text:
Category: United Kingdom Law and Policy
The reluctance of the Home Office to deny publicly that it is reconsidering the restoration of the death penalty – an example of government-media relations
On 25th December 2020, of all days, the following was tweeted:
A little bird at the @ukhomeoffice tells us @pritipatel has asked Civil Service to scope a policy paper on the restoration of the death penalty in the #NewYear2021 and the #Tories have the majority to do just that. #DeathPenality
— Black and Asian Lawyers For Justice (@BameFor) December 25, 2020
There are three immediate things to observe about this tweet.
First, the content.
This is a sensational claim but it is one which, for some people, would seem plausible.
The home secretary is a past supporter of the death penalty and the home secretary is also known as being willing to use home office policy on 'law and order' in a politicised way.
And elsewhere the United States has resumed federal executions in the run-up to a presidential election, and the similarly populist government of Turkey has signalled that it would want to reintroduce capital punishment.
Second, the provenance.
The account is anonymous but it does have a reasonably sized following, including followers from many areas of law and the media.
The account does not link to a site for the organisation named, and nor does a Google search indicate that the organisation has any existence beyond that twitter account.
We therefore do not know who the "us" is in the tweet and how much credibility their claim should have.
As such the claim cannot and should not be accepted without corroboration.
(This is not to diss the named organisation and what they campaign for, but is just a normal exercise in fact-checking.)
Third, the circulation of thee tweet.
As of today, the tweet has had an extraordinarily wide circulation.
It has had around 1,800 retweets and 1,900 quote-tweets – often from accounts that have accepted the claim in the tweet to be true or at least plausible.
This means a considerable number of people will now believe that the claim is correct or at least has some substance to it: that the home secretary has asked civil servants at the home office to scope a policy paper on the restoration of the death penalty.
(I do not have access to the tweet's analytics, but in my experience, such a widely circulated tweet would have been seen by over one hundred thousand and possibly up to a million other twitter users – for that is the multiplying effect of thousands of retweets and quote-tweets.)
At this stage, now click on and read this magnificent post by Matthew Scott on the legal and practical difficulties of such a restoration of the death penalty, including the range of international legal instruments that prohibit such a restoration by the United Kingdom.
In essence: the United Kingdom could, in principle, restore the death penalty – it is a sovereign nation – but it would be in breach of many international agreements if it did so.
So either the claim is true – which would be important for us to know – or it is untrue – and, in view of the extraordinarily wide circulation of the tweet, it would be also important for the false claim to be publicly corrected.
(In saying that the claim may be untrue, this again is not to diss the account that tweeted – they may be only as good as their source, and it is possible they heard this from a'little bird' in good faith.)
I happen to be in the process of preparing and writing a few things at different titles (and here on this blog) that touch on populism and the use (and misuse and abuse) of law.
I had seen the tweet several times in quote tweets, and so my first step was to find out whether there was any other relevant information in the public domain.
Am writing something on the law and policy of capital punishment
The QT below was widely RTd – but is anyone aware of anything more concrete about than this?
(Yes, I am aware of UK's international obligations under ECHR and now the TCA) https://t.co/nROKNE4xDq
— davidallengreen (@davidallengreen) January 14, 2021
There was none.
And so it seemed that the claim should be put to the home office to ascertain whether it was true.
I have done the radical thing of emailing @ukhomeoffice for a statement
My email query was:
"There is a widely circulated assertion that the Home Secretary has asked Civil Service to scope a policy paper on the restoration of the death penalty – source: https://twitter.com/BameFor/status/1342495556732649478
Can I please have a Home Office statement on this? Normally, and view of UK's international obligations, one would expect a straight denial, without equivocation."
At this stage, I expected to just get an email containing either a bland denial that the claim was untrue or perhaps an equally bland if evasive statement about not commenting on tweets.
What happened instead was a telephone call where I was told that the claim was 'rubbish'.
Now 'rubbish' is one of those press officer words – like 'nonsense' and 'ridiculous' – that is used instead of a straight denial such as 'incorrect'.
And any telephone call from a press office is rarely about providing information (that is what emails are for), it is about the press office trying to obtain information about what is to be published and then attempting to shape what is published – and not published.
It was quickly plain that the home office did not want anything published on this at all, notwithstanding the wide circulation of the original tweet.
So I asked for a statement in writing (I never take quotes over the telephone, especially not from government press offices).
The press office's response to this request was to question its journalistic value (although one would think that a journalist is in a better place than a press office than to make that assessment).
Given the significance and the circulation of the original claim, it seemed to me that there should be a home office statement on the record.
Indeed, you would expect that the home office would be proud and open in stating that the United Kingdom was complying with its international obligations.
Later yesterday afternoon a statement was emailed:
"This is a completely untrue and unsubstantiated claim from an unverified Twitter account. We are surprised that despite telling [you] this, [you] are still insisting on reporting it."
The references '[you]' in the statement is to the title they assumed would publish the statement.
The statement is worth unpacking.
The explicit reference to 'despite telling [you] this' placed beyond doubt that the telephone conversation was not 'background' – the public statement only makes sense if the previous conversation was also on the record.
The 'completely' and 'unsubstantiated' are both examples of over-emphasis – if the claim is untrue, then that is all that needs to be said.
(Like a politician who says 'absolutely clear' instead of 'clear', such additional words indicate potential evasion and misdirection.)
The denial is limited to the content and detail of the tweet – there is no general statement such as 'the home office will not be restoring capital punishment' and still less 'the home office is proud to respect and comply with the international obligations of the United Kingdom'.
Instead of such statements, there is an explicit attack on the credibility of the source and an implicit attack on the journalistic point of even putting this claim to the home office.
The 'insisting' is a perfect touch – and yes, one should insist that the home office should publicly state its position on restoring capital punishment when there is widely circulated claim that such restoration is being considered.
The home office wanted the statement to either be unusable or, if published, to discredit the news title publishing the story.
(I am happy to publish the public statement here, with the appropriate context set out.)
All this, instead of a simple statement that the claim was untrue and a statement that the home office is not seeking to reintroduce capital punishment and the United kingdom will comply with its international obligations.
There is nothing special about what happened here – this is what happens every day between government press offices and anyone in the media seeking to obtain information which the government does not want to publish.
The only difference is that I am in a position to set out the exchange on this blog.
It is a good thing that, despite their initial reluctance, the home office was able to publicly confirm that a widely circulated claim that restoration of the death penalty was "completely untrue and unsubstantiated".
It is disappointing that the home office sought to do this with a quote intended to deter the use of the quote and thereby prevent any coverage of that denial.
And it is disappointing, but not surprising, that despite the public interest in such a widely circulated claim being openly denied, the home office insisted on going about it in this way instead.
If you value this daily free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary please do support through the Paypal box above or at Patreon.
Suggested donations are of any amount as a one-off, or of £4.50 upwards a month on a monthly profile.
A donation will enable this daily to carry on for you and for others to read and share.
Posted on 15th January 2021 15th January 2021 Categories Communications and Media & Law and Policy, Criminal Law, Legal Words and Phrases, Legislation and Law-Making, Policy and Policy-Making, Punishments and Prisons, United Kingdom Law and Policy18 Comments on The reluctance of the Home Office to deny publicly that it is reconsidering the restoration of the death penalty – an example of government-media relations
Posted on 10th January 2021 10th January 2021 Categories Brexit, Communications and Media & Law and Policy, Policy and Policy-Making, The Union, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, United Kingdom Law and Policy46 Comments on Why the campaign to 'rejoin' the European Union is misconceived – the campaign must make a positive and sustainable case for membership, regardless of Brexit and the past
Trump's social media ban in perspective – the unpalatable difficulties of regulating political and media activity in the internet age
Once upon a time, and not so long ago, mass political parties and national media organisations were themselves novelties.
Both were responses to the emergence of popular democracy and widespread literacy in the late 1800s.
Political parties and media organisations (for example, 'Fleet Street') were ways by which the relationships were mediated between the elite and the governed.
The means of political organisation and of publication – and, later, of broadcasting – were in the hands of the few.
Indeed, until the 1990s, it was difficult (if not impossible) for any person to publish or broadcast to the world, without going through the 'gatekeepers' of a national newspaper, or a publishing house, or a national broadcaster.
Similarly, it would be difficult (if not impossible) for any person or group of people to obtain significant political influence – at least in the United Kingdom as a whole – without going through a national political party.
So – although both politics and the media on a national level had opened up to the population as whole – the ultimate means of political and media control were still quite centralised.
Top-bottom, command-and-control.
And when power is concentrated it is easier to regulate.
So, just as modern political parties and media organisations emerged at the end of the 1800s, so did the regulation both of political parties and of the media.
Back in October 2019 I set out at Prospect why the electoral law of the United Kingdom that was developed in different circumstances was no longer fit for purpose.
Similar points can be made about media law: for example, there is no real point tightly regulating certain news titles or national broadcasters when the same content can be circulated – often even more widely – on social media platforms by those outside such creaking regulatory regimes.
If traditional political parties and media organisations did not already exist as hangovers from the time before modern technology and communications, they probably would not now be invented, at least in a recognisable form.
And that therefore must follow for how political and media activities are regulated.
Just as traditional political parties and media organisations were once novel responses to new social and economic conditions, we need to think afresh about the nature of political and media power and about the extent, if at all, it can be regulated.
For now anyone with an internet connection and access to certain platforms can publish and broadcast to the world, or can seek and obtain significant political influence or power.
To 'regulate' a thing is to make it possible that the thing would have a different outcome, but for the regulation.
If a regulation can have no effect, then the thing supposedly being regulated carries on regardless, and the regulation is a polite fiction.
Futility is the enemy of sound regulation.
And now we come to President Donald Trump and his recent temporary ban from Twitter and his indefinite ban from Facebook.
Neither Twitter nor Facebook are traditional media organisations – indeed both were formed within the lifetime of anyone reading this post.
But they are not only media organisations – they have also taken on some of the functions of traditional political parties – as the practical means of political organisation, mobilisation and sharing of information.
This is not to say that the social media platforms are beyond the law – they are (in theory) subject to terms and conditions, laws on equality and non-discrimination, laws on data protection and intellectual property, and so on.
It may be that these general laws are not enforced, or perhaps not enforceable – but there are laws which apply.
The issue is that those laws are general laws and not specific legal regimes covering media and political activity.
And so what we have are platforms of immense media and political power – and without any specific media and political regulation.
They are, in effect, private organisations – and (subject to general laws) are entitled to suspend and terminate, or to enable, the accounts of any politician.
They can even suspend the social media account of (arguably) the most powerful politician in the world.
And they have done so.
For many, the way to deal with the political and media power of social media platforms is easy.
Regulate!
Something must be done, and so something will be done, and that something that will be done will be to 'Regulate!'
But asserting that a thing should be regulated is not the same as it being capable of regulation.
One may want the tides of the sea or the weather to be different, but it does not follow that they can be made any different.
So it may be that although social media platforms – huge private corporations – have immense political and media power, it does not follow that they can be easily regulated, or regulated in any meaningful way at all.
And even if regulation was possible, it is almost certain that it cannot be on the same basis of the top-down, command-and-control regulation of political and media activity that we have inherited from previous times.
For example, social media platforms have millions of publishers and broadcasters, not just a handful.
There are no elaborate steps before publication and broadcast as with a Fleet Street title or established book publisher.
They are no limits on how much political propaganda can be published and to whom it can be circulated.
If any of this can be 'regulated' then it almost certainty will not be by tweaking old pre-internet regulatory models – and this is because the things being regulated are of a fundamentally different nature.
And – and this will be very hard to accept for those who believe every real-world problem has a neat legal solution – it may be that social media activity can no more be regulated meaningfully than conversations in the street or in the town square.
That the age of specific regulations for media and political activity are over, and all we are now left with are general laws.
Many will not be comfortable with this – and will insist that 'something must be done'.
Yet futility is the enemy of sound regulation.
Perhaps something should have been done in respect of President Donald Trump's unpleasant, dishonest, reckless and dangerous use of his social media account before this week.
And what has now been done is too little, too late.
Others would say that silencing an elected politician's means of communication should not be at the fiat of a private social media platform.
Views will differ.
But the wider questions are:
If a thing is to be done about the use and abuse of a social media platform by those with political and media power, who should have the power to do this?
And on what basis should they make that decision?
And to whom (if anyone) should that decision-maker be accountable?
And if the social media platforms themselves are left to regulate what political and media activity can take place and what content we can read and watch, who (if anyone) can regulate them?
'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?' – who watches the watchmen? – is one of the oldest and most difficult questions in the history of organised societies, and it is a question that sometimes has no answer.
And now our generation gets to ask and to try and answer this question.
Later on the day of this post, Trump's Twitter account was permanently suspended.
After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence.https://t.co/CBpE1I6j8Y
— Twitter Safety (@TwitterSafety) January 8, 2021
Posted on 8th January 2021 9th January 2021 Categories Communications and Media & Law and Policy, Criminal Law, Legislation and Law-Making, Policy and Policy-Making, United Kingdom Law and Policy, United States Law and Policy38 Comments on Trump's social media ban in perspective – the unpalatable difficulties of regulating political and media activity in the internet age
Another national lockdown – but what is needed more than laws and their enforcement is credibility, sound policy, and for voters to care that ministers now get it right
Another lockdown in England and the other constituent nations of the United Kingdom.
