Televised Divorce Cases: Is it for Media Attention or The Truth?

Let’s admit one thing before I get started on this legal rights post; most people, about 85% of people in a crowd, will likely find an argument between a couple entertaining. It is probably because it is a break from the routine, or a “schadenfreude”situation. UK’s divorce cases had seen middle-class couples split up, spending more than £1000 to £5000 in divorce settlements, to tycoon relationships, with the largest sum of £100m being awarded to the wife as owning half of the husband’s properties.

Televised or reported divorce cases and our extensive legal rights in terms of marriage makes us afraid of the rights of others. Our potential partners may abuse these rights, or rather use these rights, to gain more from us. Another downside is that regardless of the amount of money you make, you still deserve privacy. Apparently, the recent divorce case of Sir Christopher

Hohn, hedge fund magnate, and Jamie Cooper-Hohn involves millions of pounds.

This situation, if televised, puts Sir Hohn in three kinds of situations. First, the media may publish delicate information that could put Sir Hohn’s industrial amour into jeopardy, namely because half of his properties his soon-to-be ex-wife will receive. Second, it could place him in danger as he will be known as a public figure with great properties. Third, his privacy is jeopardised within the industry.

The media argues that it has a right to publish the proceedings and that the media will not report the more extreme details of the divorce case. However, the amount of money involved is extreme. Obviously, the media wants to tell the truth, but the first to report the divorce case of a millionaire will gain a higher viewing during the prime time news.

For me, however, there are some things that should just be left private.

Is the MP-Sacking Law Another Illusion of National Rights?

The Queen’s speech the previous week had left me to wonder if the public really has a say in politics. Apparently, she said that the UK Coalition government will introduce a law that allows voters to remove MPs they deem as troublesome. The coalition government promised this law in 2010. Any MP with a scandal could have the public force an election to remove the said MP.

Sure, we have a say about our local politics, but that does not mean the higher-ups would not be able to do anything. Anybody can recognize that the situation will be unfair for an MP, so they will use their own unfair powers to fight against it.

Clearly, I find it a weak attempt of the government to give the proper rights for the public to remove MPs who had “grown molds” inside the UK government.  

Probably, the Coalition government, using UK’s Queen, were trying to appease people by “giving them more rights over us”, or at least an illusion, and then they will push through with the underground fracking, which could affect the foundations of a great many properties in the United Kingdom.

The MPs are actually looking forward to fracking because of its great promise of UK profit. Yet another blow to real legal rights in the United Kingdom.

Clare’s Law Allows Partners to Review Wife or Husband Background.

In England and Wales, Clare’s Law, based on the death by strangulation and burning by her ex-boyfriend George Appleton in 2009, will allow nationals to know more about their partner’s history, namely of violence filed against them by former partners. 

The initiative is officially called the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme, which will help protect individuals from potentially abusive husbands or wives. The law is currently on a 14-month pilot scheme in four police areas in England and Wales.

According to Home Secretary Theresa May, it could mean a great difference if one knows what he or she is dealing with. She said “Domestic abuse shatters lives and this government is working hard to provide police and local authorities with the tools they need to keep women and girls safe.”

Clare’s law will provide immediate protection to a victim despite the lack of evidence to charge a perpetrator or a criminal. Victims will be protected based on bail, and it could protect them for 28 days. The perpetrator will also be cordoned off the victim.

The new law is part of the program called the Government’s Call to End Violence Against Women and Girls’ Action Plan 2014. Part of the program will also hide the addresses and details of women, girls and children from people who could threaten them.

Source

The Reasons People Are Losing Faith in the UK Legal System

The UK has a virtually perfect legal system that effectively protects its victims, albeit having immigrant rights to justice virtually nil. However, even the UK national, who is born a natural citizen of the land, is losing faith in the legal system. Probably because of the following reasons I perceive from some friends who had some legal encounters in the past years.

1.    Victim Treatment

Victims are required to report any form of harassment or abuse of any kind to a police station as soon as possible. However, this requirement puts off many victims because, apparently, some of them do not find it comfortable to talk to a police officer, especially female sexual harassment victims interviewed by male officers. Probing questions can deeply scar the trauma in victims further.

