private schools used to traffic girls

It’s a no-brainer, the more deregulated schooling gets, the more scope is there to use them to misappropriate children.

Today, ‘The Times’ newspaper reports how private school visas are used to bring Vietnamese girls into the country, they get the first term paid and the schools then pay for the Visa and then the girls disappear. Some as young as 15 years old. They end up in mailbars, cannabis farms and brothels. Read the story here.

Obviously taking education away from the councils makes it easier to abuse the system.

We do have lots of girls in Britain already, we do not need to import them from Vietnam. We do not need cannabis farms, we do not need brothels and we have too many nailbars already.

I do not use nailbairs. Why do we need so many nailbars anyhow? It has become an obsession to do nails for women. That is sexist to say the least. I have come across an official in the swimming fraternity who said that women swimmers need their nails polished so that it is easier to see the finishing touch. What about the males? It is absolutely dreadful that girls these days are put under so much pressure to have their nails done and then Vietnamese girls are smuggled into the country to do them. It’s a bit of a doubly whammy for females itsn’t it?

Woman should be careful to avoid fashions, which restrict their freedom of movements, e.g.

  • high heels restrict ability to walk and cause health deformity of feet and legs, hips
  • nails, don’t allow cooking, crafts, hobbies.

 

 

Clutching at straws

Reducing the success fees in libel is most likely going to increase the cases filed at courts under the Defamation Act because it will then become cheaper to get a lawyer and everybody will have to have a go at it. 

the libel tourism is already very much restricted through the strict proof of publishing that is required, in some cases outright impossible proof of publishing, which is already discriminatory against those seeking redress against the blackening of their names. 

What would be much more sensible would be an overhaul to the Access to Justice Act to help those with good cases to obtain legal aid like in just every other field of law to be in line with the requirements of the Human Rights Act and European Regulations. The UK has been fined non pecuniary damages against complainants who took the UK to the ECHR and they won because they could not get a lawyer. 

The Right to a good name is a basic human right and should not be left for the rich alone. It looks like only those who got too much money can afford to protect their good name whilst the rest have to put up with whatever is written about them. The truth cannot be bought and it would make legal proceedings cheaper if they were conducted in a professional manner rather than by litigants in person who simply cannot lose, because if they lose in a UK court, it doesn’t really matter why they lose, they are always entitled to cry not a fair trial, I did not get a lawyer and there was no equal bargaining power. 

Currently the Access to Justice Act is so tight, that a local Citizens Advice Bureau is not even allowed to refer a Defamation client to a pro bono unit and one cannot be considered for pro bono support unless a lawyer makes a referral. I think it is fundamentally wrong that a good name is only the privilege of the rich.  And those “new” inventions of Jack Straw are rather old, the public interest defence is already included in the Defamation Act and not even Jack Straw’s new definition can change the fact that the public is not served if lies are reported about a person. 

In the case of Times Newspapers Ltd v. The UK the ECHR judge made a very good definition: ” 

23. The Press Complaints Commission has adopted a code of conduct 

which is regularly reviewed and amended as required. Paragraph 1 of the 

current Code of Conduct reads as follows: 

“ 

1. Accuracyi) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted 

information, including pictures. 

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised 

must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and – where appropriate – an 

apology published. 

iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, 

conjecture and fact. 

iv) A publication must report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for 

defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, 

or an agreed statement is published.” 

We already have privilege and qualified privilege so Jack Straw is clutching at straws and hasn’t really got anything new that is sensible to offer. 

Independent’s Day

In for a penny in for a pound is a very old English saying. Mr Lebedev is in for quite a few of the pounds, in total 9.25 million of them in liability payments from the previous owners of the paper.

What impresses me totally about Mr Lebedev is his attitude about publishing. He does not treat newspapers as business but as responsibility. He adds: “I think newspapers are the only instrument which, through investigative reporting, can ferret out everything about international corruption.”

This quote was taken from AFP news as published on Yahoo news today.

Quite right I agree, newspapers play with our minds a lot and have considerable impact on what we think and influence our decision-making process that goes beyond the purchase of our daily necessities, which of course is regulated by our budgets.

Mr Lebedev also co-owns at a 49% stake a Russian paper that is critical of the Kremlin, together with former Soviet leader Michael Gorbachev.  Hence he must know how powerful the media can be in building people’s perception of their political leaders. I now start to understand why the UK leftwing press denounces Lebedev as right-wing because the UK’s left-wing press today is of couse pro-Kremlin.

I am glad that publishers still wish to rely on printed media as it is more reliable than online digital publications, though electronically published material – whilst available – has the wider readership.

The Times newspapers is soon to start charging their online readers and that brings the quality argument into online publishing. That it is not just about exercising power over readers by making them read something that is freely available but telling people, if you want to read quality content, then please pay for it, quality is important and not just quantity.

There are these two main strategies in publishing at the moment, either give it away for free and capture readers mind’s en mass or make them pay for quality reporting, an interesting development that still should not encourage some publishers to give out trashy untrue publications because they do have the opportunity to do so.

Another old saying is “We know where it comes from”. Yet the quality of truth in publishing is at stake as the press’s reliance on fact reporting has often spread out to pictorial phantasy stimulation. Maybe there is not enough market to carry a wide variety of publications and we will see a reduction in publications, yet that can have advantages as one has less to read to filter through the trash.

Blog Stats

  • 53,135 hits