Is Catholicism taking a step towards modern times?

So finally, the pope has indeed endorsed the use of condoms, not as contraceptive measures but as a means to prevent the spread of HIV. Although many have welcomed his comment on this controversial matter as reasonable in the fight for HIV, others are concerned it could, "open" pandora's box" as it could see the rise in the number of youngsters having "protected" sex given that fornication is a sin. In my opinion, it does not make any difference as it is very hard to find youths of these days not committing fornication anyway when sex appeal has  become the order of the day. Better safe than sorry I say and it is surpirising that decision was not made earlier. Anyway, as the leader of millions of catholics worldwide has spoken, it is certain that at the very least, everyone can do away with the hypocrisy now.

For more info, see http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101120/ap_on_re_eu/eu_pope_condoms

Is the harmonization of International Commercial Law working?

I was studying for the module International Trade Law yesterday, when a thought struck me; there appears to be a pattern forming in the international commercial arena. This is evidenced by the unification and harmonization of the law through mechanisms like the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, the International Chamber of Commerce Model International Sale Contract, various European Union Directives, etc.

But the question remains, is this so called unification and harmonization working? Theoretically, it should achieve its purpose without little or no hitch. However, in reality, the reverse is the case. If anything, it has succeeded in creating more diversity than intended and it is not difficult to see why. The most important reason for this is down to the fact that globally, nation states do not have a single unified jurisdiction when it comes to law. Some have common law jurisdictions whilst others have civil law jurisdictions. Therefore, even if there is a single convention that lays down the law, it is guaranteed that the method of interpretation will be different, thereby leading to different outcomes. Would it would help for clarity purposes if there was a different means for the harmonisation of International Commercial Law? This is something I look forward to exploring during the duration of my course.

Tired of looking over your shoulder?

In view of yesterday's blog, I would like to ask a question on something I have been mulling over for a little while now. The trigger point was in today's news, airport officials found a detonator and timer in a suitcase in a flight bound for Germany. It is still unclear if this was a live explosive as only ongoing forensics will declare that. However, what caught my attention was the fact that it was reported that the German interior minister said there are, "concrete indications of a series of attack planned for the end of November". Now this is not the first time I have come across such a statement. Infact, some of the bomb plots were only discovered by so called "tip offs". For instance, the plot discovered last month in Dubai was indeed possible because of a tip off from Saudi Arabia. It has led me to question what is indeed going on behind the scenes. Is this another means to scare into the masses? Or is this truly a war going on? Im not saying that I would actually like to see these so called bombs go off but all these speculations are actually worse than the bombs themselves. Everyone is paranoid and constantly looking over their shoulder. Is this really how we are all going to live for the next coming years? What are your opinions?

For more information see links below:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/GERMANY-A-Suspected-Bomb-Bound-For-Munich-Has-Been-Found-In-A-Suitcase-At-An-Airport-In-Namibia/Article/201011315817270?lpos=World_News_News_Your_Way_Region_7&lid=NewsYourWay_ARTICLE_15817270_GERMANY%3A_A_Suspected_Bomb_Bound_For_Munich_Has_Been_Found_In_A_Suitcase_At_An_Airport_In_Namibia_

http://news.scotsman.com/uk/Ally39s-tipoff-led-to-plane.6607064.jp

Privacy vs Security?

With all the bomb threats going around, it is  of little wonder most people feel threatened. Recently, at an american airport, a traveller kicked up a fuss when he was asked to submit to "patting down" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/airport_security). According to him, the security checks carried out at airports are superficial and just another means to invade personal privacy. So far he has attracted so many supporters on the internet with some people even going as far as printing tshirts, hats, etc with the words of his refusal stamped on them. But the irony is, are these not the same people that protested/complained to the government for tightening of security checks? It seems people want good security but everything comes at a price or expense of something. So what is it ging to be? Do we all cherish our privacy much more than a life and death situation? I agree the current checks in place are  very rigorous to the point of insulting but is that not what we all need? To feel safe? Another controversy that people argue about is the fact that even as the security belts have been tightened, it does not make any difference as the terrorists still manage to slip through "unapparent cracks". This is definitely not reassuring and in my opinion calls for an even tighter security than as it is at present. If one has not got anything to hide, then it should not be a problem.

