Let’s have an inquiry into who leaked Cliff raid.” Make that a People’s Tribunal. Coruscating stuff from @AnnaRaccoon via the Superb @BarristerBlog Matthew Scott

Matthew Scott (@Barristerblog)

15/08/2014 08:42

“Let’s have inquiry into who leaked Cliff raid.” Make that a Peoples Tribunal. Coruscating stuff from @AnnaRaccoon1 annaraccoon.com/2014/08/15/cli…

icon_tapbot.png

As Sent from my iPad   The Original Tweet by Matthew Scott of @BarristerBlog

http://www.pumpcourtchambers.com/people/barrister/matthew-scott

http://barristerblogger.com/

Locate the Fans.

http://www.cliff-guaranteed.co.uk/

http://clifftube.de.tl/

 

https://www.facebook.com/CliffRichardFanClub

The Fans need to see the Story and the Tweets relating to  Cliffs unjust brush with the Law.

The Law as seen on Twitter from Phil TS Smith, John Cooper QC and Matthew Scott.

‘I am saying this more and more but thank God for Social Media & the chance it gives to be heard as with #ashya s family countering Hospital; John Cooper (@John_Cooper_QC) //twitter.com/John_Cooper_QC/statuses/506417506257760256″>September 1, 2014

John Cooper concludes after the breaking of the #AshyaKing Story which has led to the EAW (European Arrest Warrant) against the five year old with brain cancers parents  being dropped) The Case is still ongoing so watch this Space.. (John Cooper QC has played a leading role in exposing the #AshyaKing Legal Fiasco,but there are other [Legal] Instances of  Groundbreaking Legal Stories being launched or exposed on Twitter E.g .#CSASurvivors #PeoplesTribunal now starting up (with the formation of the Steering Commitee).

Sensationalisation & grandstanding of pre-arrest house search such an early stage in the criminal process cannot be justified #CliffRichard; Phil Smith (@PhilSmith_TS)  https://twitter.com/PhilSmith_TS/statuses/499952178791194624″>August 14,

 

Shocking publicity given to search of Cliff Richard home TV captures the moment Obvious tip-off Question Police’s role Not even arrested yet</p>&mdash; Phil Smith (@PhilSmith_TS)href=”https://twitter.com/PhilSmith_TS/statuses/499905401178324994″>August 14, 2014

The Man himself  Cliff Richard speaks up about the Child Abuse Raid

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/499479/Sir-Cliff-Richard-speaks-out-over-child-abuse-raid

 

I am discussing the need for anonymity pre charge for people on at just after 12 noon today.

 

Dear Cliff Richard Fans this is the QC who broke the Cliff Richard unjust child abuse raid via his good friend and excellent Lawyer Phil TS Smith.

Sensationalisation & grandstanding of pre-arrest house search such an early stage in the criminal process cannot be justified

  • Shocking publicity given to search of Cliff Richard home TV captures the moment Obvious tip-off Question Police’s role Not even arrested yet

    John Cooper QC’s Followers are now at 13.5k an All Time High. He is clearly doing something right!

    What you need to do is realise what the Police, in not following the correct Legal Procedure have in effect smeared your Hero forcing him to hire Lawyers to fight to clear his name.  You know the character and personality of the man you adore and so rightfully follow. You are fans because you know he is a good person not just great at what he does

    Listen to Matthew Scott, Listen to  the tweets posted via John Cooper QC’s Twitter Page by the excellent Phil TS Smith then listen to this.

    http://www.irantribunal.com/index.php/en/

    This Article will be updated as and when.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Posted in Child Sexaul Abuse Crime, CSA (Child Sexaul Abuse) Survivors, Devils Advocacy, Evidence, Evidence: Police gathering, General Legal Learning, Human Rights ECHR et al, John Cooper QC, Law Student, Lawyers and Law Firms, Lawyers I like on Save UK Justice, NON LAWYERS, Police Powers, QC'S, QC's Queens Counsel, Rule of Law, Save UK Justice Campaign, Self Learning, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

    The battle over Trumps Executive Orders is just getting started

    TRACKING TRUMP’S CONGRESS
    The Battle Over Trump’s Executive Orders Is Just Getting Started

    img_20161218_2111201_rewind

    MARK HAY
    Feb 3 2017, 9:13pm

    Around the country, lawyers and state attorney generals are ready to challenge the president’s entire agenda in court.
    Like many new presidents, Donald Trump’s first days in office were marked by a flurry of executive actions. Some of these restricted travel and immigration to the US in sweeping ways, some of them were more vague directives for federal departments to do something in the future; a large number of them appear to have been sloppily worded. But by Tuesday, the White House had slowed its roll, delaying a planned action on cybersecurity accountability indefinitely. Rumored executive orders that would restart a CIA “black site” program and legalize some discrimination against LGBTQ people also have yet to surface.

