My wife and I share your views; we lived together blissfully for 19 years before marrying one month before the birth of our first child.
In the UK a father has no rights over his child unless he is married to the child's mother when he or she is born. He is, however, legally responsible for supporting the child. He can apply to the courts for rights, but even if he is successful those rights can be taken away following an application by another party at a later date.
There have recently been some minor changes to the law (for example, it's now possible with the mother's consent, to have the father's name recorded on the child's birth certificate) but overall the law in the UK is heavily biased in favour of the mother unless mother and father are married. And after a separation, the courts usually side with the mother, and frequently grandparents, against the father.
The only reason we married was because it was the only way to ensure I had legal responsibility for our children in the event of a tragedy.
Compared to our love and commitment to each other, our marriage license is a pretty insignificant piece of paper that cost nearly a hundred quid that could have been put towards our child's university fund...
What on earth makes you think that a speed camera stops people running red lights? A traffic light camera might stop the odd idiot from running a red light, but that wouldn't generate much revenue for the police would it now? Very few people run red lights - boy/girl racers and joy riders of course, but very few others because it is such a crazy dangerous thing to do.
The problem with speed cameras is that they 'catch' people who are driving safely, but who are exceeding the speed limit. So you drive safely and carefully all your life, but one day you drift two or three miles an hour over the limit and suddenly you're three quarters of the way to losing your license (3 points for speeding, 12 points and you're banned from driving, points expire after three years).
We are told that cameras are only put in accident blackspots. This is rubbish. For a start, if you know it's an accident blackspot, then change the road so that accidents don't happen any more! Good grief, it's not difficult to remove blind bends, put traffic controls in, replace junctions with slipways, etc. It's expensive; very expensive, but not difficult.
We are also told that they are put there to slow the traffic, but the fact is they are often (usually?) placed at the point where you have already drifted over the limit. For example, at bottom of a long slope, at the end of a straight where it's safe to overtake, etc. If they were genuinely there to slow the traffic, they would be placed at the point where you want people to start braking, and there would be big signs saying 'camera in 300 yards' followed by markers. They are also very often placed where they are obscured by signs, trees, etc. They have to paint them yellow, but they are easy to hide.
Putting traffic police on the road is expensive. Tracking their performance for league tables and targets is extremely difficult. Traffic police have experience and can probably tell the difference between someone who is driving safely and someone who is not, regardless of the limit. They can also pick up those who don't have insurance, mot, registration docs. A big problem in the UK now is people who register their cars under a false name and address, so that when the cameras get them they can't be traced. Again it's the responsible law abiding folks that get penalised, dangerous drivers don't care about mots and insurance.
Cameras are an easy way out - they pay for themselves so are at least cost-neutral, and usually turn a profit (find the references yourself!) And at the same time allow the government to claim they are doing everything they can to cut the disgraceful rate of fatalities on UK roads. It should be a scandal, but the Great British Public tend to do a lot of moaning and not much else. I've got a lot of sympathy with these groups; those that put these cameras and speed limits in place are practically unaccountable. Direct action is probably the only way to get a proper national road safety review carried out and implemented.
This is the reply I received from my Lib Dem MEP, Graham Watson, who is leader of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, to an email I sent him urging him to support amendments to the directive. I think he has quite a good grasp of the issue, and when they failed to get all the amendments included, they voted against.
Interestingly, my UKIP MEP, Roger Knapman, also voted against...
Thank you for your email of 23rd April 2007 regarding the directive on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights. The infringement of intellectual property rights, such as counterfeiting and piracy is a growing phenomenon which has a serious economic effect on the global scale. The Commission proposed this directive to offer additional provisions to strengthen and improve the fight against systematic infringement of intellectual property rights.
Although I am not a member of the Legal Affairs committee which has discussed this directive, I am indeed aware of the matter and share a number of your concerns about its current drafting. There is general agreement to remove patents from the scope of the directive, and I believe it should be further restricted. To this end, my Liberal Democrat colleague Sharon Bowles MEP tabled a number of amendments for the vote in the European Parliament which are concurrent with the aims of the Librarians', Consumers' and Innovators' Coalition amendments.
