IPB Is Now In Full Force; All Emails And Phone Calls Effectively Under Government Surveillance

"1984" Author George Orwell's technophobia and societal satire has finally come true -- in 2017.

The UK's Investigatory Powers Bill -- now the Investigatory Powers "Act" -- will place all UK citizens under a heavy surveillance routine. Every UK citizen is now effectively under government surveillance as new powers to gather and retain data on citizens and new ways to use technology companies' user database for government security causes are introduced.

The controversial bill -- also known as the "Snooper's Charter" -- will allow the government to collect Internet Connection Records. Intelligence agencies and police could then stop modern crime and prosecute said individuals using information evidences.

 According to Amnesty International's Policy Director Bella Sankey, the UK is entering a "sad day" as the bill was passed last month. She said she agreed with Prime Minister Theresa May's approach to security for the UK but the measures are invasive and "won't do the job."  Sankey said that the Act opens "every detail of every citizen's online life up to state eyes" and can "drown authorities in data."

Sankey urged a "campaign for a surveillance law fit for the digital age" and must "continue to the courts." Despite public resentment, the bill pushed through as MPs quietly passed the bill.

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.

UK Toughens Anti-Terror Efforts Through New Law

The Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill has received Royal Assent from the Queen, now making it an Act. It would toughen powers to seize passports at the border from anybody suspected of travelling to Syria or Iraq for extremist activity.

Home Secretary Theresa May considers it an important legislation.

"This important legislation will disrupt the ability of people to travel abroad to fight and then return, enhance our ability to monitor and control the actions of those who pose a threat, and combat the underlying ideology that feeds, supports and sanctions terrorism," she said.

"The shocking attacks in Paris last month, in which 17 people lost their lives, and the many plots that the police and security and intelligence agencies continually work to disrupt, are clear evidence of the threat we face from terrorism. 



"We have a fundamental duty as a government to ensure that the people who work to keep us safe have the powers they need to do so.”

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures will allow Home Security to relocate suspected terrorists and require them to attend meetings with probation staff as part of their case management.

The new act also introduces new temporary exclusion orders to stop anybody coming from Iraq or Syria from returning to the United Kingdom. It would also allow law enforcement agencies to identify devices responsible for sending communication on the internet or accessing an Internet communications service.

UK Government Guarantees That Fracking Rules Will Not Apply In Scotland

Exercising its new freedoms, Scotland had rejected the UK government’s plan to pass the Infrastructure Bill. The new bill allows fracking firms to facilitate drilling for shale gas underneath unsuspecting UK properties. 

The Scottish government, Labour and Green party had opposed the bill, which would also apply to residential areas.

Hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” has drillers take apart rocks using a high-pressure mixture for oil. With the new UK fracking laws, UK grounds would allow drilling firms to access difficult areas for oil and gas.

Opponents of fracking claim that the process could release potentially carcinogenic chemicals into groundwater. It could also result to increased pollution due to bad practice.

According to Scottish Energy Minister Fergus Ewing, the move is just about right.

"This decision is a victory for common sense and shows how devolution of energy policy leads to different policy outcomes in Scotland. 

"It is a vindication of the Scottish government's continued objections to UK government plans to remove the right of Scottish householders to object to unconventional oil and gas drilling under their home. 

"We're glad the UK government has finally taken this on board - especially as 99 per cent of respondents to their own consultation also opposed the move."

Source

Protests Planned Against Implementation of UK Pornography Laws

Hundreds are planning to gather on Friday outside Parliament to protest the new set of pornographic laws effectively blocking “explicit content” from R18 films.

The Audiovisual Media Services Regulations of 2014 will have pornographic distributors for online and video-on-demand pornography be regulated by the British Board of Film Censors’ guidelines for R-18 material. It involves “explicit works of consenting sex or strong fetish material involving adults.”

The #PornProtest is a response against these regulations. Hundreds of demonstrators plan to stimulate sex acts with each other and perform a “face-sitting” demonstration.

