UK Revenge Porn Now Punishable By Two Years

The revenge porn law, which has now come in effect in the United Kingdom, will protect men, women and possibly children whose explicit sexual content had spread over the internet without their authorisation. The revenge porn law will carry a penalty of up to two years imprisonment.

Officially, the law describes the crime as “posting private, sexual images of someone without consent and with the intent to cause distress.”

However, this is truly not enough to protect those whose lives could possibly be destroyed by revenge pornography.

About 146 cases gathered from nine police stations in England and Wales indicate that most of the cases involved women and children as young as 14-years-old. 

Suspects often send the sexually-explicit content online through email and social networks.

The crime is not limited to posting images

The Criminal Justice and Court Act, which enacted the law today, increases the allowable sentence for “trolling” online. An abusive message with the clear “intent to cause distress or anxiety” could earn up to two years of imprisonment as well.

Revenge Porn Is Now Illegal in England and Wales

Following atrocious cases of women “virtually raped” and harassed by explicit photographs of themselves with their ex-lovers, the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill will receive Royal Assent and become law. Offenders will face up to two years in jail.

Images and videos sent through social networks including Facebook and Twitter, and even those sent through MMS or SMS are also considered.

Scotland and Northern Ireland are considering to implement similar laws. The Scottish Government also announced its plans to consult on making revenge porn a offense with a category of its own.

In the UK alone, there are 30 revenge porn websites publishing thousands of individuals’ explicit photographs without their consent. Meanwhile, successfully removing one’s media from one revenge porn website isn’t enough as the media makes its way to other websites.

According to England and Wales Police Forces, 149 allegations of revenge porn had been made from January 2012 to July 2014. Six of these cases were met with police action.

According to Former Culture Secretary Maria Miller:

"By putting this in place the government has given young women the opportunity to protect themselves from their lives being blighted.

"When you speak to the victims of these crimes, many say that it feels as if you've been virtually raped.

"You can't underestimate the impact of having an image distributed to many people around the world."

Google’s Case in the United Kingdom Could Clarify Country’s Privacy Laws

The Information Commissioner’s Office had intervened between Google and a group of UK Internet users because of its interests to clarify the jurisdiction of the country’s privacy laws.

The UK Internet users allege that Google used cookies to track their browsing activity using Apple’s Safari browser in 2011 and 2012 against their wishes. The case has been ongoing since 2013. This follows an earlier failed lawsuit against Google in the United States where the allegations could not be proved because the victims do not have evidence they were harmed.

However, the US FTC had fined google with $22.5 million for secretly bypassing Safari settings to 

collect information from unwilling users.

The UK High Court initially rejected the argument of the UK web users, which prompted the group to move their case into the United States. At this point, Google went to the Court of Appeal to try to overturn the ruling. This is when UK’s ICO intervened by submitting written evidence to the court.

According to an ICO Spokesman, it is interested in the case because it clarifies the issues about the jurisdiction of the law to serving civil claims against foreign companies. The ICO submitted written evidence to provide classes of personal data under the UK Data Protection act and when personal data processing is taking place.

Source

Church of England Calls to End Indefinite Detention of Detainees

The Church of England is calling on the UK government to end the indefinite detention of detainees in immigration removal centres. According to the Church of England, it places “considerable stress on detainees and their families.”

The Church will be contending with UK politicians, whom many in the seniority had considered the issue a “political football.”

Bishop of Croydon Jonathan Clark said “The main political parties have taken a judgment that they cannot say anything on this issue because they feel it will lose them votes by the million, so it has been left to those who don’t seek re-election to speak out.” 

They also said that the HM Inspectorate of Prisons no longer carries out a “safety survey” among its inmates. The inspectorate said that detainees had felt unsafe following the use of indefinite detention.

The Church made a comparison between asylum and prison detention. The official statement said “We normally think of safety in detention as a matter of not fearing assault, intimidation, discrimination, However, what detainees consistently reported as most likely to make them feel unsafe was the lack of certainty about their case.”

According to a Home Office spokesperson, “Detention is used as a last resort when people are found not to have a right to be in the UK and will not leave voluntarily, or when there is a serious risk they will abscond from bail. When we do detain people, it is for the minimum time possible, and the majority of detainees are held for less than two months. Detainees’ welfare is extremely important and we are committed to treating all those in our care with dignity and respect.”

Source

The Irony of the Ashya King Case

It is heartbreaking for parents to be separated from their children, especially during their time of need. The sad thing is that the emotional impact on parents seeing their child in pain and professionals unable to find a solution does not count as evidence. This is the situation of the Kings after they were arrested for “stealing” their son from the hospital.

Ashya was under medical orders not to be removed from his life supports as it could prove fatal to his condition. Defying orders because both parents lacked confidence in the methods of NHS medical procedures, the Kings stole away their son, sold their Spanish apartment to raise money for their son’s would-be proton beam therapy in Czech or any European country who provides the service.

Common sense was not too common in the aftermath of the parents’ arrests. Medical staff advised police that Ashya was in “grave danger.” Upon arrest, British legal authorities even had the nerve to request a criminal history review for the couple based on their actions.

In essence, the UK government’s logic is like this; the parents’ motive was to kidnap the child without considering his health. They are assumed suspects of criminal activity for disobeying medical orders. But then, as I said earlier, the emotions involved in seeing a child in pain with doctors unable to do anything cannot be used as evidence in the Courts.

Constitution once again proves it is emotionless. Practical, effective, but emotionless.

Why the UK Does Not Need a “Revenge Porn” Law

Many of us were puzzled when the UK Courts voted against having a “revenge porn” law. I mean, social media is a potentially hazardous environment to one’s personal information, especially intimate ones. Ex-lovers, taking it out against their former partners, upload explicit media for everyone in their networks to see to tarnish the reputation of the other.

