matthewheath

I only have immediate knowledge of UK law, but lawyers will generally have a duty to the court to act with independence in the interests of justice. This tends to mean that in situations where one side are self-represented or using the services of ChatGPT, etc. the opposing side is under a duty not to take unfair advantage of the fact that one side is not legally trained.

They don't have to help them, but they can't act abusively by, for example, exploiting lack of procedural knowledge.

If they deliberately took advantage of one side using ChatGPT and getting it wrong because the legal foundation of knowledge isn't there for that person, that could be a breach of their duty to the court and result in professional censure or other regulatory consequences.

Then the next time I use it the previous order won’t have cleared out despite me picking it up, and I’ll have to go in and “cancel” the order.

Yes, I have noticed that here in the UK. I have to keep cancelling the previous order even though I picked it up and paid for it.

That's not money laundering. More like corruption/bribery.

It is possible to get a freezing order through the courts to freeze assets like land, property, bank accounts, etc.

It operates similarly to the European Account Preservation Order, and under the right circumstances it is possible to apply for a freezing order on a _without notice_ basis meaning that the employer would not be aware of the order until it is issued.

Yes, King Charles III will pay the same taxes as Queen Elizabeth II did - he agreed to it during the Accession Council meeting. Only the Monarch and income from the Duchy of Cornwall (paid to the Prince of Wales) are exempt from income, capital gains, and inheritance tax.

Every other member of the Royal Family are liable to tax, the same as us. They can offset the cost of their official duties against their taxes though.

Indeed, given they swear an oath to the monarch, they're probably not even able to bring about that vote.

The oath itself wouldn't stop the British Parliament passing an Act of Parliament to abolish the Crown and replace it with some other system. In theory, the monarch could refuse to give their assent to the proposed law but given that would cause a constitutional crisis, in reality the chances are the monarch would assent and the system could be changed.

It seems it would take a republican government in power _or_ huge public demand that the monarchy to be abolished for that to happen which seems unlikely any time soon assuming King Charles III and his successors don't err massively.

Don't know what your background is/what you're looking for - but your story both resonated with me and pissed me off at how you were treated. Happy to refer you to my current company/help you get a much better paying job if you're interested, just email hn@matthewheath.dev.

Unreasonableness will have an impact as to whether costs are awarded and/or how much will be awarded but the general principle is still that the losing side pays. Obviously, that will vary depending on the circumstances of the case but most cases don't encounter costs objections on reasonableness grounds.

what is power except the ability to impose negative consequences for not following instructions?

Yes, I think power is exactly this.

What 'power' does England have over Scotland other than the power that Scotland has agreed to accept

A monopoly on violence to enforce its territorial integrity as the United Kingdom. Withdrawing from international treaties is generally accepted to be within a state's general powers. Seceding from an existing state? Generally recognised by the current international order as unlawful and solely a matter for the state to resolve internally.

Would there be international condemnation if Scotland seceded and England tried to take it back by force? Yes, but doing so would embolden existing secessionist movements in, e.g. Spain or the United States, so those states (plus the ones who promote non-interference in domestic affairs) aren't going to intervene in any meaningful sense.

I think power must go beyond consent and incorporate the expectations and realities of the nature of sovereign state power on the international stage. The UK has the right to insure its territorial integrity, while the principle of self-determination is limited within that framework.

I think prudence really depends on the whim of the executive, since generally the executive is Parliament given the majority it normally possesses. A number of British governments have historically shown little regard for the unpredictable consequences of violating international law.

For example, Iraq, the Chagos Islands, the Brexit trade deal concerning customs checks in Northern Ireland, etc.

I suppose it's all really just one big political matter: do they want to chance it? Probably not, but they could, legally. We just haven't had the government who's willing to do that yet, but given the current government's willingness to flout international law, prudence seems like it might have vanished some time ago...

In England, the losing side usually pays at least a large portion (if not all) of the costs of the winning side. 100% cost awards are rare, but generally the costs burden is placed on whoever loses.

This seems to reduce frivolous lawsuits (depending on who is suing/being sued) but you can ask for a cost capping order to limit the amount you have to pay out if you lose, which partially helps address the issue of "they're too big/expensive to sue".