I understand that Sharon has sought to address the current wording of Article 3 which stipulates that "Member States shall ensure that all intentional infringements of an intellectual property right on a commercial scale, and attempting, aiding of abetting and inciting such infringements, are treated as criminal offences". In its place, Sharon proposed that "Member States shall ensure that all intentional infringements of an intellectual property right on a commercial scale, or wilfully and specifically aiding of abetting or inciting such infringements, are treated as criminal offences when there are aggravating circumstances of organised crime, counterfeiting, piracy or serious risk to health or safety". This clarifies that innocent or unknowing assistance to infringe is not covered and also restricts the scope of offences to which criminality could apply.
A second concern is one of definitions. Although I gather the Librarians', Consumers' and Innovators' Coalition amendments have done a fair job at establishing definitions, I do believe it far better to remove the definitions from the text completely. This to my mind is safer and allows judges to dismiss cases that might otherwise be caught by specific definitions. For this reason I supported Sharon's amendment which eliminates definitions.
Unfortunately, in the vote in the European Parliament on Wednesday 25th April, a number of these amendments did not pass and subsequently the Group I lead voted against the directive. But, realistically I believe there is some way to go before we will know the final shape of this legislation as this is just the first reading but I hope this answer is reassuring that Liberal Democrats in the European Parliament take your concerns seriously.
Please do not hesitate to get in touch should you require further information.
Yours sincerely,
Graham Watson MEP
Member of the European Parliament for South West England and Gibraltar
and Leader of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe
An industry that does well should be one that creates or adds value without the need for artificial controls over supply. The bottled water industry does very well indeed without needing legislation restricting the supply of drinking water from other sources. It adds value by providing a quality controlled, conveniently packaged product. If the water in the bottle was poor quality, or you needed special controls to get the bottle open, people would probably prefer the tap in the public conveniences, after all, that water is free...
And I think I might start posting it on a regular basis, and see what responses it gets. I think it might be interesting.
Thanks for this, I'm not being sarcastic - I think it's great!
I know nothing about economics, but I do wonder how companies make a profit from selling drinking water, and often from vending machines right next to drinking fountains!
Don't you think there's some mileage in using this as an analogy? Clearly the bottled water industry is doing something right. Could the analogy be couched in terms that served your argument instead of (or as well as!) mine?
I don't know if it's any good, but I think I might start posting it on a regular basis and see what people think. See what responses it gets.
Fair enough, but the point was that they couldn't get into this business, even if it existed, because piracy (and I doubt that their claim is substantively false) intervened. It doesn't matter what you have for sale - if somebody is giving it away for free and there are no consequences, you will lose.
I might have to start posting this on a regular basis.
The bottled water industry does very well indeed without needing legislation restricting the supply of drinking water from other sources. It adds value by providing a quality controlled, conveniently packaged product. If the water in the bottle was poor quality, or you needed special controls to get the bottle open, people would probably prefer the tap in the public conveniences; after all, the water there is free...
I think what we're hoping for though is to be able to gloat over the demise of the current recording industry, which many people feel is corrupt and not conducive to creativity.
An industry that does well should be one that creates or adds value without the need for artificial controls over supply. The bottled water industry does very well indeed without needing legislation restricting the supply of drinking water from other sources. It adds value by providing a quality controlled, conveniently packaged product. If the water in the bottle was poor quality, or you needed special controls to get the bottle open, people would probably prefer the tap in the public conveniences, after all, that water is free...
No offence, but this is a pet peeve of mine;
Given that the manufacturer has a policy of putting a warning 'Contains peanuts' on the packaging of food products that contain peanuts, it would strike me as very odd indeed if they missed the warning off a food product containing almost nothing BUT peanuts!!
"I vaguely remember there's a country where it is illegal to obstruct surveillance by way of encryption. And you may be required to hand over all your passwords..."
If you fail to provide the password, you face two years in prison. You are deemed to be in posesion of the password provided "the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt."
In short, for the first time in UK law, an act was passed in which you are guilty unless you can prove otherwise. Just how you prove that you really have forgotten a password, and aren't just pretending, is beyond me...
Slashdot Mirror
My wife and I share your views; we lived together blissfully for 19 years before marrying one month before the birth of our first child.