Political correctness, where are we headed?

Right, I think the British society has lost the plot when it comes to what is acceptable and what is not. Infact, I dare say it is teetering on extremism! Just today, it was reported in the news that a toy shop removed a pig from its toy farm set for fear it might upset muslim and jewish parents. It has indeed led me to ponder why Britain as a nation has to bend over backwards just to accomodate everyone. Let me clarify, I am not against the idea of treating everyone equally. Equal opportunity is probably one of the best things ever invented and Britain is definitely the poster child for that. But I am afraid there has to be a line drawn somewhere and especially when it comes to sensitive issues like religion. The story above is not the first of its kind. As the years have gone by, it has definitely seen more politically correct warnings about how the society should be mindful of doing anything just incase it comes accross as "offensive" to people, especially muslims. While I am a strong advocate for diplomacy and respectfulness towards other humans, there is a fine line between "freedom of speech" and outright disrespectfulness. The trend these days is getting sacked or sued just because there is a risk that one's statement can be viewed as insensitive. I mean, what is going on? Surely when one migrates to a different country, there's the contemplation that you have to adapt to certain things like language, weather, food, etc. There is no requirement that you get rid of your culture entirely but you can not go about expecting things to be exactly as they were in your home country. For example, you cannot go on holiday to Saudi Arabia wearing a bikini by the beach or start kissing in public because their laws forbid it. Come to think of it, how many churches are there in Saudi Arabia and how many mosques are in Britain? I am sure the difference is clear because the focus is indeed on only one part of the society. What about the christians, sikhs, buddhists etc? Does any one really care if anything offends them or not? It is good that Britons have opened their arms and pockets to many but it is definitely not being appreciated especially with the whole attitude of taking offence even when none was meant. It has got to stop as I for one, cannot continue biting my tongue and not having an opinion or expressing myself the way I want to, just because there is a possibility that some one out there might be offended. This is not intended as a jibe towards any race or religion, I am simply fed up of all the political correctness going on and would like to see a society where everyone's concerns are met equally, no preferential treatment, just pure regard for one another. Conclusively, my advice for anyone who thinks the toy farm set with a pig might be an insult to their belief or faith, do not buy it as other people who want it should not be deprived of the chance simply because of that.

For more on the news, see http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Pig-Early-Learning-Centre-Shop-Criticised-After-Removing-Toy-From-Farm-Set-To-Avoid-Offence/Article/201011315810300?lpos=UK_News_First_UK_News_Article_Teaser_Region_3&lid=ARTICLE_15810300_Pig%2C_Early_Learning_Centre%3A_Shop_Criticised_After_Removing_Toy_From_Farm_Set_To_Avoid_Offence

Did Britain really negotiate with kidnappers?

As we are all aware, a British couple that had been kidnapped and held hostage by pirates in Somalia were being flown to safety today. However, there has been debate as to whether the British government paid part of their £625,000 ransom. This was due to the report which claimed that a Somali official told of how part of the £5.8 million donated as aid by the UK to Somalia, was used to secure their release. Although, claims were that it was done secretly.

Now, I am not quite sure how accurate this story is but if there is truth in it, then it makes me wonder what happened to the policy of "not negotiating with kidnappers" and what will happen to subsequent people held hostage? Surely, this would be sending out the wrong message to everyone out there as very soon, others may reckon that they can try their hands out in this lucky jackpot system. I hope in actuality, this did not happen but needless to say that it is a very pleasant turn of events given that not every hostage lives to tell tales. On a finishing note, the Foreign Secretary has denied the allegations above and in the absence of any contradicting evidence, I will take his word for it.

