Foreign Perspectives

Archive for the ‘Business’ Category

Whilst we all diplore the blatent censorship of the Internet by the Chinese authorities, it would appear that the UK legal system wishes that it could do exactly the same thing in order to properly implement its practice of “reporting restrictions”.

In fact, it has already had such a system of censorship in effect back in 2006 when the New York Times felt it prudent to follow the reporting restrictions issued for a trial then underway. Thus, everywhere else in the world except in the UK the article in question could be read. Or, at least that was the intention. As always on the Internet there are ways around such things and accessing the site through an online proxy let anyone in the UK read the article.

At any one time there are a number of cases affected by these reporting restrictions which are intended to avoid the publication of information which could prejudice the outcome of the trial in question or to protect the names of the people involved in the trial. In addition to specific reporting restrictions there are more general restrictions regarding, for example, reporting of the names of children. These practices date back centuries and clearly a hundred or more years ago stopping the publication of information in the various newspapers of the time was quite effective in ensuring that the jurors did not have access to information about the case outside the courtroom. However, things have moved on somewhat in the intervening centuries.

Up to 10 or 15 years ago one could easily read information about the higher profile cases in foreign newspapers even when reporting on them had been banned by the UK legal system although notably the New York Times did not distribute the issue of the paper noted above in the UK. However, as Steven Bates pointed out back in 1995 the only truly effective way of implementing them would be to unhook the UK from the Internet. Worryingly, as China has shown this is now a potentially viable option but one hopes that it will never be considered as such by the UK.

Although there are presumably instances of even the smallest trial being reported on over the Internet the effect is most noticeable with high profile cases. The snag with those is that often the opinions expressed are very highly charged and thus potentially very prejudicial to the outcome of a trial were jurors to have come across some of them. At least two trials have already come to grief courtesy of independent Internet research by jurors and no doubt there will be more whilst the current “jurors must be ignorant” approach remains in place.

However, although the Internet has brought to prominance the possibility of jurors researching a case themselves in fact they have been able to do that for a considerable period of time already. Libraries contain exactly the kind of background information in the form of archived newspapers that the courts would wish banned from the Internet once a court issues a reporting restriction order. The snag is that the Internet has a much higher profile than the libraries ever did and is, of course, much more accessible. Combine that with the fact that even deleted articles are available courtesy of googles caching and you have the problem that once anything is published, it stays published.

But, there is no reason why that presumption of the ignorance of jurors should be retained. After all, the American legal system seems to operate quite well without it. Granted it will require changes in the British legal system to allow the dropping of this mechanism of reporting restrictions but surely the increased public visibility of the operation of the courts that would follow can only be a good thing?

One suspects that it will be quite some time before the British courts go so far as those in Arizona and permit the jurors to ask questions but it seems high time that they accepted that jurors are likely to have seen something about the case before the trial and allow for that.

There’s been an ongoing debate for a number of years now as to whether or not bloggers are the same as journalists some of the time, all of the time, or never but thanks to moves from an unexpected quarter that debate is starting to become a moot point.

In fact, myself and particularly Wendy have been legally declared as being the equivalent of journalists by none other than the Old Bailey in London when they issued a missive to us in connection with a contempt of court action regarding a reporting restriction on a current court case. I’m not naming the case in question here because it isn’t relevant to the current discussion and would merely detract from this discussion.

It is interesting though that prior to that particular missive it would not have been possible for us to obtain details of any court reporting restrictions because we did not qualify as journalists and therefore couldn’t obtain these from the courts as our colleagues over at journalism.co.uk discovered when they tried getting similar information themselves last December. Thus there was the ludricuous situation where we could be held in contempt because of a ruling that we were unable to discover (and, no, they aren’t on the court website).

As it’s the weekend, we can’t try out our new categorisation but hope to give it a spin in the coming week.

One consequence of this change in categorisation is that we felt it necessary to begin publishing our blogs in America and thereby gain some protection of our right to free speech. This isn’t because we felt that we should be able to continue “publishing” the information that was felt to be in contempt of court because now that we are aware that there is a “reporting restriction” and that it applies to us, we’re content to leave that information off the blog until it is legally acceptable to publish it. However, we were sadly disappointed in the attitude of our former UK ISP who took down ALL of our sites when only one comment on one post on one blog apparently triggered the contempt action; our American based registrar supported our freedom of speech. So, as we would like to retain the freedom to express our opinions we have moved the blogs outside the jurisdiction of the English authorities.

