I should copyright that

Hi Ladies and Gentlemen ahem just clearing my throat before a small rant. I know its awfully rude of me to only come back here and update you with my wonderful thoughts when I am pushed to the point of furious insanity BUT I have a pet peeve – which is entirely unjustified but nonetheless is there.

My enemy is the statement ‘I should copyright that’ or when people come up with something that they believe is genius… and usually just isn’t and shouts out ‘Copyright!’ thinking that this grants them something OR [this is the actual nemesis of the mind. Like my brain blows up…] when someone is purporting to create a TRADEMARK or LOGO for their business and puts a little C with a circle around it and the year……………

So I know not everyone studies the law, and despite how many text messages I send to David requesting that sex education should be scrapped and law should be implemented into the national curriculum it is yet to happen but I’m going to give everyone a little lesson. Feel free to send it to all of your friends because quite frankly if you are serious about whatever creative medium you have dedicated your life to, a little research will make you sound even more well erm. I don’t know. Serious.

Copyright DOES NOT REQUIRE REGISTRATION (I will only say that once). It basically allows you to say ‘hey that’s my work’ but the work has to be original. 

SO if you come up with a song called ‘Crazy in Hate’ and start singing ‘your hate’s got me looking so crazy right now, your haaate….etc’ then its not really erm original is it? (she doesn't seem to think so)

Original means NOT COPIED FROM ANOTHER WORK.

Your work also have to be one of the following:

Literary, musical. Dramatic, artistic, a film, a sound recording, a broadcast or a typographical arrangement (like the way you lay something out).

How is the work protected- IT IS AUTOMATIC AT THE MOMENT THE WORK IS FIXED IN PERMANENT FORM so if you have a song and you record that… I’ll let you work out the rest.

It lasts for another 70 years after you die so you won’t have to have your grand children roaming the street shouting copyright. The lawyers… as ruthless as we are are actually quite smart – so erm copyright is therefore quite smart too.

Now when it comes to Trademarks and that little TM… I’ll save that for another day. Still have exams to pass!!

Love, hugs and no to jugs xx 

Gahh! Gaddafi and Galliano

Howdy, So I am back and in full swing I believe... we shall see what happens over the next few weeks. From the title of this blog, you can see who I am upset with right now. And its the G's. No not G as in Don or 'top general' (thats my bilingual part translating for you), rather its  Gaddafi and Galliano:

Lets start with the Libyan Leader. If you are anything like me, you will nod and 'ahhh' about a topic that everyone apparently knows so much about until you actually find out the facts. But if you happened to miss the wave of news reports on the situation because you were sitting exams that required you to answer the same question on s19(1) FSMA and whether confidentiality overrides disclosure over and over and over aga...-


I'm so sorry I was ranting and that is completely off topic! But did anybody else know that 'p' is not just a letter in the alphabet and is apparently part of a VERY IMPORTANT formula:  7/400 x (£1.5m – ‘p’) x PCTCT/’p’. 


Gosh I just can't stop! So being inspired by the somewhat successful overthrow in Egypt, the residents of Libya have taken to the streets to stand their ground in indignant protest. As the masses poured into the streets of Tripoli Muammar Gaddafi made it clear that he was not going to go without a fight. The Libyan leader has held his position for a massive 42 years. It is then no surprise that while the protesters are saying 'times up!', they have been shot at and the bloodshed and death toll has begun to make it look like just another middle-eastern-war-torn-country. 


BUT do not shut down, this is a pivotal moment in history and I believe that we as young people can fight through the desensitisation that the media has subjected us to. If these protests are successful it could have massive implications on other dictatorships and if not massive implications on the way Libya is governed moving forward. I mean can you even IMAGINE having David Cameron (i'm ignoring the other one on purpose) sitting in power for 42 years and refusing to shift, its deep stuff. Anyway this is me just saying watch this space.

Now as for Galliano, a man we have all grown to love whether we want to or not. For those of you that do not know who he is (i'll be the first to admit I heard his name for the first time last year when a friend of mine was chilling in his hotel room as part of her internship!), he is a super-duper, futuristic, furiously fantastic designer. He has currently been suspended from walking the polished halls of fashion house Christian Dior. WHYYY! you scream. Well it is not without reason. 


