hate Home Secretary Theresa May for her strict immigration policies to "protect Britain" of sorts, I could say her point of view regarding these Sharia courts to be on my side.

She believes the courts are being used against women. At the very least, the courts are unfair against women.

According to Lord Bates:

"Sharia councils may be working in a discriminatory and unacceptable way.

"That is why, as part of the forthcoming counter-extremism strategy, Government will commission a full, independent investigation to assess to what extent Sharia is being applied in a manner that is unacceptable."

Shams, Discrimination and Whatnot

Meanwhile, Sharia courts said they did not discriminate against women and had molded their form of Sharia within the British legal principles because they are advisors and not courts.

British Muslim women are being duped into sham Sharia marriages. You wouldn't believe what kind of hell awaits these British converts.

No, I'm not against Islam. But Sharia is notorious for leaving women possession-less, even of their own properties, after their relationship ends.

They better sort this out real quick.

Nestle Loses European Support Over Legal Row With KitKat

The European Court of Justice was not convinced when Nestle presented evidence it could trademark the shape of the famous KitKat chocolate bar snack. Nestle showed the judges the public needed the shape to identify the famous confectionery product. Judges said Nestle couldn't prove the goods did not need to show a brand name such as KitKat to minimise confusion.

Nestle said that in the last 80 years since KitKat was introduced to the public, the four fingers were associated only with KitKat bars. Nestle sought to trademark it. But a European Court Lawyer disagreed that the trademarking did not comply with EU law.

Mischon de Reya Intellectual Property Lawyer Sally Brighton said it was not the first time Nestle had tried to trademark difficult product characteristics.

One of these was the KitKat slogan "Have a Break", which took 40 years until courts approved the slogan in 2006.

The legal row with Kitkat is a series of legal battles between Nestle and Cadbury over product trademarks. The row began when Cadbury attempted to trademark the purple colour it uses for its 

Cadbury chocolate wrappers. Nestle had overturned the trademark.

Meanwhile, Cadbury had worked hard to play down Nestle's attempt to trademark the KitKat shape.

Poland Creates New Law To Combat 'Chaotic Use Of Outdoor Advertising'

Polish Lawmakers have passed the Landscape Law to regulate the outrageous usage of outdoor advertising. The new law stipulates new criteria for banners and billboards put up in areas that may interfere with public activity. About 40 times the standard advertising fee to be set by local councils as fines against violators.

Hoarding outdoor advertising and penalising those who commission illegal distribution of learaflets would be subject to the new law.

Former president Bronislaw Komorowski in May signed the law, saying:

"We should take care of aesthetic values and spatial order. I’m very glad that a law that many Poles have been waiting for now comes into effect. According to all surveys most 

Poles are concerned and sensitive about whether they live in a nice or ugly environment."

Billboard and banner advertising provides large revenues for local governments. Most cause problems with campaign bills posted on unauthorised areas. Some trees in Poland had stuck with these advertising bills. Unauthorised postage has also been prevalent in the last few years.