Last year a beautician won a civil law case in the United Kingdom against a property developer over access rights. The beautician and her mother's home and business were at risk.
The full story can be found at
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1227283/Beautician-turns-barrister-win-David-Goliath-High-Court-battle-construction-giant.html
However the beautician lost her first case and costs were awarded against her. Only after she researched the matter did she finally win on appeal. Having costs awarded against you must be a huge disincentive to go on!
She did not get a barrister to represent her for the appeal due to the high cost of 5, 000 GBP needed for the lawyer to have a fresh look at the case. For small businesses and individuals 5, 000 GBP is a lot of money.
Although this seems like a success story I am concerned about the following:
1) To battle a large company with far more money than you takes guts. You could lose the case and have to pay tens to hundreds of thousands of pounds of costs depending on how long the court case takes. A lot of people would just cave in and not take the risk. Companies know this.
2) A fair number of people won't research the law and the details themselves. If they rely on lawyers they will have to pay money they can't afford.
3) Why if the law was on their side (as judged by the fact that they won the appeal) did they lose the first time around? Why didn't the judge know the full facts of the case the first time around? This suggests to me that unless you have the time to do the research yourself or can afford to pay lawyers you won't get justice. You will get less than what the law says you are entitled to.
The conclusion is that companies will take what they can get regardless of the law. They will rely on you not being able to defend yourself. You will only get justice in a court if you do the research yourself or pay for a lawyer, which individuals can't necessarily afford.
Wednesday, 6 January 2010
Sunday, 6 December 2009
Amanda Knox Trial Result
Yesterday Amanda Knox was found guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher.
Does anyone actually believe the story put forward by the prosecution, namely that it was a sex game between Amanda, her boyfriend, an immigrant and Meredith gone wrong? Where did the prosecution suppose Amanda, her boyfriend and the petty criminal immigrant meet originally? Why did these three hook up? What do they have in common? The story just isn't believable.
Have you looked at all three of the accused? Do you really believe they would collaborate together in a sex game?
It doesn't make sense. Good looking women don't use violence to get sex.
The prosecution's case actually was just based on:
a) DNA evidence on the knife
b) Amanda's behavior after the murder i.e. performing cartwheels in the police station
Duh! Someone is in a stressful situation and they behave oddly. Well, what exactly is normal behavior in circumstances like this? And even if the behavior is odd, this doesn't make someone a murderer. The prosecution must have been really scratching around to bring this up! And the jury bought it!
If DNA is amplified during the process of detection (by PCR) then as little as one molecule of DNA can be detected. Contamination is a problem.
So my question is, how much of Amanda's DNA was originally on the knife? The court is putting Amanda away for 26 years of her life -it is effectively ending her life, so this is a valid question. How did the police know which knife to take to test?
Was it 1 molecule? Was it 100 molecules?
Has anyone done statistics and maths on this? How much DNA was originally on the knife? Was it more than can be explained by contamination during the forensics process? Was the DNA more than can be expected to be there just by being in the same house as Amanda? Was the DNA just from a bit of dust floating around?
Also if Amanda was in the same house as the knife, then having her DNA on the knife isn't surprising. It proves nothing. If someone wiped the knife with her clothes, that would be enough to get her DNA on it.
My DNA is all over my clothes, computer keyboard and kitchen utensils. But it proves nothing about what I do.
It is unbelievable a conviction has been made with no real evidence. Are people just getting stupider?
Does anyone actually believe the story put forward by the prosecution, namely that it was a sex game between Amanda, her boyfriend, an immigrant and Meredith gone wrong? Where did the prosecution suppose Amanda, her boyfriend and the petty criminal immigrant meet originally? Why did these three hook up? What do they have in common? The story just isn't believable.
Have you looked at all three of the accused? Do you really believe they would collaborate together in a sex game?
It doesn't make sense. Good looking women don't use violence to get sex.
The prosecution's case actually was just based on:
a) DNA evidence on the knife
b) Amanda's behavior after the murder i.e. performing cartwheels in the police station
Duh! Someone is in a stressful situation and they behave oddly. Well, what exactly is normal behavior in circumstances like this? And even if the behavior is odd, this doesn't make someone a murderer. The prosecution must have been really scratching around to bring this up! And the jury bought it!