Another dollop of regulations containing restrictions backed by criminal sanctions, and another dollop of governmental guidance and ministerial exhortations.
This is the third national lockdown in England, and the sound of the official starting whistle is now familiar.
And if not, why not?
If the lockdown is to work, it will not be by law alone.
As this blog has previously averred, law is not magic, and regulations are not spells.
It does not matter how solemn the law-making ceremony is, and how solemnly the laws are then pronounced.
To have effect any laws need to be clear, comprehensible, and accessible.
And this has been the fault now, for over a year, with the coronavirus regulations – they are difficult to find, at least in their up-to-date and consolidated form, and impossible for a non-lawyer to follow.
Indeed, it is rumoured that there is only one person – Adam Wagner, a barrister in London – who has read and understood all the legal instruments enacted over the last year in England.
(I happen to be an experienced former government lawyer, trained in drafting statutory instruments, and with a speciality in public law and an understanding of emergency legislation – and I gave up trying to keep on top of the ever-changing increasingly complicated lump of coronavirus legislation last Autumn.)
And if the laws are not clear, comprehensible, and accessible, then – regardless of any other factor – law-making is a futile exercise.
More than mere law is needed.
The second thing that is needed is enforcement.
Criminal laws that are not enforced are official fictions.
They are nothing more than the sort of item you get on those lists you see from time to time, of ridiculous laws from yesteryear that are still nominally in force but ignored.
And for criminal laws to be enforced, there needs to be be resources and an understanding of the law by those entrusted to enforce the law.
There also needs to be a working criminal justice system.
And there is little evidence of there being resources in place for laws to be enforced either by by police or by the courts.
Without credible enforcement, it does not matter if you keep increasing the supposed penalties to incredible amounts – like some Dr Evil boasting of a ransom of one million dollars.
But more than enforcement is needed.
With a challenge of the sheer scale of a pandemic, only a totalitarian state could perhaps rely on laws and enforcement alone
For the lockdown to work in a modern non-totalitarian society, there needs to be consent.
In essence: laws and sanctions should only have any effect at the margins, because the mass of the people will do the 'right thing' anyway.
And this engages the normative issues of legitimacy, accountability, fairness, and credibility.
There cannot be one law for the many, and another for those who go on day trips to Barnard Castle.
There cannot be one law on a Monday, allowing children to go back to school after the Christmas vacation, and then suddenly another law on the Tuesday.
There cannot be a demand for schools to be closed, just days after the government was – literally – threatening a council with a High Court mandatory injunction so as to keep schools open.
There cannot be many things – that is if a government genuinely wants to be taken seriously in imposing a lockdown.
But even laws and sanctions, resources and enforcement, and consent and credibility, are not enough if the underlying policy is not sound – or seen to be sound.
And this is also a challenge for this government.
The fundamental mistake with government policy on coronavirus, as with Brexit, is that it has approached something complex as if it were quick and easy, and ministers have kept preferring crowd-pleasing gestures to dealing with the problems that they put-off.
Most of the problems of Brexit policy, and many of the problems in coronavirus policy, were foreseeable and foreseen.
Ministers were told at the time.
But ministers shrugged, and made the mistakes anyway.
Unless there is sound policy in place, blowing the official whistle for another lockdown – with all the paraphernalia of laws and guidance, and ministerial broadcasts – will not work, and cannot work.
Ministers need to get policy right – and then other benefits will follow.
This is the rub – ministers keep shrugging and crowd-pleasing and getting policy wrong, because they know they can get away with it.
In other words: ministers know that a sufficient number of voters do not care enough whether politicians are candid and competent on coronavirus, as with other things.
And so until a sufficient number of voters do care that politicians are candid and competent, we are likely to keep on hearing the whistle sound of bad policy-making and implementation, and for as long as the pandemic persists.
Posted on 5th January 2021 5th January 2021 Categories Brexit, Courts and Politics, Criminal Law, Legislation and Law-Making, Police and Policing, Policy and Policy-Making, Punishments and Prisons, United Kingdom Law and Policy25 Comments on Another national lockdown – but what is needed more than laws and their enforcement is credibility, sound policy, and for voters to care that ministers now get it right
The real origin of the European Union 'supranationalist' state – and why it still matters
There is a view held by many in the United Kingdom that the European Union – and its predecessors – was not always a 'supranational' organisation.
That it was not always an entity which routinely transcended national boundaries.
The view is that it was once a mere innocent trading association and an international organisation – and that it was only after the United Kingdom joined in 1973 that it corrupted into a supranational organisation, which took rule-making and decision-making out of the hands of member states.
Some will know this is not true and will point, say, to the Treaty of Rome of 1957, which established the European Economic Community, with its express determination that the treaty would lay the "foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe".
Others will point to the 1960s caselaw of the European Court of Justice, such as the Costa v ENEL judgment of 1964 that made it as plain as a pikestaff (the lawyers' equivalent of 'absolutely clear') that the domestic law of a member state was subordinate to the provisions of both the Treaty of Rome and the legal instruments made thereunder.
The United Kingdom thereby knew exactly what it was joining in 1973, and only a fool or knave could (and did) pretend otherwise.
Yet the supranational essence of what the United Kingdom joined in 1973 was older than the Costa case of 1964, and was even older than the Treaty of Rome of 1957.
Here it is important that the United Kingdom did not just join the European Economic Community in 1973 but also another community, the deceptively unglamorous-sounding, and older, European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) of 1952.
For some, the historical fact that the United Kingdom joined more than one community in 1973 is nothing more than an answer to a quiz question, or the reason why the European Communities Act 1973 employs the plural form of community.
But it was a lot more significant than that.
To understand why, we have to go back to the years after the second world war and the problem of what should be done about Germany – in particular, the industrial areas of Rhineland and Saarland.
In 1944 the plan was to eliminate much of this industrial capacity; and in 1946 another plan was to give France control.
But by the late 1940s neither of these strident approaches seemed sustainable, especially in view of the need to not de-stabilise (what was then) West Germany, and so another approach was needed.
In 1950, a suggestion was made that there be a 'high authority' be put in place, overseeing French and German coal and steel production.
And by 1951 – with the Treaty of Paris – this idea had developed into an array of supervisory institutions – not only a high authority, but also an assembly, a council of ministers and – significantly – a dedicated court, with these further institutions balancing the executive power of the high authority.
The high authority furthermore had the power to issue decisions and recommendations binding the signatories – France, West Germany, Italy and the three Benelux countries (who were already heading towards economic unity).
So we have in 1952 the establishment of the ECSC – with a supranational group of institutions in place and with the power to make law and adjudicate disputes, ensuring adherence to shared treaty obligations.
And the key element of this arrangement was not that it was aspirational – notwithstanding the heady language of integration that accompanied it – but that it was a solidly, deeply practical solution to a problem – of what should be done in respect of the post-war industrial relationship of France and Germany.
Just as, say the Good Friday Agreement used an imaginative cross-border approach to a thorny cross-border problem, so did the Treaty of Paris.
What the Spaak Report of 1956 and the Treaty of Rome of 1957 then did was to employ this supranational approach (with shared institutions and shared law-making) on wider economic questions, as it was seen as an approach that would work.
So when the United Kingdom joined the communities in 1973, the fact that it was joining a practical supranational enterprise had been – well – as plain as a pikestaff for over twenty years.
What makes this 'pre-history' significant is that it is often the view of critics of the European Union that its supranational nature is somehow airy-fairy – that it is impractical and unrealistic.
And this is seen as a contrast to rugged Anglo-Saxon empiricism and practical common sense.
The reality is that the European Union, as with its predecessor organisations the European Economic Community and ECSC, regards its supranational nature as eminently practical, as was as embodying certain ideals of European unity.
That it works.
Supranationalism is thereby an approach which has worked since 1952 – and not just somehow inflicted by surprise on the united Kingdom after 1973.
It is not as if the debate is between an unrealistic pro-European Union camp and a realistic band of critics.
The problem that the United Kingdom had for a long time when a member of the European Union is that it rarely wanted to work within a supranational organisation.
Supranationalism was, it seemed, for other people.
The United Kingdom regarded supranationalism as a bug of the European Union, and not as a feature.
So the United Kingdom sought – and obtained – opt-out after opt-out, until 2015-16 when it sought a 're-negotiation' only to find the European Union could and would shift no further.
The supranationalism of the European Union is seventy years old.
The United Kingdom in its modern form as a collection of four nation states has only existed since 1922 – and so is a mere thirty years older than the first of the European communities.
As this blog has previously averred, political unions come and go – and no political union can be seen as eternal.
And given that the supranationalism of the European Union is regarded as practical as well as an ideal, there is no inherent reason why the European Union will not last longer than the United Kingdom as a union of nation states.
Posted on 4th January 2021 4th January 2021 Categories Brexit, Constitutional and Legal History, Constitutional Law, The Union, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, United Kingdom Law and Policy80 Comments on The real origin of the European Union 'supranationalist' state – and why it still matters
Posted on 3rd January 2021 3rd January 2021 Categories Communications and Media & Law and Policy, Courts and Politics, United Kingdom Law and Policy, United States Law and Policy16 Comments on The last of the legal correspondents, and the true crisis in the public understanding of law
The four ways the government of the United Kingdom is abusing and misusing the law – and the reason the government is getting away with it
Those with political power tend to want more power, and those who want more power will tend to then abuse it.
This is not a new observation, and it is perhaps one which can be made of most if not all human societies.
The role of law and government is thereby not so often to enable such abuse of power, but to acknowledge the likelihood of abuse and to seek to limit or prevent it.
That is why those with power are often subject to conventions and rules, why there can be checks and balances, and why many political systems avoid giving absolute power to any one person.
That those with power want to use, misuse and abuse that power is not thereby a feature of the current government of the United Kingdom, but a universal (or near-universal) truth of all those who seek and have political power everywhere.
Those with political power will tend to try and get away with misusing or abusing it.
The current government of the United Kingdom, however, is remarkable in just how open it is in its abuse and intended abuse of law, and in at least four ways.
And what is also striking is what has changed politically so as to enable them to be so open.
First, the current government sought to give itself the power to break the law.
This was in respect of the Internal Markets bill, and the ability to break the law was stated as the intention by a cabinet minister in the house of commons.
This proposal led, in turn, to the resignations of the government's most senior legal official and a law officer in the house of lords.
And then it was even supported by a majority of the house of commons.
The proposal has now been dropped – and some would say that it was only ever a negotiating tactic.
But even with this excuse, it was an abuse of legislation and legislation-making, requiring law-makers to become law-breakers, and signalling to the world that the government of the United Kingdom does not take its legal obligations seriously.
There was no good excuse for this exercise.
Yet the government sought to do it anyway.
Second, the government of the United Kingdom is seeking to place itself, and its agents, beyond the reach of the law.
This can be seen in two bills before parliament: one effectively limiting the liability of service personnel for various criminal offences, including for torture and other war crimes, and the other expressly permitting secret service agents to break the law.
From one perspective, these two proposals simply give formal effect to the practical position.
It has always been difficult to prosecute members of the armed services for war crimes.
And domestic secret service agents have long relied on the 'public interest' test for criminal activity (for any criminal prosecution to take place there are two tests: whether there is sufficient evidence, and whether the prosecution is in the public interest, and guess who routinely gets the benefit of the latter).
And secret service agents abroad have long had legal immunity back in the United Kingdom, under the wonderfully numbered section 007 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994.
The primary significance of these two current proposals is that the de facto positions are being made de jure.
The government believes (rightly) that it can legislate to this effect and get away with it.
The third way – when the government cannot legislate to break the law or to make it and its agents beyond the law – is for the government to legislate so as to give itself the widest possible legal powers.
Again, this is not new: governments of all parties have sought wide 'Henry VIII clauses' that enable them to bypass parliament – legislating, and amending and even repealing primary legislation by ministerial decree.
But what is new here is the scale of the use of such legislation – both the pandemic and Brexit have been used as pretexts of the government to use secondary legislation for wide ranging purposes – even to limit fundamental rights without any parliamentary sanction.
And as I have argued elsewhere, there is no absolute barrier under the constitution of the United Kingdom to an 'enabling act' allowing ministers to have complete freedom to legislate by decree.
The fourth way is the flip-side of the government seeking more legal power.
The government is seeking ways to make it more difficult, if not impossible, for it to be challenged in the courts.
This can be done formally: by reducing the scope of judicial review or the reach of the laws of human rights and civil liberties, or by 'ouster' clauses, limiting the jurisdiction of the courts.
It can be done practically (and insidiously): by creating procedural impediments and by cutting or eliminating legal aid for such challenges.
It also can be achieved by the government either promoting or not challenging attacks on the judiciary and the role of courts in holding executive power to account.
If the government cannot break the law, or make itself immune to the law, or give itself wide legal powers – it certainly does not want citizens to be able to challenge it.
Of course, this impulse is also not new – and examples can be given of governments of all parties seeking to make it more difficult for legal challenges to be brought.
But again, what is different from before is the openness of these attempts.
There is no self-restraint.
The government is going to get away with as many of these barriers as it can.
The big change is not that those with political power want to abuse it – and to stop those who can check and balance that abuse.
That is a problem no doubt as old as law and government itself.
What is remarkable is how the United Kingdom government is now so brazen about it.
The government just does not care about being seen doing this – and if there is any concern or even outcry – that is regarded as a political advantage.
The 'libs' are 'owned' and those with grins will clap and cheer.
In this current period of hyper-partisanship there is no legal or constitutional principle that is beyond being weaponised.
What perhaps restrained the United Kingdom government – and other governments – from being so candid in their abuses and misuses of power was once called 'public opinion'.
People cared about such things – or at least those in government believed people cared.
But, as this blog averred on New Year's Eve, what happens if a public-spirited donkey does tell the animals on the farm that power is being misused or abused – and the animals still do not care.
