It's also highly unlikely that such ah onerous contract term (camera confiscation) would be binding, unless the conditions were very prominently displayed (Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd). And I can tell you that they are not - I've been to the Braehead mall many times (I used to work nearby), and such signs, if they exist, are not prominent.
Just a point of information, this happened in Scotland, which, technically, isn't a Common Law country - it's one of the few mixed jurisdictions, like Louisiana and South Africa.
In English law, mere planning isn't illegal; it becomes illegal as soon as you take steps to implement the plan, however small the steps. Like, say, setting up a FaceBook page...
And your bomb exercise is irrelevant; that's planning an exercise, not a bombing. It's not the action that matters, but the intent.
The lawsuits will be attached to the parent company, News International Newspapers, not the brand that was NoTW. So they can't escape them that easily. And even if the NoTW was itself incorporated, the directors would remain accountable even after the company ceased to exist.
True for England and Wales, but not for Scotland; Scottish universities (where number of the founders of the Ivy League schools were educated) generally require non-core subjects to be studied. Although if you're doing CS they will likely be sciences like physics, chemistry, maths, etc, rather than English or history (unless you choose to do them).
Since you haven't got a degree just how do you know it comes with "railcar loads of bullshit"? Sounds to me that you are simply trying to justify your choice. Which doesn't really need justified beyond being your choice
And, to the original questioner: go to an English university. They (mostly) don't believe in broad education, and if you so a BSc in CS there, that's pretty much all you will do.
Actually, EDSAC was originally built pretty quickly for the time (about 2 years) precisely because Wilkes, the project leader, decided to use only proven techniques and methods so as to supply a usable computing facility to Cambridge University, rather than extend the state of the art.
He did file the papers himself - it says so on them; that's what the "Pro Se" below his signature means, No lawyers involved - after three years at law school, most JDs can at least spell.
The SNP administration stalls "seeking a referendum" because it knows it would lose any vote on an enabling bill in Parliament (because it's a minority, as you said), and (more importantly) they know that they don't have the power to bring such a bill forward, as it's outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament to enact legislation relating to independence (Scotland Act 1998, s 29(2)(b), and Schedule 5 para 1(b), and also Hansard, Lord Sewel at column 854)).
Your train of logic regarding S1(1)(b) is fallacious; there is no need for a "reasonable belief that consent was withdrawn"; that it was believed to be withdrawn by the victim is enough (S1(1)(a)) - the accused then has to prove their "reasonable belief" that it was not withdrawn. The "reasonable belief" of S1(1)(b) is available as a defence, not as a definition of consent.
While consent is often a contentious area, it it gradually being cleaned up in Common Law jurisdictions as sexual offences are moved from common law to statute. In Scots law, for example, withdrawal of consent during sex is quite possible, and continuing after such a withdrawal is rape (Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009, S 1(3)).
Of course, Sweden isn't a Common Law jurisdiction...
Class actions don't exist in England, or Scotland. Group actions do, but they are strictly for the benefit those who are direct parties to the action. Unlike class actions, once a judgement is made, it only applies to those who were parties to the action, and not all those affected by the original wrong. Those who were originally wronged, but were not party to the successful group action, must raise a fresh action, and cannot gain anything from a previous group action. So, very different from US class actions.
Although the get-out contained in article 10.2 is not a UK invention - it's in the European Convention on Human Rights -- the Human Rights Act 1998 is simply the acceptance into UK law of the Convention.
It wasn't the head of the SIS/MI6 (Sir John Sawers), but Baroness Neville-Jones, the Minister of State for Security (a junior Home Office minister responsible for "national security"), and also chair of the British Joint Intelligence Committee.
Slashdot Mirror
(Ignoring the England/Scotland confusion...)
It's also highly unlikely that such ah onerous contract term (camera confiscation) would be binding, unless the conditions were very prominently displayed (Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd). And I can tell you that they are not - I've been to the Braehead mall many times (I used to work nearby), and such signs, if they exist, are not prominent.
the UK or indeed any other common law country
Just a point of information, this happened in Scotland, which, technically, isn't a Common Law country - it's one of the few mixed jurisdictions, like Louisiana and South Africa.