In the UK a father has no rights over his child unless he is married to the child's mother when he or she is born. He is, however, legally responsible for supporting the child. He can apply to the courts for rights, but even if he is successful those rights can be taken away following an application by another party at a later date.
There have recently been some minor changes to the law (for example, it's now possible with the mother's consent, to have the father's name recorded on the child's birth certificate) but overall the law in the UK is heavily biased in favour of the mother unless mother and father are married. And after a separation, the courts usually side with the mother, and frequently grandparents, against the father.
The only reason we married was because it was the only way to ensure I had legal responsibility for our children in the event of a tragedy.
Compared to our love and commitment to each other, our marriage license is a pretty insignificant piece of paper that cost nearly a hundred quid that could have been put towards our child's university fund...
What on earth makes you think that a speed camera stops people running red lights? A traffic light camera might stop the odd idiot from running a red light, but that wouldn't generate much revenue for the police would it now? Very few people run red lights - boy/girl racers and joy riders of course, but very few others because it is such a crazy dangerous thing to do.
The problem with speed cameras is that they 'catch' people who are driving safely, but who are exceeding the speed limit. So you drive safely and carefully all your life, but one day you drift two or three miles an hour over the limit and suddenly you're three quarters of the way to losing your license (3 points for speeding, 12 points and you're banned from driving, points expire after three years).
We are told that cameras are only put in accident blackspots. This is rubbish. For a start, if you know it's an accident blackspot, then change the road so that accidents don't happen any more! Good grief, it's not difficult to remove blind bends, put traffic controls in, replace junctions with slipways, etc. It's expensive; very expensive, but not difficult.
We are also told that they are put there to slow the traffic, but the fact is they are often (usually?) placed at the point where you have already drifted over the limit. For example, at bottom of a long slope, at the end of a straight where it's safe to overtake, etc. If they were genuinely there to slow the traffic, they would be placed at the point where you want people to start braking, and there would be big signs saying 'camera in 300 yards' followed by markers. They are also very often placed where they are obscured by signs, trees, etc. They have to paint them yellow, but they are easy to hide.
Putting traffic police on the road is expensive. Tracking their performance for league tables and targets is extremely difficult. Traffic police have experience and can probably tell the difference between someone who is driving safely and someone who is not, regardless of the limit. They can also pick up those who don't have insurance, mot, registration docs. A big problem in the UK now is people who register their cars under a false name and address, so that when the cameras get them they can't be traced. Again it's the responsible law abiding folks that get penalised, dangerous drivers don't care about mots and insurance.
Cameras are an easy way out - they pay for themselves so are at least cost-neutral, and usually turn a profit (find the references yourself!) And at the same time allow the government to claim they are doing everything they can to cut the disgraceful rate of fatalities on UK roads. It should be a scandal, but the Great British Public tend to do a lot of moaning and not much else. I've got a lot of sympathy with these groups; those that put these cameras and speed limits in place are practically unaccountable. Direct action is probably the only way to get a proper national road safety review carried out and implemented.
This is the reply I received from my Lib Dem MEP, Graham Watson, who is leader of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, to an email I sent him urging him to support amendments to the directive. I think he has quite a good grasp of the issue, and when they failed to get all the amendments included, they voted against.
Interestingly, my UKIP MEP, Roger Knapman, also voted against...
Thank you for your email of 23rd April 2007 regarding the directive on
criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property
rights. The infringement of intellectual property rights, such as
counterfeiting and piracy is a growing phenomenon which has a serious
economic effect on the global scale. The Commission proposed this directive
to offer additional provisions to strengthen and improve the fight against
systematic infringement of intellectual property rights.
Although I am not a member of the Legal Affairs committee which has
discussed this directive, I am indeed aware of the matter and share a number
of your concerns about its current drafting. There is general agreement to
remove patents from the scope of the directive, and I believe it should be
further restricted. To this end, my Liberal Democrat colleague Sharon Bowles
MEP tabled a number of amendments for the vote in the European Parliament
which are concurrent with the aims of the Librarians', Consumers' and
Innovators' Coalition amendments.