Would it be illegal to make a law whose punishment was an oubliette?

No, it would not be illegal to make a law whose punishment was an oubliette. The British Parliament is sovereign and supreme, and can make any law it wishes.

The devolved legislatures are limited by the Act(s) establishing them. Such a law passed by the Scottish Parliament would probably be challenged under S29(2)(d) of the Scotland Act 1998 which prohibits breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In this case, such a law in Scotland could potentially breach Article 3 of the Convention which prohibits inhuman or degrading punishment. The British Parliament can simply choose to ignore it, but the Scottish Parliament can't (unless the British Parliament chose to give it such powers).

Can the queen be detained at her own pleasure, at least for anything other than the detonation of a nuclear device in her personal capacity?

No, she cannot be prosecuted for anything while she is the monarch. She would need to abdicate or otherwise be legally removed (e.g. an Act of Parliament abolishing the Crown) from her position.

Even if she were able to be prosecuted, the Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Act 1998 is not currently in force, and even if the Act were in force, Her Majesty would be exempt under S14(4):

"Nothing in this section affects Her Majesty in her private capacity; and this subsection shall be construed as if section 38(3) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 (meaning of Her Majesty in her private capacity) were contained in this Act."

On point 2, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR, the court of the Council of Europe) blocked such deportations, etc. under the European Convention on Human Rights -- nothing to do with the EU.

The ECtHR is tasked with upholding fundamental freedoms like the Convention, the UN Charter of Rights, etc. and is completely separate from the EU.

The target being a "public figure" might well have factored into the Crown Office's decision to prosecute, as part of the public interest test under the Prosecution Code.

If the target were a random member of the public, it seems that the offence would still be made out (he would still be found guilty) but perhaps the sentencing would be less severe.

It does seem that judicial discretion was thrown to the wind here. I don't agree that the sentencing reflects the gravity of the offence, given the mitigating circumstances raised by his defence counsel.

Perhaps it's not legal - I presume someone would need to file suit under the Act for it to be determined. That said, the link is highlighted as www.washingtonpost.com and the ad text also mentions The Washington Post so it might be arguable that this ad isn't necessarily misleading since it only mentions CNN in the header and nowhere else.

No, some are still broadsheets, such as the Financial Times, the Daily Telegraph, and the Sunday Times.

I wonder what on earth the police want with patient data from the NHS. What's wrong with obtaining a warrant to access the necessary data on a case by case basis? (Although I can think of very few cases where patient data would help solve a legitimate crime).

Congratulations!

I'm very sad to hear that you were threatened with a lawsuit — it's an impressive project. Unclear what jurisdiction you're in (probably the US), but in the UK they would have a hard time arguing in court that your project damaged them.

Not only that £59,000 was actually stolen but that the accused received the money.

Can only speak for English and Welsh law, but this isn't accurate. Theft is prosecuted under the Theft Act 1968 and does not require the accused to actually receive the goods or money stolen. All the accused need do to "appropriate" property is assume the rights of the owner e.g, if the accused had access to someone's bank account and they sent money to a third-party, that's still theft because they assumed the rights of the owner (to transfer the money) even though the money didn't go to the accused themselves.

Yeah - we didn't have many Support folks in SF. I think the compensation bands were based on Chicago.

I don't know what qualifies as "massive base salaries" but most folks in Support (the team I worked on) were on around $70k+ USD base compensation.

Profit sharing happened twice a year, but I don't remember it ever going above 10% of your six-monthly compensation rate (so effectively, you got 20% at most).

I'm in the UK where options as part of job compensation are relatively rare. I joined as a contractor originally so wouldn't have been entitled to them regardless, but also they're a US company and only recently (1 year ago) set up a UK entity (I don't have options in that either) so I wasn't surprised to not get any.

I don't fully understand options, admittedly. I joined because I love their product, and I needed a better paying job than the one I had originally. Plus, the culture was pretty amazing at the time I joined! I left because they didn't pay me enough in the end plus cultural issues :P so I've got a new job paying more with a culture I prefer.

if, say, Google steals your bike that would be purely economic damage. Surely the UK legal system would still punish that...!?

