Tog Studio host ‘live-build’ events. This means that people who are usually excluded from the construction process take an active role in building their own project. In doing so participants are empowered to learn practical skills and teamwork to deliver a valuable community asset. This is made possible by the architects and engineers behind Tog
Read More »
Together, we beat SOPA in a huge victory for internet freedom. But this Saturday, internet freedom protests are breaking out in over 200 cities across Europe. Why? Because the companies behind SOPA are using international trade agreements as a backdoor to pass SOPA-style laws SOPA’s supporters are pushing two agreements: ACTA and TPP1. ACTA would criminalize users, encourage internet providers to spy on you, and make it easier for media companies to sue sites out of existence and jail their founders. Sound familiar? That’s right, ACTA is from the same playbook as SOPA, but global. Plus it didn’t even have to pass through Congress2. TPP goes even farther than ACTA, and the process has been even more secretive and corrupt. Last weekend (we wish this was a joke) trade negotiators partied with MPAA (pro-SOPA) lobbyists before secret negotiations in a Hollywood hotel, while public interest groups were barred from meeting in the same building.3 Trade agreements are a gaping loophole, a secretive backdoor track that–even though it creates new laws–is miles removed from democracy. Trade negotiators are unelected and unaccountable, so these agreements have been very hard for internet rights groups to stop. But now the tide is turning. Fueled by the movement to stop SOPA, anti-ACTA protests are breaking out across the EU, which hasn’t ratified ACTA. The protests are having an impact: leaders in Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia have backtracked on ACTA.4 Now a massive round of street protests in over 200 cities is planned for this Saturday February 11th. We’re planning an online protest this Saturday to support the protests in the streets. Why? Because together we can drive millions of emails to key decision makers–and start tipping the scales like we did on SOPA. Can you take part? Use these codes on your website <script src=’http://killacta.org/popup.js’></script> <script src=’http://killacta.org/popup-euonly.js’></script> <iframe src=”http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=212120558776447282985.0004b7b33e16f13c710c7&msa=0&ie=UTF8&t=m&ll=16.350082,-86.79903&spn=87.63752,240.331077&output=embed” frameborder=”0″ marginwidth=”0″ marginheight=”0″ scrolling=”no” width=”590″ height=”300″></iframe> We just built an ACTA & TPP contact tool, and it’s not just a petition. It’s code for your site that figures out the visitor’s country and lets them email all their Members of European Parliament–the politicians who will be voting on ACTA in June–or the trade negotiators behind TPP. This direct contact between voters and their officials, driven by websites of all sizes, was instrumental in the fight against SOPA. We can use the same tactics to defeat ACTA & TPP, but we need your help! Support the street protests with a flood of emails to the officials responsible for ACTA & TPP. Get the code for your website! Don’t have a website? Tell officials in your country to scrap ACTA & TPP! And spread the word about Saturday’s protests! This is going to be tough fight. But we need to make secretive trade agreements harder to pass than US law. If we don’t, our internet’s future belongs to the lobbyists behind SOPA. This is...
Read More »
Can I Record My Phone Calls In The UK? I get this question asked of me all the time, and there is obviously a lot of confusion in relation to it. Most of the confusion comes from companies based in the UK who don’t want you recording their phone calls. (Probably for sinister reasons) Banks, Finance Companies and many others have ill trained staff that state you must have there permission to record. Some will end the call stating that you are breaking the law or they don’t want you recording. I am going to lay this out for you exactly how it is and the following information comes directly from (“Ofcom”) the regulator for the UK Communications industry. Ofcom information – A general overview of interception, recording and monitoring of communications The interception, recording and monitoring of telephone calls is governed by a number of different pieces of UK legislation. The requirements of all relevant legislation must be complied with. The main ones are: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (“RIPA”). http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000023.htm Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000 (“LBP Regulations”). Data Protection Act 1998. http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980029.htm Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) Regulations 1999. http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1999/19992093.htm Human Rights Act 1998. http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980042.htm It is not possible to provide comprehensive detail of that legislation here. Any person considering interception, recording or monitoring of telephone calls or e-mails is strongly advised to seek his/her own independent legal advice and should not seek to rely on the general information provided below. It should be borne in mind that criminal offences and civil actions may occur when the relevant legislation is not complied with. Accordingly, Ofcom or (“us”) accepts no liability for reliance by any person on the following information. Q. Can I record telephone conversations on my home phone? A. Yes. The relevant law, RIPA, does not prohibit individuals from recording their own communications provided that the recording is for their own use. Recording or monitoring are only prohibited where some of the contents of the communication – which can be a phone conversation or an e-mail – are made available to a third party, i.e. someone who was neither the caller or sender nor the intended recipient of the original communication. For further For full information see the Legislation Website http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23 Q. Do I have to let people know that I intend to record their telephone conversations with me? A. No, provided you are not intending to make the contents of the communication available to a third party. If you are you will need the consent of the person you are recording. Q. Can a business or other organisation record or monitor my phone calls or e-mail correspondence with them? A. Yes they can, but only in a limited set of circumstances relevant for that business which have been defined by the LBP Regulations. The main ones are: to provide evidence...