    But the decision to hold off on the cybersecurity order was reportedly less about picking which orders to act on and more about the administration’s need to focus on the lawsuits his “travel ban” has stirred up.

    That order, which temporarily bars refugees and citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the US, is the most infamous and contentious Trump action so far. Early lawsuits resulted in judges declaring that travelers who were en route to America when Trump signed the order should be released from detention. But a number of advocacy groups, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), are challenging the entire order, as are the attorneys general of Minnesota and Washington and several large tech companies, who have many foreign-born employees. Even more legal actions are likely to emerge in the coming days, both on this order and others as they move toward implementation.

    If you’ve been having trouble keeping up with all of the cases, you’re not alone.

    “I have done a chart trying to catalogue [them] as best I can,” said Melissa Keaney, a staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center, which is involved in the legal pushback to the order. “There continues to be minute-to-minute changes to the list. And I think some cases, especially individual habeas actions, are not all accounted for, because they’re being filed on such emergency bases that a lot of folks aren’t even able to share out the fact that it’s happening.”

    “Altogether, we have a lot of very significant cases pending,” Keaney added. “And I think we will be seeing more in the next few days.”

    Each lawsuit relies on some mix of the following arguments: The order implicitly singles out Muslims for restrictions, violating the First Amendment. It violates the due process guaranteed under American law as per the Fifth and 14th Amendments. It violates the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, which prohibits discrimination based on nationality or place of birth or residence when issuing visas. It violates the 1946 Administrative Powers Act against arbitrary or capricious actions or the abuse of executive discretion, especially when unsupported by substantial evidence of the need for action. Finally, some attorneys general argue, it harms the interests of the citizens of specific states.

    Many of the anti-ban arguments are very broad, which Keaney told me was necessary due to the order’s vague wording and inconsistent implementation—green-card holders were stopped from returning to the country, then they weren’t; either 100,000 or 60,000 visas were revoked—making it hard to litigate specific implementations.

    Skeptics of the suits have noted that foreign nationals, and especially non-permanent residents, often have fewer rights than citizens, that an older immigration law still allows the president to restrict entry (as opposed to visas) as he sees fit, and that the order does not specifically target religion. (The counter to that last point is that Trump and his advisors have spoken publicly many times about a “Muslim ban.”) However, several federal judges have shown sympathy to plaintiffs’ arguments when they halted people affected by it from being removed from the US. One Iranian man who was coerced into signing a document revoking his visa was returned to America by court order on Thursday, signaling hope for some with visas who were turned back and are now stranded abroad.

    But adding to the confusion, some officials, particularly at Virginia’s Washington Dulles Airport, are refusing to comply with court orders. “We have been spending the last few days just gathering evidence of all those various violations in order to obtain additional remedies,” Keaney told me. But “it’s a very dangerous statement that thus far the administration does not seem to feel compelled to respect [all] of the judiciary’s rulings.”

    So far, these court-ordered reprieves only help those who were already physically on their way to the US when the ban was implemented. Citizens of the seven banned countries who have valid visas but are overseas are still barred from entry. And there has been no legal relief for refugees who find themselves suddenly unable to come to America.

    The Minnesota-Washington case will have its first hearing on Friday, which could conceivably result in a pause on the entire order in the near future—and, further down the line, possibly lead to a wide nullification of elements of it.

    It’s relatively rare for courts to overturn provisions of an executive order, says Keaney, especially when national security issues are at play. But Paul Nolette, an expert on attorneys general, notes that courts have been open to lawsuits from states that target the federal government, some of which hampered Barack Obama’s immigration-related executive orders.

    Trump’s other executive actions haven’t attracted nearly as many lawsuits, possibly because they have had little immediate impact. San Francisco is suing the federal government over Trump’s threat to pull federal funding from “sanctuary cities” that don’t comply with immigration authorities, but some critics say that’s mere a political stunt.

    Keaney told me that many of Trump’s actions were unclear enough that most organizations won’t know what sort of cases to pursue until his administration does something concrete. “But I certainly think we’re going to be seeing a lot of legal action,” she added.

    Nolette noted that attorneys general have made it clear they’re ready to pounce on further actions and will likely have broad strategies ready to go. Key targets for future litigation might center around sanctuary cities, plans for the construction of the border wall, attempts to implement the one-in-two-out regulation restriction, and a bid to guarantee American pipelines are made with American steel. Nolette thinks attorneys general will be especially vigilant on environmental and healthcare issues.

