Are our Facebook profiles really safe??

Meredith Kercher is dead yet I know so much about her. I have seen her personal photos and messages to her close friends.

 

What is more amazing, and possibly more damning if the current investigation results in a trial is that I know even more about the accused. Where does this stop being reporting and start becoming an invasion of privacy or in extreme cases a contempt of court?

 

Facebook, Bebo and Wayn are the biggest culprits. Just how secure are these networking sites? Did the accused have private profiles?

 

Even if they were private profiles, it would not be hard for anyone to get hold of the personal details posted on these sites, any of their contacts could access the site and pass on the information and provide information and passwords required to access the profiles.

 

Selling the trust of your Facebook friends may be the new version of selling your story to the tabloids.

 

I can’t access Meredith Kercher’s Facebook profile or Amanda Knox’s Myspace account. This would suggest that their profiles and private information is only available to “friends”. Either one of these friends has passed on their access privileges to the press, or the press has some mega hacks.

 

Or worse still, Facebook is opening up these profiles for all to see.

 

I think the latter two options are infeasible and  would result in a host of privacy issues.

 

So, we are left with the possibility that their “friends” are passing on this information.

 

Facebook as a social networking phenomenon means that we network with people we know, have known and even those we want to know better.

 

This means that all those people listed as friends are not actually our nearest and dearest, they can be people we went to school with fifteen years ago, our friends siblings or even friends of friends. 

Not exactly an impenetrable circle of trust.

 I may be completely on the wrong track but I am going with the theory that Amanda Knox’s, Meredith Kercher’s and Raffaele Sollecito’s friends have done the dirty.

 

Otherwise, how would I know that Meredith thought she had recently been indulging in too many of  Perugia’s famous chocolates? Or that Sollecito described himself on Wyan.com as someone who ”possessed strong emotions capable of suprising you”?- a statement that somehow now takes on a sinister tone.

 Do I need to know this? Or really want to know this?

Do I have any right to know this?

Surrogate Rights?

Mr. Justice Coleridge today ruled that a surrogate mother who deliberately deceived childless couples could not keep her baby. 

On two occasions the woman told the waiting parents-to-be that she had miscarried. This was a lie and she went on to keep the babies. One of the couples found out and went to court. It was ruled that the deceptive surrogate had to return the child to its biological father. 

This all seems acceptable and most people would be happy with this outcome. But when you learn that no surrocacy agreement is legally binding and that the surrogate mother can at any time during the pregnancy change her mind and decide to keep the baby, some questions are raised.

It is hard to understand why she would have lied about having miscarried, had she simply told the waiting parents that she in fact wanted to keep the unborn child then the potential parents would have no legal rights and that would have been the end of it.

Furthermore, does the court have the right to pass the child over on the basis that the mother was deceptive and immoral? Many deceptive and immoral people have children outside of a surrocacy arrangement and their children are not taken off them.

 It seems that there are two issues here. The first is whether the surrogate mother has legal rights over the child. The basic answer would be yes, because no surrogacy agreement is binding.

Secondly it can be considered whether she is fit to be mother. It was up to the court to decide who would be a better parent to the child. I think this is an incorrect application of the family law surrounding surrocacy agreements. If she is a fit mother, in the sense that social services would not be knocking on her door to take the child, and if she has brought her other children up in a heathly and stable environment then it is absurd that she can now be judged against another couple to have to give up a child that was legally always hers to keep.

Comparing one good parent against another good parent is not the way to go about resolving this dilemma. 

Claire Lyte gets a light punishment

Claire Lyte was found guilty today and sentenced to two years and nine months prison- so why do we feel sorry for her?

The media has some explaining to in relation to the position they have taken in the matter. 

When a man interferes with a child in this manner, it's rape and pedophilia, plain and simple. But this case is being presented as one of "lesbian sex" rather than in its real terms - rape, pedophilia, and gross abuse of position. If it was a man committing this same crime, there would be no question of guilt.  I wonder whether the fact that Claire looks so caring, attractive, respectable and generally just 'nice' that no one has really hurled abuse her way.

This case is twisted in many ways, possibly with the biggest problem and offender is the girls mother. The one person who should care for the girl more than anyone else let her down in the worst possible way.

Baqsically, the girl’s mother, thinking her daughter is a prodigy, knows what is going on, and allows the abuse to continue. It’s not a pretty picture. The mother walked in on them having oral sex, briefly got angry and then sent her daughter back to the same tennis academy, knowing full well that her daughter would continue to be coached by Lyte. 

In my opinion it is the mother needs to be serious questioned along the line of child neglect. Putting her daughter in harm's way by knowingly allowing her to be in contact with Lyte on a regular basis. 