His marvellously skilled hands were unable to reach his mouth intime to stop him from making some rather violent remarks along the lines of 'your parents would have been gassed' (and no, he was not talking about the slang term that means talking nonsense) and other praise for Hitler in the presence of some unsuspecting Jews having a not-so-nice Latte.


Meh, it makes me a little furious when people think in such ways but being subjected to direct racism in the past it has made me realise it is a fact of life, people will think how they think and we just have to thicken our skin and deal with it. That being said this is only in reference to remarks, anything past that and people should take to the streets of Tripoli! I mean Trafalgar Square.


Anyway I will leave you with a few of Galliano's beauties (apparently he is still making the royal wedding dress HA!) 

besos x

He said he likes me, so I've opened a savings account!

Yes thats right guys, its no longer boy meets girl, fall in love, get married, have babies, raise them then think about potential university fees and other financial splurges along the way. Not on this side of the pond. Our beloved condem government who are so highly regarded in this blog have gone and tripled the university cap, suddenly, drastically and without remorse.


I must say that I was told in order to succeed in my chosen field I should demonstrate no extreme political opinion, especially if it was anything near left wing. But meh, the word on the street from Through My Aiz is that the law firms have given up on people who study law at undergrad anyway.


Now back to the matter at hand, just incase you have decided to cut yourself off from the civilised world or perhaps even just cut off your ears after hearing your 64th online lecture at law school. From 2012, Universities will be allowed to charge up to £9000 for ONE year of education at their fine establishments. It is supposed to be a war on pointless degrees but it would be easier if they just axed the LLB because judging from the percentage of GDL students on the LPC that comes TOP for pointless degerees... I digress again (I'm so sorry!!)




But its not a free for all, universities have been strictly warned that if they even dare charge over £6000 they will be subject to 'fair access conditions' and will have to demonstrate they are improving access for disadvantaged students. Yes, thats right, prove you are doing all you can to ensure the poorer children can go to university, then when they apply charge them £27,000 for it. Excellent.

I know what you are thinking, I'm not a politician so what do I know? Well I do know that graduate unemplyoment is at its highest in about 20 years and I do know that certain members of certain parties in power in certain countries have never actually had a job/owned a business outside of politics in their life so don't know what it means to not have an allowance to take advantage of spend. And I also know that there is a new love story in town and it goes like this:


Once upon a time you meet a guy, he shows interest, you like him kind of, start saving! because IF you happen to have babies, it really will be too late to start saving £27,000 when they are born JUST for university.


Sigh.


Rant over.


I'm a really happy person on the inside. Please don't let anything convince you otherwise.

xx

Breaking News: Updates

I'm sure many people will be disappointed to know that despite the flirting that happened between international law firms Mayer Brown and Simmons & Simmons (hereby documented), they have announced that they are going to remain just friends. I really thought that they would be next on the marriage scene, I had already bought my dress. :(

In addition I wrote earlier about Naomi Campbells fears of being summoned to court here. Today I am a little saddened to update that the supermodel will indeed be summoned to court to testify at Christopher Taylor's war trial regarding an alleged 'blood diamond' he gave to her.

No need to thank me for choosing a hot dress or following up on my speculations! xx

Emergency Fashion!

I know, I can be a bit dramatic with these titles, but it is important to get your attention. You know that it is my overall aim to entertain educate you with these blogs and since I was not an die-hard blogger during the election campaign, you will be subjected to my disdain of the coalition government through these random posts.

George Osborne (the wonderful chancellor) will be delivering the emergency budget and who knows what will actually crop up. There have been talks of tax increases and reducing a £6bn deficit, but as consumers, employees, business owners and fashion lovers, what effect will the budget have on us.

• The treasury is considering increasing alcohol duty by 5% - yes I know, the thought of paying more for alcohol seems ludicrous.

