Somerset Business Tenants Banned From Selling Legal Highs

Taunton Deane Councillors voted against Council business tenants from selling “legal highs” over the counter in Taunton in Somerset.

The law will stop the sale of the substances in any premise rented from the authority as the Tuesday meeting concluded.

Councillor Federica Smith said the sale of legal highs had a “negative impact” on the community. She said the authorities had a duty to remedy the situation.

Council business tenants are now forbidden to sell the substances from any premise owned or leased by the Council. It was agreed that all landlords should be contacted in case tenants prove difficult to stop.

They also approved a number of business proposals designed to tackle anti-social behavor associated with the substances.

Certain substances that allow users to reach “legal highs” are allowed for sale in the United Kingdom. Most of these drugs could be bought online and in some shops.

Source

Will David Cameron’s New Laws Shape Up Against Terrorist Threat?

In the G20 Australian Summit, British Prime Minister David Cameron revealed the UK’s seizing of passports for potential outgoing ISIS fighters and its blocking of fighters coming home from the frontlines. Will it be effective? Let’s see.

The UK Government’s strategy is to dry up the resources of IS, namely people. Individuals, especially youngsters within the age group of 18-21, are attracted to the ideals of ISIS. Hundreds of individuals in Europe and the United States have travelled to Syria and Iraq to fight with their brethren. According to the UK, they provide the biggest population of terrorist migrants.

The new powers will expand passport seizure laws from the Home Secretary to Policemen stationed in airports. Anyone suspected of participating in any acts of terror could be held down for 30 days until their names are cleared. 

Meanwhile, the UK will not be welcoming British Jihadists home. They will be allowed home, but only if they comply with strict measures of living inside the United Kingdom.

Will it shape up? I believe it would have effects. With plenty of inspections happening in airports, most youngsters will be discouraged to go. Veteran fighters could sneak their way from the airport, but they may be barred from their return.

Regardless whether it’s a prideful fight for terrorists, they won’t be going home unless they are treated like criminals in their home state. But for the laws, I believe they could achieve their goals effectively. 

Source

Bahraini Prince Stripped of UK Legal Immunity: About Time!

UK’s High Court ruled that Bahraini Prince Nasser bin Hamad al-Khalifa will not be given his legal immunity against arrest and prosecution in the United Kingdom after hard evidence showing he detained the leaders of a pro-democracy movement in Bahrain.

Since 2012, the Bahraini government had imprisoned human rights advocates and pro-democracy groups in the country, often accompanied by torturing captured protesters and the leaders during their imprisonment. A law firm representing a Bahraini refugee in the UK, Deighton Pierce Glynn (DPG) is pushing the case with evidence showing alleged torture of inmates in Bahraini prisons.

It is about time that the Prince was given such a sanction provided that these activities have been going on for years before. Despite the pleas from the European Centre for Constitution and Human Rights (ECCHR) and the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights (BCHR), the UK High Court had strongly sided with the anonymous Bahraini refugee.

The refugee had presented medium evidence indicating that “flogging, beating and kicking” two pro-democracy leaders at the Manama Fort prison clinic al-Qala’a in 2011.

The CPS had also released their statement that they “can no longer maintain their position that the prince could have immunity in line with recent case law on this issue.”

About time if you asked me!

Friends, Clap Your Hands for a Great Set of Legal Ambiguities for the United States

We all still remember that time when then-US President George Bush along with then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair had both agreed to put boots on the ground in Iraq to seize their atomic and chemical weapons and put a stop to the Taliban. Those campaigns failed to produce any form of chemical weapons. Today, we might be seeing the same thing, but according to the US, it is not the same.

Maybe we’re missing something. According to the Obama Administration, the government could only appoint combat personnel for 60 days in a foreign country if sending troops without the approval of congress. Apparently, since June 16, 2014, the US had been sending “military advisers” to Iraq to deal with the threat of ISIS.

Now that the extremist faction had grown from a “junior varsity” team to a major league, Obama now re-classifies them to a higher threat level. He is set to justify to the Americans why the ISIS becomes a threat, focusing on the idea that many western fighters have joined the ranks of the extremists, and these have possibly come from the US and the UK.

Meanwhile, boots on the ground will never be considered, according to Obama. But you’ll never know. Until those ‘military advisers’ see combat, US military personnel can stay inside another country’s soil for as long as they want. Combat is only when they engage hostilities personally. This is where you could clap your hands for accomplishing something by bending the rules.

Source

Six Million Brazilian Domestic Workers With Improved Legal Rights

Brazilian domestic workers were now approved with more rights as employers now have to register them legally or else they face hundreds of dollars in fines. This is actually a good thing; domestic workers worldwide have very little protection against their employers. This case is actually true in the United Kingdom; the new immigration laws leave none to protect abused domestic helpers.

Domestic helpers are those immigrants and nationals from other countries, usually in the third world, who keep the houses of nationals in proper order, clean and orderly. These domestic helpers may also buy the groceries or do all the necessary work that most busy households forget to do.

In Brazil, most domestic workers are made to work for more hours. Most of them are unregistered as well, which allows their employers to hold their working permits, imprison them, or make them work long hours. Some cases even have employers withholding their payments for the month.

These people are trying to earn a living, and law and order in Brazil, as well as here in the UK and other countries, can become more peaceful if people stopped abusing them. Remember, these families have also come from Favelas and poor nations; if they are treated right, they could boost the economy of everyone else in the world.

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.