'The animals crowded round the van. "Good-bye, Boxer!" they chorused, "good-bye!"'
And this brings us back to the key problem for liberalism – and for the principles of transparency and accountability – in this age of Brexit and Trump.
It is not enough to point out the lies and misinformation – or to show the misuses and abuses of law – if a sufficient number of people do not care that they are being lied to or misinformed and that the law is being misused or abused.
And there is nothing the media or commentators can do about this (though we should still be public-spirited donkeys anyway).
This requires a shift – not in media and communications – but of politics and of political leadership.
Only if enough citizens care about the government abusing or misusing the law will the government stop doing it, at least so openly.
And until then the United Kingdom's indifference towards the rule of law and other constitutional norms will just be a register of the public's general indifference about the government getting away with it.
If you value the free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary both at this blog and at my Twitter account please do support through the Paypal box above.
Posted on 2nd January 2021 2nd January 2021 Categories Brexit, Communications and Media & Law and Policy, Constitutional and Legal History, Constitutional Law, Coronavirus - COVID-19, Courts and Politics, Criminal Law, Legal Words and Phrases, Legislation and Law-Making, Police and Policing, Policy and Policy-Making, Punishments and Prisons, United Kingdom Law and PolicyTags Intelligence Services Act 199436 Comments on The four ways the government of the United Kingdom is abusing and misusing the law – and the reason the government is getting away with it
The Koch Snowflake of Brexit
New Year's Day, 2021
Alan Moore, in the appendices to his graphic novel From Hell, uses Koch's Snowflake to illustrate the historiography of his subject.
Moore's point is that every book on his subject – either with new minor details or imaginative theories – cannot go beyond certain central facts.
New details and new interpretations can be added infinitely – but the significant events were finite.
(On the Whitechapel murders, do click and buy here for Hallie Rubenhold's outstanding book.)
What Moore says can, of course, be said also of any group of connected historical events.
Take, for example, Brexit.
The central events of Brexit are: (1) the decision to hold a referendum on 23 June 2016; (2) the referendum result; (3) the Article 50 notification on 29 March 2017; (4) the extensions of the Article 50 period; (5) the United Kingdom departing the European Union on 31st January 2020; and (6) the end of the transition period yesterday, 31st December 2020.
These are the six tips of the Koch's Snowflake of Brexit.
Now and in the future there will be far more detail: about the politics and the negotiations, about the content and effects of legal instruments; and about the impact of decisions made.
And there will be endless interpretations of what actually happened in these five or so eventful and exhausting years, and endless explanations of why it happened.
The amount of new detail on Brexit, and of new 'takes' about Brexit, is no doubt infinite.
But all the new details and all the new interpretations will not change the six central (procedural) facts of Brexit.
None of those six events were inevitable, of course.
Each event could have happened differently, or even not happened at all.
But those were the events that did happen, and so they are the things which ultimately do need to be explained.
And, as this blog has previously averred, even if certain crucial events of Brexit had turned out differently, we could have ended up with just a different form and manner of Brexit.
Now that this stage of Brexit is over – though the overall story of Brexit is far from being at an end, and may never end – it is time for me to finally complete the book I was asked to write on Brexit.
You can pre-order the book here – though the actual publication date will be later than April.
I had been waiting for the outcome of the transition period, and to discover whether there would be a relationship agreement, or not
I needed to know what would be the sixth tip of the Koch's snowflake of Brexit.
The circumstances of the departure from the transition arrangements may explain more about else has happened since the 2016 referendum.
Of course, I could have told the story of Brexit with indifference to what happened at the end of the transition period – and there are many excellent books on Brexit already published.
But that was not the story I wanted to tell – or was able to tell in book form.
The story I want to tell as a book is how the United Kingdom went from a general election in 2015, where each major party was in support of European Union membership, to the United Kingdom leaving not only the European Union, but also (with the end of the transition period, and with special arrangements for Northern Ireland) the Single Market and Customs Union, in just five years.
People in the future will be struck by how much happened, so quickly.
(As some people are already.)
Brexit is the most extraordinary political-policy-legal-constitutional-economic group of connected events in the modern history of the United Kingdom.
It should be an interesting story to try to tell, and I hope for you to read.
A Happy New Year to all my readers and followers.
Posted on 1st January 2021 1st January 2021 Categories Brexit, Constitutional and Legal History, United Kingdom Law and Policy31 Comments on The Koch Snowflake of Brexit
The Bill implementing the Trade and Cooperation Agreement is an exercise in the Government taking power from Parliament
Today Parliament will be expected to pass, in one single day, the legislation implementing the Trade and Cooperation Agreement into domestic law.
This situation is exceptional and unsatisfactory.
The bill is currently only available in draft form, on the government's own website.
As you can see, this means that 'DRAFT' is inscribed on each page with large unfriendly letters.
And we are having to use this version, as (at the time of writing) the European Union (Future Relationship) Bill is not even available parliament's 'Bills before Parliament' site.
The draft bill is complex and deals with several specific technical issues, such as criminal records, security, non-food product safety, tax and haulage, as well as general implementation provisions.
Each of these specific technical issues would warrant a bill, taking months to go through the normal parliamentary process.
But instead they will be whizzed and banged through in a single day, with no real scrutiny, as the attention of parliamentarians will (understandably) be focused on the general implementation provisions, which are in Part 3 of the draft bill.
And part 3 needs this attention, as it contains some remarkable provisions.
Clause 29 of the draft bill provides for a broad deeming provision.
(Note a 'clause' becomes a 'section' when a 'Bill' becomes enacted as an 'Act'.)
The intended effect of this clause is that all the laws of the United Kingdom are to be read in accordance with, or modified to give effect to, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement.
And not just statutes – the definition of 'domestic law' covers all law – private law (for example, contracts and torts) as well as public law (for example, legislation on tax or criminal offences).
It is an ingenious provision – a wave of a legal wand to recast all domestic law in whatever form in accordance with the agreement.
But it also an extremely uncertain provision: its consequences on each and every provision of the laws of England and Wales, of Northern Ireland, of Scotland, and on those provisions that cover the whole of the United Kingdom, cannot be known.
And it takes all those legal consequences out of the hands of parliament.
This clause means that whatever is agreed directly between government ministers and Brussels modifies all domestic law automatically, without any parliamentary involvement.
And then we come to clause 31.
This provision will empower ministers (or the devolved authorities, where applicable) to make regulations with the same effect as if those regulations were themselves acts of parliament.
In other words: they can amend laws and repeal (or abolish) laws, with only nominal parliamentary involvement.
There are some exceptions (under clause 31(4)), but even with those exceptions, this is an extraordinarily wide power for the executive to legislate at will.
These clauses are called 'Henry VIII' clauses and they are as notorious among lawyers as that king is notorious in history.
Again, this means that parliament (and presumably the devolved assemblies, where applicable) will be bypassed, and what is agreed between Whitehall and Brussels will be imposed without any further parliamentary scrutiny.
There is more.
Buried in paragraph 14(2) of schedule 5 of the draft bill (the legislative equivalent of being positioned in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard') is a provision that means that ministers do not even have to go through the motions of putting regulations through parliament first.
Parliament would then get to vote on the provisions afterwards.
This is similar to the regulations which the government has been routinely using during the pandemic where often there has actually been no genuine urgency, but the government has found it convenient to legislate by decree anyway.
Perhaps there is a case that with the 1st January 2021 deadline approaching for the end of the Brexit transition period, this urgent power to legislate by decree is necessary.
But before such a broad statutory power is granted to the government there should be anxious scrutiny of the legislature.
Not rushed through in a single parliamentary day.
There are many more aspects of this draft bill which need careful examination before passing into law.
And, of course, this draft bill in turn implements a 1400-page agreement – and this is the only real chance that parliament will get to scrutinise that agreement before it takes effect.
You would not know from this draft bill that the supporters of Brexit campaigned on the basis of the United Kingdom parliament 'taking back control'.
Nothing in this bill shows that the Westminster parliament has 'taken back control' from Brussels.
This draft bill instead shows that Whitehall – that is, ministers and their departments – has taken control of imposing on the United Kingdom what it agrees with Brussels.
And presumably that was not what Brexit was supposed to be about.
Posted on 30th December 2020 30th December 2020 Categories Brexit, Communications and Media & Law and Policy, Constitutional and Legal History, Constitutional Law, Coronavirus - COVID-19, Courts and Politics, Criminal Law, Legal Words and Phrases, Legislation and Law-Making, Policy and Policy-Making, Texts and Textual Analyses, The Union, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, United Kingdom Law and Policy21 Comments on The Bill implementing the Trade and Cooperation Agreement is an exercise in the Government taking power from Parliament
Six reasons why those who want to shift the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union need to now think in five-year cycles
Imagine you are in some remote rural area where the bus or train only comes on a given day at a given time.
This is what it will be like for those who want to substantially change the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union once the trade and cooperation agreement is in place.
But instead of the the weekly or monthly bus or train, this cycle will be every five years.
And if that opportunity is missed, then it will be another five years before the opportunity comes around again.
This is because of one major reason – and also (perhaps) because of five other reasons.
The first reason, as this blog set out yesterday, is that the European Union itself works in five-year cycles.
Each European Commission is appointed for five years and each European Parliament is elected for five years.
The Presidents of the European Council tend to also have five-year terms.
And after each five-year cycle, the European Union project is then (in effect) handed over to a new European Commission and President of the European Council.
It would thereby appear to be no accident that the review cycle for the trade and cooperation agreement is five years.
This means the European Union's relationship with the United Kingdom will be dealt with in a manner that is convenient to Brussels and not London.
This leads to the second reason.
The United Kingdom is no longer sufficiently important to disrupt the normal European Union political and policy life-cycle.
This will come as a shock to many in the United Kingdom who are used to demanding time and immediate attention from the European Union.
From the supposed re-negotiation of 2016, through the withdrawal negotiations, to the relationship negotiations, the European Union kept responding to the sound of the clicking fingers of the United Kingdom.
And the European Union had to do this, as the departure of a Member State could not be taken lightly.
But this effortless priority is now over.
Any substantial changes to the new relationship will have to fit in with other matters and be dealt with at what is the natural pace of Brussels.
And, in any case, many in the European Union are bored and tired of Brexit.
The third reason is that it is only with five-year cycles that the European Union will be able to assess the stability and sustainability of any United Kingdom political and policy position on the European Union.
Even if there were some sudden political shift in favour of the United Kingdom joining, say, a customs union or becoming part of the single market, the European Union would want to see if that was a settled and consensual position.
The European Union is all too aware of the rapid convulsions that the European Union issue can cause to the politics of the United Kingdom.
Remember that in 2015 there was a general election in the United Kingdom where every major party was in favour of membership of the European Union – and three prime ministers and two general elections later, the United Kingdom is no longer a member state.
And 2015 was, well, five years ago.
The European Union has no interest in a substantial shift in its relationship with the United Kingdom which could quickly become undone.
The fourth reason is also to do with the United Kingdom.
Will there even be a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in five or ten years' time?
As this blog has previously averred, two natural consequences of Brexit are a united Ireland and an independent Scotland.
These are not things which will necessarily, still less automatically, happen.
But they are foreseeable.
And so five-year cycles will allow the European Union to see not only how the politics and policies of the United Kingdom settle down, but also how the United Kingdom itself and its constituent parts settle down.
And this structural point goes both ways – for the fifth reason is that the European Union itself in five and ten years' time may itself be a different creature to what it currently is.
Freed from the reluctance and relentless scepticism of the United Kingdom, the European Union can now go in a different direction.
And so not only will the European Union want to see what the United Kingdom is like in five and ten years' time, it will want to see what its own position will be like.
It will not be re-fighting the issues of 2016 or 2020 in its engagement with the United Kingdom, like some geo-political historical re-enactment society.
Regardless of what changes (if any) happen within and to the United Kingdom, the European Union will be thinking in terms of what suits it in 2026, or 2031, or whenever.
The final reason is beyond the power of both the United Kingdom and the European Union.
In 2026, and in 2031, and so on, the world itself may be very different from now.
Many things may be different: a post-Trump (or revived Trump) United States, a post-Putin (or retained Putin) Russia, China becoming (or not becoming) the world's largest economy, ongoing pandemics and climate change, and so on.
It may then suit the European Union and the United Kingdom to huddle together – or to huddle apart.
In setting all this out, I do not wish to give false hope to Remainers/Rejoiners that if with sufficient focus and energy, they could shove the United Kingdom back towards the European Union in 2026 or 2031 or so on.
Indeed, the five-year cycle could even lead to greater divergence.
(And there is a non-trivial chance the United Kingdom may terminate the relationship agreement with one year's notice.)
But if there is to be a closer relationship – or even an eventual application to rejoin – the United Kingdom will have to have regard to the five-year cycles of the European Union.
As I mentioned above, the days of snapping fingers for attention are over.
My own view, for what it is worth, is that I hope the five-year cycle leads to an increasingly solid and sustainable association arrangement between the United Kingdom and the European Union – and that it becomes something that endures perhaps longer than the actual membership.
And I hope that the five-year cycles are used to adjust the relationship appropriately.
(I also support an Ireland united by consent and an independent Scotland and Wales, and these developments will also, in my opinion, be easier with an association agreement between United Kingdom (or just England) and the European Union.)
But these are mere hopes, and they can be dashed or discarded.
What is and will be in place, regardless of hopes (or fears), is that it will not be quick and easy for the United Kingdom – or England – to move substantially towards the European Union, let alone rejoin.
The eventful, exhausting 2016-2021 Brexit five-year cycle is over.
Let us see what future five-year cycles bring.
Posted on 29th December 2020 Categories Brexit, Constitutional Law, Legislation and Law-Making, Policy and Policy-Making, The Union, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, United Kingdom Law and Policy27 Comments on Six reasons why those who want to shift the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union need to now think in five-year cycles