Just because Claire Lyte is a 'fantastic coach' it does not make her a paragon of virtue, she admitted keeping the girl's underwear and wearing it. Even if you discount the Mother's testimony (not that I would give it a huge amount of weight being that the woman should be prosecuted for child abuse) there is  no way that Claire Lyte should have escaped with such a minimal sentence.

There have been several cases in Canada and Australia where female teachers found to be interfering with female pupils have been given a sympathetic treatment by both media and judiciary. This theme seems to have carried over to the UK.

We all know that had the offender in this case been a male, there would have been a public outcry of injustice, apparently there is not total equality before the law - until the judiciary gets past their prejudice towards men being the only sex able to commit such crimes then the situation will not change.

The tricky question remains: did Claire Lyte get off too easily? Or was her sentence correct and we are punishing men too harshly for the same crime?

It seems that maybe the courts have overlooked one of the most fundamental principles of the British common law that all men will be punished equally for committing the same crime. 

Human Rights Trump again

I would have liked to have thought that when Learco Chindamo stabbed head teacher Philip Lawrence in 1995 he lost all his rights. But like the case of sexual predator Mohammed Kendeh, the Human Rights of the criminal have once again trumped those rights of the ordinary law abiding citizen.

 

The High Court has denied the last chance appeal by the Home Office to have him deported to his native Italy.

 

With the overdue and generally positive consistency brought in with the EUCHR in 1998, so too came several situations where the outcome seems downright unfair if not ludicrous.  The case of a murderer should surely be the one situation where the criminal has waived all of his rights. 

 

I am fully aware that we have moved far from the draconian legal procedure which insured justice was carried out “a hand for a hand” and I do not think anyone would suggest we return to that system of judicial administration. But in the same breath it seems a bit rich when we are working so hard to prosecute criminals, that we then turn round to ensure they are entitled a life as peachy and well rounded as that of their victim.

 

It must be remembered that human rights are not a zero sum game. Justice for the Lawrence’s does not mean carrying out an injustice against Chindamo. The basic principle underpinning all contempory Human Rights legislation is that they are fundamental, they are fair and to be applied equally to all members of society. We are all entitled to human rights, whether we are a hardened criminal or a saint, human rights must be upheld in a way with does not discriminate between the two.

 

I am sure this does not help the victims family. Mr Lawrence's family must be feeling desperate, watching from the sideline as Mr Chindamo's right to a family life is protected under section 8 of the ECHR when he entirely ignored the most fundamental right of his victim and the family left behind.

Human Rights sound very good and in theory this kind of application  provides a basis for implementing truly universal human rights across the globe. But it is not easy to swallow in situations of Kendah and Chindamo.

 

 

 

Right to a Family Life?

Surely there are some situations where the disgraceful actions of an individual cancel out their codified right to a ‘family life’. In my opinion a convicted sex attacker with “a high risk of reoffending” has surrendered his rights.

 Not according to Sir Henry Hodge. The Home Office’s request for the deportation of serial sex offender Mohammed Kendeh to his native Sierra Leone has been denied.

 Why? Because The Human Rights Act.

 The UK ratified Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights when The Human Rights Act was passed into UK law in 1998. Article 8 offers general protection for a person’s private and family life, home and correspondence from arbitrary interference by the State.

 It is this right to family life that allowed the country’s most senior immigration judge, Sir Henry Hodge to deny the Home Office’s requested deportation of Mohammed Kendeh back to Sierra Leone.

 I am by no means trying to negate or dismiss the importance of the Human Rights Act. It is an integral part UK’s unwritten constitution and since 1998 has provided unprecedented continuity for Europe in the area of Human Rights.

 No one would dare claim that we do not have a right to life, the right to freedom of religion, and the right not to be arbitrarily detained. But it seems that sometimes we get so caught up in the wording and political requirements to meet the obligations set out in the European Union Convention of Human Rights that we forget the victim.  Every right and civil liberty laid down in the Act must be qualified by the interests of public safety and the protection of the rights of others.

 In the case of a serial sex offender deemed to “have a high risk of reoffending” we all come under the umbrella of “others”. It seems that this sex offender’s right to a family life can somehow supercede our individual rights and protection.

 In my opinion, any person who commits a crime of this nature has surrendered their rights to a peaceful and happy family life. His actions have had an acutely detrimental affect on the family lives of his victims. How can he now stand up and declare he is entitled to the exact thing he has deprived others of?

 Of course the convicted man still has some universal human rights laid down by the UN. He has the right to life and this is why the death penalty cannot be invoked. But the somewhat more menial rights in relation to his day-to-day dealings should no longer take priority over the safety and protection of other innocent people.

This judgment seems absurd, and is bound to provoke a confused if not furious reaction from much of the public.

 His life in Sierra Leone may be void of the contact with family that he presently has in the UK, but maybe he should have thought about that before he indecently assaulted eleven women and turned their lives upside down. 

Legally Blonde?