Incidently, I have delibrately omitted any links from outside articles from this post to avoid legal issues that were raised by a specific case but are really not relevant to the discussion here. Regretably, it would appear that all of the references which I can dig up on this one refer to that particular case.

Well, not us directly but the government’s £175 billion borrowing equates to for each family in the UK thanks to the incredibly optimistic UK budget announced today. Actually, it’s worse than that as the borrowing is planned to continue for around a decade and amounts to something like £30k per family over that period.

Naturally, there were the usual increases in taxes on luxury cum non-essential items and, breaking a Labour campaign promise, on higher earners too. Well, tax increases for the higher earners were announced but, as usual, they’re unlikely to be as effective as the government hope for them to be as every tax increase on higher earners results in increased thinking by accountants on ways to avoid paying it thus the claimed £7 billion to be raised won’t be.

One notable piece of generosity is the £2,000 to be paid for those scrapping a car over 10 years old and buying a new one. Unfortunately, it’s going generosity towards other countries as the UK has virtually no British owned car manufacturers. Unless, of course, the likes of Morgan have behind the scenes plans to radically raise the number of cars that they produce.

As always the growth predictions coming out of HM Treasury are something of a finger in the air job but that’s particularly the case this year with a 3.5% decline for 2009 being replaced by 1.25% growth the next year and 3.5% the year after that. Thus there’ll be a swing of 6.75% in the fortunes of the country in under two years. Somehow, I don’t think so.

Still, it could be worse. We could be in Ireland.

One of the unfortunate side-effects of the recession is that there are both more people looking for jobs and fewer jobs to go around.

Sounds obvious but that combination means that each job on offer attracts a great deal more interest. Popular jobs can attract hundreds of applicants and even more specialised ones where you’d normally expect a handful of applications can attract far more applications than the employers are equipped to adequately deal with.

That massive scaling up of applications can clearly swamp the employers who end up being forced into reducing the numbers significantly to something more manageable. How they do that can often be quite counter productive as typically they will do things like increase the level of qualifications or experience above that required and asked for. Now, you might think that having more qualified staff would be a “good thing” but if the job really needs just a few GCSEs and you end up selecting someone with a masters degree (which happens), is that person really going to be considering the job as a viable option for them long term? One likely side-effect of this strategy is that once things do pick up many of those over qualified staff that you chose will leave.

Another equally random approach is to reduce the level of advertising of job vacancies. This is better than the “over qualified” approach but is difficult to achieve these days once a job vacancy appears on any website. The other problem is that by reducing the advertising you may miss the very person who is ideal for the job although were you hit with an unrealistic number of applicants you’ll likely miss that person anyway.

In the computer field one common tactic is to ask for a whole series of specific skills. On first sight, this appears to be better than the other approaches. However, if the list of skills is too long it’s possible to end up with no applications, even in the current climate, and this approach also has similar employee retention problems as the “over qualified” approach when the economy eventually picks up.

At the moment there doesn’t appear to be any fully workable solution and things can only get worse in the months to come as the number of jobs on offer reduces and the number of applicants continues to climb. Let’s just hope that things get onto a more even keel soon.

Frankly I figured that the relabelling of “unemployment offices” in the UK some years ago as “job centres” as just a PR gimmic by the government but it would appear that there’s a little more behind it than I’d thought.

As y’all know I’m technically between jobs at the moment. However, I hadn’t really thought about myself as being unemployed until Wendy pointed out that I should probably be off claiming some sort of unemployment benefit. These days, of course, it’s called jobseekers allowance to distance it both from unemployment and benefits but ’tis still the old unemployment benefit office that you go to if you want to claim it, so off we went last week.

That relabelling brought with it a lot of other changes. For instance, in the “unemployment office” you now find two separate groups of people that deal with you. First, there’s the people who handle the benefit payments who are basically the same group as have always been there and who are interested in seeing that you’ve made the appropriate social security payments to entitle you to the benefit. Separately from them are the employment people who are there to do what they can to help you back into work and who will prod you into getting up and looking for work if needbe. Formerlly the two were quite separate and in buildings separated by several miles so there wasn’t the sense that there is now of the payment being there just to help you along whilst you’re off looking for work.

One side-effect for me is that there’s what’s almost a trick question on the form: are you currently studying? I am in that I’m doing a child development course but seeing as it’s not a full-time one that means that I’m actually available for work which is what the question is really asking.

Full marks though for that relabelling and the reorganisation that happened almost behind the scenes. Although, in theory, I have a job waiting (sort-of), it has prompted me to have a look around anyway.