For more information see link http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1329868/Paul-Rachel-Chandler-Was-Britains-5-8m-aid-grant-Somalia-ransom.html

The Controversy surrounding the United Nations Convention on Contract for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) 1980

The CISG is not to be confused with the English Act of the Sales of Goods 1979.  One of its milestone objective is the doctrine of fundamental breach found under article 25 . Most articles in the Convention tend to set out guidelines as to what a remedy for a fundamental breach of contract would be. For example, articles 49 and 61 state that avoidance of the contract is a necessary precondition for breach, whilst article 46 deals with the buyer being entitled to delivery of substitute goods if contract is breached by the seller. Nevertheless, the evident flaw is to be found in these two articles; articles 74 and 25. Article 74 provides that in the event of a mere non-fundamental breach, the wronged party will be entitled to claim damages. Now, it would of course, be expected that a definition of what constitutes a fundamental breach and non-fundamental, be given in the Convention for differentiation purposes but this is not the case. In fact, all it as much as does in article 25 is give the definition for fundamental breach. The question is, what then is a non-fundamental breach? It is undeniable that this is an inherent problem which hampers the uniformity of interpretation urged by article 7 as  logically, domestic interpretations have become the next port of call. Legal scholars have repeatedly urged avoidance of domestic elucidations of the law given the fact that there are civil and common law jurisdictions all over the globe. However, as one may rightly guess, there is undoubtedly still the risk of conflicting decisions amongst various international courts like European Court of Justice and the International Court of Justice.

 For more information, see link http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/peclcomp25.html

New development in Intellectual Property Law as Negotiations for a new Treaty ensue

Apparently, there has been a draft  since the 14^th of September 2010 for the proposal of the Treaty;  Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement to be established. The main aim of the Treaty is to provide an international paradigm on intellectual property right and enforcement by presenting strategies for dealing with counterfeit goods namely; pirated software, films, fake electrical goods and medicines. This Treaty would if ratified, be between current member states of the European Union, as well as Australia, Japan, America, Canada and South Korea. However as with any other international Treaty, it is not without hitch.

Firstly, critics have stated that important organisation like the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) have been left out of the negotiations, thus creating a non transparent situation.

 Secondly, there has been controversy concerning certain tenders as to what should be included. Amongst these are:  a proposal for making internet service providers liable for materials downloaded illegally and America’s press for the “three strikes” rule to be enforced against persistent file sharers. At present, the above proposals have been dropped but various member states are still pushing to have proposals that would benefit them.

One does have to wonder why the negotiation process is secret in nature and why organisations like the WTO and WIPO that would have otherwise assisted in smooth negotiations, have been left out. Again critics have placed this on the assumption that the Treaty is not in public interest. One thing is certain though, at the end of all negotiations, a new Treaty will be born to combat an area of law that is becoming increasingly difficult to handle.

For more details see link http://www.securitymanagement.com/news/technology-groups-criticize-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement-007365

Is the Advancement of Medical Research becoming too much to handle?

These days, I almost dread reading any piece of article in medical research on the news and it is not difficult to understand why; a good number of them are on some new findings about how our current diet adds something negative on our health!  I am not stating that the field of medical research has not contributed to substantial amount, infact on the contrary,  I would hate to imagine where the society and all the diseases in it would be but for the medical research field's breakthrough. There would have been no cure and vaccines available and plenty people who have been kept alive by science one way or the other would be dead now.

However, that is not the issue. What seems to be the trend at the moment is that new studies are beginning to show that some thing in our food/lifestyle is not as healthy as it was thought to be or that some kind of food/lifestyle increases the risk of a certain disease. Take the renowned disease of breast cancer for example, I can not begin to tell you how much research has been done to attain the point we are at today. Most of it has been positive, but it seems everything "can" increase one's risk of breast cancer to name a few; alcohol, radiation and even childbirth! (http://health.yahoo.net/channel/breast-cancer_causes-and-risk-factors)

 Now, I am not disputing that these studie(s) are wrong as most of the things are already known to cause harm but there are a few absurd ones like childbith which I can not even contemplate how that conclusion was reached. That said, aren't we all going to die someday by some means? In my opinion, one thing must kill a man and so I have decided to stop weighing the pros and cons of every item I put in my shopping basket at the supermarket, for I fear I may have nothing left to buy when I am finished, probably starve and that itself might be the death of me! So I reckon if I am going to go, I should go happy and well fed at least.