2.    Slow Speeds

UK courts handle so many cases all at once. This is the reality for most legal systems in every country. Some cases are prioritized, some are not. If you’re not a high profile person, then your case can sit in the dust until someone from the court decides to read it and open it.

3.    Leeway for Offenders

Criminals and offenders are protected by law in the UK and this is okay. However, most suspects, with their own legal representatives, are briefed in full about the case. Most victims just find themselves answering questions. Victim support is also failing because of the objectivity and an unsettling feeling that victim support representatives are doing things “by the book” and not by the nature of the case.

Where Should You Spend Your PPI Claim Payouts?

I must say, when I received my PPI refund, I was more than happy to see the £2,780 cheque written in my name. The first thing on my mind was where to spend it, and the frugal side of me just went to have it re-invested in one of my investment vehicles. I thought that was the best option seeing the UK’s economy is gradually recovering and well, some stocks, which are falling behind, are giving me opportunities to increase my profits.

According to a research by VoucherCodesPro.Co.UK, many people who received their payment protection insurance refund only took three weeks to think about where to spend it. Majority spent it on having holiday vacations. Some used it as down payment for a second hand vehicle. Then, some used it to renovate their homes or pay their bills.

Come to think of it, £2,780 is not something you pick up every day.

Any spending you do will help the local economy boost itself and drive down the prices of goods, or improve their quality nonetheless. Even in investing, or purchasing a new insurance policy for yourself or a family member, you are mobilizing the local economies.

However, making your money stagnant is the last thing you want to do with it.

You should allow your money to grow to see more of your earnings flourish in the next few years. That is how you should spend your PPI claim payouts.

Parodies Aren’t Evil, But They Can Be Confusing

The internet’s fuss over the Dumb Starbucks Coffee Shop had put it in the attention of the coffee company itself and authorities. Nathan Fielder, Comedy Central comedian, admitted to building the coffee shop to be part of his show at Sunday Night Live. While it is a fun parody of the coffee shop, it is completely confusing simply because it uses the same parodied logo, typeface and the word “dumb” on its identical menus.

It is important to note that one knows a parody when the character wears a wig resembling a signature look of a character, or when an establishment uses a logo that seems different from the trademark of the original. In this case, the logo, the position of the logo and the color schemes were too similar to the original that it had lead many people, including actual Starbucks drinkers, into the shop.

It is true that the comedians are protected under the “fair use” policies as the law protects parody as a freedom-of-speech. However, parody laws only have a black-and-white approach to parodies. Its summary shows that if the public is confused, the parody is committing an automatic act of plagiarism or even worse.

The Dumb Starbucks Coffee Shop failed to assure many of its consumers that it is not the genuine Starbucks Coffee Shop, which might mean a copyright infringement case for Fielders.

Powers Granted By An Anti-Gay Law

Gender is still a very sensitive issue for the world because it relates to equality and racism. In the past, only men could vote for the future of their country, until women won their right to vote for themselves as well. In a lesser recent history, white people had the idea that they were higher than the colored peoples, which a revolution in thinking also destroyed. Today, we have the anti-gay agenda.

Lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals truly challenge the traditional values of many religions, cultures and beliefs worldwide. While every person has an opinion about the changing morals and traditions of the world, it is unfair to take it to a legislative level. Unfortunately, history has taught us that the law usually binds itself with tradition.

Russia had approved a law that sent gay men and lesbians in hiding. The new bill states that authorities could arrest any person spreading information about gays and the third gender. According to President Vladimir Putin, the law’s objective is to preserve Russia’s traditional values.

This is the same reason Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan approved a law that can incarcerate any men or women having any relationships with the same gender. The law also enables arrest for those involved in gay groups. Africa’s populous nation has a history of Islamic tradition, and because tradition is involved in the law, the individual loses yet again.

The powers granted by an anti-gay law allows for racism and harassment on the basis of sexuality and not the value a person has in his or her job, the way he or she treats others and their productivity for the nation. It only strengthens the powers of a single-minded belief, which declares all its decrees as law.