Archive for Law

Disappointing vision

February 13, 2012 jonathanbishop No comments

With Simon Thomas dropping out of the Plaid leadership contest to support Elin Jones (Western Mail, February 6), the campaign should have become less of a one-horse race that Leanne Wood was guaranteed to win, but reading Elin’s “vision” on her website disappoints me.

Elin talks Wales down from the start, feeling she has to justify we are a nation.

She says our legal system is not a separate jurisdiction, that we can only legislate in a small number of areas, and that we have no tax-raising powers so are therefore a “quandary” with no “power and status”.

As a Master of Laws, I’d argue all of these are wrong. Since last May, Welsh laws have to receive Royal Assent from the Queen, which means that it is only a matter of time before a conflict between ‘Welsh law’ and ‘English and Welsh’ exists before the Supreme Court will have to determine whether Welsh law is to be treated on par with Scottish law.

In terms of tax-raising powers, the Assembly does have those. It can pass any law it wants on local government providing it doesn”t take away their law enforcement and civic responsibilities. This means it could decide to set council tax on a Wales-wide basis and order the local authorities to pay the tax they collect through the precept directly to the Welsh Government.

The Assembly is now a Parliament in all but name. Primary legislative powers are just that, and Elin needs to move with the times.

Law, Letters and other Op-Eds, Socio-legal

More powers for Wales’ interests

January 28, 2012 jonathanbishop No comments

I must contest F S Wusteman’s claim that an independent Wales would not have an independent voice in the EU (Letters, January 26).

If one were to look at the current EU Treaty (TFEU) there are 62 areas in which every EU country has to agree unanimously before that law can be passed – one of these is Article 113 relating to indirect taxation like VAT so no member state has to give up its tax regime as they suggested.

The problem Wales has is we are not properly represented in the EU Council of Ministers in which only David Cameron and his UK Ministers have a right to vote on behalf of the UK. This body must agree to every piece of EU legislation before it is made law – and in many cases it can completely overrule the European Parliament if it disagrees with them.

Wales has no right to veto EU law that could, for instance, affect our manufacturing – we are at the mercy of the UK Government.

Readers will recall me calling for a British Isles Customs Union of the four British nations, which while all independent, would agree to common laws which could include a common position on EU law (Letters, October 22, 2011). If England voted to leave the EU but join the EEA it would have to implement EU law but have no say in making it. But with the BICU Council of Ministers they could do both.

In the meantime, while the argument for independence is being won in principle even if not in detail, as looks likely in Scotland, there is a way all British nations can get an equal voice in the EU decision making processes without any new primary legislation from Westminster.

Section 109 of The Government of Wales Act 2006 gives the Welsh Government the power to ask for new powers from Westminster, which could include the right to direct the UK Prime Minister to veto any EU directive that does not meet Wales’s interests. Scotland and Northern Ireland could be granted the same power.

These provisions could lead to a more united British Isles, where each nation can represent its own citizens’ interests while co-operating where this is in the interest of all citizens in the British Isles.

Boundlessness, Law, Letters and other Op-Eds

Comparing schools

January 25, 2012 jonathanbishop No comments

I share the concern raised about the risks of cyber-bullying following the publication of school banding by the Welsh Government (“School banding raises fears over cyber-bullying”, January 23).

As an advocate of New Labour, before leaving the Labour Party when Ed Miliband said it was over, I am strongly in favour of parents being allowed to choose which school their child goes to. The rank and file of Old and Welsh Labour say this won’t work because every parent will want their child go to the best school – well that is the point!

A market in education, such as by removing the unfair catchment areas that partition this market and create geographical ghettos, would mean the best schools would stay open and expand, and the worst ones would close.

In such a market you would need a way for the parents to choose the best school. Government-sanctioned league tables or school banding does not help – parents need to be able to create their own league tables.

Even the “least able” people can go on to websites like GoCompare or MoneySupermarket and select what is important to them about their home or car insurance policy and what is not. If we as citizens can prioritise insurance why not other things? It is not grades that make a school a best school. It is factors such as whether they have special support for your child’s disability, whether they have after-school clubs or extended hours, and whether the school has strong pupil-satisfaction.