Is the concept of, "good faith" in English Commercial Law an adavantage or a disadvantage?

The principle of good faith in English law can be traced to the early case of Carter v Boehm (1766) 3 Burr 1905 where Lord Mansfield first formulated it. According to his lordship, "good faith forbids either party by concealing what he privately knows, to draw the other into a bargain, from his ignorance of the facts, and his believing the contrary". Its general origin is known to be found in equity as oposed to common law given the fact that equity was widely known for its promulgation fairness and justice. Subsequently, Parliament introduced and gave a definition for it in section 61(3) of the Sales of Goods Act 1979 (see link http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1837068). However, despite this introduction, its reception has not been without mixed feelings; with the principal matter of contention being its ambiguous nature. It is feared that the interpretation of the equitable principle would lead to uncertainty in commercial contracts as it leaves a wide scope of discretion to the judges. Emphasis is placed on the fact that "good faith" is subjective in nature in dealing with the behaviour of the parties and therefore will be dependent on the peculiarity of each case and the judge's construal of it. Hence, this would uncertainty in the already structured system of precedence in English courts. Well-known commercial law judges such as Lord Browne-Wilkinson and Lord Millett have advised against the use of equitable maxims that hinder certainty in the law (see the case of Westdeutsche v Islington London Borough Council [1996] 1 AC 996 and Equity's Place in the Law of Commerce (1998) 114 Law Quarterly Review 214). This reasoning not only has theoretical but practical benefits as it would be time and cost effective for businessmen due to the fact that both parties will be able to envisage the outcome of their respective situations by examining past decisions in similar contentions. Even with the advent of a statutory definition, there is still room for uncertainty as the act still utilizes the subjective word of "honestly". What amounts to an honest act is undoubtedly a moot point. Overall, "good faith" seems to be creating more problems than the fairness it was set up to achieve.

Freedom of Speech, How far can it be stretched?

Facebook! Facebook! Facebook! This social media for networking that seemingly started out innocently is causing more problems by the day. There have been several instances in which things done, written and posted on facebook backfired, very much to the detriment of the user. A good example is the New York Times article (see link http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/business/09facebook.html?src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB) which reported on how a worker in Connecticut, America got fired for crticising her boss on facebook, her words of which sparked a general conversation amongst her other colleagues. Due to the sensitivity of the issue, the case put forward by the National  Labour Relations Board (NLRB) will be heard by an administrative judge on the 25th of January 2011.

 On the one hand, the NLRB argues that workers' free speech rights should be extended to social media. In  the words of Mr Lafe Solomon, the NLRB's acting counsel, "This is a fairly straight forward case under the National Labour Relations Act 1935, whether it takes place on facebook or at the watercooler, it was employees talking jointly about working conditions, in this case about their supervisor and they have a right to do that". Under the Act, workers have the right to discuss working conditions and unionization although it does not clearly state the means. Hence, leaving room for speculation that it does not apply to social media discussions. On the other hand, the company argues that the worker in question had breached its policy of prohibition from making disparaging remarks about the company and colleagues.

 It will be interesting to see how this pans out because this is a ground breaking case that might influence decisions all over. If the outcome favours the company, then it might be foreseeable that within the next decade, there may be some sort of facebook police censoring everybody's freedom of speech. With all the political correctness going on, suffice it to say that this may not just be an absurd opinion if it happens. But then again, there is also the risk that if the decision does favour the worker, it might open the flood gates and the lines on what can be freely said may become blurred. One thing is for sure though, there will be plenty of court battles in the next coming years for things done, written and posted on the internet. Rest assured entertainment would not be lacking for most of these things are ridiculous in their entirety.