As of December 1, 2014, strangulation, whipping and face-sitting, popular fetish sexual acts in adult pornography, had been banned on films produced in the United Kingdom. However, it does not restrict overseas films coming into the country from showing these explicit acts. 

The law banned them on the grounds that they were “life-threatening.”

Britain’s 2013 Sex Worker of the Year Charlotte Rose organised the mass protest. She told a popular blog that the restrictions were uncalled for. 

“How is it perfectly okay for a man to choke a woman with his penis in her mouth, yet we can’t enjoy cunnilingus through face-sitting?”

The protest will include serious speeches from various organisations. According to rose, the protesters are fighting for their personal liberty.

Source

Californian Civil Courts Rule That Minors Could Make Sexual Decisions

Young people in California become increasingly at risk of danger from sexual predators because some civil courts rule that minors could make decisions about who they could have sexual intercourse with.

In 2010, a 28-year old middle-school math teacher began a six-month sexual relationship with a 14-year old female at his school. The teacher was convicted with charges of committing lewd acts with a child. 

During the hearing, it was found she lied to her mother so she could have sexual intercourse with her teacher. They went into a hotel and admitted she engaged in voluntary consensual sex. According to LA Unified Attorney Keith Wyatt, the girl is seen to be conscious of what she is about to do.

In California, 18 years old is the age of consent. Despite the threshold, a number of civil cases have said minors could consent to sexual activities.

Despite Attorney Wyatt ensuring that LA Unified had no negligence in the case, the jury found the school’s administration not at fault. The decision is still under appeal. 

However, other states in United States, according to Indiana University Professor of Law Jennifer Drobac, have diverted from the criminal law treatment of adolescent and juvenile consent.

The Legal Tragedy That Was The King Family

Our country has an international perception of having the best and most expensive legal services the world over. It’s true; anybody could afford litigation or virtually-free legal representation through a contingency/no-win-no-fee fee condition. Many people get compensated even for the silliest, highly-avoidable mistake that in the absence of common sense and a great use of facts a person could win £300 in payouts.

So why did the King family have no proper legal protection despite meaning well for everything?

The story of the Kings began when Ashya King’s parents have taken him away from the hospital to have proton beam treatment instead of what his father considered was a “trial and error” approach to treating his brain tumour. The global hunt for the family ended in Spain where the couple and their children were found.

The authorities are then legally bound to intrude and become parent figures to Ashya as his parents are investigated for any criminal background.

It is quite obvious that any parent who sees their child continually suffering while medical professionals deal with him as a mere case would feel unable to do anything. Mr. King thought that proton beam therapy will help solve his child’s problems. Today Ashya is cleared for the proton beam therapy, the goal of his parents.

This is where the border of legalities become big trouble; it fails to address the mental state of suspects and regards it instantly as a criminal or psychologically-damaged event. A parent’s love can turn into insanity for caring for their children, but that cannot be constitutionalised.

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.

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.

British Marine Charged with Murder During Military Skirmish

Legal experts are discussing the legal and moral issues behind the infamous verdict against an unnamed British marine who was convicted for murdering a Taliban fighter in Helmand in September 2011. This is the first UK case involving a serviceman convicted of murder in action.

Experts said that the convict was wrongly placed given that it did not happen in a civil situation, such as a homicide or anywhere a violent conflict cannot rise at any moment. They also said government-sanctioned killing covered the person killed by the marine because the Taliban is identified as the enemy.

Legal experts against the decision said that it was unfair to give such a verdict to the British marine given that everyone can react in the same manner as he did. Exhilaration and other psychological factors will affect the decision of any man in the battlefield, even if battle-hardened or not.

