Slashdot Mirror

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/contents
The relevant section is http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/10
"Causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity

(1)A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally causes or incites another person (B) to engage in an activity,
(b)the activity is sexual, and
(c)either—
(i)B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or
(ii)B is under 13.
(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section, if the activity caused or incited involved—
(a)penetration of B’s anus or vagina,
(b)penetration of B’s mouth with a person’s penis,
(c)penetration of a person’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body or by B with anything else, or
(d)penetration of a person’s mouth with B’s penis,is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.
(3)Unless subsection (2) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years."

"would you fuck me" - is clearly inciting penetration, so you can do up to 14 years for this.

This is _NOT_ a strict liability offence.
The jury must have had reason to believe that he intended to do this.
Doing it by accident _CANNOT_ lead to a conviction, unless the judge misdirects them.
For example - if he'd directed that because he intended to send it to one person on the list, that intent carried over to the unintended recipients.

Indeed, I can't seem to see any 'strict liability' offences in the act.
I may have missed some.
At a minimum you need to have intended the action and not known the other party was underage.

By the way, this all happened in London

Next time you see him point him towards the Protection from Harassment Act

Poster #41320397 here.

I kind of like what Children and Young Persons Act 1933 says.

Better to get it from the definitive source than Wikipedia.

I don't know if there is something similar in place here in America. It mentions victims, witnesses, and suspects, but is limited to children apparently. I so wish we could extend that to all persons rather than just children. Because it doesn't seem like it takes much to tarnish someone's good name by mentioning them on the news. Notice the exemptions which I won't bother pasting here.

A conviction remains on that individual's record even after appeal? What sort of appeal are you referring?

Anything from the Appeal Court at the High Court, to the Supreme Court, to the House of Lords (very rare this happens now), to European Court of Human Rights (even more rare than HL because the lower courts have got themselves a loophole that they can withhold their judgements and prevent cases being *accepted* by the ECHR).

If someone appeals their original conviction, and it is overturned (maybe they were innocent?), do they still have that mark on their record?

Because the original allegation involves children, yes.

Check out Ex-football player, wrongly jailed for rape, wants money from state

The law would have to be changed to specifically deny that right to the author. If you buy a car, or electronics or something, there may not be an explicit warranty but they usually haven't disclaimed a warranty in advance of your purchase so you can still get the "implied" warranty. The licenses are contracts that are supposed to be entered into after due consideration, so they are allowed to disclaim pretty much anything they want, same as normal contract law. The law would have to be specifically different for software than for most products, and that's a big uphill battle.

In many countries you often cannot disclaim all implied warranties, regardless of what any contract says. The most extreme disclaimers that disclaim any notion that the product is intended to do anything are sometimes ruled out on the basis that because they allow the supplier to effectively deliver nothing, there is a failure of consideration - the supplier could take the money and deliver nothing.

Less extreme disclaimers can also be avoided, especially where sales to consumers are involved. For example, in the UK the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 includes the following:

(2)As against a person dealing as consumer, liability in respect of the goods’ correspondence with description or sample, or their quality or fitness for any particular purpose, cannot be excluded or restricted by reference to any such term.
(3)As against a person dealing otherwise than as consumer, that liability can be excluded or restricted by reference to such a term, but only in so far as the term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.

The only reason these laws are not often applied against software appears to be that the standard is generally so poor that it would be hard to show that a particular package was less than might have reasonably been expected.

Therefore, the effect of the failure of the product to perform *as advertised* constitutes a material breach of contract, one which should be pursued for restitution and remedy.

Absolutely — provided that this term is actually incorporated into the contract, which is the key issue here. (Let's assume that English law applies here.)

Although the term is an "implied term," and thus can exist even if it is not written into a contract (if there is a written contract) or expressly stated as part of the agreement, there's no general principle of law which says that implied terms cannot be excluded. Instead, we have to look to specific laws on this.

For this particular term, section 6 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 provides that:

(2) As against a person dealing as consumer, liability for breach of the obligations arising from— (a) section 13, 14, or 15 of the 1979 Act (sellers’s implied undertakings as to conformity of goods with description or sample, or as to their quality or fitness for a particular purpose); ... cannot be excluded or restricted by reference to any contract term.

As such, in a contract where one party deals as a consumer, the section you reference cannot be excluded — but there is no such prohibition in contracts between businesses. There is debate as to what it means to "deal as a consumer," though — could a business deal as a consumer for a particular transaction? It would be a question of fact in each case, but there's an argument that, yes, it could.

So whilst there's no definite prohibition on excluding this term in a business to business transaction, businesses are not entirely out of luck, although by virtue of s6(3), there is a variable at play, which makes the position less certain:

(3) As against a person dealing otherwise than as consumer, the liability specified in subsection (2) above can be excluded or restricted by reference to a contract term, but only in so far as the term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.

The business would need to look and see whether liability was excluded under the contract. If there's nothing saying that the term is excluded, brilliant. If the contract does attempt to exclude liability, the business would need to argue that this exclusion was unreasonable:

... the requirement of reasonableness ... is that the term shall have been a fair and reasonable one to be included having regard to the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably to have been, known to or in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made. (s11(1))

This would be a question of fact, highly dependent on the circumstances. If the exclusion clause is unreasonable, the implied term as to fitness for purpose stands. If it is reasonable, it falls.

