The Queen’s Speech 2013: Immigration

In her latest speech today the Queen announced a new approach to immigration which is supposed to reduce the number of people coming to the UK. What was mentioned was that the government had prepared a variety of measures in order to crack down illegal immigration.

The monarch stated that due to the new measures the country would attract only people who would contribute, which sounds reasonable. The Legal Stop will continue to contribute to the businesses with high quality corporate documents and request a document service.

The future migrants will receive stricter limitations on using NHS and getting social benefits and housing.

Businesses found to employ illegal immigrants will be penalized financially. Landlords will also have to be more careful when taking immigrants in their properties. Illegal immigrants will not be able to receive driving licenses.

The mentioned and also the foreign criminals will have to be deported easier because of the new measures.

When talking to Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, Prime Minister David Cameron said: “We want this country to attract people who will add to our national life — but those who will not should be deterred.”

Many shared the opinion that today’s speech was focused on immigration mainly as an attempt to attract voters who supported the anti-immigration UK Independence Party in recent local elections.

Before the speech was announced the coalition was criticized as many people did not understand how in fact a number of the proposals would be put into practice, saying that the mentioned will probably not lead to a significant reduction in the amount of illegal immigrants removed from the country.

Limiting immigrants’ access to benefits and other of the “new” proposals were said to be similar to the rules which are already functioning.

 

Defamation Bill Threatened Again

After an amendment was tabled according to which two key sections of the defamation bill have to be removed, the reform of UK defamation law is again threatened.

Three years after the libel reform campaigners started working the defamation bill is about to become a law.

Sir Edward Garnier, a Tory MP and libel lawyer pleaded that two aspects of the bill have to be removed. If the bill stands as it is now, individuals or public authority would not have the chance to sue for libel over criticism, which means that journalists and bloggers would criticize local authorities with no fear. Is it as bad as it sounds by the way? The Legal Stop will not criticise any authority, as all we want to do is to provide you with the required legal documents. For that reason we launched the “request a document” service.

In 1993 after Derbyshire Council unsuccessfully attempted to sue the Times newspaper “the Derbyshire Principle”was established.

Due to another clause companies would have to prove what the financial damages of the company after this written criticism were, otherwise they would not have the right to bring libel claims against journalists and bloggers.

If the suggestion of Sir Edward is accepted both of these clauses will be removed from the bill.

People who have worked on the bill are against the amendment proposed by Sir Edward.

One of the men involved in the genesis of the bill, Lib Dem peer Lord Lester, shared his view that Derbyshire Principle clause has to be preserved by all means.

According to freedom of speech groups Sense and Science and English PEN financial loss has to be proved before companies are being allowed to sue for libel.

Last month when Lord Puttnam tabled an amendment to add a recommendation on press ethics to the bill, the government would have almost thrown out the entire bill.

This amendment, however, was removed.

 

Children in Danger Because of Neglecting

The NSPCC announced that there are many cases in which children die or there are long-term damages on their health due to child neglect. This is why it may be assumed as seriously as physical or sexual abuse.

The charity gave money for a study investigating different stories from the past decade connected to children’s deaths. It is looking for a “strategic approach” to solve the problem.

The University of East Anglia published a report analyzing 645 cases in England from 2005 until 2011- cases in which teenagers were either seriously injured or died due to some kind of abuse.

175 of these cases involved children in risk; 101 of which are now part of the protection register as victims of physical or sexual abuse.

Ruth Gardner, from the NSPCC, said: “This study is the first time anyone has looked behind the stark figures to try to understand the complex dangers of neglect.

We now have clear evidence that neglect can lead to catastrophic harm as well as corrosive long-term damage to children’s well-being.”

The cases of Peter Connelly and Khyra Ishaq are examples of cases in which the authorities were criticised for not acting on concerns.

Khyra’s mother and her partner kept her and their other children locked out of their kitchen. Due to this way of life, Khyra starved to death no matter that her neighbours and school tried to do something in order to change the things.

According to NSPCC, expert social workers have to advise children when they feel neglected.

Another thing it calls for is better training so that public could recognize troubled families.

Being a parent is a serious responsibility, not a game! The Legal Stop is a proud parent of hundreds of legal documents and will be happy to give birth to a document, drafted especially for you!

 

Results of a Poll Show Serious Problems in Maternity Leave and Working Place

Recent investigations point out that the problem of discrimination at work still exists for many women who get pregnant and decide to take maternity leave.

OnePoll organized a survey among 1,000 women which survey showed that most of them had faced discrimination in one way or another because of their maternity leave.

One in seven said that the maternity leave had cost them their working place and 2 in 5 of the asked women answered that after the end of their maternity leave their working hours were so cut that they could not work there anymore.

Another huge problem these women shared was that their employers did not support them in any way in order to return to their jobs. About a third of the asked said that in their opinion they were no more suitable for their previous working places and did not feel as they fitted there.

Employment law forbids discrimination against employee over maternity or paternity leave.

In spite of this, due to the hold poll only one in ten women ventured to speak to their employer’s HR department over suspected maternity discrimination.

The law firm Slater & Gordon commissioned the research and the final comment of their lawyer was that the results were “sad and shocking”.

“The big issue is that women are somehow seen as being less committed to their employers because they are now mothers,” said Ms Mangwana. “Many companies are settling out of court because they don’t want to be seen to be treating pregnant women or new mothers like this.

“But the awful thing is that I see the same major companies again and again and again, writing out these cheques – accompanied, of course, with a confidentiality clause.”

In a statement the Rosalind Bragg, from campaign group Maternity Action, announced that the number of pregnancy discrimination demands has doubled every year for the past three years.

In his opinion only a small percent of the women know their rights so they usually prefer not to spend time and energy to take any legal action against their employers but take care after their children.

The Legal Stop provides a full set of Maternity Leave documents:

Maternity Leave documents – Employer Pack

Maternity Leave documents – Employee Pack

Maternity Leave Policy