    This storm of litigation will continue, in bursts, for some time—and may actually lead to substantial limitations on Trump’s boldest designs. The big question, though, is whether this is part of the Trump administration’s design or just the byproduct of an inexperienced White House trying to do everything at once. Even before he became president, Trump wasn’t afraid of risking suit by, for instance, not paying his contractors what his company had promised. He and his team could be using executive actions and litigation against them like a form of negotiation—ask for everything you want, and see what the courts will give you. Or not. In any case, we shouldn’t expect the Trump administration to stop testing just how far the law can bend to its whims.

    Follow Mark Hay on Twitter.

    POLITICS IMMIGRATION LAWS REFUGEES DONALD TRUMP LAWYERS EXECUTIVE ORDERS
    Watch This Next

    3:00
    Tracking Trump’s Congress: The First Two Weeks
    SIGN UP FOR THE BEST OF VICE, DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX DAILY.

    Newsletters are the new newsletters.

    Email Address
    SUBSCRIBE

    SHARE

    TWEET

    Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

    I am proud to say I passed ‘Introduction to American Law’ with 85 percent. 

    I am proud to have passed’ Introduction to American Law’ with 85 percent’

    .

     It was my first real introduction to 1L Law but from an American perspective.

     And the first time ever I got introduced to Civil Procedure!!

    This was the Subject that caused me more angst than all the others; that spurred me to read Papers by Academics that showed the way.

     It was whilst googling I discovered Arthur Miller a reknowned legal academic an expert in Civil Procedure!!

     He opened my eyes to how Civil Procedure is used to deny access to the courts instead of open them.

    Examples

    Rule 23 is thrwarted by The Federal Arbitration Act which cuts off Class Actions.( which Corporations quietly sneaked in unawares)

     Class Actions require Certification a key issue 

    Rule 12(b) and Rule 56 Notice Pleading seems to be used to strike out advocacy with hidden rules in Contract Cases.

    (In Contract Cases it would appear that your poor lawyer needs to be a Contract specialist who can not merely plead a Case line by line but negotiate hidden Contract law obstacles!!)*

    *Contract Disputes Act Casebook Landmark Publications.

     Arguments were struck out by claims of misuse or absence of jurisdiction; something the U.S. is unsurprisingly big on as correct jurisdiction ( subject matter,personal,choice of forum,choice of law, various Jurisdiction Doctrines..) given that lawyers have to determine appropriate jurisdiction and therefore applicable State Law all goes into making a Case and that is minus substantive parts! often combined e.g. Contract,Tort, Property.Cases I have read don’t appear to be about one type of Law!

     So instead of hating Civil Procedure I LOVED it passing the Exam easily first time with 100 percent!

     This Course by Coursera has set me off on a journey to do more Courses on Subjects in the Course.

    Constitutional Law Erwin Chereminsky is my man who happens to be a Commentator on Criminal Procedure the most interesting of all my Con law options.

    Common Law U.S. style the counterpart to English Common Law Strutures and Principles.

    Environmental Law and Policies.Good resources on this to more than prepare me for the Course.

    Human Rights in open Societies.

    I am more than overdue to do a Human Rights Course this is a start 

    The International Criminal Court in three Courses!

    Children’s Law nuff said it is appalling to see children( like animals) out on the street. When I see my how wonderful happy children are.How shameful these little ones suffer so 

     Animal Law Edinburgh University too good to miss!

     As you see I am on a journey.

     I like to prepare by marshalling resources my own way in order to confront the challenges head on.

    Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

    Lottery tickets are best brought in hard copy versions as the National Lottery reversed my sequence of numbers all appropriately RANDOM

    Image | Posted on by | Tagged | Leave a comment

    MOOC Platforms, Surveillance, and Control | AAUP

    https://www.aaup.org/article/mooc-platforms-surveillance-and-control

    MOOC Platforms, Surveillance, and Control

    The institutional impact of MOOCs.

    By Paul-Olivier Dehaye

    In the mid-1980s, while she was a professor at the Harvard Business School, Shoshana Zuboff formulated three laws about the implications of information technology:

    1. Everything that can be automated will be automated.

    2. Everything that can be informated will be informated.

    3. Every digital application that can be used for surveillance and control will be used for surveillance and control.

    Informating is the process that translates descriptions and measurements of activities, events, and objects into information. Zuboff’s original analysis was applied to a variety of workplaces, but its scope has naturally expanded with the spread of information technology to the spaces where we live, shop, exercise, relax, heal, and, now, teach and learn.