Summary of the essay "Define CIF contracts and what are the advantages and disadvantages in practice"

In English law, the case of Ross T Smyth & Co Ltd v T D Bailey, Son and Co Ltd [1940] 3 All ER  60 established that the term cif relates to the cost, insurance and freight in sea-borne commerce. In cif contracts, it is usually the duty of the seller to secure the bill of lading aswell as insurance policy to cover the goods and generally ensure that the goods confirm to the stipulated contract.

Adavantages

1. Cif contracts, having been used for so long, now act as a standard form of contract, thereby saving time, cost and energy that would have otherwise been required by employing lawyers to draft a carefully planned contractual document.

2. Also, due to the already assured presence of the insurance policy, the buyer can recover his money in the  event of any damage or loss at sea.

3. The buyer can also use his contractual documents as security at the bank whilst the seller is also enjoys receiving payment for the goods up front as soon as the documents are accepted by the buyer.

4. Finally, as long as the seller has conformed to the contract, if the buyer refuses to pay, he can also seek legal remedy.

Disadvantages

1. One of the major difficulties associated with cif contracts is that its enforceability is strict. Failure to comply with the slightest of terms in contracts could result in the buyer rejecting the contract and goods. This has been exploited by buyers simply to take advantage of a lower price elsewhere (see

Toepfer v Lenersan-poortman NV [1980] 1 Lloyds Rep 143, CA)

2. The seller is not obligated to ensure that the contractual documents arrive before the goods get to the buyer, thus, creating problems during unloading.

3. A final disadvantage is the fact that the insurance policy taken out by the seller for the goods may not cover certain eventualities that occur in practice, therefore making the buyer to bear the responsibility for unforeseen circumstances.

Copyright Law

• The lecture on Intellectual Property Law today was very interesting with the topic on no other than the very controversial, "copyright". It started of with a brief explanation of copyright, succinctly summarised as an unshared right or authority granted by the law to the author of an original work to do certain things with it like, issue copies to the general public, make an adaptation of it etc. The lecture moved on to the historical background of copyright law in the United Kingdom, stating a number of laws that have subsequently come into existence since the first ever copyright Statute of Anne in 1709. Amongst these were the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works 1886, Universal Copyright Convention 1952, Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), Database Directive 1996 and Information Society Directive 2001. Although copyright law originated from the Statute of Anne, the current basis for copyright law is the CDPA 1988 which has also been amended to incorporate the European Union directives in this area of law.

  
  

  Under the CDPA, s1(1) clearly outlines works that are protected, to be: original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, sound recordings, films, broadcasts and typographical arrangement of published editions. Section 3 goes further to express what constitutes a literary, dramatic or musical work whilst section 4 states what artistic works include for the purposes of the Act. Sections 9 and 11 deals with the issue of ownership of copyright and section 12-15 is concerned with the duration of the protection granted under the Act. Having given a brief introduction, the main issue which got me thinking was the sub topic of infringement of a copyright. Section 16 clearly specifies that the owner's rights in relation to the work include : making a copy of it, issuing copies to the public, performing,showing or playing it in public and making an adaptation of it. Thus, under section 17-21, it is considered a primary infringement of a copyright if one does any of the acts in s16. Of utmost concern to most of my colleagues was the first right mentioned, ie; copying an original work. It soon became a hot topic as questions came flooding in.

  
  

  One question asked was the one that applied to virtually all university students and that was if photocopying pages of a textbook or journal etc, amounted to infringement. The answer given was that it all depended on the purpose for which it was being used as there were certain exceptions detailed in part II of the Act, one of which included things done for educational  purposes. However, the drawback in this exception is found in section 32 (1) which states that, "copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is not infringed by its being copied in the course of instruction or in the preparation of instruction, provided the copying is a) done by a person giving or receiving instruction, b) is not done by means of a reprographic process and c) is accompanied by sufficient acknowledgement and provided the instruction is for a non comercial purpose" (see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/32).