Read More »
Are you just sick to death with UK Law bull-shit? Are you the fool of the horse? Take Del Trotter Only Fools & Horses and if you are of an age like me who remember the original program. you will understand how the UK population got scammed with the Good old drivers licence. You will remember the good old days when the paper licence was issued until your 70th Birthday. Well that all changed when the Government introduced the photo-card licence first of all on a voluntary basis and then when many had fell for the trap it became mandatory. What comes with mandatory? Well here is a message for all UK drivers. 1.6 million drivers who could be at risk of being fined £1,000 for a driving licence crime they aren’t even aware of? Many millions of us haven’t any idea that the photo-card attached to our paper licence has an expiry date, and that if we fail to renew it by the deadline we could be liable for a huge fine. In fact, 1.6 million have missed the deadline, and another 2.9 million are at risk. The law According to the DVLA, UK drivers are required to update their photo on their photo card driving licence every 10 years and British law requires drivers to do this whether or not they are active drivers. Sainsbury’s car insurance submitted a Freedom of Information request to check how many cards had expired undetected. They found that 1.6 million drivers’ photographs have expired on their driving licence and a further 2.9 million must be renewed by the end of 2012. In fact, over the next five years 13 million of us will need to renew our photo-cards. Its research found that shockingly one in three had no idea that their licence had expired. A further 10 million people do not know when their driving licence expires and 14% of expired photo card licences have been out of date since 2009 or before. Consequences It seems like an unimportant bit of admin, but the consequences could be huge. Having an expired photograph on your driving licence carries a £1,000 fine; it could be enforced by the police under Section 99 (5) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Sainsbury’s research found that just 29% of drivers know about the fine. Almost half (41%) of motorists admitted to not knowing the consequences of having an expired photograph on their driving licence. Ben Tyte, Head of Sainsbury’s car insurance said: “The photo card driving licence was introduced in 1998 so it’s unsurprising that those issued with a licence around that time may not remember that they need to update their photograph. We would therefore encourage all drivers to check when their photo card was issued and ensure that they arrange to update their photo when required to avoid risking a £1,000 fine. “Drivers should...
Read More »
UK: Draft Defamation Bill Posted on April 5, 2011 by Adrianos Facchetti American defamation lawyers and others have criticized British Libel law for years; and for good reason. Among other things, English law requires the defendant to prove the truth of the alleged defamatory statement, whereas in the U.S., in most states, and in most circumstances, the plaintiff must prove falsity. Because of England’s pro-plaintiff laws, it has become a destination for plaintiffs looking to find the most favorable forum in which to file suit, AKA “Libel Tourism.” But now it looks like this is all about to change. The Draft Defamation Bill published by the Ministry of Justice last month, seems to be a step in the right direction. While I haven’t read the entire 132 page document just yet (just skimmed it), it is clear that this bill was written, at least in part, in response to the ” . . . perception that [its] courts are an attractive forum for libel claimants with little connection to this country, so that [its] law is respected internationally.” Obviously the Brits care what the international community thinks, so I think some potentially major changes are on the horizon. I’ll write a more detailed post regarding the draft bill when I get a chance. For now, here is a copy for your reading pleasure: UK Draft Defamation Bill. More to...
Read More »
3 Accepting an offer to make amends. (1)I f an offer to make amends under section 2 is accepted by the aggrieved party, the following provisions apply. (2) The party accepting the offer may not bring or continue defamation proceedings in respect of the publication concerned against the person making the offer, but he is entitled to enforce the offer to make amends, as follows. (3) If the parties agree on the steps to be taken in fulfilment of the offer, the aggrieved party may apply to the court for an order that the other party fulfil his offer by taking the steps agreed. (4) If the parties do not agree on the steps to be taken by way of correction, apology and publication, the party who made the offer may take such steps as he thinks appropriate, and may in particular— (a) make the correction and apology by a statement in open court in terms approved by the court, and (b )give an undertaking to the court as to the manner of their publication. (5) If the parties do not agree on the amount to be paid by way of compensation, it shall be determined by the court on the same principles as damages in defamation proceedings. The court shall take account of any steps taken in fulfilment of the offer and (so far as not agreed between the parties) of the suitability of the correction, the sufficiency of the apology and whether the manner of their publication was reasonable in the circumstances, and may reduce or increase the amount of compensation accordingly. (6) If the parties do not agree on the amount to be paid by way of costs, it shall be determined by the court on the same principles as costs awarded in court proceedings. (7) The acceptance of an offer by one person to make amends does not affect any cause of action against another person in respect of the same publication, subject as follows. (8) In England and Wales or Northern Ireland, for the purposes of the M1Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978— (a)the amount of compensation paid under the offer shall be treated as paid in bona fide settlement or compromise of the claim; and (b)where another person is liable in respect of the same damage (whether jointly or otherwise), the person whose offer to make amends was accepted is not required to pay by virtue of any contribution under section 1 of that Act a greater amount than the amount of the compensation payable in pursuance of the offer. (9)In Scotland— (a)subsection (2) of section 3 of the Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1940 (right of one joint wrongdoer as respects another to recover contribution towards damages) applies in relation to compensation paid under an offer to make amends as it applies in relation to damages in an action to which that section...
Read More »
Recent Comments