Blue Chi’s

1. Symmetrical – which rejects reverse discrimination.
2. Substantive – which supports it.
3. Equal Opportunities – uses arguments from both to allow positive discrimination with limits.

1. Justice is characterised as a prior concept, which is unaffected by history or political principle of unjustifiable discrimination which applies both ways.
2. The symmetrical model asserts the primacy of the individual. This has two dimensions: Merit and Fault. Each person should be treated on his/her own characteristics and no one should be responsible for other faults. The concept of affirmative action contravenes both of these.
3. The Symmetrical approach assumes that the state is neutral as between citizens favouring no one above any other.

1. Formal justice substitutes the ideal for reality. It is impossible to deny effects of discrimination on ethnic minorities. Based on openly substantive and distributive notion of justice.
2. Misleading the aspirations of individualism – insists that fairness takes into account the extent to which opportunities are determined by indirect social and historical status.Merit-based process systematically excludes black people or women. Fault is seen to be flawed? Discrimination is not merely a result of personal fault, it is deeply embed in the structure of society, all members of the privileged class share the duty?? – Fulilone V Klantznick
3. The substantive approach challenges the possibility of an neutral state. The state has a duty to act positively to correct results of discrimination.

1. The university’s practice could amount to experimenting on other people’s children.
2. Preferential treatment could produce attitudes of inferiority among the alleged beneficiaries of preference, as well as attitudes of hostility among those who are disfavoured by such programmes.
3. Fear of whether in government, industry or academic, all blacks, because of the stigma associated with skin colour having played a part in their advancement, will be tarred as undeserving.

1. Discrimination practices of the past preclude the acquisition of ‘merit’ by limiting access to educational opportunities and job experiences.
2. Apparent measures of ‘merit’ may well be biased toward the same groups who are already empowered.
3. Regardless of over principles, people in power are likely to hire people they already know and/or people from a similar background.

1. Demeaning racism, AA wrongly sends the message to minorities that they are not capable enough to be considered on their own merits.
2. Cultural differences, such as the hip hop culture, could be the reason that have prevented groups such as blacks from achieving the same economic opportunity as whites. This means that the minority should be responsible for eliminating any economic disparity between the races.
3. Disadvantaging working class non-minority, AA could encourage socioeconomic discrimination in favour of middle class members of minority groups over better qualified but working class members of the majority group, since such programs do not consider socioeconomic classes.

1. They encourage non-preferred groups to designate themselves as members of preferred groups to take advantage of group preference policies.
2. They tend to benefit the most fortunate among the preferred group (eg black millionaires, often to the detriment of the least fortunate among the non-preferred group (poor whites).
3. They reduce the incentive of both the preferred and non-preferred groups to perform their best as they both know they wouldn’t be judged on their merit.

The contract of employment implies a set of terms through common law, a major contractual term is the duty of mutual trust and confidence between the employer and the employee. The breach of this duty has generated a great debate and confusion on when an employee could claim compesation for the breach of this duty on the event of wrongful dismissal.

The case of Malik v BCCI is a significant case on this matter. In this case, the employee suffered the famous ‘Stigma Damage’, which took effect as a difficulty for the dismissed employee in finding new employment because of the stigma of the bad reputation of the ex-employer attached to the employee. The collapse of the international bank and the later exposure of the corruption of the management that lead to its collapse made it extremely difficult for ex-employees to find new employment. The court in this case awarded compensation for the ‘stigma damages’ suffered by the employees on the basis the suffering of the employees after the dismissal was caused by the breach of the employer’s duty for trust and confidence owed to the employees.

The case of Johnson v Unisys was held to be a limitation to when the employee could seek damages for the breach of the duty of mutual trust and confidence. In this case, the employee, after successful claiming UD compensation, was not allowed to get compensation for the damage he suffered because of the manner at which the employer dismissed him, even though it could that manner could have been said to be a breach of the duty of trust and confidence.

The court said in this case that the employee should be not be compesation for a breach of that duty at the time of dismissal, simply because the Parliament provided a remedy for that situation through UD and awarding compensation for the matter here could lead to double compensation.

This reasoning could be questioned on the basis that this leaves the employee uncompensated for things such as psychiatric damages as the compensation for UD is capped, and seems to suggest the employer could escape liability for a breach of a duty by simply dismissing the employee.

The court’s later attempt to define the boundries of the Johnson exception was in the case of Eastwood v Magnox plc, where it stated that the exception does not cover only the moment and/or act of termination, but also the events leading up to it. However, the court’s later decision in the case of McCabe restricted this exclusion as it started that the exclusion only applied to the moment/act of termination.

The court has suggested that the exclusion will not apply to an ‘independent and antecedent’ cause of action.

1. Commission of a criminal offence,
2. failure of a person to comply with a legal obligation
3. occurrence of miscarriage of justice
4. endangerment of a person’s heath and safety
5. damage to environment
6. concealment of anything above.

1. The employee reasonable believes info disclosed is substantially true.
2. disclosure is not made for personal gain
3. info concern the conduct of ‘an exceptionally serious nature’.
4. in all circumstances, it was reasonable for the employee to make the disclosure.
5. it was made in good faith
6. if the conduct is not of an exceptionally serious nature, the worker must show, in addition to all the stuff above, that it he would’ve been subjected to a detriment if he disclosed internally, or that evidence would’ve been concealed, or that he previously made an internal disclosure and nothing was done.

The process of selling a business would usually terminate the contract of the employment between the employer and the employees under common law. Statute has intervened to protect employees from this fate through the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) 1981 – which was recently updated by the TUPE 2006.

The regulations only apply to a relevant transfer of an undertaking. An ‘undertaking’ is not defined, but the regulations state that it includes any trade or business. Caselaw (Dr Sophie v Bartol) established that even non-commercial organisations would fall within the scope of the regs.

The main difficulty in using the regulations would be in showing that the transaction in question is a ‘relevant transfer’

Under TUPE 06 Reg (4)(1), a relevant transfer shall not operate so as to terminate the contract of employment of any person employed by the transferor and assigned to the organised grouping of resources or employees that is subject to the relevant transfer, which would otherwise be terminated by the transfer, but any such contract shall have the effect after the transfer as if originally made between the person so employed and the transferee.

(4)(2)(a) all the transferor’s rights, powers, duties and liabilities under or in connection with any such contract shall be transferred by virtue of this regulation to the transferee.

This means that the contracts of employment of all the employees are automatically transferred to the transferee on the same terms and conditions. If the employee objects to have his contract being transferred he can refuse to transfer so that his contract is terminated, but this will not be considered as a dismissal [Reg (4)(8)]. However, if the transfer has a significant or a detrimental change, then the employee can refuse to move and would be able to claim unfair dismissal by establishing constructive dismissal.

Mira Craig is a half Norwegian half American, half white half black model, singer, songwriter and producer. Her debut album came out last earlier this year only in a limited number of Eurpean countries due to the fact that she personally produced her album via her owned production company ‘Homemade’. Mira was previously featured on Snoop Dogg’s track ‘Sisters and Brothers’ and had a duet with Wyclef Jean.

Mira’s album is so fresh, I’ve heard people label her voice as a mixture of Pink and Amerie, while I thought at some instances that she sounded so much like Sean Paul – in a good way. Mira’s voice can go so deep and then just switch to high tones. I couldn’t come up with a better description of Mira’s music than the one I found at MIC Norway:

one comes to see that her newly released debut record Mira Mira, is more than just a collection of songs aimed at dance floors, even if that is its immediate intention. It is, in fact, a statement incorporating her whole background and with an overall guiding theme. Her songs vary greatly and the record constitutes a mix so diverse it is evident that there lies careful consideration behind her blends, contrasts, themes and breaks. –It is not simply the result of diverse musical influences that actually come together in a person, but rather a conscious attention towards creating a composite entirety. The record incorporates American, Caribbean and African beats, elements of Japanese, and not least Norwegian, traditional folk music, as well as other disparate ingredients.

What I thought is awesome in Mira Mira is how each song could be interpreted to have its own storyline and universe. I am so obsessed with Mira Craig, I hope it doesn’t take long until she gets a contract with an international record label.

1. Intro
2. Boogeyman
3. Who Make Yuh
4. Someofdathomemadepie
5. Trouble
6. Huldra 1
7. More Fire
8. Headhunted
9. Snake Charmer
10. Huldra 2
11. Dinner In Bed
12. Dizzy
13. Dizzy Outro
14. Devotion
15. Outro

Official Website.

Tarkan is the most successful pop star in Turkey. He became a worldwide icon upon the international release of his self-titled album in 1999. His hit ‘Sikidim’ (Kiss Kiss) was covered by more than 10 international artists in many languages including Arabic, English, Spanish, Japanese and many more.

Tarkan released his first English album last month in some parts of Europe, the album features 14 new tracks and a new English version of the hit ‘Shikidim’. Tarkan’s English album is a mixture of mainstream pop and Turkish music, a lot of tracks sound very catchy, such as Shhh, Bounce (the first single), In Your Eyes, and Why Don’t We (Aman Aman) featuring Wyclef Jean. The music of ‘Come Closer’ sounds really awesome, it just the right mix of oriental instruments with a hint of urban production.

What I do not like about Come Closer is that it is way too ‘mainstream’, Tarkan’s English is perfect and his album does not really seem to reflect anything about the Turkish culture, I had to compare this to international artists such as Shakira and Utada that made English albums that sounded so fresh lyrically and in terms of themes, unlike Tarkan’s English album which talks about nothing but him and his girl playin’ games. There are some songs in this album that song so random and shallow as if it were taken from a boys band album, while his other actual Turkish songs sound so much better and the translations of the lyrics of these songs are really amazing. I do not hate Come Closer, but I would have liked something more creative, but I guess that he had to sound more stream to sell.

1. Just Like That
2. In Your Eyes
3. Why Don’t We (Aman Aman) (featuring Wyclef Jean)
4. Mine
5. Over
6. Start The Fire
7. Shhh (I Wanna Hear Love Speak)
8. Bounce
9. Come Closer
10. Don’t Leave Me Alone
11. Shikidim
12. I’m Gonna Make U Feel Good
13. Mass Confusion
14. Touch
15. If Only You Knew

(PS. You can check Tarkan DeLuxe – the greatest blog about Tarkan. )

The court will weigh the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of journalistic sources against the general interest of the administration of justice. Recent caselaw leans towards disclosure though. The Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice states that journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information. There are two main methods at which the disclosure of journalist material is regulated, the Contempt of Court Act and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Contempt of Court Act
Section 10 of the contempt of court act 1981 offers protection to the media’s sources subject to 3 specific exceptions.

Section 10: No court may require a person to disclose, nor is any person guilty of contempt of court for refusing to disclose, the source of info contained in a publication for which he is responsible, unless it be established to the satisfaction of the court that disclosure is necessary (1) in the interest of justice, or (2) national security or (3) for the prevention of disorder or crime.

Person seeking the protection of section 10 must show that the balance of probabilities is such that the identity of his source will be revealed if he complies with the order being sought. It is not sufficient to show that disclosure is the easiest way of pinpointing the leak, the test is one of necessity and not of convenience or expediency, this does not mean that ALL other lines of enquiry must first be exhausted.

It will be considered whether or not the plaintiff has made any attempts to discover the source of a leak other that by applying to the court (Broadmoor Hospital v Hyde (1994))

A bare assertion of ‘necessity’ will not suffice, it must be proved by evidence on the balance of probabilities. The court will undertake a balancing exercise, weighting one public interest (maintaining the confidentiality of the J sources) against another (one of the three exception to s10).

Scope of s10. The section applies where the info is contained in a publication. This is defined to include any speech, writing, broadcast, cable programme, or other communication in whatsoever form, which is addressed to the public at large or any section of the public. This technically extends to protect any info communicated and received for the purpose of publication.

The Exceptions to Section 10
(1) The interest of justice: Guardian (1985), the expression justice was held not to be the opposite of ‘injustice’. The interests of justice demand that people should be able to exercise important legal rights and to protect themselves from serious wrongs, whether or not legal proceedings in a court of law will be necessary to attain these objectives.

Goodwin case, new journalist working at The Engineering received phone call about confidential information that could severely damage a company. The company got an injunction and then sought to have disclosure as well. In deciding whether or not the threshold of necessity has been reached, the judge must wight the importance of enabling the ends of justice be attained in the circumstances of the particular case against the importance of protecting the source.

This balancing exercise should take account of:

1. The degree of confidentiality attaching to the information
2. The seriousness of the consequences of any actual or further apprehended breach
3. The degree of true public interest in what might be disclosed in terms of the revelation of inequity

The HL held that another important consideration was the manner at which the source had obtained the information, if obtained illegally this would diminish the importance of protecting him, unless there was a clear public interest in publication.

In Goodwin, the court found no evidence of inequity or misconduct on the part of the claimant, the it was necessary for the source to be revealed so that the company could take steps to deal with the menace that he represented for its business activities, the balance came down in favour of disclosure. (What about ECHR, Article 10 breach, didn’t work?).

2. National Security
Secretary of State for Defence v Guardian Newspapers Ltd [1985]
Photocopy of a secret ministry of defence document on cruise missile which was supplied to the Guardian by a ‘mole’ and which was published. C sought to disclose the source of the articles and the return of the documents which had markings that would identify the source. The claimant argued that disclosure was necessary in the interest of national security and got it. HL said that expediency, however great, is not enough, and that section 10 requires actual necessity to be established. Necessity fulfilled because of the possibility that the mole might leak other, more serious, documents in the future.

3. Prevention of Crime
Warner’s case [1988], the prevention of crime was broadly interpreted in this case. It was not required to establish a particular identifiable crime which would be prevent if disclosure is necessary for the prevention of crime in general. This case involved insider dealings, and it was sufficient that there were definite grounds for expecting to find material of real importance to the party seeking disclosure. OR that non-disclosure was likely substantially to impede the inspectors in their inquiries.

X v Y [1988] Someone disclosed the names of AIDS patients and the hospital sought disclosure on grounds for preventing doctor corruption. The court said that this was too vague as there was not enough evidence that C had done everything to identify the leak themselves.

In extreme cases a J might not be compelled to reveal his sources even when it had been established that their identification is necessary for the prevention of crime when the crime is too trivial or when J’s life might be imperilled.

The leaked documents could be destroyed before the initiation of legal proceedings and this will not be contempt, but the owner would still have a civil claim for damages in respect of lost property.

1. The type of the court hearing the case: Juries are more likely to be swayed by what they hear. (Juries do criminal trials and defamation).
2. The circulation of the publication and its relation to the location of the course and the corresponding area. the risk will be less likely for example where a local Guildford Newspaper carries a report that a man charged is to be tried a ta different place had previous convictions… in other words, it will be unlikely to be read by the jury. However, the risk is greater where a publication is of greater prominence and reaches a mass audience.
3. Time delay to the trial. The bigger the delay, the more likely for the risk not to be substantial. AG v Independent Television News [1995] The Broadcast was nine months before trial, any effect would have faded by the time of the trial, but in AG v Morgan [1998] the effect could still be there due to the prominence given to the publication and the likely impact on the reader. It is also worth noting that the publication AT THE TIME OF TRIAL is very risky, AG v MGN ltd [2002], in this case D published an interview with the father of the victim of an assault who, said that the attack was racially motivated when the court told the jury that it was not.

1. Publishing D’s previous convictions, in criminal trials, previous convictions are deliberately kept from the jury so as to give the defendant a blank sheet.
2. Publishing details of criminal trials, (although ones in good faith might not be), but some details of stuff said in the absence of the jury could affect them.
3. Publishing D’s photo where the issue is identification.
4. Publishing details of D’s background, where the background facts have the effect of either blackening or laundering D, or suggesting a motive for his behaviour.