  
  

  Another obvious issue which was raised was that universities all over must therefore be in breach of that section as most works are either photocopied or downloaded electronically and the fact that the "instructions" taking place are definitely for commercial purposes. The lecturer clarified that universities do have some kind of arrangement with authors albeit contractual in nature but then again, it would normally include permission from authors. So far, it does make me wonder if universities have a contractual agreement with every single author if his/her work can be found in these universities. Surely, that would be a very wide scope to cover as it would also have to be done for all electronical works aswell and it would be a very difficult task to accomplish. This has made me realise that there are alot of things which we do everyday which could literally amount to infringement on another's copyright even if done innocently as under the Act, infringement includes transient copies aswell. For example just watching a video on youtube could constitute "transient" copying and therefore infringement. Who will win in the war: authors' interest versus public interest or will they be balanced out by the courts? This is something I look forward to finding out over the next few weeks in the course.

Binge Drinking, A social affair or social problem?

 It is a well known fact that the problems associated with binge drinking constitute a substantial amount of the woes that have befallen the society in these modern times. A classic example is Britain. The so called "pub culture" has seeped into the very pores of the general public, claiming with it a number of lives and a host of other troubles. In order to understand the reason people feel the need to drink themselves to stupor, I conducted a private survey amongst some of my British friends and even the non British ones that have imbibed this seemingly cool culture. Everyone I talked to seemed to have the same fundamental opinion which was, "They got a sense of pleasure letting go of themselves and getting drunk". This does not seem like a bad idea, in fact I am all for the expression, "letting ones hair loose" once in a while but the deep-seated issue remains that there appears to be a pattern to this gratification and that is; it takes place everyday of the week or at least every weekend!. Now, I am not writing to criticise how other people live their lives but it is of major concern if the outcome causes problems for the society. Having a drink or two to relax after a hard day's work might not be so bad if people did not extend it to "one too many". What is worse, most drunks do not just keep to themselves but have a tendency to act out anti-social behaviours like vandalism, fighting and vomiting in public, amidst other distressing exploits. But then I guess that is the purpose of getting drunk; to unleash all inhibitions that would otherwise mke us civilised beings. I am not even going to get started on how much damage binge drinking inflicts on our health because we are all aware of the consequences (for more information on latest research carried out by Professor David Nutt, see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11660210 . Why people still persist in doing the obvious is definitely beyond my imagination. On a parting note, my solution to the problem albeit cheeky might prove effective if given a chance. If you still insist on binge drinking, please do it at your home to minimise causing damage to the public or at least it would be your personal effects that get damaged.

Natural Disasters, what is happening?

It seems everywhere I look in the news, there is some form of natural disaster occuring. Take Haiti for example. It has not been up to a week since hurricane Tomas hit, St Vincent, St Lucia and Barbados. Yet according to reports, it is headed down Haiti and is set to have a bigger impact. I dread to imagine the chaos and fear in Haiti as evacuation begins for the storm, the survivors of the previous hurricane in january early this year, having to relive every nightmare again. Not mentioning the cholera outbreak as a result of shortage of clean water. Indeed it is a very depressing situation.

Also not forgetting Indonesia, where mount merapi has been having volcanic eruptions with the death toll rising to 44 people at present, Jamaica where tropical storm Nicole hit in late september claiming lives aswell as property and Pakistan also hit by a flood.