Yes, they would. This is because there is a specific Act of Parliament known as the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 which specifically addresses the tort of "trespass to goods" also known as "wrongful interference with goods".

You would need to prove that Google "deliberately" interfered with your bike, on the balance of probabilities. However, Google would have two defences:

- Consent (e.g. you trespass on to their land, and they clamp or detain your bike - you are seen as consenting to the consequences of your trespass, namely the clamping, so cannot argue wrongful interference with goods)

- Distress damage feasant (e.g. you trespass on to their land, Google is entitled to seize and detain any property you brought with you until you leave, or (if damage has been caused) until you pay for any damages).

There are no other specific defences to this tort, only general defences to a tort (such as limitation, illegality, etc.)

In your stated case, assuming you proved the tort on the balance of probabilities, you'd be entitled to damages per Section 3 of the Act.

In the UK at least, these consequences (website going offline / certificate warning / unsearchable in the search engine) would likely be deemed "pure economic loss" following Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd [1973] QB 27 and Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991] 1 AC 398 where the Court of Appeal and House of Lords respectively held that unless some sort of physical harm was suffered to you or your property, the losses were held to be "purely economic" and so not recoverable in tort.

It's unlikely that any claimant would be able to show a contractual provision that enables them to claim for damages against Google (thus allowing them to sue in contract), so a cause of action for tort would be the usual way to sue Google - except unless Google makes you suffer some form of physical harm or damages your property, you're unlikely to be able to recover any damages for your website suffering these consequences, in the UK at least. I understand US law may be quite different.

There's a testable argument to be made about the requirement for "damage" to your property (the website) being inflicted by the certificate warning, but policy arguments on the matter of "ripple effect" liability makes it seem likely the courts would hold that Google isn't liable.

Also Google is probably far better placed to weather lawsuits than most ordinary people; they can probably afford to induce the other party to settle out of court, and presumably the relevant monopoly and abuse of market position laws only allow a regulator to take legal action (the ordinary consumer being restricted to contract and tort lawsuits).

To be legal you need to get the user's consent, upfront, for that tracking.

No, that's just one basis for processing data. Another basis for server-side tracking like this could be legitimate interest. The site will need to provide evidence that they've weighed up the user's interest in this and be able to demonstrate a convincing case in favour of the site.

For example, it could be a legitimate interest to track A/B testing in order to increase shopping cart checkout rates - the legitimate interest is arguably that the site wants to increase its revenues and if it can demonstrate a convincing case for this, it will be allowed by the regulator.

"Best Reasonable Efforts" is defined in clause 1.9 of the contract:

1.9. “Best Reasonable Efforts” means (a) in the case of AstraZeneca, the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety; and (b) in the case of the Commission and the Participating Member States, the activities and degree of effort that governments would undertake or use in supporting their contractor in the development of the Vaccine having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world.

On this basis, AZ can argue that they have indeed made reasonable best efforts to manufacture the vaccine within the EU: I believe most vaccine companies are struggling to fulfil their targets at the moment because of things like a shortage of supplies, worker sickness because of coronavirus, etc. It would seem to be difficult for the Commission to point to a company who's doing it any better except perhaps US-based companies.

Furthermore the contract does not mark their UK manufacturing facilities as being exclusively for the EU - AZ can then argue that this contract is naturally subject to available resources in their UK manufacturing facilities and so, given this is a condition precedent, their obligations under this part of the contract have not become due just yet.

no constitution

We don't have a codified constitution, but we still have one; it's just made up of various written laws and unwritten things like conventions.

I agree that the system isn't particularly democratic though: the executive (Government) can pretty much do what it wants when it has a majority in the Commons and the relevant promises in its manifesto (to bypass the Salisbury Convention in the Lords).

It would require a judgment from the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court to be able to use this to challenge any future extradition requests from the US.

This is because binding precedent is only set by the appellate courts and while this judgment is persuasive, other judges sitting in this court can ignore it since they're not bound to follow it.

Yes.