Do you (or someone you know) have difficulty seeing to read and write? Perhaps you experience problems using technology such as computers due to sight loss? Or maybe struggle to use the latest electronic devices (such as a tablet computer) because of their size?
Assistive Technology is an enabling tool that might be able to help.
The technology might be adaptive hardware or software which can make mainstream equipment accessible to someone with a sight problem. For example, this can mean adding speech or magnification or both to a computer or mobile phone.
Or specialist equipment that has been designed for use by individuals who have a visual impairment such as video magnifiers, talking reading machines, which provide support with reading.
If you would like information about what equipment or software is available, or advice to establish whether you could benefit from using these aids, why not make an appointment to speak to our Assistive Technology Officer Rod Keat.
You could even arrange an appointment for a demonstration or one-to-one assessment.
This will offer the opportunity to discuss your visual impairment in detail and gain hands-on experience of a range of unique equipment to help address your specific needs, whether those requirements arise at home, out and about, in education or employment.
Whatever your age, background or experience, our aim is to suggest ways in which this specialist equipment can help meet your needs.
We are approachable, honest and experienced in assisting people with variable requirements, so why not get in touch for a consultation today.
You can make an appointment (service runs on a Monday, Wednesday and Friday) by contacting the Sight Centre on 01872 261110, and asking to speak to Tara our Low Vision Administrator. Alternatively you can email info@isightcornwall.org.uk or if you have a general enquiry about how assistive technology might be able to support you then ask for Rod.
The SmartReader – A Full Page OCR Solution for Easy Text Reading!