So if the Welsh Government is happy to have de facto league tables – why don’t they give parents the choice to have their children educated outside their area so they are not subject to the stigma that they can do little about without “upping sticks”?

Acquisition, Application, Articulation, Info-scientific, Information Technology, Law, Letters and other Op-Eds, Socio-legal

Can’t see positives in conviscating mobiles

January 21, 2012 jonathanbishop No comments

THE Manly Daily reports that children should be made to surrender their mobile phones at night in a bid to stop the devastating effects of bullying, according to a northern beaches expert called Rose Smith (‘Switch off the bullies’, January 18).

As an authority on ‘trolling law’ Ms Smith might wish to know that such a law was put in place in the UK under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 before the parts she seeks her law to do being repealed by the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, in part because of human rights issues.

How does Rose think confiscating a mobile is going to have any positive outcome?

When I was a child, taking one of my possessions would have serious consequences for whoever did and therefore myself.

This may be the case of many children from difficult backgrounds and the approach she says is appropriate is using martial arts.

This may work to discipline one and frustrate others.

Much of the guidance she gives relating to managing one child’s use of the internet is redundant with most of today’s anti-virus software, which makes life much easier for parents to control what their children see and restrict who they speak to.

Rose Smith can find out more about these and other facts at the Trolling Academy by visiting www.trollingacademy.org.

Information Technology, Law, Letters and other Op-Eds

Internet history

January 14, 2012 jonathanbishop 3 comments

I appreciate Walton MP Steve Rotheram writing into the Echo to critique my status as a trolling authority (Letters, January 11). As his colleagues at Westminster would tell him, I could not contact him direct, as he would not be allowed to respond to my letter, unless I wrote to him through my own MP, as this is parliamentary convention.

Mr Rotheram mistakenly says the Telecommunications Act 1984 and Communications Act 2003 existed before trolling. The former Act existed during the time that Usenet was popular, which was a primitive form of Facebook Groups and BBS as well, a primitive form of the Facebook wall. The second Act came about when the social networking technology I invented in 1999 – the circle of friends – was being popularised by Friendster and MySpace, before becoming an essential part of Facebook when it became mainstream from 2007.

So like the word “social media” that he uses is the new word for “social networking” beyond these text-based interfaces, so the word “trolling”, has gone from meaning simply “act of posting a message in a newsgroup that is obviously exaggerating something on a particular topic” as described in 1995 in the Internet dictionary NetLingo, to refer to a specific act of posting inflammatory or obnoxious content (which may not be text) for one’s own or others entertainment.

He would know this, as any other Echo reader, if he read the pithy response to me by D Frederick from Garston in November (Letters, Nov 26).

Information Technology, Law, Letters and other Op-Eds, Socio-legal

Does the European Convention on Human Rights Protect Children from DNA Thieves?

January 9, 2012 jonathanbishop One comment

I will look at how the European Convention on Human Rights should protecto minors who have been abducted by a parent, who I shall call a DNA Thief, in order to stop them from associating with their other parent, who I shall call a Forced-Donor-Parent. On this basis, I shall call such a child a ‘Forced-Donation-Child’.

ARTICLE 3 – No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

If a Forced-Donation-Child is being told by a DNA Thief that their Forced-Donor-Parent is such that this would constitute defamation against the Forced-Donor-Parent then that is an abuse of the human rights of both the Forced-Donor-Parent and their Forced-Donation-Child.

ARTICLE 4 – No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.

If a Forced-Donation-Child is being denied access to the Forced-Donor-Parent and they want to associate with them, then this is an abuse of their human rights.

ARTICLE 5 – Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.

This is except in this case: The lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts, or vagrants;

One could define a DNA Thief as a vagrant if they are always moving the Forced-Donation-Child from place to place, denying them a stable life, in order to prevent them for accessing the Forced-Donor-Parent.