• VAT is likely to be hiked to approximately 20% - for those of you that are thinking so what. Remember the blissful times when VAT was at 15% and you would go to the till and everything would be just that bit cheaper. Well now your shopping experience will be tainted with a few more pounds coming out of your pocket, and your phone and restaurant bills looking higher than ever. 
• CGT (Capital Gains Tax) is likely to increase from 18% to 40% or even 50% - for shareholders and second home owners this is going to be tragic, if you have a second home and you are looking to sell then it will really effect how much you pocket.
• And the ever famous 1% rise in National Insurance for employees - the basis of the conserviative party campaign. Well. That will be going ahead of course, not because Gordy was correct and has done an excellent job bringing us through a global recession but because its the Lib Dems fault duh!

Whatever the outcome of the emergency budget, there is likely to be some form of strangulation squeeze on our pockets! To get the best info tomorrow, have a look at leading law firm Olswang's Budget Blog which will actually be interactive, so don't sit there scratching your heads, get your questions and answers in.

An emergency budget does mean emergency fashion. Here are examples of strange people looking good for less. I may add one of me later when I get onto my laptop. Check out where they got these low cost pieces at Blazer Whore and Through My Aiz:

(okay so I cut out my face because I was a little excited about the flash! Dress: Vintage Skirt hiked up, Belt: Primark, Boots: Barrats (but had for years), Cardigan: Vintage)

What's in a name?

Hi ladies and gentlemen, I apologise profusely for neglecting to update my blog, however I did go away for a little while and had no internet connection other than on my blackberry!

Anyway here is a little story that I found quite hilarious when I read it:

So what's in a name? opportunity apparently! A lady has changed her name to ‘Mrs Lorraine Darla I Hate Thomas Cook And It’s Associates Big Shot Company Treading On The Little Guy Leeks’. She had a little trouble with the company after she booked the tickets for her honeymoon in her married name but then did not have enough time to change the name on her passport. This more than likely happens all the time and it is a little irritating that Thomas Cook would benefit from it in the form of a nifty little charge. (On the flip-side its the nature of the game and one has to get themselves through a recession somehow!) 

She does say that this was a 'crazy moment' as opposed to her lashing out at the company. Something tells me not, she could have just as easily changed her name to: Mrs Lorraine Darla I am Crazy And Am Having A Moment Leeks'

In order for one to change their name they must go through the Legal Deed Poll Service. A Deed Poll legally binds the person who signs it to a particular course of action as detailed on the Deed Poll document. When you get a Deed of Change of Name you are bound by the following rules and should not make silly decisions like this lady has:

You are legally committing yourself to:

• Abandoning the use of your former name;
• Using your new name only at all times;
• Requiring all persons to address you by your new name only.

There are many a name that I could change mine to involving T-Mobile. This is me avoiding defamation charges, I haven't said anything, it's all in your head.

A complaint: Office Shoes

Okay so this is me definitely complaining. What OFFICE has done is not illegal but it sure feels like it should be. Unfortunately they protect themselves by saying that essentially no contract is made between you and them until they post the goods, and you have no other choice but to accept this! Anyhoo let me tell you what happened.


So on 4th June I ordered these shoes from Office online:

Oooh, Aaah, Cute! Yes I felt the same way. They were on sale from £60 to £25 and I felt like after all my hard work I deserved to spend a little! 

1. I get my order confirmation 

2. I wait and wait and wait, since I PAID for 2 - 3 day delivery.

3. I hear nothing from Office and quite frankly did not realise that 6 days had passed.

4. On 10th June My funkyberry vibrates and I pick it up: You've Got Mail

5. I read the following message:

Dear Mr Funke Omisore

This is an automated email to confirm that due to limited stock availability the following item(s) could 'NOT' be dispatched to you from Office Shoes.

JIMINY CRICKET LACE UP - BURG/

This order has been cancelled and your credit / debit card will not be charged or will be refunded for the item(s).

We apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Office Shoes

The Distance Selling Regulations 2000 cover goods or services sold without face-to-face contact. They cover:

• the internet
• television
• mail order, including catalogue shopping
• phone and fax

The regulations say that:

• you must be given clear information about the goods or services before you buy
  
• goods must be delivered within thirty days unless agreed otherwise
• there is a ‘cooling off period’ where you can cancel the contract to buy for any reason

If they had limited stock they really should have a system that does not get ones hopes up in thinking that they have bought shoes when they really have not.