text:
Voices on Poverty
Reimagining Community/Webinars
Multi-Faith ACTION Coalition > About Us
Taking the issue of Hunger to the Capitol, Sacramento, CA
We are a coalition of Contra Costa County residents representing some 50 faith communities across the county. Members work together to address the root causes of poverty through advocacy and public policy change. The values we hold in common and the experiences of people in our congregations providing food, shelter and other services make us strong voices for those in need.
Raising awareness around issues of poverty in Contra Costa is central to the work of the Multi-faith ACTION Coalition. On its own, and in conjunction with other groups, the Multi-faith ACTION Coalition sponsors opportunities for faith communities and the larger community to learn about specific issues. Through such events 500 advocates have been added to the ACTION email list.
Six task forces: Racial Justice, Housing and Shelter, Food Security, Jobs, Education, and Health Care study and discuss issues as they impact individuals and families in poverty. There is also a Racial Justice working group that involves all task forces. The chairs of these groups, along with faith leaders and other key individuals, make up the Steering Committee. Task Forces bring information and recommendations for action to the Steering Committee.
CONTACT US AT contactmfac@gmail.com
Steering Committee Meeting
Racial Justice Task Force Mtg
February 2, 2022 3:30 pm - 5:00 pm
Via Zoom - email contactmfac@gmail.com for link to join
Health Care Task Force Mtg
Housing and Shelter Task Force Mtg
February 14, 2022 12:00 pm - 1:30 pm
Economic Justice Task Force Mtg
February 14, 2022 7:00 pm - 8:30 pm
© Multi-Faith ACTION Coalition 2018-22	| Site built by Nerd Crossing