They don't void the entire contract (nor render it voidable), they just invalidate the violating clause.
Only if they are inciting their listeners to commit a crime.
The law of England doesn't agree with you.
In English law, mere planning isn't illegal; it becomes illegal as soon as you take steps to implement the plan, however small the steps. Like, say, setting up a FaceBook page...
And your bomb exercise is irrelevant; that's planning an exercise, not a bombing. It's not the action that matters, but the intent.
The lawsuits will be attached to the parent company, News International Newspapers, not the brand that was NoTW. So they can't escape them that easily. And even if the NoTW was itself incorporated, the directors would remain accountable even after the company ceased to exist.
True for England and Wales, but not for Scotland; Scottish universities (where number of the founders of the Ivy League schools were educated) generally require non-core subjects to be studied. Although if you're doing CS they will likely be sciences like physics, chemistry, maths, etc, rather than English or history (unless you choose to do them).
Since you haven't got a degree just how do you know it comes with "railcar loads of bullshit"? Sounds to me that you are simply trying to justify your choice. Which doesn't really need justified beyond being your choice
And, to the original questioner: go to an English university. They (mostly) don't believe in broad education, and if you so a BSc in CS there, that's pretty much all you will do.
The EU hasn't adopted a single ID card yet because it simply doesn't have the power to do so.
Actually, EDSAC was originally built pretty quickly for the time (about 2 years) precisely because Wilkes, the project leader, decided to use only proven techniques and methods so as to supply a usable computing facility to Cambridge University, rather than extend the state of the art.
EDSAC was built post WW2.
He did file the papers himself - it says so on them; that's what the "Pro Se" below his signature means, No lawyers involved - after three years at law school, most JDs can at least spell.
No lawyers were involved in this frivolous suit; it was filed pro se (ie: by the plaintiff, on his own behalf).
The SNP administration stalls "seeking a referendum" because it knows it would lose any vote on an enabling bill in Parliament (because it's a minority, as you said), and (more importantly) they know that they don't have the power to bring such a bill forward, as it's outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament to enact legislation relating to independence (Scotland Act 1998, s 29(2)(b), and Schedule 5 para 1(b), and also Hansard, Lord Sewel at column 854)).
Your train of logic regarding S1(1)(b) is fallacious; there is no need for a "reasonable belief that consent was withdrawn"; that it was believed to be withdrawn by the victim is enough (S1(1)(a)) - the accused then has to prove their "reasonable belief" that it was not withdrawn. The "reasonable belief" of S1(1)(b) is available as a defence, not as a definition of consent.
While consent is often a contentious area, it it gradually being cleaned up in Common Law jurisdictions as sexual offences are moved from common law to statute. In Scots law, for example, withdrawal of consent during sex is quite possible, and continuing after such a withdrawal is rape (Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009, S 1(3)).
Of course, Sweden isn't a Common Law jurisdiction...
"Racketeering" isn't a crime known to English law.
Class actions don't exist in England, or Scotland. Group actions do, but they are strictly for the benefit those who are direct parties to the action. Unlike class actions, once a judgement is made, it only applies to those who were parties to the action, and not all those affected by the original wrong. Those who were originally wronged, but were not party to the successful group action, must raise a fresh action, and cannot gain anything from a previous group action. So, very different from US class actions.
Notice there's no STEM items here (science, technology, engineering, mathematics).
There's no law, either.
Science & Engineering papers usually depend on new work or research
Not at undergraduate level they don't.
Although the get-out contained in article 10.2 is not a UK invention - it's in the European Convention on Human Rights -- the Human Rights Act 1998 is simply the acceptance into UK law of the Convention.
It wasn't the head of the SIS/MI6 (Sir John Sawers), but Baroness Neville-Jones, the Minister of State for Security (a junior Home Office minister responsible for "national security"), and also chair of the British Joint Intelligence Committee.
Not just the forties - forties through to sixties, in several models.
Including three race entries at the Le Mans 24 hour race, 1963-65.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rover-BRM
The reporters are not "in Cumbria again"; they're in Northumbria, on the other side of the country.