If DNA is amplified during the process of detection (by PCR) then as little as one molecule of DNA can be detected. Contamination is a problem.
So my question is, how much of Amanda's DNA was originally on the knife? The court is putting Amanda away for 26 years of her life -it is effectively ending her life, so this is a valid question. How did the police know which knife to take to test?
Was it 1 molecule? Was it 100 molecules?
Has anyone done statistics and maths on this? How much DNA was originally on the knife? Was it more than can be explained by contamination during the forensics process? Was the DNA more than can be expected to be there just by being in the same house as Amanda? Was the DNA just from a bit of dust floating around?
Also if Amanda was in the same house as the knife, then having her DNA on the knife isn't surprising. It proves nothing. If someone wiped the knife with her clothes, that would be enough to get her DNA on it.
My DNA is all over my clothes, computer keyboard and kitchen utensils. But it proves nothing about what I do.
It is unbelievable a conviction has been made with no real evidence. Are people just getting stupider?
Tuesday, 24 November 2009
Ex-solider convicted of behaving honestly
An ex-solider in the UK has been found guilty by a jury of possessing a firearm. The ex-solider found the gun in his garden and handed it into a police station. The prosecutor said that his honest intent is not relevant to the law. All that is relevant is whether the ex-solider possessed the gun - presumably he possessed it while taking it to the police station to hand it in!
http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
The jury actually found the man guilty!
Why wasn't the jury told about jury nullification i.e. if the law is immoral or incorrectly applied they can return a non-guilty verdict or just return non-guilty for any reason they think of?
Why isn't jury nullification taught in English schools?
Why did not of the lawyers involved in this farce tell the jury about nullification?
The UK has gone crazy.
http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
The jury actually found the man guilty!
Why wasn't the jury told about jury nullification i.e. if the law is immoral or incorrectly applied they can return a non-guilty verdict or just return non-guilty for any reason they think of?
Why isn't jury nullification taught in English schools?
Why did not of the lawyers involved in this farce tell the jury about nullification?
The UK has gone crazy.
Monday, 16 November 2009
Jury Nullification And Maya Evans
There are many articles on the Internet about jury nullification. In summary a jury can return a not-guilty verdict even if in fact the defendant has broken the law, if they feel the law is either immoral or incorrectly applied.
Maya Evans was arrested in London for reading out a list of names of British soldiers killed in Iraq. There is a law preventing demonstrations within a certain distance of Parliament. Maya was given a conditional discharge, but I think that means she was still convicted of something. I'm not exactly sure about the law here.
Could she have requested a jury trial and then instructed the jury about nullification? In this way the public could have had a vote on what exactly they think of the Zanu Nu Labour Government's laws.
It is a pity there are British soldiers in Iraq presumably protecting its citizens from the tyranny of a foreign government, when their citizens need protection from the tyranny of their own government!
Maya Evans was arrested in London for reading out a list of names of British soldiers killed in Iraq. There is a law preventing demonstrations within a certain distance of Parliament. Maya was given a conditional discharge, but I think that means she was still convicted of something. I'm not exactly sure about the law here.
Could she have requested a jury trial and then instructed the jury about nullification? In this way the public could have had a vote on what exactly they think of the Zanu Nu Labour Government's laws.
It is a pity there are British soldiers in Iraq presumably protecting its citizens from the tyranny of a foreign government, when their citizens need protection from the tyranny of their own government!
The Right To Work And Anti-Competition Agreements
Anti-Competition Agreements In The News
There has been much discussion in the UK media lately about a plumbing company suing a competitor. In summary Mr Cosser set-up a business called Service Corps with 5 plumbers that used to work for a rival firm called Pimlico Plumbers. Each plumber got a 10% stake in the business. There is also talk about a certain Stephen Hennessey breaking an anti-competition clause in his employment agreement with Pimlico Plumbers when he took up a job with Service Corps.
Anti-Competition Clauses In General
I would like to talk about anti-competition clauses in general now. There might be a place for them for directors on high salaries and company founders that then sell their companies. However it seems in the past decade that putting anti-competition clauses in employment contracts has become more and more common. These prevent people from working for a competitor for anywhere between 6 - 12 months after leaving their job.