I can only speak from my experience, but getting a general "fitness for purpose" clause in a business contract is rare — it's a very broad warranty to give. More likely, I would have thought, is that the seller will have excluded the term, and the hotel will either need to make an argument about reasonableness of the exclusion, or else dig through its agreement to see whether the product failed to comply with an agreed specification or to a particular performance level, or anything like that.

Just my musings, could be wrong, not your lawyer, hate that one might argue I need to exclude the possibility that someone might consider this legal advice etc.

I'm sorry, but what exactly is the above supposed to imply other than that Britain is making a serious threat to storm the embassy, if other options don't pan out?

That they believe they have diplomatic mechanisms to force them to do this. They're not going to storm the embassy. That would be a violation of the treaty and therefore international law. They've found a legal loophole (or are claiming to have done so) and are challenging the Ecuadorian government to call their bluff.

Here's the legislation being used. I have no idea what part of that the legal experts think they can use to justify whatever they plan to do but whatever it is they plan, there's certainly no justification for storming the embassy.

Actually, the law doesn't say that. The law says that if a State wants to use land for diplomatic or consular premises, they can apply to the UK Government. The UK Government can accept or reject their application, and can also revoke the application at a later date.

However, they can only "withdraw consent or withdraw acceptance if [they are] satisfied that to do so is permissible under international law."

So they can't just decide to shut down the embassy at will, they need a reason within the rules of international law. And even then, the Ecuadorians (or Assange) could probably apply for an injunction delaying the effect of withdrawing diplomatic status for as long as it took to challenge the decision in the courts, which could take years.

There are a couple of good articles (by lawyers) on this sort of thing, here and here.

Actually, you just have to infringe copyright "in the course of business" or "otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright" if you're dealing with infringement by communicating the work to the public (i.e. filesharing - see s107(2A)).

... It depends on what counts as "communication to the public."

Reading that law, it seems clear to me that that 'communicating to the public' is being used to describe the act of reproduction without license (the infringement itself, to be a little circular about it), but not the act of directing another party to an external thing which infringes, even if you willfully intend for copyright to be infringed as a result.

I imagine the word communicating is used as a catchall for whichever form of transmission is used to reproduce or recreate the work without license, but it is NOT about describing to another party *how* to reproduce the work, or *where* it might unlawfully be reproduced, no matter how specifically you describe such a thing. Otherwise you would fall foul of that law for discussing how to copy a novel with a typewriter, for example. Or for performing factual reporting on the site in the first place. (If linking to crimes is a crime, then linking to linking to crimes must also be a crime, after all.)

By the Kevin Bacon principle, if linking to infringing content is a crime, then all websites are guilty before the 6th degree of separation.

Yes, quite so. But then, copyright infringement is not a crime when it is 'done between friends'. It becomes a crime at around the value of £1500, if I remember correctly.

Actually, you just have to infringe copyright "in the course of business" or "otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright" if you're dealing with infringement by communicating the work to the public (i.e. filesharing - see s107(2A)).

However, linking to infringing content is NOT copyright infringement. So even though this guy helped a lot of people infringe copyright, he didn't actively copy the content himself, which means he's not guilty of that crime. And there is no crime of contributory copyright infringement. So they can't do him on that.

Actually... it might be. It depends on what counts as "communication to the public." In the TVShack case, Richard O'Dwyer is being extradited on the basis that what he did amounted to criminal copyright infringement, for running a linking site; the High Court will be ruling on that at some point soon. Also the Supreme Court may (hopefully) sort out the whole "linking or embedding is illegal" thing in another appeal early next year (the original case held that merely receiving an email or visiting a website was enough to be illegal).

But yes, it's a very silly situation. Conspiracy to Defraud is a very bad law.

I have serious doupt about the legallity of this action in light of RF frequency allocation and usage rules. If it is an open and unregulated band for wifi, BT has not right what so ever to ask someone to turn of an access point.

Ofcom was certainly interested in this. In it's 2009 publication "The Spectrum Plan for the London 2012 Games," Ofcom said:

4.91 Certain equipment may be exempted in the UK from the requirement to be licensed under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 because its use is not likely to cause harmful interference. Experience from past Games has shown, however, that the unusual concentration of such equipment in particular venues can create the potential for localised harmful interference.

4.92 We are exploring with LOCOG how such use can best be controlled and/or coordinated to avoid any disruption to the smooth running of the London 2012 Games. Practical measures (e.g. preventing certain types of equipment from being brought into London 2012 Games venues or actively coordinating use between users) have proved successful at past Games.

4.93 The Met Office raised concerns in its response about the need to protect the use of its radars and the importance of the information provided by these radars to the London 2012 Games. Ofcom will carry out a detailed study of the protection of meteorological radars from WLANs and will consider how WLAN use can best be controlled and/or coordinated to avoid any disruption to the meteorological radars.

It also appears, from the same document that the Vancouver Games took a slightly different approach:

4.95 During the Vancouver Games, VANOC will be providing both wired and, in certain high-traffic locations such as the Olympic and Paralympic Villages, the MPC and the Media Centre, WLAN Internet services. Within Olympic Net Zone wireless hotspots, use of personal WLAN routers will not be permitted. Use of WLAN routers will be permitted in designated locations outside these Zones. Anyone bringing in their own WLAN services will have to use the 5000 MHz band and the 802.11a networking standard. They will not be able to use the 2400 MHz band (802.11 b/g/n) or selected channels at 5000 MHz (802.11 a/n). VANOC will stipulate the SIDH and channel assignment.

