EU Referendum May Have Broken a Few Laws

The EU referendum was handled without much concern for the legal aspect according to Dr. Peter Catterall of the University of Westminster.

He said "The government didn't actually do what it should have done in terms of the legislation."

The government was to present two documents.

"One that sets out the benefits of membership and the other which sets out the alternatives to membership."

"The alternatives to membership, however, didn't actually spell out what the alternatives to membership in great detail," Dr. Catterall says. "What it did was spell out why none of these alternatives to membership are as good as what we've got at the moment. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, the problem is that's not quite what the legislation spelled out should happen."

Dr Catterall was not the only person to raise this issue. Before the actual voting for the referendum, Conservative MP Sir William Cash had raised the issue:

"On June 23 the people may not have impartial and accurate information. I believe the government is probably, if not certainly, in breach of their duty under section six and seven of the European Referendum Act 2015."

Dr Catterall said of the statement "Personally, I agree with him. I think the government did not comply with its obligations under the act. Legislation sets out the rules. In this instance, the government have not applied their own rules. I'm quite skeptical that they would apply their own rules in future."

Outdated Comms Law Giving Out More Personal Information To The Government

Telephone laws had protected homes and personal communications from government tampering. But court ruling allows the actual dialling of the numbers be hidden and instead, only basic information including when, where and who you called, were the only ones legally viable for exposure.

The advent of the Internet and its continued growth allow plenty of personal information to legally get in the hands of agencies. A new draft of a study warns that the line between metadata - the only information the government can procure - and private information the digital age has blurred.

The study cites that the Internet is far more complex than the phone network the metadata laws protect. It recommends that electronic surveillance laws and policies must accommodate the complexity.

Co-author Matt Blaze said fixing the problem wouldn't be as simple passing one law or setting a single precedent in court.

"We don't think there's an single fix, and it probably needs to be addressed at every level from individual cases to comprehensive 'clean slate' legislation," Blaze said.

"What is clear is that rules so deeply rooted in the technology of the 20th century phone system are going to yield increasingly unsatisfying results and become less and less useful going forward."

Legal Highs Ban Criminalises Vulnerable People

Data suggests the UK's legal high ban has been effective. The Public Spaces Protection Order or PSPO, given to councils as a new power in October 2014, allowed them to tackle antisocial behaviour in the UK's streets.

The PSPO allows councils to take legal action by banning several activities deemed antisocial, including legal highs. However, critics say that despite the bans, the legal highs, their manufacturers, sellers and customers, would likely increase after the initial dip.

Much of the shops in Britain are now using online services to deliver the substance door to door.

According to Cohen Cramer Law Senior Lawyer Mark Jackson:

“People who are intoxicated and caught by the authorities on the street are not in a position to mount a legal challenge,” he says.

About 15 local authorities have introduced a PSPO that tackled legal highs and behaviour after using the substance. About 15 more local authorities are in the process of approving their PSPOs.

According to councils, they needed to use their powers to ensure the government's check continues in their regions.

Critics said the banning could only stop indecent behaviour and abuse of the drug for a while. But without regulation, the product can still be sold elsewhere. This introduces a huge risk of the products being left unchecked in quality, which could mean a contrast in expected results could happen.

'Legal Highs' Ready To Be Sold Despite Ban

The Psychoactive Substances Act would come in full force this spring. It's already a few weeks in. But the efficacy of the drug law has put many in doubt.

Evidence that large quantities of legal highs are being stockpiled before the implementation of a new law, which I believe could be reminiscent to the bootlegging era of the Volstead Act in the United States, shows how dangerous club drugs are now using huge discounts on their products if customers purchase their products online.

This would place vulnerable addicts at risk especially as the offers and prices are down.

The law was implemented last April 6. But there had been delays.

The government has issued a 21-days notice to the UK parliament before the legislation can be enforced.

The Psychoactive Substances Act bans almost all psychoactive substances except nicotine, alcohol, caffeine and other medical products.

Possession of legal highs though, are legal.

As 'head shops' close down, many estimate the sale of the products to come down to hidden individuals, much to how illegal drugs are also sold on the street.

Some service users have admitted building up drug reserves, according to Edinburgh-based drugs agency Crew 2000.

Some discounts from former 'head shops' go from 10 to 20 per cent on orders over £100. The companies also offer discreet and free next-day delivery.

New UK Legislation Would Save Music Venues

Due to a lack of consideration for noise levels in neighbourhoods, bars continue to close all over the country due to complaints. Now, the UK government noticed the increasing closures of bars, pubs and some of the nightlife that make up the country.

So they've taken some steps and enacted a law to help protect it.

The continuous lobbying of the Music Venue Trust Group had the UK government restrict development for music rights unless it has a full planning system. The changing legalities have been increasingly charging music venues without early announcements.

The new laws would force developers to consider noise levels when building new buildings to allow music venue owners a chance to use their venues to their optimum potential without affecting neighbours and other areas in the community.

That's great news for bars hosting small-time musicians and small dance floors and halls in communities.

Mark Davyd of Music Trust in a statement:

"For music venues, this has never been about stopping development or preventing the creation of much needed new housing; it's always been about ensuring that new development recognizes the culture, economy and vibrancy of city centers by building great housing, enabling existing music venues and new residents to live in harmony. This is a major victory for the UK's music venues and music fans. The fight to protect, secure and improve them goes on."

Should The Climate Be The Concern of Fund Managers?

Everyone has a responsibility to fix the weather, or at least make sure the world still lasts for as long as humanity can thrive. Fund managers, on the other hand, are concerned about fixing growth, or rather, making things grow. One can argue that fund managers must only concern themselves about looking for businesses that would help grow funds.

It would be up to the business to make sure their methods are climate-risky, to say a term.

But it's not always the case. If fund managers continue to help companies with bad climate records 

thrive, we may find ourselves in a drier, hotter and unhealthy earth.

ClientEarth and other such companies have successfully made their voices heard against world governments especially regarding illegal levels of air pollution and urging mining companies to publish honest reports on climate change risks to their business.

Investors should be mindful that their money guarantees longevity for the earth and human life and not shortening it. New laws should be made that would disallow fund managers to fund companies with opaque records on environmental and climate risks.

But maybe we're getting too ideal here. We just want fund managers to invest somewhere where we'll be sure we still have an earth left to live in the next day.

Scotland Should Have Voted For Their Independence With This Outcome

Last, last year, Scotland had the power of voting themselves out of the UK. They could have earned independence in 2014. If only they knew what would happen early 2016.

Britain was also complaining about Scotland's existence in the first place. The "English votes for English laws" thing will very much allow both states to manage their own legal systems very well. That is, if Scotland still has a voice in the legislation.

SNP's Pete Wishart had it right the first time. He said English MPs were dominating. They were "driving Scotland out of the door".

While it's right that Scottish MPs shouldn't vote on English troubles, the matter is that everyone is affected by the changes.

\

It feels much like Scotland earned its independence. Much like, but not "has earned independence completely."

If Scotland will complain about not having a voice with English issues, they should have agreed to Britain's traditional terms.

But maybe there's another upcoming independence referendum. Or maybe not.

It's just that everything turned out the same. With nothing changing and well, at least 

Scotland keeps the pound sterling while voting on their own issues.