And oftentimes, this particular media is spread to different websites, allowing search engines like Google to easily find the particular information due to its repeated appearance.

The “revenge porn” law will protect victims of such slanderous publicity to file litigation against their former partner.

So why would the UK courts want to stop the revenge porn law?

Well, my opinion is that today, the UK courts are facing modern terms. Terminologies like cyber bullying, revenge porn, trolling and other undesirable and hostile internet activities are yet to be integrated in the constitution. If the UK courts approve a law that uses an ambiguous word, then the law is ambiguous in itself.

The second thing is that the UK already has a co-author or co-creator agreement law. This publishing law requires that the published content online should have the approval of the two parties or else, the uploader is responsible for breaching the trust of the other owner. If they add a new revenge porn law, which has almost the same statements, then it can become a confusing constitution.

The Security Paradox of the UK’s Possible Surveillance Laws

In the face of potential local terrorism, UK political parties discuss the feasibility of having additional emergency laws that would allow phone companies to store information from subscribers from six months to two years. Many human rights and privacy rights groups, including the Big Brother watch, warn that the UK government must “think clearly” and not overreact to the situation.

The UK government intends to use the indiscriminately collected data to find potential returning terrorists and extremists who fought in the fronts of the Middle East alongside known factions such as the Islamic State of Syria and the Levant (ISIS) and rebels in Syria. Reports of British Muslims joining their ranks have increased, with uploaded recruitment videos showing some of the extremists and their lives in the UK.

Currently, us, the public, is facing a collective paradox that only leaves us with a single choice. Will we want to have the government peer into our daily lives and privacies to help them find the potential terror threat in our own neighbourhoods? Or will we have them enforce the security of our privacies as we have the right to protect ourselves and our identities from the public?

Referring to an internet joke, privacy laws are a “first world problem.” But privacy is an essential human right. But then again, who has privacy when the Sharia-driven extremists dominate the culture of the western world through force? Maybe we should think of that. Maybe we are just prioritising our own selfishness, or maybe we are paranoid that someone may try to manipulate our lives, namely the government.

Either way, we may have to trade some of our privacy in the end.

The Alarming Rate Muslim Laws Are Integrated into the UK’s System

The last time I recalled Sharia Law was that the western countries condemned it for its extreme disregard for human rights in favour of tradition and practice. Sharia law prevented women from education and their rights and even left young MalalaYousafzai almost dead at the hands of Taliban assassins. 

However, if you knew the way the world works, you would have figured out by now that governments prefer a balance of human rights and economic progress in countries. The UK is no exception; it is integrating some changes in the UK legal system to accommodate Sharia laws.

Despite the UK having a small population of Muslims, the integration of Sharia law will allow the UK a richer network of business, corporations and individuals from the population to enrich its economic prospects. If your rights are respected, you are appeased and you would want to serve the government that granted you access to such privileges. This will make corporation heads look up and smell the coffee to help the UK back up to its feet.

It is not a bad thing but Sharia law will have implications not just to the Muslim community, but also to the entire population of the country. In every new law there are trade-offs in loyalties. Immigrants are annoyed and experts criticize the UK’s new immigration laws. The integration of Muslim laws, while it helps the economy, could have non-Muslim males refuse inheritance to their wives.

Several Energy Firms Using Law Loophole on Tax Bills

Cutting tax bills is the work of most accountants and a great budgeting skill for businesses, but exploiting a legal loophole to cut tax bills is improper and irresponsible. According to a research by a local newspaper, 30 UK energy companies have exploited a particular legal loophole to cut bills.

According to The Independent and watchdog Corporate Watch, the 30 UK energy firms have made use of a “quoted Eurobond exemption” which allowed them to accept high interest loans using the Channel Islands Stock Exchange, which proves to be very controversial.

The Independent said that the company racked up huge interest payments to their parent companies, reduced the bottom line of these payments and cut their tax bills. The interest payments were international, allowing them to issue it through the Channel Islands and exit the United Kingdom tax free.

This allows them to avoid the 20% withholding tax. Many companies, including a gas company had avoided £72.5m in taxes. Other firms saved tens of millions of pounds, according to the newspaper.

According to Opposition Leader Ed Miliband, the govenrment’s failure to take down loopholes in the legal sector is costing the UK citizens more than they could chew. Miliband said that he was working with the OECD to address the problems and will consider changing the rules on the treatment of cross-border transactions.

Information About the Consumer Credit Act

As a consumer, you have the right to obtain financing fairly in a competitive environment. The CCA regulates your credit card purchases and provides protection to you as a consumer when you enter a financing or hiring agreement. Here is a condensed version of the CCA.

1.    Coverage

CCA 1974 regulates your credit and protects your content and form of credit agreements, method of calculating annual percentage rate (APR) for lenders, the procedures during cases of defaulting, termination or early settlement and extra protection on items paid through credit cards. The law also regulates credit advertising.

2.    Consumer Rights

Creditors have the right to assess your creditworthiness before you are given the right to obtain credit using substantial information from you and a credit monitoring company. Before you make an agreement, the credit company must first know you recognize the nature and parties involved in the agreement, your key financial information including your credit limit, APR, total amount payable, timings of repayments and the agreement’s duration.

3.    Right to Withdraw

If you want to cancel a credit agreement, you could do so but only after a 14 day cooling-off period. During this period, you are responsible for paying the amount borrowed and the interest accumulated up to the point date of your cancellation. The 14 day cool-off period is appointed from the day the agreement is concluded with approval from both parties.