September 11, 2014

Alibis are Small Things That Guarantee Various Results

Category: Opinions — Tags: , , , , – admin @ 4:04 am

Once, I have attended a public court hearing. The case revolved around rape where a 21-year-old woman was forced to have intercourse by a middle-aged male. Both lawyers collected facts with cross-examination and presentation of evidence. It seemed the suspect was winning, the evidence was on his side, as well as an alibi.

His alibi was that the girl was drunk and had forced herself on him. Evidence showed that a woman’s strength created the tears in her dress found in the crime scene. This alibi will prove to free the suspect, who might or might not actually be a culprit in the case.

Alibis are actually the reasons why the legal system in every country, even in the greatly-efficient legal industry of the United Kingdom. A suspect with an alibi has a walk-away-free guarantee simply because the evidence points the other way. Meanwhile, the alibi, supported with possible evidence tampering, could create loopholes in the law.

Most rich and elite people get away with these crimes by having smaller individuals tamper with evidence. Most of these people are the ones who should be serving the law. Attracted to the money involved in performing such a menial task, they are more than willing.

This is why some powerful people in different countries want people to drown in a dwindling economy; it limits the capabilities of adversaries, and keeps them in power. It allows them to manipulate people through wealth, and all it takes to be free is a single, justifiable alibi.

August 26, 2013

Why I Would Like to Disagree With Lord Blair

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Lord Blair might certainly have a point that a state secret allows countries to protect themselves against outside forces. But to improve law to protect “national secrets” does not sit well with me. What they did to David Miranda does not sit well with me either. I’d like to disagree with Lord Blair; the people need to know what their governments are doing because we’re paying them to do their job.

The NSA-GCHQ surveillance revealed by Edward Snowden increased the issue of increased illegal surveillance by both organisations, who cross reference databases that allow them to search for potential criminals. However, this certainly downplays an individual’s privacy, which, according to international law, is a right of any individual.

There is a point about the media revealing the government’s operations; potential criminals and organised crime syndicates could make use of the processes to bend things to their will. If they do not know about the process, it also helps defend the country against them. However, sooner or later these processes would be revealed.

The more the people know, the more the people could defend themselves. If we knew about the surveillance programs in the different countries in the world, people would automatically hide their personal information and if possible, they could facilitate the capture of potential suspects by exposing them instead of using surveillance.

Privacy is one thing, but public offices are what the first adjective says. They are public, and publicly-owned, I want to know where my investments progress.

December 20, 2012

CPS Move Crowd Pleasing, But Will It Be Effective?

I was following the United Kingdom’s current issue regarding the re-evaluation of publication and news regulations after Rupert Murdoch’s tabloids and entire media-empire was swamped with unethical journalistic behaviour resulting to false facts and infringement of privacy. The issue became big in the United Kingdom as journalists saw the threat to the freedom of expression in the country. However, Prime Minister David Cameron promised to ensure the freedom of expression while giving victims of mistaken implications due rights to claim justice.

UK’s Crown Prosecution Services announced that it would be enforcing new guidelines that ensure that the freedom of expression and speech would be honored and given a high tolerance for offensive or scandalous remarks. Their move made users of social media, virtually everyone in the UK’s population, breathe more easily. They felt threatened by the new laws, including having someone questioned and potentially suspected for any offensive or honest remark that seems offensive that led to dangerous influence.

The CPS states that based on current UK laws, no person will be questioned or suspected for posting offensive, shocking, disturbing and generally unfavorable remarks and expressions. However, if there is any sign of harassment, blackmail, potential danger to person and property and anything that leads to a suicide or death due to an insult, they will have the person sanctioned.

In reality, this move is quite good. Victims now have the right to file complaints and legal action against people who are obviously responsible for making their lives miserable and the high threshold ensures that below Article 8 of the European Commission law that all people have the right to freedom of expression.

However, its effectiveness is still in question. The United Kingdom virtually has more than 3 billion citizens, and each person can produce at least 1 GB of information on a daily basis. How will the CPS work with this particular predicament?

There’s still much to see before the new guidelines prove that they are truly effective.

December 3, 2012

Cyber Bullying: The Issues Involved

Category: Internet,Opinions — Tags: , , , , , – admin @ 8:22 am

One friend of mine recently posted a picture of herself costumed in what appears to be a phallic-suggestive outfit. Right then and there, she became trending in our area, with most people in the vicinity commenting on her social media account that she looks like a sexual object wearing something that is off. While it might be interesting to see a woman in a phallic suit, my friend’s reputation was shattered and defamed, which had her deleting the picture and disabling her social account profile for good as friends and bosses saw the image, which actually cost her her job.

Cyber bullying is widespread throughout the Internet as anybody has the right to say anything about a topic involved. In the Internet, the culture is about “self-regulation” but admittedly, there are many people who cannot appease their brutal commentary just for the sake of fun or for the sake of expressing themselves honestly. Cyber bullying has actually led some users kill themselves for the sake of social suicide and being outcasted by exposure of delicate information about them.

However, laws about cyber bullying are shot down by the public. Because cyber bullying is actually problematic, it doesn’t mean that authorities have the right to hack into the user’s information profiles, as this would be unethical. The issues about the implementation of anti-cyber bullying laws is that it also “bullies” the bully by accessing their accounts unethically.

The other issue is that no legal rights are given to those who are afflicted of defamation by Internet entities. The easy way of publication and access to information can put many people’s identity in jeopardy.

If there was any good way to implement anti-cyber bullying laws, it would be to allow the bully to “commit his/her act” and get caught in the process, and allow authorities to peer into his or her computer and accounts with consent from the proper authorities. If this law is approved, everyone would willingly accept such a law exists.

Recent Posts:

Greek Austerity Measures: Is It Really Unfair?

Music Artists and The Internet: Did Musicians Ever Have a Problem?

Whiplash Claim Premiums Rising; Government Still At Work