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


When its time to file a claim for life insurance in Connecticut, do you know what to do? Its not hard, but a good time to think about it is before you need it. Here is a brief outline of the process.
In Connecticut, you can request a copy of the death certificate from the city of the persons death or through the states Vital Records Office. Your personal insurance agent can help you fill out claim forms and serve as the go-between with you and the insurance company. Work with the deceaseds agent or the company itself.
Lump sum: Get a full payment at one time.
Specific income provision: You are paid principal and interest on a set timeline.
Life income: Regular payment for life based on the benefit, plus your gender and age at the time of death.
Interest income: Receive interest on the amount, which is held by the insurance company and given to a secondary beneficiary when you die.
Making a claim for life insurance in Connecticut is fairly simple. The hard part is having to do it. Consider your choices for payment beforehand, and it will be that much easier when needed.
Marina liability coverage is essential. Insurers sell policies to marine industry segments to help owners avoid paying costly settlements when injuries occur on or around their property. The policy is a form of relief to everyone, from boat dealerships to marine surveyors and yacht clubs. Marinas are exposed to a variety of property and liability risks due to the many commercial activities that take place at their businesses. As an owner, it's your job to focus on mitigating many of the inherent risks associated with your line of work and look for affordable solutions to help keep your business thriving.
Many in the marina industry provide a slew of amenities and services, including fishing expeditions, charters, regattas, watercraft rentals, and boat shows. Many even take part in providing charter and rental services, and by providing these types of services they can run the risk of incurring serious exposures. Any time that you allow contractors and outside vendors access to your premises (or your customers) you open yourself up to the possibility of a lawsuit.
Like most industries, every business has to deal with their own unique set of risks, and each type of risk requires its own special form of protection. Coverage is often specifically designed for a particular exposure associated with marinas. It's important to read the policy in order to properly cover those risks, and this may require an expert in marine coverage, someone that regularly deals with issues unique to the marine industry.
You have many potential legal issues to consider when purchasing a policy, so it's imperative that you ensure that you are properly protected against the types of incidents, such as theft, vandalism, accidents, and injuries, many of which are common exposures.
Have a conversation with an agent about whether you'll need special additional coverage for things like club activities, fundraising, or other special events that you may host at your marina or yacht club. Marina liability coverage is critical for many in the boating industry, and obtaining proper coverage with a reputable and experienced marine insurance agency is always advised.
Few hobbies offer the fun and enjoyment you can experience when you venture out on a yacht. Amateurs and experienced sailors alike can survey the beauty of the water and the relaxation it provokes. With such activities on your mind, you might not consider the liabilities that exist, too. Many of these affect the marinas that yachts and other watercraft dock at, but investing in marine insurance can help you avoid the cost of such risks.
These are all common liabilities for yachters and marina owners, but you don't have to fall prey to their expenses. With a good marina insurance policy, you are effectively protected from the expense of such incidents.
Your marina should be safe for every boat and more importantly, every person that stays there. Even while you do your best to ensure it is safe, there are liabilities you cannot escape. A good insurance policy can fill the gaps and offer the protection you need.
Whether you live in New London or Norwich CT life insurance can be a good foundation for building a financial plan for you and your family. Experts agree it is an important tool with unique financial benefits in some situations.
It can be a crucial source of income for surviving spouses and children. It can help replace lost wages for everyday living expenses and may also help fund college plans for children.
Funeral and burial costs average about $10,000. Benefits can help cover those and probate costs, along with outstanding debts and medical costs not covered by health insurance.
Benefits can pay for state and federal estate taxes, also known as death taxes, that otherwise would have to be paid by your heirs. They may even have to convert some of their inheritance to pay the taxes.
If it is not used as a death benefit, heirs may be able to borrow or withdraw benefits as a cash transaction. This option does not come standard, however. Ask for this type when setting up a new policy.
Whether you live in Windham or New London Counties, CT life insurance is a good start in planning your financial future. Another bonus is the peace of mind it offers you and your family.
When your client is responsible for the safe shipping of cargo belonging to a business or individual, unexpected issues can happen where those goods may be damaged or go unaccounted for. Transit coverage, available through transit insurance programs, will protect shipping companies from claims stating that they are liable for any issues that involve goods belonging to customers.
Transit insurance covers all inland and marine transit of goods. Your client cannot be with items during transit at all times, but having insurance will give some much-needed security that those items will arrive safely at their destination or be duly compensated. If any harm does happen to those goods, it will not result in the business suffering a large loss. Transit insurance is a necessity for any business that depends on shipping products and other merchandise. The kinds of plans available can vary depending on the value of the cargo and the distance the shipment must travel.
You have clients in the transportation industry that are responsible for providing storage services for the property of others. During those times when someone's products are being moved or stored, they'll need to be protected, especially if your client is responsible for moving or storing expensive items, such as computer equipment, electronics, or office furniture, ensuring this cargo is the only way to have protection against possible loss, theft, or damage.
There are a variety of types of property in transit insurance coverage policies, each meant to cover a different type of transportation method or item to be stored or transported. Go over each type of insurance coverage to help your client decide which is best for them.
One type of property in transit insurance coverage is transportation coverage, which will protect that property being transported, either by motor, air or rail. Transit insurance programs offer coverage that typically includes a policy for the property while it is being transported, if it is temporarily in storage before, during, or after the move, and during loading and unloading. You may also find that most transportation coverage includes other risks of transporting belongings or property, such as the removal of pollutants or debris, or moving to a temporary location and the risks involved.
The Internet is perhaps the primary place where people go to learn about and shop for insurance products. Its really no surprise that more insurers are looking to bolster their online presence through company insurance websites. While it can be an easy process getting visitors to your site, the more difficult task is turning those visitors into customers along with generating interest in the services being offered.
The best insurance sites offer good content as a way to captivate audiences and get them interested in learning more about you, your company, and your services. But in order to help raise the visibility of your agency's website you must do your part to improve different aspects of your web pages and increase awareness of the value, as well as the necessity, of the products that you provide.
Fonts can actually make or break a website. Using distinct and unique fonts can be quite beneficial as a way of distinguishing your agency's site from others. Dont go overboard or use fonts that can be jarring. Keep it tasteful and visually pleasing. This is one way in which you can help visitors differentiate between sites that are, and arent, trustworthy.
Adding a newsfeed to your site will impress consumers by giving it more authenticity. Useful information is a vital tool. Both prospects and insured's will appreciate your ability to target market-related news of interest.
Dont underestimate the value of adding a guestbook to your site. This is a really great way to invite feedback from your visitors, including local prospects and clients. Messages left in your guestbook can provide insight into customer needs and concerns and help develop ideas to improve your business. Incorporating polls and surveys into your website are great ways to engage and connect with your visitors.
Adding a virtual tour of your offices will help to familiarize new prospects with your business. Employees, company representatives, and clients will appreciate the use of a virtual store as this gives them the opportunity to buy agency-sponsored goods. Constantly updating insurance sites can help put your agency at the forefront where opportunities abound.
Companies face the ever-increasing threat of a cyber attack and need to start taking the steps necessary to minimize their risks. There are several products on the market that deal with this issue, including Carmel cyber liability insurance designed to help safeguard companies in the aftermath of such an attack. Your servers, computers and other technological equipment are constantly at risk, and you need to be able to respond to a cyber breach quickly and efficiently.
When it comes to eliminating threats you should purchase data breach insurance coverage, but you should also be looking into preventative measures to lessen the threat of an invasion. The company needs to evaluate current strategies and use any available information to establish new policies and procedures to prevent breaches from occurring.
Disseminate a plan to combat cyber breaches through your management team in order to help ensure that everyone knows what to do in the event of a breach or an attack. Your security team should be updating standards for data security as changes occur, ensuring that proper security and authentication software is installed on mobile devices and kept up-to-date. Part of any security plan should include providing adequate training and technical support. You need to ensure that your organization maintains control of data at all times, especially with offshore data storage or services.
Security software must be updated as well, as this can be a useful deterrent to hackers. It's important to define your security requirements with vendors and third-party service providers. They should be required to maintain appropriate security measures in compliance with certain state and federal regulations.
Professional hackers often have the means and the know-how to break encryption codes without very much difficulty. Encrypting data in transit is certainly a good practice to have in place, but this alone can give clients a false sense of security. Experiencing a data breach can have a devastating effect on a business, from the costs of notification, which can run particularly high, to the loss of customer trust. Make the right decision and invest in Carmel cyber liability insurance coverage as your best line of defense.
Having a cabin in eastern Tennessee can be a great investment, but if you're always worried about damage to the property, it can be unsettling. The answer is cabin insurance in TN. This insurance is available for single-home and multi-dwelling landlords, homes or all sizes and styles, condominiums, townhomes and vacation properties.
It's not only damage to your property that is an issue. Guests get injured while on vacation, too. If a guest holds you liable, the legal bills could cripple you financially, even if you're ultimately not found liable.
Pools, stables and other buildings on the property should be covered separately. Ask your insurance agent to assess your earthquake and flood risk, because these events are typically not covered by a general policy. Know the limits of your policy so that you aren't taken by surprise when a claim is made or denied. Being under-insured is just as bad as being uninsured in some cases.
Protect your assets with cabin insurance in TN. If you have guests staying overnight in your property, you can't be caught without the insurance that makes sure your financial future isn't devastated by one accident. Review your insurance policies and have peace of mind that you'll be able to enjoy the income and the location for years to come.