The Wireless Telegraphy (Control of Interference from Apparatus) (The London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games) Regulations 2012 were certainly part of the legal basis for tackling interference, but these regulations are limited to interference with wireless communications for public safety purposes:

Regulation 5(1):

The requirement is that between 26th July 2012 and 10th September 2012 apparatus must when in use operate at a sufficiently low intensity of electromagnetic energy such that it does not cause undue interference with wireless telegraphy used for public safety purposes within a protection area.

I've yet to find the basis on which Wi-Fi interference is verboten, but I would have thought there's a document out there somewhere...

We got rid of him. The law is still there waiting for someone to invoke it, as easily verified

"Emergency regulations may make provision of any kind that could be made by Act of Parliament or by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative;"

ie unlimited power.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/36/section/22

we all have to pay a T.V. licence fee. ... Watching without paying is illegal.

It's certainly the case that certain "watching" is illegal absent a licence, but it might be worth being clear as to what is required here:

A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence..

Communications Act 2003, s393(1)

So, whatever a "television receiver" might be, mere ownership or possession of one does not require a licence — the requirement only kicks in if the receiver is "installed or used." ("Using" a TV means "using it for receiving television programmes" (s368(3)); using it for anything else (e.g. as a monitor for gaming, or for displaying DVDs) is not "use," although, if that was its use, I'd want to make sure it was not tuned for receiving programmes, or anything else which could be used to argue that it had been "installed".)

"Television receiver" is defined in another piece of legislation, The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004:

"any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose."

(The repetition of "installed or used" in the definition of "television receiver" makes the s393(1) requirement somewhat circular, but ho hum...)

Further:

any reference to receiving a television programme service includes a reference to receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service.

A "television programme service" is not necessarily limited to something which enables a programme to be received "at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by broadcast recipients, as the definition is that the reference to it "includes" this, rather than solely consists of it. However, TV Licensing considers that "catch-up services, like BBC iPlayer or 4oD" are not within the scope of the definition. The BBC's "No Licence Needed Policy" supports this, commenting that a licence is not required for "receiving programmes by means of a DVD or the on-demand elements of services such as i-Player."

The end result is that watching something which is being broadcast to television receivers live or near live requires a licence — it is this "watching" which, absent a licence, is illegal. Proxying to access on-demand content, whilst potentially an infringement of copyright (and potentially an infringement on the part of the serving provider), does not mean that the requirement for a licence is breached. It is possible to watch a TV programme without a licence, fully in compliance with the law, and I would have thought that quite a few people take that option these days.

So you are "stealing".

There are certainly circumstances in which the body responsible for collecting licence fees considers that watching TV programming without a licence is not stealing, even if the law is not crystal clear on this. Whether these people are morally wrong if they watch a lot of programs on iPlayer and so on is perhaps akin to the tax avoidance debate — they are benefitting from something for which others are paying, but are not committing any legal wrong in doing so.

we all have to pay a T.V. licence fee. ... Watching without paying is illegal.

It's certainly the case that certain "watching" is illegal absent a licence, but it might be worth being clear as to what is required here:

A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence..

Communications Act 2003, s393(1)

So, whatever a "television receiver" might be, mere ownership or possession of one does not require a licence — the requirement only kicks in if the receiver is "installed or used." ("Using" a TV means "using it for receiving television programmes" (s368(3)); using it for anything else (e.g. as a monitor for gaming, or for displaying DVDs) is not "use," although, if that was its use, I'd want to make sure it was not tuned for receiving programmes, or anything else which could be used to argue that it had been "installed".)

"Television receiver" is defined in another piece of legislation, The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004:

"any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose."

(The repetition of "installed or used" in the definition of "television receiver" makes the s393(1) requirement somewhat circular, but ho hum...)

Further:

any reference to receiving a television programme service includes a reference to receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service.

A "television programme service" is not necessarily limited to something which enables a programme to be received "at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by broadcast recipients, as the definition is that the reference to it "includes" this, rather than solely consists of it. However, TV Licensing considers that "catch-up services, like BBC iPlayer or 4oD" are not within the scope of the definition. The BBC's "No Licence Needed Policy" supports this, commenting that a licence is not required for "receiving programmes by means of a DVD or the on-demand elements of services such as i-Player."

The end result is that watching something which is being broadcast to television receivers live or near live requires a licence — it is this "watching" which, absent a licence, is illegal. Proxying to access on-demand content, whilst potentially an infringement of copyright (and potentially an infringement on the part of the serving provider), does not mean that the requirement for a licence is breached. It is possible to watch a TV programme without a licence, fully in compliance with the law, and I would have thought that quite a few people take that option these days.

So you are "stealing".

There are certainly circumstances in which the body responsible for collecting licence fees considers that watching TV programming without a licence is not stealing, even if the law is not crystal clear on this. Whether these people are morally wrong if they watch a lot of programs on iPlayer and so on is perhaps akin to the tax avoidance debate — they are benefitting from something for which others are paying, but are not committing any legal wrong in doing so.

I think, as a test of the freedom of speech, this person should now receive death threats for the rest of his life. As a joke. For fun.