ARTICLE 8 – Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

There is an exception to this: For the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This means that if a DNA Thief is denying the Forced-Donation-Child access to the Forced-Donor-Parent and vice versa, they have no right to privacy.

ARTICLE 9 – Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion

If a DNA Thief tries to indoctrinate a Forced-Donation-Child with hatred for their Forced-Donor-Parent of that First-Donor-Parents beliefs, then this is an abuse of the Forced-Donation-Child’s human rights and that of the Forced-Donor-Parent.

ARTICLE 10 – Everyone has the right to freedom of expression

This is except where, among other reasons: for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence.

One can see many ways in which a DNA Thief can indoctrinate a Forced-Donation-Child against a Forced-Donor-Parent.

ARTICLE 11 -Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

A DNA Thief who keeps denying a Forced-Donation-Child access to their Forced-Donor-Parent is breaching both Forced persons’ human rights.

Taking Articles 12 to 14 together:

ARTICLE 12 – Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

ARTICLE 13 – Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority

ARTICLE 14 – The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground

A Forced-Donor-Parent has the right to access a fair hearing to regain access their Forced-Donation-Child. By the DNA Thief denying the Forced-Donor-Parent access to their Forced-Donation-Child which was created by virtue of Article 12 and that Forced-Donor-Parent has committed no crime, then they are breaching Article 5, as they are denying the Forced-Donor-Parent the liberty to access their Forced-Donation-Child that they gained under Article 12. If the reason for the Forced-Donor-Parent being denied access to the Forced-Donation-Child was on the grounds of sex, such as any ‘maternal’ relationship then this is discrimination. By a tribunal making such a decision, they are breaching the rights of the Forced-Donation-Child and Forced-Donor-Parent to impartiality of the judiciary.

An lonely on-looker's diary - The world through the eyes of an Aspie, Boundlessness, Law, Socio-legal, Uncategorized

Cameron’s Treaty veto was long-standing UK Government Policy

January 9, 2012 jonathanbishop No comments

Following on from Cameron’s politicking on the Eurozone crisis I wasdelighted to have sight of a leaked copy of the ‘vetoed treaty’ from ITV News.

On my Masters of Laws degree in European Union Law, which I studied over 3 years atthe University of Glamorgan, graduating in the Top 5%, I must have looked at manyof the over 80,000 pages of EU legislation, so as you can expect, themisrepresentation over the significance of this treaty to anyone outside ofacademia and journalism now I have seen it is frustrating.

Before the Lisbon Treaty was passed, the European Union was split into three ‘pillars’; the ‘European Community’, the ‘Police and Judicial Co-operation in CriminalMatters’ and ‘Common Foreign and Security Policy’.

Ever sincethe Maastricht Treaty in 1992, it has been UK Government policy to have as few ‘pillars’as possible. John Major reduced it from six to four, Tony Blair to three and Gordon Brown to one.

This Treaty, called the ‘Reinforced Economic Treaty’ would have created an extra pillar, ‘the euro area Heads of State or Government’, so there would be two pillars. This goes against UK Government Policy, which is why Cameron most likely vetoed it. If Cameron were to listen to me then he would see how the treaty could be achieved and keep one pillar, and have no effect on the UK – using ‘enhanced co-operation’ so the other EU countries could get on with it without him interfering, trying to be in-bed with the EU but with no blanket!

Law, Socio-legal, The Official Weblog of Jonathan Bishop

Powers in place

January 6, 2012 jonathanbishop No comments

Reading the news about Walton Labour MP Steve Rotheram launching a Bill to tackle internet trolling made me think “it is the 1990s all over again” (Echo, January 3).

Back then, following claims that video games were making people violent, MP after MP called for tougher laws to deal with “gory imagery”. I did a GCSE English project on it called “Not the Houses of Parliament”, and two decades later the politicians still haven’t learned.

MPs wanted to ban my favourite game of the 1990s – Night Trap – because it had scantily dressed women in. It turned out that the Video Recording Act 1984 was all they needed to use, and the same waste of legislative time is evident to cyberlaw experts like myself today.

