• Home

Subscribe

UK parents to face music if their wards are found engaged in piracy

As part of the UK government’s reforms to curb and combat internet piracy, parents are likely to face punishments for their children’s internet piracy act, as it amounts to breach of copyright. According to the law in UK, stringent measures provide that the households ignoring the warning will be blacklisted and will be under online surveillance
.
Fergal Sharkey, the chief executive of British Music Rights, the body that represents musicians, said “This is stepping into the unknown for the internet providers, music and ministers. But we can’t go on without it. No business can survive after losing as much revenue as the music industry has.”

Baroness Vadera, who was responsible for bringing internet service providers and Ofcom, will outline the new measures to combat internet piracy. According to the plans, warning letters will be sent to such households informing them that they are being monitored. The second stage requires Ofcom, the telecoms body, to go ahead in leading the negotiations between service providers and the film and music industries regarding means to deal with blatant offenders.

According to the reports, Britain’s six largest service providers- BT Vergin Media, Orange, Tiscali, BSkyB and Carphone Warehouse have already signed, giving their ascent to the scheme.

Skilled Indian migrants wishing to make Britain their home can return

In Britain, retraction of immigration policy by the High Court ruling, has given hopes to 30,000 Indians who were forced to leave the country, to return back if they so desire.

In 2002, thousands of Indians were literally lured to benefit from UK’s Highly Skilled Migrants Programme (HSMP) as it promised permanent settlement once they complete five years of employment. Their dreams vanished in thin air in November 2006 owing to changes in the visa rules.

A new point based system was introduced by the Immigration Ministry, which was retrospective in nature, affecting most of those, admitted under HSMP, who failed to meet necessary ‘points’ requirement

A long drawn court battle, fought by HSMP forum, resulted in a favourable ruling. The court set aside the changes made by the Immigration Ministry considering them as unlawful. As a result, finally justice was done to thousands of migrants as they can extend the visa and make a honourable return.

Besides, those migrants whose extension was denied after November 2006 will not be required to pay the application fee again. Also, the time spent in India after the changes would be counted towards the settlement criteria on their return to the UK.

Barristers attack the anonymity bill

Barristers have cautioned that plans to give judges the power to let anonymous evidence in court cases are perhaps ‘too broad’. The Bar Council states emergency legislation, passed unopposed by MPs, could perhaps lead to too many witnesses anonymously appearing in court.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald QC, stated a large number of cases well could be at risk without it. He stated the Crown Prosecution Service had already identified 580 cases, which could be affected.

The Bill of Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) received unopposed second as well as third readings. It cleared the Commons in a single day. Lords second reading debate on the bill is due.

If the bill is passed by Parliament, it would permit judges to pass a ruling that their court can anonymously hear evidence, for protecting the safety of witnesses and/or their property and for preventing real harm to the public interest.

Justice Secretary Jack Straw stated a balance should be struck between the prevention of witness intimidation and a defendant’s right to a fair trial.

Pre –charge detention period of 42 days gets the House of Commons nod

It was a narrow victory for British Prime Minister, when his proposal of increasing pre-charge detention for terror suspects was accepted and voted through the House of Commons by nine votes. Of the total 625 votes, 315 backed Mr. Brown’s proposal.

But the narrow victory had its share of sourness. Opposition parties alleged that the Labour Government had bartered support of Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party or perhaps even backbenchers promising of action on issues like extra cash for Northern Ireland in lieu of the support for the controversial legislation.

However, Mr Brown denied there was any such deal with Democratic Unionists. At a press conference, he said, “There was no deal. And I think for people to imply that, is to take away from the strength of the argument about the need to tackle terrorism.”

Tory shadow home secretary David Davis stated he was putting in his papers as an MP to “take a stand” against the terror bill. “I will be resigning my membership of this house and force a by-election. I will fight this by-election on the issue of relentless erosion of fundamental freedoms,” he said.