So you've just used a public electronic communications network to send a message calling for someone to receive death threats for the rest of his life. That could be considered a message "of an indecent, obscene or menacing character". Sounds like an arguable case for a prosecution under s127 of the Communications Act 2003; the same law this guy was originally convicted under.

Fortunately, today's ruling means you're probably fine, but it is something worth bearing in mind next time you incite death threats.

Or were you merely joking?

Waking up woman with foreplay is not the same a fucking a passed out drunk woman.

Yes. Both could be rape, both could not. Hence the word "potential". English law is a little complex on this point, but there are these things called "evidential presumptions about consent"; basically, if the complainant is "asleep or otherwise unconscious" at the time, it is presumed that (s)he didn't consent "unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he consented."

Then there are some "conclusive presumptions about consent", whereby if "the defendant intentionally deceived the complainant as to the nature or purpose of the relevant act" (such as whether or not it was 'safe') it is conclusively presumed that (s)he didn't consent.

These women only screamed rape when they found out about each other.

It doesn't matter what the women screamed, or when. What matters is whether or not the relevant legal criteria are met; such as whether or not the defendant believed they consented to the act.

Of course, most of this is a case of evidence, so a matter for the actual trial, not for extradition proceedings.

Waking up woman with foreplay is not the same a fucking a passed out drunk woman.

Yes. Both could be rape, both could not. Hence the word "potential". English law is a little complex on this point, but there are these things called "evidential presumptions about consent"; basically, if the complainant is "asleep or otherwise unconscious" at the time, it is presumed that (s)he didn't consent "unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he consented."

Then there are some "conclusive presumptions about consent", whereby if "the defendant intentionally deceived the complainant as to the nature or purpose of the relevant act" (such as whether or not it was 'safe') it is conclusively presumed that (s)he didn't consent.

These women only screamed rape when they found out about each other.

It doesn't matter what the women screamed, or when. What matters is whether or not the relevant legal criteria are met; such as whether or not the defendant believed they consented to the act.

Of course, most of this is a case of evidence, so a matter for the actual trial, not for extradition proceedings.

The UK also call their corresponding law the Freedom of Information Act.

"infringing the right to "make available"

More probably the exclusive right of communication to the public. s107(2A), Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1977 (here):

(2A) A person who infringes copyright in a work by communicating the work to the public—

(a)in the course of a business, or

(b)otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,

commits an offence if he knows or has reason to believe that, by doing so, he is infringing copyright in that work.

...

(4A) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2A) is liable—

(a)on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding £50,000, or both;

(b)on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both.

Here in the UK you can usually travel to a foreign country and do something legal there that is illegal in the UK without fear of repercussion when you return to the UK.

Erm, no you can't. We have some laws against this kind of behaviour (although not as strict as the US ones), e.g. Section 59 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which prevents you from arranging for a person to leave the country with plans that involve a "relevant offence" (which includes "anything done outside England and Wales and Northern Ireland which is not an offence [...] but would be if done in England and Wales or Northern Ireland") being performed on them. This means that you can't, for instance, take your 14 year old girlfriend to Spain for the purposes of having sex with her, despite the fact that it would be legal to have sex with her if you met her there.

The point is, the UK gov't cannot stop it, or change it.

It may well have been instigated by a previous UK gov't, but it is regulation from the EU.

ECHR, as implemented in the UK in the Human Rights Act. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1

Article 10 - Freedom of expression

1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

It's a useful thing to be able to videotape cops. It's a check on them ABUSING THEIR POSITION, which they often do. It is also allowed by Law. I'd go one step further than that and say that it's an obligation to self to do all one can to protect oneself since NOBODY ELSE IS GOING TO DO IT FOR YOU. Do not ever kid yourself that anyone will.

It's interesting that the so called "cookie law" makes no reference to cookies at all in its original directive. Regulation 6 of the Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive talks about using "an electronic communications network to store information, or to gain access to information stored". Ok, so that sounds a lot like cookies, but it would also cover, say, storing snippets of information through plug-ins like Silverlight or Flash.

It then goes on to list the exceptions, which again sound like descriptions of cookies used to store contents of baskets or remembering logins, but worded in a way as to avoid any specific technology.

In 2011 it was amended, mostly to clarify things so that people would have to opt-in to tracking rather than opt-out, but still the word "cookie" isn't used.

It's interesting that the so called "cookie law" makes no reference to cookies at all in its original directive. Regulation 6 of the Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive talks about using "an electronic communications network to store information, or to gain access to information stored". Ok, so that sounds a lot like cookies, but it would also cover, say, storing snippets of information through plug-ins like Silverlight or Flash.

It then goes on to list the exceptions, which again sound like descriptions of cookies used to store contents of baskets or remembering logins, but worded in a way as to avoid any specific technology.

In 2011 it was amended, mostly to clarify things so that people would have to opt-in to tracking rather than opt-out, but still the word "cookie" isn't used.

This unauthorised work is a violation of the Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Act 1995, London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 and other criminal acts. (It is also trivial work based on Dietrich-Buchecker, Sauvage & Kern, 1984.)

This unauthorised work is a violation of the Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Act 1995, London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 and other criminal acts. (It is also trivial work based on Dietrich-Buchecker, Sauvage & Kern, 1984.)