Many have argued this disasters are as a result of climate change(global warming) and that we as primary carers of the world have to do more to protect it. Others are in dispute as to weather global warming really has any effect, claiming that most statistical figures of disasters or even the disasters themselves have either been manipulated or influenced somehow to prove a non existent point( see Michael Crichton's book: State of Fear). While some others are keen to quote evidence of religious prophecies taking place, namely: apolcalypse. The truth of the matter remains that the real issue is still being ignored as everyone is quick to take sides and point fingers. One cannot really say for a fact that this is the true cause of natural disasters, infact it might be a little of everything and nothing. The point remains that rather than hide behind arguments or even accept them, we should all strive to do our bit in helping out those who have been traumatised by these horific events.  I was disheartened when I read in the Trinidad Express (see link http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/NO_FREE_HELP-106494413.html) that the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago said that the country was willing to help its caribbean neighbours but not without something in return (some kind of benefit to Trinidad). What kind of attitude is that? Maybe it has not occured to her that these are people who have been hit by a natural disaster. All the main forms of livelihood especially farming, have been cleared away with not even a sheaf of corn left to survive. But then again, thats how the world operates, "something for something", even to people who have nothing left to bargain with. Very sad situation it is and my thoughts are continously with all those hit by natural disasters. Please let us all continue to donate to charities out there aiding these people for we do not know who amongst us will be hit next.

Is death an appropriate punishment for adultery?

I am sat here pondering what the world has turned into as we sit by and watch a human being's life taken as punishment for committing adultery. A yahoo based article today elaborated on this case: (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20101103/twl-iran-stoning-woman-to-be-hanged-toda-3fd0ae9.html). An Iranian woman;Miss Ashtiani is to be executed in Tehran, by hanging for committing adultery. As expected the UK has taken a stance on the matter with the foreign office minister, Mr Alistair Burt reminding the Iranian diplomat in London that the execution is "unacceptable". Even religous and political figures worldwide have condemned the practice. However, will this be enough to stop her execution or will the outcry fall on deaf ears? One thing is for sure though, it is very sad to know that no matter how far we have come from barbaric to civilisation, there are still those out there that are not willing to move forward. I sincerely hope that the Iranian authorities see sense and withdraw the decision to execute Miss Ashtiani.

Should Prisoners in the United Kingdom be allowed to vote?

I was browsing the BBC news website earlier today when I noted a particularly interesting article. The title is, "Government may allow convicted prisoners to vote"( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11671164). This was due to a matter that was brought before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in 2005 by a prisoner named John Hirst because, according to him, prisoners ought to have a proper channel to air their grievances. As most people may be aware, prisoners have not been allowed to vote in the UK since the enactment of the Forfeiture Act 1870 and the Representation of the People Act 1983. However, this position was called into question with the ruling of the ECHR in 2005 which branded it as unlawful. Consequently, the UK government faces a dilemna as both adopting the decision or failure to do so may have repercussions. On the one hand, if the UK continues to resist implementing the ECHR's ruling, it could face large amount of fines/compensation payouts. On the other hand, if it does take the decision on board, there might be political distaste brewing among the conservative party backbenchers as it is a well known fact that they are strong advocates of the UK becoming independent of the EU, as can be seen by the party's commitment to replace the European Convention on Human Rights with the British Bill of Right. Perhaps one good thing the UK should be thankful about the ruling is the fact that member state(s) can decide which offences to restrict or not restrict voting rights. As of now, although there has still not been a formal decision on the issue as deliberations continue, the Prime Minister David Cameron has grudging conceded to the ruling but still refuses to release the ban on more serious offences like serial killing and child murders. Personally, I reckon this is a fantastic approach as it may curb the riots prisoners undertake when they want to be heard concerning certain issues. What do you think?

what is the reasoning behind naming hurricanes after humans?

First of all, I just wanted to say my thoughts are with the people of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, St Lucia and Haiti, concerning their recent hurricane...err...storm afliction. But as I was going through the news, a thought occurred to me. Ever wondered why hurricanes have human names? Funny concept I know but then it just hit me that like myself, there are probably millions of people out there that have no clue why that is the case. So I decided a little research was in order. Apparently, it is helpful to name hurricanes as more than one could be active at the same time and most people relate better with names than numbers.  So there, at least I know now even though it was so obvious!