I understand that Sharon has sought to address the current wording of
Article 3 which stipulates that "Member States shall ensure that all
intentional infringements of an intellectual property right on a commercial
scale, and attempting, aiding of abetting and inciting such infringements,
are treated as criminal offences". In its place, Sharon proposed that
"Member States shall ensure that all intentional infringements of an
intellectual property right on a commercial scale, or wilfully and
specifically aiding of abetting or inciting such infringements, are treated
as criminal offences when there are aggravating circumstances of organised
crime, counterfeiting, piracy or serious risk to health or safety". This
clarifies that innocent or unknowing assistance to infringe is not covered
and also restricts the scope of offences to which criminality could apply.
A second concern is one of definitions. Although I gather the Librarians',
Consumers' and Innovators' Coalition amendments have done a fair job at
establishing definitions, I do believe it far better to remove the
definitions from the text completely. This to my mind is safer and allows
judges to dismiss cases that might otherwise be caught by specific
definitions. For this reason I supported Sharon's amendment which eliminates
definitions.
Unfortunately, in the vote in the European Parliament on Wednesday 25th
April, a number of these amendments did not pass and subsequently the Group
I lead voted against the directive. But, realistically I believe there is
some way to go before we will know the final shape of this legislation as
this is just the first reading but I hope this answer is reassuring that
Liberal Democrats in the European Parliament take your concerns seriously.
Please do not hesitate to get in touch should you require further
information.
Yours sincerely,
Graham Watson MEP
Member of the European Parliament for South West England and Gibraltar
and Leader of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe
An industry that does well should be one that creates or adds value without the need for artificial controls over supply. The bottled water industry does very well indeed without needing legislation restricting the supply of drinking water from other sources. It adds value by providing a quality controlled, conveniently packaged product. If the water in the bottle was poor quality, or you needed special controls to get the bottle open, people would probably prefer the tap in the public conveniences, after all, that water is free...
And I think I might start posting it on a regular basis, and see what responses it gets. I think it might be interesting.
Then again, it could be that I can't be arsed...
All the best!!
I know nothing about economics, but I do wonder how companies make a profit from selling drinking water, and often from vending machines right next to drinking fountains!
Don't you think there's some mileage in using this as an analogy? Clearly the bottled water industry is doing something right. Could the analogy be couched in terms that served your argument instead of (or as well as!) mine?
I don't know if it's any good, but I think I might start posting it on a regular basis and see what people think. See what responses it gets.
And I love your response - it made me giggle!
All the best
I might have to start posting this on a regular basis.
The bottled water industry does very well indeed without needing legislation restricting the supply of drinking water from other sources. It adds value by providing a quality controlled, conveniently packaged product. If the water in the bottle was poor quality, or you needed special controls to get the bottle open, people would probably prefer the tap in the public conveniences; after all, the water there is free...
None taken.
I think what we're hoping for though is to be able to gloat over the demise of the current recording industry, which many people feel is corrupt and not conducive to creativity.
An industry that does well should be one that creates or adds value without the need for artificial controls over supply. The bottled water industry does very well indeed without needing legislation restricting the supply of drinking water from other sources. It adds value by providing a quality controlled, conveniently packaged product. If the water in the bottle was poor quality, or you needed special controls to get the bottle open, people would probably prefer the tap in the public conveniences, after all, that water is free...
Bill Would Extend Online Obscenity Laws to Blogs, Mailing Lists
No offence, but this is a pet peeve of mine; Given that the manufacturer has a policy of putting a warning 'Contains peanuts' on the packaging of food products that contain peanuts, it would strike me as very odd indeed if they missed the warning off a food product containing almost nothing BUT peanuts!!
"I vaguely remember there's a country where it is illegal to obstruct surveillance by way of encryption. And you may be required to hand over all your passwords..."
You may be thinking of the UK's Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. In short you are required to hand over any passwords to encrypted information:
(a) in the interests of national security;
(b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime; or
(c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.
(relevent section)
If you fail to provide the password, you face two years in prison. You are deemed to be in posesion of the password provided "the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt."
In short, for the first time in UK law, an act was passed in which you are guilty unless you can prove otherwise. Just how you prove that you really have forgotten a password, and aren't just pretending, is beyond me...