The fact is that many companies that use them don't do research and don't invest in employee training to any significant extent. Using them for relatively low-paid employees at the bottom of company hierarchies isn't appropriate. What can be considered competition depends on opinion. If you work for a large company with many products or services, then you can be effectively barred from working in your chosen profession for 6 months. This will be directed at people that effectively live from monthly pay-cheque to pay-cheque and can't afford to have 6 months off from work.
There really isn't a free market for employees to chose employers without anti-competition clauses, because they are getting so common. It is unlikely that a graduate fresh from university that has spent weeks to months interviewing at tens of companies will risk his/her job offer being rescinded by arguing over the terms of the employment contract. Interviews are getting longer and longer. Three separate visits to a company's offices for a job interview are commonplace. If you obtain a job offer via a recruitment agency, the agency may tell you in order to get a formal offer of a job, you have to reject all your other job offers. In this way you only see your employment contract after you have given up your ability to negotiate for a better deal.
If you ask a recruitment consultant about anti-competition clauses when going from one job to another, you might be told that they aren't enforceable. So why bother to fight over an employment term if you are told it can't be enforced? Is this correct advice?
The most danger from anti-competition clauses isn't their enforcement, but rather self-policing. Once I saw a job description from a start-up company saying that any candidates that have signed anti-competition clauses should not apply for the job!
The UK government should pass a statutory law giving UK citizens the right to work in this country and this law should override any contract terms to the contrary. California has such a law.
A contract term doesn't have to go anywhere near a court to have its effect. Threatening, bluff letters from lawyers can do their damage. Most people don't have the time or money to fight issues in court and so will back down.
A company laying off workers coupled with a sleazy lawyer won't lose any sleep over threatening former workers with court action for little more than trying to work. The fact that they don't have any work to offer is beside the point. The whole point is bullying and that everyone should be in the mud together.
There has been much discussion in the UK media lately about a plumbing company suing a competitor. In summary Mr Cosser set-up a business called Service Corps with 5 plumbers that used to work for a rival firm called Pimlico Plumbers. Each plumber got a 10% stake in the business. There is also talk about a certain Stephen Hennessey breaking an anti-competition clause in his employment agreement with Pimlico Plumbers when he took up a job with Service Corps.
Anti-Competition Clauses In General
I would like to talk about anti-competition clauses in general now. There might be a place for them for directors on high salaries and company founders that then sell their companies. However it seems in the past decade that putting anti-competition clauses in employment contracts has become more and more common. These prevent people from working for a competitor for anywhere between 6 - 12 months after leaving their job.
The fact is that many companies that use them don't do research and don't invest in employee training to any significant extent. Using them for relatively low-paid employees at the bottom of company hierarchies isn't appropriate. What can be considered competition depends on opinion. If you work for a large company with many products or services, then you can be effectively barred from working in your chosen profession for 6 months. This will be directed at people that effectively live from monthly pay-cheque to pay-cheque and can't afford to have 6 months off from work.
There really isn't a free market for employees to chose employers without anti-competition clauses, because they are getting so common. It is unlikely that a graduate fresh from university that has spent weeks to months interviewing at tens of companies will risk his/her job offer being rescinded by arguing over the terms of the employment contract. Interviews are getting longer and longer. Three separate visits to a company's offices for a job interview are commonplace. If you obtain a job offer via a recruitment agency, the agency may tell you in order to get a formal offer of a job, you have to reject all your other job offers. In this way you only see your employment contract after you have given up your ability to negotiate for a better deal.
If you ask a recruitment consultant about anti-competition clauses when going from one job to another, you might be told that they aren't enforceable. So why bother to fight over an employment term if you are told it can't be enforced? Is this correct advice?
The most danger from anti-competition clauses isn't their enforcement, but rather self-policing. Once I saw a job description from a start-up company saying that any candidates that have signed anti-competition clauses should not apply for the job!
The UK government should pass a statutory law giving UK citizens the right to work in this country and this law should override any contract terms to the contrary. California has such a law.
A contract term doesn't have to go anywhere near a court to have its effect. Threatening, bluff letters from lawyers can do their damage. Most people don't have the time or money to fight issues in court and so will back down.
A company laying off workers coupled with a sleazy lawyer won't lose any sleep over threatening former workers with court action for little more than trying to work. The fact that they don't have any work to offer is beside the point. The whole point is bullying and that everyone should be in the mud together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)