Has anyone considered that SMS communication between husband and wife is privileged communication under Section 1(c) of the Criminal Evidence Act 1898? Or that email on a mobile telephone may be privileged communication from a legal representative? If the police look at any of this information then a case is prejudiced. A chain of evidence ensures the integrity of data but it doesn't guarantee privacy. Therefore, holding the information and acting upon it leads to reasonable doubt.

New UK law to outlaw violent porn. When does kinky porn become illegal?. The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (2008 c. 4) is the bill; it's in part 5, section 63.

Your statement about tourism has been answered, but also remember the *huge* income from the "Crown Estate" -- land that "belongs" to the royal family, and from which they are allowed to keep all the income.

That's not true. The profit from the Crown Estate goes to the Treasury and part of it (about 4%, going by the figures on Wikipedia) is returned as the Civil List. Of course, that's all about to change because of the Sovereign Grant Act 2011.

Actually, England *does* have a Bill of Rights, written in 1688 and mostly still in force. Unfortunately, the only free speech that protects is the Freedome of Speech of MPs, which is increasingly being abused for political gain.

England also does have a written constitution; unfortunately, it's scattered across hundreds of Acts of Parliament, and Court judgments. There are advantages and disadvantages to not having a codified, supreme constitution; for starters, we don't have people wandering around with assault rifles claiming they're part of a well-regulated militia needed to protect the country from invaders.

That said, the UK does now answer to two "higher powers" in a sense, the EU and the ECHR, both of which offer some protection for freedom of expression (a slightly broader idea than just freedom of speech).

[Citation Needed]

Citation given

Needed to figure out what exactly was bogus about this since there shouldn't be anything too wrong about someone recommending stocks that fail even with a "robot".

The Securities and Exchange Commission said the stocks "picked" were actually firms that paid the twins hefty fees

I assume it's because there's a difference between just being bad stocks and being bribed into recommending stocks.

This is a good question, though I think you missed the answer (for the UK side of things anyway) from TFA:

In November, Newcastle Crown Court ordered Alexander Hunter to pay back nearly $1m after he admitted providing unregulated financial advice. He was given a suspended 12-month prison sentence.

In the UK the first mechanism to protect the public from investment-related fraud (which this blatantly is) is that if you give financial advice you have to be signed up to the Financial Services Authority. That is rigorously enforced and isn't trivial to accomplish so right off the bat they've got a very solid case against basically all the fraudsters except those that probably could make a decent living being bona fide. That's what these twins have been caught by.

To protect against the registered guys, well signing up to the FSA subjects you to rules and by-laws (laws that only apply to specific people) which require specific things and hold you to a much higher standard than is generally applied of the public - as you can see here, the industry is heavily regulated. I don't know much on the details of the FSA rules, but at first glance these twins seem to fail more than half of the fundamental principles.

On top of that, these guys probably could have been caught under the Fraud Act 2006 (though Wikipedia has a decent summary) since a) they made specific factual claims about their products which they knew were not true and b) as you point out they were bribed into recommending stocks - being paid to do so would actually be OK if only they'd disclosed it.

Although punishment under the Fraud Act is more severe, and at first glance appears most appropriate given these guys were clearly intentionally defrauding their customers, it still hard to win in court whereas getting them for not being FSA regulated is easy.

Incidentally, some of these rules cross borders in both directions - someone based overseas marketing their dodgy dealings in the UK can still be subject to UK laws, while a UK firm can be subject to UK laws while operating overseas (even if they do it via a third party based there).

I gather the US has a very-broadly similar set of tools via the SEC.

So far as I can see from a brief glipse at the law in question, it basically amounts to giving police powers to directly enforce whatever rules IOC comes up to. This, in particular, looks like it allows the police to arrest you on the spot if you're wearing a T-shirt with a wrong logo or anything like that.

Wearing a tshirt? Where do you read that. I didn't read the whole law, but what I did read (and what they can arrest you for) revolves around trade. I don't know the general UK laws, but I do know elsewhere they require permits to sale stuff, and you can be arrested if you don't have the permits.

So far as I can see from a brief glipse at the law in question, it basically amounts to giving police powers to directly enforce whatever rules IOC comes up to. This, in particular, looks like it allows the police to arrest you on the spot if you're wearing a T-shirt with a wrong logo or anything like that.

Wearing a tshirt? Where do you read that. I didn't read the whole law, but what I did read (and what they can arrest you for) revolves around trade. I don't know the general UK laws, but I do know elsewhere they require permits to sale stuff, and you can be arrested if you don't have the permits.

This reminds me of a recent Diamond Geezer post lampooning the new legal restrictions on the use of the words "London" and "2012":

We demand that you change your behaviour and amend your speech. Watch, and learn:

• Instead of "Today is January 3rd 2012" say "Today is three days after 2011."
• Instead of signing legal documents "03/01/2012" write "03/01/12"
• Instead of "My baby is due in June 2012" say "I'm having a baby in a special year, I am very blessed."
• Instead of "Do you have any 2012 tickets?" say "Do you have any Inspirational National Event tickets?"
• Instead of "2012 is turning out to be a shit year already" say "I think I'll just pop down to John Lewis and buy a cuddly Mandeville."

In July, it will also become illegal to mention the word "London" in public. We will issue further instructions at this time.