    The first public promise of broadcast-style massive open online courses, or MOOCs, has always been to reduce costs by automating the classroom experience as much as possible: large participation numbers are possible because content can be delivered online 24-7, to the great convenience of students, and because thousands of tests can be scored automatically, to the great convenience of professors. This automation has been critical in the evolution of MOOCs, and its impact on pedagogy has been much discussed. Less frequently discussed, however, are the informating, the surveillance, and the control entailed in MOOCs. Indeed, these online courses are constructed as part of a bigger assemblage, a MOOC platform, whose logic is secreted away into venture capital–funding rounds, term sheets, quarterly reports, partnership contracts, partner conferences, and support tickets.

    In more recent work, Zuboff cleverly deconstructs the informating step by recycling observations of Hal Varian, chief economist at Google. Varian identifies four different benefits of computer-mediated transactions:

    1. data collection and analysis

    2. personalization

    3. constant monitoring enabling new forms of contracts

    4. constant experimentation

    These four facets frame the following analysis of the systemic and societal impacts of MOOCs.

    Data Collection and Analysis

    One of the operating strategies of web platforms is to represent symbolically as many events and interactions as possible. For teaching and learning platforms, this strategy renders subjective events into commodities, actively traded by professors, universities, and the platforms themselves.

    The stated promise associated with data collection is to improve education and gain insights to inform our on-campus teaching. But this one-way extraction of data will unfortunately occur at the expense of a vast erosion and redistribution of privacy rights: in exchange for access to the data they contributed, eager universities have turned a blind eye to third-party uses of those data. They have also partly shielded themselves from liability by relying on start-ups that will simply nullify the privacy laws they don’t like. This is particularly problematic in Europe, where international agreements fail to ensure adequate protection for data transferred across the Atlantic but limit what can be exchanged between universities in the same country afterward.

    The data collection has other goals as well: it allows platforms to gather new types of information about the online education market. Netflix can tell precisely when a TV series hooks its viewers, and MOOC platforms can say the same for individual courses and students. They use metrics that have been defined by computer engineers with little understanding of cognitive processes and no form of accountability.

    MOOC platforms can track the topic searches of students to assess the demand for particular courses or topics. They use this knowledge in competitive bidding processes for new courses and specializations, sometimes offering loans to universities to develop the content, which gives the platform more control over the production process. Eager to get a first-mover advantage, universities often embark on these projects despite some initial reluctance. The bidding process is opaque and easily manipulated by the central player, the platform.

    Personalization

    Personalization and adaptive learning are often touted as a (future) advantage of MOOC education. They have drawbacks, however. The primary aim of MOOC platforms is to offer the best user experience, which, in heated academic debates, can sometimes result in censorship. When a professor ends up being the lone dissenter, his or her account can easily be suspended without explanation.

    Even more troubling, this personalized experience sometimes evolves into more refined forms of censorship. Through the practice of “shadow banning,” some individuals’ forum posts are not delivered to others—without providing notice to the original posters that their comments are being blocked. This practice is fairly common in online communities but has no place in a classroom.

    In the context of an online course, such tactics can destroy creativity and breed a culture of compliance and anticipatory conformity among faculty members: professors are encouraged to fit their content into patterns that can then be delivered at scale by the platforms in ways that can be (paradoxically) personalized and monetized for each student. Professor comments are centralized into a partner portal, which only contributes to this groupthink through insidious self-censorship and vain self-presentation.

    Monitoring

    Varian boasts that the constant monitoring of web platforms enables new forms of contracts: examples include online advertisers paid per click and Amazon authors paid per Kindle page-turn.

    Already, MOOC providers reward content producers (universities and professors) through a precise assessment of the revenue they generate. Eventually, this system might be tied to actual hours of video watched or some other inaccurate proxy for the quality of the teaching done.

    Varian also looks favorably upon the new online businesses that thrive thanks to new means of verification embedded in our devices. In some MOOCs, students are required to send pictures of their identification cards to certify their identities. In the more extreme verification systems, keystroke dynamics are also used to identify users. These mechanisms, which are outside of the control of universities, raise profound questions about consent and privacy that cannot be adequately resolved through “terms of service” agreements.

    Perhaps most notable among the newly possible contracts are those that involve certifications and, ultimately, integration with the employment market. Currently, students exchange money for cryptographically signed certificates, but this system does not guarantee that certifications will be recognized. Some classes of certifications have already been retired as meaningless or technologically degraded. In the future, the introduction of digital rights management schemes might mean that students will never fully own their degrees or might be required to pay as technology is upgraded. In fact, after around one year of operations, Coursera started to anticipate such a monetization strategy by slipping an extra clause into its (leaked) partnership contracts—without providing any disclosure to students. Such practices are particularly worrisome in the context of today’s workplace: while optional “upskilling” in a stable work environment is desirable, in our fragmented labor market it seems more likely that individuals will be constantly expected to showcase their earned certificates in order to land their next gig.