text:
Q: R.array is a class but not an object? This is for Android, but I believe it's a general Java question, so I'm labelling it as such.
I'm trying to use reflection on R.array to get an array from the list. The arrays are named stringArraySubCategoryX where X is replaced with a number from 0 to 20. This is my code, but I ran into a problem:
Field subCatField = R.array.class.getField("stringArraySubCategory" + position);
subCatergorySpinner.setAdapter(ArrayAdapter.createFromResource(InfoActivity.this, subCatField.getInt(R.array), android.R.layout.simple_spinner_item));

The problem part is the subCatField.getInt(R.array) bit, which is supposed to return the resource int value of the selected array. But Field.getInt(arg)'s argument is an Object. I checked R.array, and that says public static final class array, but it seems that it's not accepted.
What am I doing wrong?

A: subCatField.getInt(null)

Is what you're looking for. Provided the stringArraySubCategoryX is static, of course.
However ... you state: "I'm trying to use reflection on R.array to get an array from the list."
How is that an int?
subCatField.get(null)

will return the static Object contained in the Field

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Ceramic Spoon Rests - this oversized Polish Pottery Spoon Rest accommodates the largest ladles and mixing spoons. Use this stoneware spoon rest to keep range top or countertop clean and neat.
Durable Polish pottery ceramic Spoon Rests are made of superb quality stoneware.
Oven, microwave, dishwasher, and freezer safe. 100% Lead and Cadmium free paints and glazes. Resist chips and breakage. Individually handmade and hand painted.


text:
The Colorado River irrigates farms, powers electric grids and provides drinking water to 40 million people. But as its supply dwindles, a crisis looms. By Drew Kann, Renée Rigdon and Daniel Wolfe, CNN Published August 21, 2021
Maricopa, ArizonaFor farmers in the deserts of central Arizona, success and failure is defined by who has water and who does not. At the moment, Dan Thelander is still among the haves.
Inside a municipal building in Pinal County, Thelander rolls a map out across the board room table.
On the patchwork of brown desert and green farmland in front of us, Thelander points out the parcels of land where he and his brother, son and nephew grow cotton, alfalfa and several other crops.
Second-generation farmer Dan Thelander stands by a new sprinkler system in one of his alfalfa fields in Maricopa, Arizona. Caitlin O'Hara for CNNAbout half the water he uses to irrigate his land is pumped out of ancient aquifers deep beneath the desert floor. The other half, however, originates hundreds of miles away at the headwaters of the Colorado River.
Today, this river system supplies 40 million people in seven western states and Mexico, and irrigates more than 5 million acres of farmland on its way into Mexico and the Gulf of California.
Las Vegas relies on the river for 90% of its water supply, Tucson for 82% and San Diego for around 66%. Large portions of the water used in Los Angeles, Phoenix and Denver also come from the river, and experts say these booming metropolises would not have been possible without its supply.
But a crisis is unfolding, and farmers, scientists, water managers and policy makers across the Southwest are increasingly alarmed.
Water managers have long recognized that the river is plagued by overuse. But over the last two decades, demand for the river's water has often outstripped its supply. Since 2000, the river's flows have shrunk by roughly 20% compared to the 20th century average, due in large part to the human-caused climate crisis. At the same time, its two main reservoirs — the savings account for the entire system in times of drought — have drained rapidly.
Lake Mead — the largest manmade reservoir in the US, which is fed by the Colorado River — recently sunk to its lowest levels since the lake was filled in the 1930s. Its water levels have fallen more than 146 feet since their peak in January of 2000, and the lake is now just 35% full. Lake Powell, the river's second largest reservoir, sits at 32% of its capacity. As water levels drop, billions of kilowatt hours of hydroelectricity that power homes from Nebraska to Arizona are also at risk.
Lake Mead water levels fall to 35% full over 21 years 2000
Composite imagery from NASA/USGS
"We're in uncharted territory for this system," says Jeff Lukas, an independent consultant and former research scientist at the University of Colorado at Boulder, where he focused on water issues for 20 years.
On Monday, the US Bureau of Reclamation declared the first-ever official shortage, which will trigger the largest mandatory water cuts to date in the Colorado River Basin. And after decades of receiving water from the Colorado River, the spigot could soon be turned off on many farms here, including Thelander's.
While the farmers knew this day would come, a harsh reality is setting in: To stay in business, they'll need to pull more water from below ground.
Back on the table, Thelander points to the diamonds and circles that dot the map. Those mark the locations of new groundwater wells that his irrigation district is considering — the first new ones they have drilled in decades, Thelander says.
Thelander points to a map of canals and groundwater pumps in the Maricopa-Stanfield Irrigation and Drainage District. Caitlin O'Hara for CNNFor much of the last century, Colorado River management has focused on choosing who will be allowed to stick their straw into the river next and how much water they can take. At times, that process has sparked major disputes — with some leading all the way to the US Supreme Court.
Now, many of the basin states are having a more painful discussion: deciding who will receive less water — and how much. Experts say the next phase in the river's history could be even more contentious.
The current Colorado River guidelines expire in 2026, and early negotiations are already getting underway for a new framework to determine how to divvy up its water. But by the time officials from the states, Mexico, Native American tribes and the federal government convene, it is likely that the river's water supply will be even more tenuous than it is today.
Thelander utilizes drip irrigation for his cotton fields in Maricopa, Arizona. Caitlin O'Hara for CNNScientists and water policy experts say that the science is clear: The Colorado River's supply will likely shrink further as the planet warms. Given what we know, many say we will have to use even less water in the future.
But will the states be able to agree to new guidelines that reflect this reality? And with the Southwest's growing urban centers and farms both reliant on the river's supply, who will be willing to take less water?
How elected officials and water managers answer those questions will decide the fate of the most important water resource in the American West — and the millions of people who rely on it.
The roots of this current water crisis can be traced back nearly 100 years to the signing of the Colorado River Compact.
In November of 1922, with then-Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover overseeing the deliberations, delegates from all seven Colorado River Basin states convened in Santa Fe, New Mexico, to hammer out the guidelines.
From the start, the compact negotiations were contentious. Squabbles erupted over details big and small, from how to measure the river's flow to how to portion out its supply.
Efforts to reach a deal began in January of 1922 and resumed in November, when delegates from the states gathered in Santa Fe, New Mexico. After two weeks of deliberations, they finally reached an agreement on November 24, 1922.
Then-Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover presiding over the 1922 signing of the Colorado River Compact. US Bureau of ReclamationFrom the Southwest's cities to its farms that feed the world, water managers say much of what we see today would not exist without the dams, canals and pipelines that the compact paved the way for.
"[The Colorado River] is the lifeblood of the American Southwest," says Jeff Kightlinger, who led Southern California's Metropolitan Water District for 15 years before his recent retirement. "None of these cities would be possible but for the Colorado River and the development of it for all of these regions."
Over the course of the 20th century, new agreements and court decisions further divided up the river's supply among the seven basin states, Mexico and the region's Native American tribes. But there was a serious flaw in the original compact — one that, in part, explains why the river is facing its first-ever shortage today.
When the delegates met, they agreed to give the Upper Basin (made up of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico) and the Lower Basin (California, Arizona, and Nevada) each 7.5 million acre-feet of water to use on an annual basis.
Those portions were based on estimates that the river's flow totaled roughly 16.4 million acre-feet each year. That was more than enough to meet the demands of the states. However, data shows those estimates exceed the amount of water the river actually provides in most years.
Analysis of US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) data shows that between 1906 and 2019, annual flows on the river actually averaged just under 14.8 million acre-feet. Over the last two decades, flows have been even lower — just an estimated 12.3 million acre-feet on average each year.
Up until the 1990s, the Lower Basin states were not using all the water they were entitled to on paper. This allowed officials to let the river's water accounting problem persist for decades, experts say.
"Through the 20th century, it was easy for political actors to ignore that reality …," says John Fleck, a professor at the University of New Mexico who has written several books on the Colorado River and water issues in the West. "There was slack in the system because it took us a century to build all the dams and diversions that people dreamed about in the 1920s."
As water rights were granted and new canals were built, that slack has gradually disappeared.
Data shows that the over-allocation problem became more apparent in the years after one of the last big straws was inserted into the river.
The Central Arizona Project (CAP) — a massive, 336-mile canal and pipeline system that carries Colorado River water across the desert to Phoenix, Tucson and farms and towns in between — was authorized by Congress in 1968.
Before the CAP was completed in the 1990s, heavy groundwater pumping in central Arizona was sucking aquifers dry at an alarming rate. The CAP promised a renewable, reliable source of water.
With no infrastructure to deliver Colorado River water to cities in the middle of the state, Arizona was also only using about half of its Colorado River allocation before the CAP was completed, according to Ted Cooke, the general manager of the CAP.
California had long opposed the project, so to gain support from the state's congressional delegation, Arizona made a key concession: That in the event of a shortage, fulfilling California's water deliveries would take priority over meeting the needs of CAP water users.
Now, with water cuts looming next year, the CAP's status in the Colorado River's pecking order is proving significant.
Arizona farmers like Dan Thelander have known for years that their supply of Colorado River water would eventually be phased out. They just didn't expect it to happen so soon.
A drought that began more than two decades ago, along with the effects of higher temperatures due to global warming, have rapidly sapped the river's flow. And in the long-term, scientists and water policy experts say those problems pose a threat to users far beyond the farms of Pinal County.
Droughts are temporary. The drying up of the river may not be
Rain evaporates near an irrigated cotton field in Casa Grande, Arizona. The area has been experiencing a "megadrought." Caitlin O'Hara for CNN
The Colorado River's drainage basin spans some 246,000 square miles but most of its flow originates in a handful of snow-capped mountain ranges in southern Wyoming, western Colorado and northeastern Utah, according to Jeff Lukas, the research scientist and water consultant.
The river flows through some of the country's most arid land, so the snow that accumulates in those areas is critical. In most years, snowmelt is responsible for about 80% of the river's water supply, Lukas says.
Many scientific studies have examined why there is less water flowing into the river. Nearly all have found the fingerprints of human-caused climate change.
The first, and perhaps most cited, explanation is the ongoing "megadrought," which began in the year 2000.
A study published in the journal Science in 2020 found that the period from 2000 to 2018 was the driest stretch the Southwest has experienced since the 1500s, and that nearly half of the drought's severity could be attributed to global warming.
"When you have more evaporation, you have less water left over to come down the river."
As dry as it has been, the study found that this may only be the beginning. Past megadroughts have lasted longer than the current one.
But a lack of snow and rain doesn't fully explain what is happening to the Colorado River. And droughts, after all, are temporary. Some scientists say the evidence shows the river's shrinking supply is likely not so fleeting.
Brad Udall, a climate scientist at Colorado State University, argues the river's plight is best summed up by another term: aridification.
Broadly speaking, aridification is a shift to a new climate state dominated by water scarcity and driven by the effects of hotter temperatures. Temperatures across the basin have risen by an average of 1.4 degrees Celsius (2.5 degrees Fahrenheit) over the last century.
"[Warmer temperatures] are just this constant, year in and year out, force on the system," Udall says.
As temperatures warm, the amount of precipitation that falls as snow decreases, and the snow that does fall melts earlier, according to Chris Milly, a hydrologist with the US Geological Survey who co-authored a study last year examining the river's decline.
Previous article 24 Beauty Products On Amazon Worth Adding To Your Cart
Next article 'American Idol' star still fighting to regain custody of son placed into foster care on malnutrition claims
1 1 hour ago