I am most disturbed by the fact that they called me MISTER and this is not the first time I have shopped with them... I have always been a Miss and did not get a sex change. 


I tried to find something in contract law or unfair contract terms (UCTA) to make this work in my favour. All I would get if I did win was money and I really wanted the shoes. SO now I am sad, sad that the shoes that I had already put outfits on reserve for will not be posted to my house.


Please do not buy things from OFFICE online and actually expect them to actually come. In store they have a 'no refund' policy which is another thing I do not like about them. They sell stunning shoes every now and again (if you can get past all the trainers at the door).


Rant over. I'll probably delete this when if rational thought kicks in.

See no Evil, Hear no Evil, Blog no Evil...

A blogger who has been labelled as 'evil' has managed to avoid a jail sentence despite avoiding numerous court orders.

The 44-year old blogger took it upon herself to attack other people on the net using her blog. She accused her opponents of 'milking cancer' and being a disgusting heroin trafficker'. We have already discussed the limitations that we have on so called freedom of speech when it comes to the internet (here).

The blogs were written on a number of places including Corrupt Camden Council Blogspot. The lady was ordered to take down the blogs and was banned from contacting the 'victims' or posting anything about them on the internet. Obviously, being a blogger on a mean mission, she ignored these orders.

Judge Ian Karsten QC labelled her as 'evil' but did not want to send her to jail. Instead he issued her with a £350 fine and other costs totalling £115!

So this is me saying I told you so. Please be careful what you say about other people online. You could end up losing money, making a very bad reputation for yourself and even have a judge who decides to throw you behind bars.

Louis Vuitton Lies...?

Louis Vuitton has been accussed of advertsing 'misleading' information by implying that their luxury bags are handmande. Ususally major fashion designers such as LV are quick off the mark to sue those who attempt to sell counterfeit versions of their products. The advert showed a woman stitching a handle to the bag yet the label said that some aspects of the bag were made by a machine.

The designer admitted to the Advertising Standard Agency that the images were enhanced to make them more visually appealing (duh!). The ASA however took their excuses and ordered them not to use the advert again. A spokesperson commented:

"We noted that the images were stylized interpretations of real stages of the production process of both of the items featured. However, we considered that consumers would interpret the image of a woman using a needle and thread to stitch the handle of a bag to mean that Louis Vuitton bags were hand stitched."


So it's a slap on the wrist for Louis V this time round however it has emphasised the importance of keeping all evidence relating to a brand just incase claims such as these are made against it. The ASA did not receive enough evidence from Louis Vuitton to show the extent to which products may be handmade and therefore were forced concluded the Ads were misleading.

I don't think that Louis Vuitton has really lost any attention at this time. Their star studded opening of the flagship 'London Maison' on New Bond Street last month was the 'talk of the town' so to speak. And they crammed so many celebrities into one space that an explosion would have resulted in an addition to the galaxy.

What did they wear!? (I hear you...)

\

SATC 2 - Legal Bias

So I went to see Sex and The City 2 (as you do) and while it was a barrel of laughs (clearly too many laughs for those around us) there were a few valuable lessons delivered. Since I lack the ability to mindlessly watch a chick flick anything, my intellectual curiosity had to disturb my viewing by asking silly questions!


Anyway firstly fashion: The girls and I unanimously (I'm guessing from their 'I like that' and 'Oooh, nice dress!') agreed that for the majority of the movie, none other than the fabulous Miranda was consistently the best dressed. Yes she had a few awkward outfits but nothing compared to the concoctions that SJP threw herself into. So what, we are three budding lawyers who happened to completely randomly believe the lawyer won the impromptu competition. It's the truth... and the truth will make you free :)

Dress by British designer Julien MacDonald

Now for the legal lesson...

Destinations such as Dubai and Abu Dhabi are fast becoming popular holiday hot spots (as well as fertile ground for new law firms but i'll discuss that later). Now we all love a hot and exotic holiday in stunning surroundings, however I fear that 'when in Rome, do as the Romans do' is lost here in blighty (Britain). It seems that while one demonstrates an avid distaste to immigrants causing a cultural blemish on the porcelain perfection that is Great Britain, one is happy to go on holiday and look for fish and chips and ignore the cultural surroundings... after all its just a holiday right?