The British marine had an injured Jihadi along with two other soldiers. With cameras fixed on observation balloons, the three men pretend to give medical care to the Jihadi, then executed the man with a shot to the chest. The marine was aware of what he has done breaking the Geneva Convention to spare soldiers unable to fight, but it is highly possible that the shot to the chest was an act of mercy

Because of the “right to life” law, which also covers military action, the marine is given the sentence of murder. The right to life law discusses the importance of treating combatants with equal respect.

Experts said that with all the legalities coming into the British military, it is highly possible that legal paranoia and paralysis will make it less sufficient.

The Law Regarding “Cold Calls”

Telemarketing and “cold calling” could be irritating, but sometimes, they open up new opportunities for you and the company that’s calling you. Cold calls are definitely nuisances if the callers reach you during the most inconvenient times of the day, including while you are sleeping or at the after-hours of your work. Here are the rights you have against cold calling companies.

1.    8 to 9

Cold callers could only call you at home from 8am to 9pm. If they go out of bounds, you could file a legal challenge for nuisance. However, if you are already working with the company calling you as a customer or benefactor, calls out of these hours are not considered nuisances, not unless they have a nature that gives them such.

2.    Identification

Cold callers must tell you who they are and why they are calling you. They must identify themselves properly  and give you information about their company’s address, telephone number and the purpose of their call.

3.    Restricted List

All companies who use telemarketing or cold calls are required to have a “do not call” list. If you opt to be put in this list, the company must oblige to do so, or you could complain to the company’s regulators or legally challenge them.

4.    Truth

Cold callers must tell you the truth and if they lie about their services or certain aspects of the product or investment products they are giving you, you could legally challenge them.

Beyond Being Offensive: The Social Media Rights Guide

In the UK, the government have arrested several individuals who had posted statements that “go beyond the threshold of expression” against individuals or beliefs. While many cried foul against the arrests, prosecutors and the government explain that everyone has a right to express themselves online and be obscene with their expressions, but there is a boundary line as indicated by the following parameters.

1.    Distinction

Given the obscene and uncensored communications found online in forums, discussion boards and social media, the UK’s guidelines of distinction must show that the statement targets the harassment of an individual, is a credible threat of violence,  breaches court orders regarding confidential statements in all formats of Internet media.

2.    Stalking and Harassment

Any evidence or statements that imply stalking on part of a potential suspect, including hacking and manipulation of personal social media accounts is a social media and Internet criminal offense. Harassment in the form of rallying communities against certain individuals, groups, organisations or companies are also considered an offense.

3.    Freedom of Expression and Criminal Law

Offensive posts, whether they are shocking, rude, satirical, iconoclastic, an unpopular discussion of delicate topics, are subject to public scrutiny and if the public deems it to be an offensive case, the government could arrest the individual, group, organisation or company who posted such media. However, if such entities showed remorse upon posting the statement, criminal charges from the authorities are less likely.

What to Do When a Child is at Risk of Partner Abuse

A child is vulnerable to abuse to anything, including physical, verbal or sexual abuse from the parent’s partner him or herself. You could get legal aid to help with such issues that can remove a father’s parental responsibility through the help of a legal solicitor. Child abuse could be proven in one of the following types of convictions.

1.     Criminal Conviction

If your partner has an already existing criminal conviction offence, it will count as effective evidence for legal aid.  Check to see if your ex-partner was given a police caution for child abuse, the court where the partner was sentenced and completing a criminal conviction template letter from both the Magistrate or the Crown court.

2.     Police Caution

A police caution for child abuse against your ex-partner in the last two years also counts as substantial evidence for legal aid. You will only need a written record of your caution. Complete a police caution template letter and have it sent to the Police Force’s Data Protection Officer for processing.

3.     Social Services

 If your child has a child protection plan from social services in the last two years that protects him or her from your ex-partner, you could use this as evidence. The social service’s assessment could serve as a good evidence for your legal aid application. Have a copy of the assessment plan, make sure that the person evaluated is your child  and the abuser as your ex-partner. Find a copy of a social services template letter and write to your local social services department.