Buying a car can be an overwhelming experience. It is likely to be one of the most significant purchases you will make in your lifetime. It is therefore essential and relevant that you have the information to hand before you proceed. hedinghams does not aim to sell you a car we have standing still in a stock yard or gathering dust in a showroom. We find out what your needs and wants are and will provide a list of options to take account of desired economy, budget, insurance costs, every-day practicalities and environmental considerations.
hedinghams DO NOT charge a sourcing fee.
Once you have an idea of your budget and your buying priorities, hedinghams will be delighted to advise you on any other specifics including engine size, fuel type, transmission type, doors, seats, NCAP rating, CO2 emissions (tax band) and so much more.
hedinghams will take a working brief from the client.
You can either fill out our form or contact hedinghams directly to discuss your requirements over the phone.
However, should you be happier with a one-to-one meeting an appointment can be arranged for a mutually convenient time at our offices or at a place suitable to yourself.
On receipt of your brief, hedinghams will start the process of sourcing your ideal vehicle.
All our vehicles are sourced from within the UK and hedinghams extensive dealer network. Once we have found a suitable vehicle that meets your requirements, we will contact you and send you the exact specification, mileage, service history and potential images of the car to make sure that it meets your requirements. At this point hedinghams will produce a quote for the supply of the vehicle and will require a refundable* payment of a minimum deposit of 10% based on the price of the vehicle.
Your car will then be available at hedinghams premises, or alternatively delivered to your door after a professional valet service. At this time you are invited to carry out a full inspection and of course take a test drive.
Once you are completely satisfied, we will require the balance of the transaction and leave you to appreciate your new vehicle.
Please remember that hedinghams remain at the end of the phone should you require any help.


The 2×2 is now available to buy in the US.
Brakes, batteries, odds and ends. Find it here.
Any smart rider wears a helmet. Get yours here.
Get rigged up with some powerful GPS features to unlock the exclusive security and safety options. Modern times, modern work, modern play.


text:
Home General News See where these people produce malt drink and sell to the public...
See where these people produce malt drink and sell to the public (PHOTOS)
Photos of a group of individuals using toxic liquid to make malt drink for the public have surface online.
The photos were released online following their arrest by the Nigerian police officers.
They mix up dangerous liquids that they have kept for a long time inside a tank, according to the information.
They will blend the water with an existing malt drink and sell it to the public, making it difficult to identify.
This demonstrates how people are unconcerned with human life; all they think about is how to make money at the expense of others, whether they live or die.
The knowledge was disseminated on Instagram by famous blogger tunde, and it sparked a lot of discussion, with many people asking why people would enjoy murdering their fellow humans for the sake of profit.
See pictures below
See some reactions below:
Previous articleMercy Aigbe celebrates with Muslims as Ramadan fasting begins on the 13th of April
Next articlePeruzzi finally speaks on allegation that he slept with Davido's Babymama, Chioma – Watch Video
AdeAdedeji
Good News: 29-Year-Old Lady Who Went Missing in Ajah Lagos, Found in Ekiti State, Dropped by Kidnappers


Aurora Fearnley (right), from Southwark, has won The Pitch film competition this year with her space science fiction film idea Pulsar.
The film idea based on the story of Jonah was pitched by Aurora (32) to a panel of five judges at Pinewood film studios during the competition finals last weekend (11/12 January 2014).
Aurora's film idea is a character-driven story of a proud planetary ambassador – a coward who discovers his courage.
Jonah's last mission before retirement is to persuade the war-torn planet Nineveh to join the Galactic Union. See more on Pulsar.
Aurora has won the opportunity to develop her film idea with production support from The Pitch and a budget of £25,000.
Actor and Pitch judge David Gyasi commented: "Essentially, it was the story and the character that really grabbed me; along with the way she has translated the original text to a modern and futuristic setting. I could really envisage the film and the audience who it will appeal to."
Luke Walton, the project's Director, said; "Each year the standard rises and this year it has been harder than ever to select a winner. Aurora has chosen a great Bible story – the story of Jonah. She looked deep inside the story and what goes on inside the whale. Her vision, emotion and clarity won her the top prize."
The Pitch is a film competition with a unique challenge. Entrants have to come up with a contemporary film idea drawing on the Bible for inspiration.
Amongst the entries this year were thrillers, children's adventure, comedy and crime drama whilst adhering to the source text of The Bible. Some were based on Bible classics such as Jonah and the Whale and the resurrection of Lazarus, whilst others used lesser known characters.