(I'm getting to the point now)


When told that kissing in public and wearing a string vest is just completely inappropriate and even legally sanctionable in a certain part of the world, I believe it is best to adhere to these rules. Law changes as jurisdictions change as countries change; the law here is not the law everywhere and we should bear that in mind as we travel the world.

Don't believe me: Last November, a British couple in their 20's were arrested and convicted in Dubai for kissing in public. They received a one month prison sentence which might sound like nothing, but when you go on a planned holiday for a week then face court proceedings and a sentence it can all become very traumatic. The couple say they were only kissing on the cheek and didn't think they were breaking any laws... (no comment)






SO...Like Miranda, before you go halfway across the world and take exciting pictures and tweet about how "awesome" your experience is, do some research! Not paying a hotel bill over here is not such a big deal, but as the lovely ladies experienced, it carries a prison sentence in Abu Dhabi (I dont know if this is factually correct, I'm alluding to the movie)

No fashion weaponed against us...UK Law on Indecent Exposure

The temperatures are rising and I've seen some outstanding summer outfits. I've also seen a few people catching a tan on TFL (Transport for London for my transatlantic readers) in their actual bikini's. I personally think it is entirely inappropriate. Yes, I understand you worked out for the entire year to get that beach body and didn't ever see the beach. But for the four year old who won't stop asking why someone was allowed to colour three hearts on her tummy or the sixteen year old who wonders why her body doesn't look quite like theirs its just not fair. And for the many men who happen to be on public transport with these lovely ladies... I salute you, for this is surely fashion weaponed against you!

Anyway I thought to myself, as I always do when something doesn't quite go my way: there must be a law against it! I rifled through my mental legal library and found it: Indecent Exposure and Outraging Public Decency.

In the UK indecent exposure is defined under the Sexual Offences Act (2003) as exposing genitals with intention and the person must intend that someone will see and be 'caused alarm or distress'.

Outraging public decency is when someone commits an act of such a 'lewd, obscene or disgusting nature as to amount to an outrage to public decency'. For it to be in public, there has to have been a possibility of at least two members of the general public seeing it. Upon conviction, one can be charged up to £5000 or 6 months in prison. 

The only problem with this law is that times change and standards change. A few hundred years ago, walking down the street in your underwear bikini would definitely have been a criminal offence, but nowadays it is unlikely that someone will call the police or that the CPS will see it sufficiently in the public interest to prosecute! (this actually happened to two girls who got arrested for flashing a CCTV camera on the beach)

Ah well, the law won't do anything about it but at least you have learnt something new. My advice chickas is to dress to impress, emphasis on the dress. Have a smidgen of decorum because you never know who you can run into. Imagine you have an interview for your dream job and you find that the partner interviewing you is none other than the mister who you sat next to on the bus in your bikini last week...

The Law According to Haw

Perhaps you have had a pleasant experience strolling down westminster bridge on a summer's day and perusing the perimeters of parliament at the end. Or like myself, running through the hustle and bustle of tourists/protesters to try and get to your exam on time in Westminster Central hall. Even if you've stood Canon at the ready, neck craned and one eye squinted to take  a picture of London's Big Ben, you must have seen anti-war activist Brian Haw and his tents. 

(just incase you haven't it looks something like this)

He has lived in his tents for 9 years and has become somewhat of a celebrity.

Having learned in class that he had been granted legal permission to protest within the otherwise forbidden area around the Houses of Parliament, every time I passed this area I would smile inside and say 'right on mister, you have a law all to yourself!'


However I never considered that fact that others who do not think on those terms would consider him a nuisance or an eyesore. Today it became all too much for the queen to see as she drove past in her car, and fresh calls for mister Haw to be evicted have been cried from within parliament!

But who has the power to decide whether he stays or goes and who's responsibility is it to look after the area?? none other than our now world famous and entirely responsible mayor Boris Johnson. (I love him and everything he stands for just incase you didn't know)


After being accused of dragging his feet (Boris!!!), he sought permission from the High Court to evict Mr Haw and the group who are currently camped with him once and for all.