He's only half-joking—the British Parliament really did pass a law, the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, which effectively prohibits the use of these words in certain combinations, except by the Olympics organizing committee and its official sponsors.* According to LOCOG's own guidelines, the prohibited expressions are

– any two of the words: Games, Two Thousand and Twelve, 2012, Twenty-Twelve
OR
– any word in the list above with one or more of the words: London, medals, sponsors, summer, gold, silver, bronze

*Technically, the only real crime is creating a false association between a business and the Olympics, regardless of what language is used, but the Act singles out a number of particular words and expressions for special consideration by the courts.

It's in TFA:

"Britain already has a range of legal protections for brands and copyright holders, but the Olympic Games demand their own rules. Since the Sydney Games in 2000, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has required bidding governments to commit to introducing bespoke legislation to offer a further layer of legal sanction.

In 2006, accordingly, parliament passed the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act, which, together with the Olympic Symbol (Protection) Act of 1995, offers a special level of protection to the Games and their sponsors over and above that already promised by existing copyright or contract law. A breach of these acts will not only give rise to a civil grievance, but is a criminal offence."

So far as I can see from a brief glipse at the law in question, it basically amounts to giving police powers to directly enforce whatever rules IOC comes up to. This, in particular, looks like it allows the police to arrest you on the spot if you're wearing a T-shirt with a wrong logo or anything like that.

It's in TFA:

"Britain already has a range of legal protections for brands and copyright holders, but the Olympic Games demand their own rules. Since the Sydney Games in 2000, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has required bidding governments to commit to introducing bespoke legislation to offer a further layer of legal sanction.

In 2006, accordingly, parliament passed the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act, which, together with the Olympic Symbol (Protection) Act of 1995, offers a special level of protection to the Games and their sponsors over and above that already promised by existing copyright or contract law. A breach of these acts will not only give rise to a civil grievance, but is a criminal offence."

So far as I can see from a brief glipse at the law in question, it basically amounts to giving police powers to directly enforce whatever rules IOC comes up to. This, in particular, looks like it allows the police to arrest you on the spot if you're wearing a T-shirt with a wrong logo or anything like that.

and even better The Olympics, Paralympics and London Olympics Association Rights (Infringement Proceedings) Regulations 2010 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2477/contents/made

The UK were essentially forced to pass the legislation - else they couldn't get to host the Olympics. For anyone interested http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/22/contents is a good place to start looking.

Your definition still doesn't quite work, as it then requires an expectation of payment - the whole "payment" thing is misleading; the important point is permission, not payment. Unless you're going into the area of compulsory purchases and all that.

And copyright infringement isn't theft, morally or legally (from where I'm sitting). It may be morally wrong, but that doesn't make it theft. Strangely enough there are more wrong things in the world than theft. And this discussion isn't about "facile rationalisation" or "lying to themselves", it's about whether or not it's actually theft.

As for being pedantic, the first word in the title of this story is "Court", which means this is probably a legal-esque discussion, so precision is required. Particularly when using complex legal words like "theft".

If it helps, the E+W definition of theft is "dishonestly appropriat[ing] property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it." And that's similar to the definition in several common law countries.

Except posting links isn't illegal.

That is quite correct. Posting links is not illegal in itself. What matters is what the person involved is trying to do when posting the link. In this case, it is clear that the links were posted to facilitate other people to commit copyright infringement by downloading bootleg US TV shows.

Encouraging or assisting others to commit a crime with the belief that they will go ahead and commit it is a crime via the Serious Crime Act, 2007.

To use a bad analogy, it is the difference between handing someone a brick on a building site, and handing someone a brick in the middle of a riot. The former is not a crime, the latter is (regardless of whether the brick is then used as a weapon or not).

Captcha: Felony :-)

Sorry for my ignorance - I assume the non-story here is the fact that the item wasn't faulty.....

Do you have Distance Selling Regulations: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/2334/contents/made ?

LOL.

"Strongly redistributive" - you ought to have lived between the '40s and the '70s. New Labour was about distributing the wealth from the people to the corporations; the Tories are about distributing the wealth from the people to the corporations. The Lib Dems have an exiled Old Labour left vote (which will now abandon them) and are otherwise Tory - they're certainly not libertarian, unless you admit some of the degenerate interpretations of libertarianism which have popped up on the Internet. And none of the parties seem interested in keeping people healthy, able and educated with a humane, sustainable welfare state. Recent welfare reform legislation, i.e. "Universal Credit", could have been written by Benito himself: require the people themselves to subsidise very cheap labour for corporations.

The CJPOA, removing the right to silence and probably the most fundamental right removal in the criminal justice system in recent memory, was Tory through and through. The quietly passed TPIM Act 2011 allows the government to extrajudicially impose residence restrictions, curfew, travel restrictions (including within the UK), control assets, control the transfer of property, use of electronic devices, restrict association with other individuals, and require the attachment of monitoring devices. Condition? Suspicion of vague terrorism-related activity, of course. Standard of evidence? Government gets to impose these restrictions initially with no judicial oversight, and any later court scrutiny can go ahead without the subject even being notified, let alone allowed to make a defence.

(Of course, judicial review is possible - but judicial review is always possible because the judiciary has a habit of ignoring, as one of the few exceptions to its deference to Parliament, statute which attempts to make judicial review impossible. So that doesn't make the Act any more reasonable.)

Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, access to communications data without a warrant is already permitted. However, the legislation is particularly difficult to read (at least, I think it is...), so here's my approach to interpreting it:

"Communications data" is defined (s21(4)) widely:

(a) any traffic data comprised in or attached to a communication (whether by the sender or otherwise) for the purposes of any postal service or telecommunication system by means of which it is being or may be transmitted;
(b) any information which includes none of the contents of a communication (apart from any information falling within paragraph (a)) and is about the use made by any person— (i)of any postal service or telecommunications service; or (ii)in connection with the provision to or use by any person of any telecommunications service, of any part of a telecommunication system;
(c) any information not falling within paragraph (a) or (b) that is held or obtained, in relation to persons to whom he provides the service, by a person providing a postal service or telecommunications service.

(my emphasis — and see s21(6) for the definition of "traffic data")

Where a "designated person" (quite a long list of people are "designated") "believes that it is necessary" (s22(1)) to obtain any communications data for one of the grounds set out in s22(2) (quite a long list of grounds are set out), where it appears to the designated person that a postal or telecommunications operator is or may be in possession of, or be capable of obtaining, any communications data, the designated person may, by notice (which must be in writing (s23(2))) to the postal or telecommunications operator, require the operator (a) if the operator is not already in possession of the data, to obtain the data; and (b) in any case, to disclose all of the data in his possession or subsequently obtained by him. (s22(4)).

As well as requiring that the designated person believes that obtaining the data are necessary, no notice may be issued unless the designated person "believes that obtaining the data in question by the conduct authorised or required by the authorisation or notice is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by so obtaining the data." (s22(5)) The notice can last up to one month (s23(4)).

As such, no warrant is required, as long as the designated person believes that obtaining the data is necessary for one of the stated grounds, and is proportionate to the outcome sought to be achieved.

It's worth noting that the operator has no say in the matter at all — it is the operator's statutory duty to comply (s22(6)), unless complying is "not reasonably practicable" (s22(7)) and the requirement can be enforced via an injunction, or as a specific performance of statutory duty (basically, an injunction...). (s22(8))

Given that the Secretary of State can order (by written notice) a communications provider to retain data for up to 12 months (see Reg. 10, Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009), there's potentially a lot of data to get hold of. See Schedule 3 of the regulations for what an operator can be ordered to retain.

The new legislation sounds — although we wait to see it — as if the scope is broadened, but access to communications data without a warrant is already in place, and has been for many years now.

Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, access to communications data without a warrant is already permitted. However, the legislation is particularly difficult to read (at least, I think it is...), so here's my approach to interpreting it:

"Communications data" is defined (s21(4)) widely:

(a) any traffic data comprised in or attached to a communication (whether by the sender or otherwise) for the purposes of any postal service or telecommunication system by means of which it is being or may be transmitted;
(b) any information which includes none of the contents of a communication (apart from any information falling within paragraph (a)) and is about the use made by any person— (i)of any postal service or telecommunications service; or (ii)in connection with the provision to or use by any person of any telecommunications service, of any part of a telecommunication system;
(c) any information not falling within paragraph (a) or (b) that is held or obtained, in relation to persons to whom he provides the service, by a person providing a postal service or telecommunications service.

(my emphasis — and see s21(6) for the definition of "traffic data")

Where a "designated person" (quite a long list of people are "designated") "believes that it is necessary" (s22(1)) to obtain any communications data for one of the grounds set out in s22(2) (quite a long list of grounds are set out), where it appears to the designated person that a postal or telecommunications operator is or may be in possession of, or be capable of obtaining, any communications data, the designated person may, by notice (which must be in writing (s23(2))) to the postal or telecommunications operator, require the operator (a) if the operator is not already in possession of the data, to obtain the data; and (b) in any case, to disclose all of the data in his possession or subsequently obtained by him. (s22(4)).

As well as requiring that the designated person believes that obtaining the data are necessary, no notice may be issued unless the designated person "believes that obtaining the data in question by the conduct authorised or required by the authorisation or notice is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by so obtaining the data." (s22(5)) The notice can last up to one month (s23(4)).

As such, no warrant is required, as long as the designated person believes that obtaining the data is necessary for one of the stated grounds, and is proportionate to the outcome sought to be achieved.

It's worth noting that the operator has no say in the matter at all — it is the operator's statutory duty to comply (s22(6)), unless complying is "not reasonably practicable" (s22(7)) and the requirement can be enforced via an injunction, or as a specific performance of statutory duty (basically, an injunction...). (s22(8))

Given that the Secretary of State can order (by written notice) a communications provider to retain data for up to 12 months (see Reg. 10, Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009), there's potentially a lot of data to get hold of. See Schedule 3 of the regulations for what an operator can be ordered to retain.

The new legislation sounds — although we wait to see it — as if the scope is broadened, but access to communications data without a warrant is already in place, and has been for many years now.

Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, access to communications data without a warrant is already permitted. However, the legislation is particularly difficult to read (at least, I think it is...), so here's my approach to interpreting it:

"Communications data" is defined (s21(4)) widely:

(a) any traffic data comprised in or attached to a communication (whether by the sender or otherwise) for the purposes of any postal service or telecommunication system by means of which it is being or may be transmitted;
(b) any information which includes none of the contents of a communication (apart from any information falling within paragraph (a)) and is about the use made by any person— (i)of any postal service or telecommunications service; or (ii)in connection with the provision to or use by any person of any telecommunications service, of any part of a telecommunication system;
(c) any information not falling within paragraph (a) or (b) that is held or obtained, in relation to persons to whom he provides the service, by a person providing a postal service or telecommunications service.