After hospitals and police stations, law firms are the most common backdrop for your favourite TV drama.  Until last night I was convinced that the young flashy lawyers in these programs were more fictional than Willy Wonka and that they had nothing whatsoever in common with anyone actually working in the legal profession. That was until I watched Boston Legal.

 

The first major Courtroom drama, Perry Mason ran from 1957-1966 and started the trend of unrealistic portrayal of those working in the legal profession and many more shows have followed. Like The Practice, L.A Law, Law and Order and Ally McBeal, Boston Legal has all the hallmarks of a popular legal TV drama. It has a massive budget and famous actors filling the main roles but that is where the similarities end. 

 

I was delighted to discover that Boston Legal has managed to achieve what no other courtroom drama has - it has successfully depicted lawyers as real people. Denny Crane and Allan Shore are not perfect, they have concerns about their ability, they do not win every case and they are morally and ethically challenged just like the rest of us. This is a huge development for courtroom dramas and the creators of this show ought to be applauded.

 

Law has always proved a popular choice for authors, playwrights and the creators of popular legal TV dramas. The legal profession makes a compelling story for numerous reasons - conflict between parties will always draw viewers, which is why legal dramas emphasize the trial and ignore the fact that the vast majority of civil and criminal cases are settled out of court. Legal dramas also focus on situations where there is an obvious injustice or situations where the plaintiff or defendant is very weird, quirky and unusual. As a result, defenses such as insanity occur far more often in legal drama than in real life. I can appreciate that to make a good TV everyday tasks such as creating trusts, wills and dealing with property transfers hardly makes for riveting viewing but it is the way in which these programs depict the lawyers themselves that seems somewhat unfair. Most lawyers on TV spend a high percentage of their time in court or preparing to go to court. This is because courtrooms, by their nature, lend themselves to dramatic depiction, certainly more than the everyday practice of law in the real world. Unfortunately, the average day of the average lawyer is much more likely to be spent reading documents, negotiating with other lawyers or engaging in other mundane activities that are unlikely to attract a large audience. To further entice viewers, there is always always always a dishonest, corrupt and immoral lawyer trying to rip someone off.

 

As a rule, lawyers have historically been portrayed in one of two ways. They are either the hero lawyers epitomized by Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird or they are the corrupt, crooked and scheming lawyers favoured by John Grisham in The Firm. Why? Because people simply don't want to read about the actual lives of lawyers, they want either extreme and that is what they get. John Grisham capitalized on this and The Firm sold over two million copies in its first print, after being declared by Publishers Weekly that Grisham was "the bestselling novelist of the 90s," it is no surprise then that people have an unrealistic perception of lawyers and the legal profession as a whole.

 

It is for this reason that Boston Legal is a welcome breath of fresh air, When Denny Crane has to stop and consider the moral implications of representing someone he knows is wholly evil or when Alan Shore agrees to represent a group of people who can in no way afford legal costs themselves, the accurate depiction of 99% of lawyers in the real world becomes apparent. 

 

Boston Legal has successfully achieved brilliant and captivating courtroom drama while contemporaneously giving lawyers a heart. This is appreciated by the profession as a whole, too long have they been demonized and unfairly affected by the greedy and corrupt lawyers that have previously graced our screens.  But we have a long way to go, Elle Woods in Legally Blonde is a whole other story...

 

 

The glamour of travel is DOA

International travel has been stripped bare with the arrival of the Eurostar service and an increase of low budget airlines throughout the UK and Europe. The Eurostar is a perfect example of making travel effortless and quick, however it is inarguably void of the glamour and excitement once associated with international travel.

 

For all its well-intended ease and speed, international travel has become boring, travellers no longer feel pampered or important. Films such as The Aviator depict a time when international travel was a big deal, it was exciting. Waiting in airports and the flights were an enchanting and fascinating experience. But not any more.

 

The operators ofcourse would argue differently, they would claim that they have still managed to create a travellers caste system that would rival anything you would find in India.

 

At the top echelon is the Business and Premier passenger, not only are they treated to a separate area with plush seats and refreshments, their superiority is further accented because their “Premier” area is only separated from the common traveller through clear glass. Staring into a goldfish bowl of laptops and suits, is the only way those yearning for such luxury can vicariously experience the lives of the other half.

 

This is how everyone used to feel when travelling- any traveller used to feel somewhat successful and exclusive if only for the duration of their flight and airport waiting time, which was incontrovertibly a lot longer than the 30 minute check in time required by the Eurostar, but wasn’t that part of the charm? On the most basic level international travel made the average Joe feel exclusive and important. This is no longer a liberty allowed to those who cannot afford the exorbitant Business or First Class fares. The industy has been stripped of all the pleasures that once made the average Joe traveller feel, if only for a day, glamorous.

 

As much as we all love to get cheap and efficient travel, the glamour and excitement of travel is dead.