Westminster council actually want the coalition government to change the law. I'll have to say that again highlighting the important parts... Westminster council actually want the coalition government to change the law.
I shall reserve my comments on the likelihood of this with the hope of preventing myself from facing a defamation claim.


Anyway today Brian Haw gets arrested for causing a ruckus in front of the queen, the irony of the whole situation was captured by human rights group Liberty when the stated: "we are very sad to see that on a day that is supposed to celebrate British democracy, peaceful dissent is also shut down...". The representative continued her speech saying things like 'promises' and 'coalition government' in the same sentence, and I thought since it's my blog, I am not forced to entertain such nonsense. 


Anyhoo lets wait and see if he gets removed. I for one hope not, he always reminds me of my Public Law classes and is a pretty unique gem to have in London. 

Allen and Ovaries? £3.4 million Sexual Discrimination and Unfair Dismissal claim.

International legal practice Allen & Overy LLP has been hit with a £3.4 million sexual discrimination claim. One of their senior associates, based in Moscow has taken to writing erotic stories online. Infact her hobby was so serious that the lawyer has been writing an erotic novel. 

Deidre Dare was fired for publishing this novel despite being asked by the firm to stop. However she claims that the real reason for her dismissal is that her boss "had developed a sexual obsession" with her and this was a "direct result of that obsession". No offence Deidre but it all sounds a bit elaborate to me. The firm insists that "the termination of her employment was justified and legal" and no doubt they have a strong enough legal team to defend their case.

Dare has a number of claims including, heavy petting with bosses, make out sessions, crazy jealousy and being sidelined for work that she brought in. But her biggest complaint really should be the loss of her £128,000 a year salary. Her writing however is proceeding well and is currently earning about £138 a week!

Over on The Lawyer you can see a full and detailed article covering this case, and some funny little comments including the questioning of how she slipped the A&O's rigourous selection process. Ha ha ha ha ha. Ha!

Follow me on Twitter!

Not. Okay well I may end up swallowing my words with a giant spoon but right now, I don't like twitter. Mainly its the needy dependency that it eventually demands from you but it is also the danger of falling into a legal mess. Freedom of Speech apparently does not extend to the internet. Here are a few examples of legal no-no's committed on twitter... (please bear in mind that they normally apply to corporate twitter accounts as they have more liability!)

Defamation: Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.




This is probably the biggest problem on Twitter, saying something about someone who is supposedly someone can lead to some serious trouble.

Another recent 'boo boo' was when Kerry McCarthy revealed the results of postal votes via Twitter!? hmm now I really was rooting for Labour during the election but when ToryBear replied to her tweet with 'someone call the police', I was very much inclined to pick up my mobile and report her law breaking myself.

In the US, a property management company sued a lady who complained about mould in her chicago apartment on her twitter stating: "Who said sleeping in a mouldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon realty thinks it's okay." - a huge LOL to this lady because I find her statement hilarious. But the company didn't. They call themselves a 'sue first, ask questions later kind of organisation'


Anyhoo I think you guys get the gist. Think Think before you Tweet Tweet!

Naomi Campbell in 'blood diamond' legal case

International supermodel Naomi Campbell may have received a gift that was even more expensive than she could have imagined. She was apparently given jewels by Liberia's ex-president (Charles Taylor) among which were alleged 'blood diamonds'.

Now I am sure you have an idea about what this might be due to the 2006 movie with Leonardo DiCaprio. The charges in this case are brought against Taylor on the grounds that the diamonds were seized from Sierra Leone's gem mines to fund rebel groups who were responsible for variable inhumane acts including a decade of fighting from 1991.

The actor Mia Farrow claimed that Campbell had told her she'd been given a rough diamond from Taylor in 1997 while she was visiting Nelson Mandela. The courts have thus determined that Ms. Campbell is in a position to 'provide material evidence' about the whole situation. However Naomi has said (to Oprah Winfrey)

"I don't want to get involved in this man's case – he has done some terrible things. I don't want to put my family in danger."


In my humble opinion (which I am very hesitant to give), the supermodel should not have to testify against a man who has been accused of such grave war crimes, endangering herself and her family. If she did in fact receive a gift from Taylor, it was not a purchase and thus a subpoena would be unfair. Just saying