(my emphasis — and see s21(6) for the definition of "traffic data")

Where a "designated person" (quite a long list of people are "designated") "believes that it is necessary" (s22(1)) to obtain any communications data for one of the grounds set out in s22(2) (quite a long list of grounds are set out), where it appears to the designated person that a postal or telecommunications operator is or may be in possession of, or be capable of obtaining, any communications data, the designated person may, by notice (which must be in writing (s23(2))) to the postal or telecommunications operator, require the operator (a) if the operator is not already in possession of the data, to obtain the data; and (b) in any case, to disclose all of the data in his possession or subsequently obtained by him. (s22(4)).

As well as requiring that the designated person believes that obtaining the data are necessary, no notice may be issued unless the designated person "believes that obtaining the data in question by the conduct authorised or required by the authorisation or notice is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by so obtaining the data." (s22(5)) The notice can last up to one month (s23(4)).

As such, no warrant is required, as long as the designated person believes that obtaining the data is necessary for one of the stated grounds, and is proportionate to the outcome sought to be achieved.

It's worth noting that the operator has no say in the matter at all — it is the operator's statutory duty to comply (s22(6)), unless complying is "not reasonably practicable" (s22(7)) and the requirement can be enforced via an injunction, or as a specific performance of statutory duty (basically, an injunction...). (s22(8))

Given that the Secretary of State can order (by written notice) a communications provider to retain data for up to 12 months (see Reg. 10, Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009), there's potentially a lot of data to get hold of. See Schedule 3 of the regulations for what an operator can be ordered to retain.

The new legislation sounds — although we wait to see it — as if the scope is broadened, but access to communications data without a warrant is already in place, and has been for many years now.

. The ones that have broad applicability (like the NEC) are very inexpensive (under $100 new, even cheaper used).

$100 is a week's food and entertainment for some people. Sorry, for some families. You think that's fair to charge that just so that they can know the law?

It's the law. THE LAW. Do not demand that people respect and obey it - at pain of criminal prosecution, and all that entails - then refuse to let them know what it is.

Shit, you want to know what the law is in the UK? It's on the fucking Internet: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/
There. That wasn't hard.

By virtue of their PUBLIC presence they pretty much surrender any expectation of privacy while they wear the uniform. EVERYTHING they do and say is and should be subject to public scrutiny; if this requires the midstep of recording them for use later, then so be it.

In the UK the Data Protection Act 1998 reflects this in section 36, thus:

"Personal data processed by an individual only for the purposes of that individual’s personal, family or household affairs (including recreational purposes) are exempt from the data protection principles and the provisions of Parts II and III."

This has been used to (successfully) argue that audio recording anywhere outside a situation where Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 comes into play (ie anywhere outside a military installation) for personal purposes, including legal (which falls within the definition in section 36) is *legally* permitted. Police officers walking on a public right of way does not fall into the category of military installation, therefore does not fall into the purview of OSA, therefore in this respect recording (audio or video) of police officers is legal.

Of course, that doesn't prevent them from threatening you with arrest under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (been there), which funnily enough only grants an authority to stop and search for terrorism-related paraphernalia. Which last time I looked, didn't extend to camera equipment.

IAAL.

By virtue of their PUBLIC presence they pretty much surrender any expectation of privacy while they wear the uniform. EVERYTHING they do and say is and should be subject to public scrutiny; if this requires the midstep of recording them for use later, then so be it.

In the UK the Data Protection Act 1998 reflects this in section 36, thus:

"Personal data processed by an individual only for the purposes of that individual’s personal, family or household affairs (including recreational purposes) are exempt from the data protection principles and the provisions of Parts II and III."

This has been used to (successfully) argue that audio recording anywhere outside a situation where Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 comes into play (ie anywhere outside a military installation) for personal purposes, including legal (which falls within the definition in section 36) is *legally* permitted. Police officers walking on a public right of way does not fall into the category of military installation, therefore does not fall into the purview of OSA, therefore in this respect recording (audio or video) of police officers is legal.

Of course, that doesn't prevent them from threatening you with arrest under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (been there), which funnily enough only grants an authority to stop and search for terrorism-related paraphernalia. Which last time I looked, didn't extend to camera equipment.

IAAL.

By virtue of their PUBLIC presence they pretty much surrender any expectation of privacy while they wear the uniform. EVERYTHING they do and say is and should be subject to public scrutiny; if this requires the midstep of recording them for use later, then so be it.

In the UK the Data Protection Act 1998 reflects this in section 36, thus:

"Personal data processed by an individual only for the purposes of that individual’s personal, family or household affairs (including recreational purposes) are exempt from the data protection principles and the provisions of Parts II and III."

This has been used to (successfully) argue that audio recording anywhere outside a situation where Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 comes into play (ie anywhere outside a military installation) for personal purposes, including legal (which falls within the definition in section 36) is *legally* permitted. Police officers walking on a public right of way does not fall into the category of military installation, therefore does not fall into the purview of OSA, therefore in this respect recording (audio or video) of police officers is legal.

Of course, that doesn't prevent them from threatening you with arrest under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (been there), which funnily enough only grants an authority to stop and search for terrorism-related paraphernalia. Which last time I looked, didn't extend to camera equipment.

IAAL.