    Experimentation

    Universities are also participating in MOOCs for their own research purposes. Undoubtedly, the vast collection of data gathered through MOOCs will lead to many new quantitative studies, sometimes confirming prior smaller-scale or qualitative ones and almost always discovering statistically but not practically significant effects. The numbers will be staggering and unprecedented, but not necessarily informative from a pedagogical standpoint. In addition, a lot of the experimentation now revolves around increasing student retention. MOOC platforms seek, for instance, to optimize the scheduling and content of their periodic e-mail reminders. It is unclear what effect, if any, this nudging could have on students.

    Universities are stepping into an ethical quagmire. Students are not informed of the legal and technical frameworks driving the experimental designs of courses, and scientific research conducted by academics will undoubtedly be confused with product research conducted by the MOOC platforms themselves. Some more active interventions will be especially questionable. Already, some MOOC platforms are experimenting with pricing discrimination, with the goal of maximizing revenue. This discrimination is currently based on geography, but could socioeconomic data collected through the voluntary “research” surveys that students take also be used to determine pricing? What about data submitted for financial aid applications? Either way, such tactics betray a profound disloyalty to students.

    Experimentation can also be used as an opaque shield for activities that exploit universities and professors. In a world where a platform hosts thousands of courses, a recommendation engine is crucial to drive traffic. Just as Google can steer users to its own products, so can platforms favor courses that maximize their own returns.

    Surveillance Capitalism

    The concerns, however, go much further. The logic of data accumulation, which Zuboff calls surveillance capitalism, naturally tends to favor dominant players, because they get exhaustive knowledge of the unregulated markets they create and completely subsume. The platforms have successfully played on existing university rankings and a misplaced sense of competition among universities to lure them in. Once they enter agreements with MOOC platforms, the Varian principles will take over, and universities will end up competing to the exclusive benefit of their host platforms.

    Zuboff has more recently christened the end state of this logic as Big Other, which she defines as a ubiquitous, distributed, networked, and novel institutional regime of individual corporate actors, each dominating and commodifying a separate facet of the global digital life. MOOCs constitute just one of those facets for many individuals worldwide, and it is certainly reasonable to expect a consolidation in the industry. There are already very few MOOC platforms that dominate the higher education market, and it becomes harder and harder to imagine new players coming in.

    So, what happens when the dominant MOOC platform actually “wins” and enmeshes academia as part of Big Other? Will professors, reduced to mere content producers, all working under nondisclosure agreements, live in fear of being booted off the platform if they speak up, just like authors on Amazon? Will university administrators, in this pyramid of power and control, live in fear of damaging their privileged partnerships with a monopolistic player, just as they do now with academic publishers? Will this external player hasten the demise of shared governance in academia?

    The asymmetries of knowledge and power between Internet giants and citizens are already large, and they seem to grow worse every month. We are rapidly institutionalizing new facts, igniting new network effects, and facilitating the influx of even more predatory capital.

    As a mathematician who has seen mathematical models misused again and again—in the financial markets, for instance—I am inherently skeptical of big-data claims. I think, like many others, that machine learning helps perpetuate, legitimize, and cloak discrimination.

    Should universities not be more careful in approaching MOOC platforms, for the benefit of their students? Should we not work against the centralization of our online presence? Should we not aim to preserve our independence from the Internet giants? In the end, we risk being collectively complicit in an unconditional intellectual surrender to venture capital–funded educational disruption—indeed, we risk directly contributing to the numbing effects of constant and indiscriminate surveillance. As professors, we should always insist that education remain emancipating and should resist the coercive logic of surveillance capitalism.

    Paul-Olivier Dehaye is a former assistant professor of mathematics at the University of Zurich. His e-mail address is paulolivier.

    KJH

    Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

    #WheresLizTruss trending today on Twitter after Media onslaught on Miller v Santos Decision

    Image | Posted on by | Leave a comment

    Apple has NOT asked me to sign contract signing away my rights but chose to install right away.

    Image | Posted on by | Leave a comment

    “Game On! Educational Games for Law Students” Jeanne Eicks, Vermont Law School

    Take a look at this video on YouTube:

    https://youtu.be/6ab8YTrx3Aw
    I agree Law school lends itself to computer games.

    Sent from my iPad

    Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment