Blog
Accountancy regulators confront AI cheating in exams
Zoe Beels
28 June 2016
Divorce in the digital age - avoiding the pitfalls of social media
Social media undeniably plays a huge part in our lives today. At the last count, I had six apps on my phone, four of which I use regularly to stay “connected” and all of which contribute to my digital footprint. Social media is a normal (some may say obsessive) part of most people’s modern day life.
Given that, it is hardly surprising that issues relating to social media arise in family cases. An increasing number of divorce petitions based on one party’s unreasonable behaviour now refer to social media, and the impact of social media doesn’t stop there. For many, social media offers a way to help them cope with marital breakdown through posts of support by online friends and followers. However it is used, it can prove to be a useful source of evidence in many cases and those using online profiles should be wary of the potential pitfalls.
15 March 2016
Don’t you want me baby? – Setting the romantic record straight...top 7 legal “Don’ts” from a media lawyer for the broken hearted
“Beware! I bear more grudges than lonely High Court Judges”, warned Morrisey in his dark 1994 hit, “The More You Ignore Me the Closer I Get”. It has long been the case that some of the best known songs have more than a hint of the obsessive and a wink of the inner stalker about them. Over time, inhabiting such a role has become far easier. Online snooping, use of alternative online identities and personal information, that in the recent past may only have been available to the most committed of private detectives, are avenues readily available to anyone even vaguely computer literate. And with accessibility comes temptation. The sentiments felt by those who unexpectedly find themselves in opposition to the very person who was once their best friend, business partner, colleague or even loved one have not altered. But the environment in which we live in has, and thus, the law has developed to protect those who find themselves the victim of unwanted attention. If a relationship breaks down and conflicts arise, particularly if you once trusted and confided in that very same person, it can be tempting to respond in a way that in the short term feels justified but in the long term can be absolutely the wrong move and land you with unwanted legal bills and even in Court. Here are our top 7 Don’t for the broken hearted, be that in business or in pleasure.
8 October 2015
High-profile cases: speak or be forever damned
In the court of public opinion it’s easy to be ‘convicted’ by social media, which is why some are taking a proactive approach. The recent high-profile cases of Cliff Richard and the rumoured Westminster paedophile ring share more than their common subject matter of historic sexual abuse. They provide examples of tactical decisions to confront intense media scrutiny with detailed public denials and, in effect, a demand that their investigators “put up or shut up”.
11 September 2015
Paula Radcliffe – drug abuse or abuse of parliamentary privilege?
The unequivocal statement by Paula Radcliffe, Britain’s greatest marathon runner and one of its most ardent anti-doping campaigner, that she has never resorted to cheating in any form and was devastated that her name had been linked to blood doping has once again highlighted the legal immunity enjoyed by members of parliament against civil or criminal liability, known as parliamentary privilege.
3 September 2015
Tackling online harassment – a step in the right direction
In our blog Anti-social media – how the law can tackle online abuse and harassment we highlighted the difficulties faced by some victims of internet abuse who before they are able to seek any form of redress must first identify the perpetrator of such abuse, who more often than not will have tweeted under a false identity and/or using one more account. The internet service providers have to date been fairly resistant to taking a pro-active stance in dealing with such abuse and pretty slow of the mark to remove offensive material once notified of its existence.
