'all commercial interest to sell images must be directed to English Heritage.'
If this is the legal definition of the word "must", then it is legally synonymous with the word "may" (according to Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, at least) - in other words, they're giving us a choice. In a legal sense they probably would have had to use "obliged", "compelled" or "required" for this to have any weight (and I doubt they could do this without having some kind of contract in place compelling anyone to specific performance).
Thanks English Heritage - I choose not to direct any commercial interest to you. See ya later!
In English speaking countries, we use the common law as the basis of our legal system. In its origins, the Norman French occupied England, which was largely unsettled and not at all well policed. So it became relatively easy to have someone charged with a crime, since witnesses were rare. Juries were used to decide guilt and the facts of the case because the Normans did not speak the vernacular very well. Over time, the burden of proof was placed upon the accuser, later the Crown. It has been that way in our system for nearly a eight hundred years. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
The origins of law in France, Italy, Spain and a few other places, they follow what is called "civil law," which also includes criminal law. The historical antecedents of that system are the Code Justinian, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Juris_Civilis church law, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law the customary law of the place, and the Code Napoleon, which was a re-codification of existing law. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_code
Under that system, it is the duty of the state to investigate crimes and to only bring charges if there is sufficient evidence to justify them. If accused, the defendant has the duty to try to show the state where it is was wrong in its investigation. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
Hey, don't think for a second I agree with what's happening here. It's just that e.g. France and Italy don't seem to adhere to common-law principles like the UK and US do (or are supposed to). I'm not sure if this is true throughout Europe, but:
The "Napoleonic Code," which continues in France and other countries conquered by France, hold that the accused is guilty until proven innocent (thus, the point of Victor Hugo's Les Miserables). This was a re-working of previous monarchical attitudes toward law enforcement (and as Napoleon was emporer, one isn't surprised.) And this is exactly why the "founding fathers" who wrote our Constitution did it the way the did: to avoid those abuses stemming from that attitude. We have enough wrongfully convicted as it is, which makes it really creepy to realize that even with our errors, we've the best judicial system on the planet.
So, remind me again, just who is cozying up to Big Oil like a latter-day Anna Nicole Smith in an attempt to get more money to further their own agenda?
One sided surveillance... particularly true in the UK as it is now illegal to photograph police officers.
No it ain't - the cops might tell you it is, but challenge them as to which act it is illegal under and they ought to back down.
Have a look at this video taken by some guy in his garden when the policy enforcement officers attempted to create a situation: http://www.tpuc.org/node/124 (www.tpuc.org)
A centralised system is the last thing we need. It should be difficult for the government to pull our information together - if they have cause to start trawling through the data then it should be handled by a specialised team, with oversight and proper training with regards to data protection etc etc. Someone who is held accountable if the data should be leaked, and who can go to prison for a very long time if they abuse their position. It's interesting to note that in the original ID card scheme, the penalties for unauthorised access to the database was much less than refusing to sign up for the ID card (which is meant to carry a £1000 fine).
I strongly believe that a centralised database would be abused by some self-important prat at local council level (or potentially any government employee really), who has been given access under RIPA. Just last week I was speaking to someone that was being threatened by the council (as in, invited to a meeting to discuss the consequences to her if she persisted in uncovering some dodgy planning applications that the council has been involved with - luckily her MP got involved and they are now backpedalling furiously). If those councillors had access to all the data on someone from a central location, i'm sure that certain inferences could be made that could be used to discredit honest people if they insisted in having the temerity to participate in democracy.
Slashdot Mirror
If this is the legal definition of the word "must", then it is legally synonymous with the word "may" (according to Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, at least) - in other words, they're giving us a choice. In a legal sense they probably would have had to use "obliged", "compelled" or "required" for this to have any weight (and I doubt they could do this without having some kind of contract in place compelling anyone to specific performance).
Thanks English Heritage - I choose not to direct any commercial interest to you. See ya later!
(Not a lawyer, obviously.)
In English speaking countries, we use the common law as the basis of our legal system. In its origins, the Norman French occupied England, which was largely unsettled and not at all well policed. So it became relatively easy to have someone charged with a crime, since witnesses were rare. Juries were used to decide guilt and the facts of the case because the Normans did not speak the vernacular very well. Over time, the burden of proof was placed upon the accuser, later the Crown. It has been that way in our system for nearly a eight hundred years. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
The origins of law in France, Italy, Spain and a few other places, they follow what is called "civil law," which also includes criminal law. The historical antecedents of that system are the Code Justinian, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Juris_Civilis church law, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law the customary law of the place, and the Code Napoleon, which was a re-codification of existing law. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_code
Under that system, it is the duty of the state to investigate crimes and to only bring charges if there is sufficient evidence to justify them. If accused, the defendant has the duty to try to show the state where it is was wrong in its investigation. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
The "Napoleonic Code," which continues in France and other countries conquered by France, hold that the accused is guilty until proven innocent (thus, the point of Victor Hugo's Les Miserables). This was a re-working of previous monarchical attitudes toward law enforcement (and as Napoleon was emporer, one isn't surprised.) And this is exactly why the "founding fathers" who wrote our Constitution did it the way the did: to avoid those abuses stemming from that attitude. We have enough wrongfully convicted as it is, which makes it really creepy to realize that even with our errors, we've the best judicial system on the planet.
[http://askville.amazon.com/America-innocent-proven-guilty-Italy-uphold/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=61767806]
Innocent until proven guilty - that still stands... but governments are really trying hard to prove that we're guilty of something.
Is that true under Napoleonic Law? I always thought that in France it was "guilty until proven innocent".
However: http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=28187 [www.informationliberation.com]
So, remind me again, just who is cozying up to Big Oil like a latter-day Anna Nicole Smith in an attempt to get more money to further their own agenda?
One sided surveillance... particularly true in the UK as it is now illegal to photograph police officers.
No it ain't - the cops might tell you it is, but challenge them as to which act it is illegal under and they ought to back down.
Have a look at this video taken by some guy in his garden when the policy enforcement officers attempted to create a situation: http://www.tpuc.org/node/124 (www.tpuc.org)
Know your rights and remember who you are!
A centralised system is the last thing we need. It should be difficult for the government to pull our information together - if they have cause to start trawling through the data then it should be handled by a specialised team, with oversight and proper training with regards to data protection etc etc. Someone who is held accountable if the data should be leaked, and who can go to prison for a very long time if they abuse their position. It's interesting to note that in the original ID card scheme, the penalties for unauthorised access to the database was much less than refusing to sign up for the ID card (which is meant to carry a £1000 fine).
I strongly believe that a centralised database would be abused by some self-important prat at local council level (or potentially any government employee really), who has been given access under RIPA. Just last week I was speaking to someone that was being threatened by the council (as in, invited to a meeting to discuss the consequences to her if she persisted in uncovering some dodgy planning applications that the council has been involved with - luckily her MP got involved and they are now backpedalling furiously). If those councillors had access to all the data on someone from a central location, i'm sure that certain inferences could be made that could be used to discredit honest people if they insisted in having the temerity to participate in democracy.