Had Mr Rotheram attended the Online Information Conference in London last November 30, instead of bemoaning his colleague the Rt Rev James Jones being stuck in Spain (ECHO, December 2), he would have heard me speak on how the New Labour Government, he never served under, put all the data misuse laws in place to deal with this – he’d also have got a USB stick with my 2010 journal paper on the topic!

If instead of seeking Cameron’s support, Mr Rotheram could have calmed down, and taken a breath to read my paper and slides and see all the powers Liverpool City Council has to deal with trolling because of New Labour, as part of its Community Crime Fighter Scheme.

They can issue jail-term-facing anti-social behaviour orders (ASBO) to repeat offenders they track down online using New Labour’s Internet surveillance laws (called RIPA), or for minor offences they can issue fixed-penalty-notices (FPN) under their anti-social behaviour laws.

Information Technology, Law, Letters and other Op-Eds, Socio-legal

Enough laws

January 6, 2012 jonathanbishop One comment

As a prize-winning authority on trolling and cyberlaw and an expert specialising in UK data misuse laws, I had to respond to Walton MP Steve Rotheram calling for trolling to be “banned” (Daily Post, January 3).

In my research at the Centre for Research into Online Communities and E-Learning Systems at Swansea University I have identified the first wide-reaching law outlawing trolling was brought in by Margaret Thatcher as section 24 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 – it is still used today!

The provision, was subsequently duplicated with different works by New Labour in Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and both are often used in the same trial.

Following that, New Labour made many anti-social behaviour laws that could apply to trolling, and with the Police and Criminal Justice Act 2006, they updated the Malicious Communication Act 1984 and Computer Misuse Act 1990, both made by the Conservatives, to directly deal with flame trolling.

Is Mr Rotheram saying these aren’t enough, and the fouryear jail term faced by Jamie Counsel from Cardiff for trolling on Facebook too lenient? Being newly elected in 2010, I think Mr Rotheram, who appears wet behind the ears as a jurist, should learn from UK cyberlaw scholars, especially former ‘New’ Labour councillors like myself, who only left the Labour Party after Ed Miliband declared the days of New Labour as being over.

It is no good knowing Keir Hardie helped found and lead the Labour Party if he knows nothing of the work contemporary Labour stalwarts like Dr Kim Howells and Stephen Timms did to reform the UK legal landscape relating to the Internet and trolling, both of them realising Keir Hardie’s notion of a fair and just society.

Information Technology, Law, Letters and other Op-Eds, Socio-legal

Welsh laws

January 2, 2012 jonathanbishop No comments

As a Master of Economics and published author on UK Constitutional and Administrative Law, I take question with the letter by H Thomas (Dec 28), claiming Bill Clinton’s authority to the “it’s the economy stupid” phrase against independence.

While I originally opposed further devolution for Wales (Letters, April 27, 2002), for things I was proved right on, such as sub-standard legislation authoring compared to Westminster due to reduced scrutiny and an increased number of civil servants fulfilling duplicate legislative functions, the landscape has changed since the referendum in March and so the debate must change.

Unlike H Thomas, I now think independence is the best economic option for Wales, as it will allow us to integrate further into the EU and grow our economy faster than we can being pulled by the economy of the south-east of England.

There is now such a thing as “Welsh law”, and an inevitable consequence of this is that we will need our own High Court in Wales to balance England & Wales Law with specific Welsh law.

The first Welsh Assembly Government was a sub-committee of the National Assembly for Wales which had most of its powers delegated to it before formalised in the Government of Wales Act 2006. So rather than fund the lawyers to argue the laws badly written by Welsh ministers unnecessarily in the courts, or even employ the many unnecessary generalist civil servants, the Welsh Government should do something else.

They should use the same powers used to set up the Richard Commission to set up a permanent inquiry into the standard of Welsh legislation, which means those with expertise on the law in question could meet in the Senedd when the Assembly is not in plenary, to discuss and improve the legislation.

Their findings could be made as crucial as those of the House of Lords are to the Commons, but with a membership based on merit and not privilege.

Law, Letters and other Op-Eds, Socio-legal
« Older Entries