Search

The U.K. policy of "Prevent" aims to stop people becoming involved in, or supporting, terrorism. In common with many CVE policies worldwide. Prevent has remained controversial in its conception, delivery, and impact. A formal review is now underway, so it is opportune to ask, "Whither Prevent?" This paper will examine briefly the justifications for Prevent, but the main thesis is that the juridification of Prevent is a beneficial trend in the U.K. Juridification is depicted as: the legislative production of ever more extensive and elaborate instruments; the expansion of judicial oversight; and the administrative (bureaucratic) application of soft law-standards. Juridification is here invoked in order to enhance the legitimacy of the policy of Prevent through explicit improvements in its modes of operation and through offering modes of challenge where the principles of constitutionalism are contravened. If Prevent can be improved in these ways, then its application can be refined to address more effectively and efficiently the threat of terrorist attacks, especially given that the originators or observers of these threats are invited under the Prevent policy to cooperate by consent in the enterprise of counter terrorism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the goals of Jewish and Christian sponsored orphanages in late nineteenth and early twentieth century England and identifies ways that religious institutions served the needy, constructed their self-identify, and that of their 'inmates'. Christian charities, especially evangelical institutions such as Barnardo's and the National Children's Homes (NCH), focused not only on the rescue of children, but their salvation. Policy at Norwood, the Jewish orphanage, reflected a combination of Jewish charitable tradition, alongside a self- consciousness about reputation and anxiety over anti-Semitism, and anti-alienism. In response, Norwood developed an extensive programme designed to raise respectable, anglicised Jews who would remain members of Britain's Jewish community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the Angus Growers Ltd. v. Scottish Ministers case, wherein Angus appealed under the Common Agricultural Policy Non-International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) Support Schemes Regulations that the Great Britain Rural Payments Agency (RPA) misapplied Article (Art.) 25(b) for withdrawing Angus as producer organization (PO). The court examines the rule and found no substantial breach under Art. 25. The court allows to withdraw Angus as PO by January 1, 2008.

The article discusses a court case wherein the claimant, Public Interest Lawyers (PIL), challenged the decision of the defendant, Legal Services Commission (LSC), in relation to its award of contracts for the supply of legal services in Great Britain. PIL argued that the LSC violated the equality standard since it failed to verify the standards of the firms. The High Court ruled that LSC had not breached its duty since it performed an extensive consultation exercise in conducting the tender.

The article discusses a court case wherein claimant Arlene Carswell sought to recover shortfall on costs after she paid insufficiently for the costs she obtained from the Motor Insurers' Bureau (MIB) in Great Britain. The claimant, whose husband was a victim of hit-and-run, brought proceedings to recover damages from the Secretary of State. The High Court dismissed Carswell's claims due to the lack of substance to her complaints relating to the manner in which the MIB handled her claim.

The article discusses the application for judicial review of Petsafe Ltd. regarding its desire to quash the regulation which entails the prohibition of administering an electric shock on cats and dogs of any electronic collar designed in Great Britain. It notes that Petsafe contended the effectiveness of the regulations and the ban in protecting the welfare of animals. The company contested further that the ban on electronic collar production may hamper the free flow of goods.

The article discusses the application for interim injunction of Alstom Transport ("Alstom") on its allegation against Eurostar International Ltd. ("Eurostar") concerning the breaching of Eurostar with the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2006 ("the 2006 Regulations") in Great Britain. It notes that the approval of the application would depend on the policy of the legislation, and on the balance of convenience. The court's decision to refuse the application is based on the public interest.

The article discusses the applications for judicial review regarding Immigration Service's decision to detain Mr. Emen Benjamin Bassey ("Bassey") due to his illegal entry to Great Britain. It notes that Bassey contested the decision, claiming his right to enter the country as a family member of the European Economic Area (EEA) national. He further contended that the Immigration Service with its Chief Immigration Officer have failed to consider him as an illegal entrant in a rational manner.

The article discusses the appeal of the legal firm Azam & Co. regarding High Court's decision on the firm's claim concerning the breaching of the Legal Services Commission of its duties on the immigration work in Great Britain. It notes that Azam has appealed in the ground that the Commission did not notify the firm of its deadline for the submission of tender for immigration contracts. The appeal also entails the Commission's refusal to allow the extension for the submission.

The article discusses a court case in Great Britain wherein the plaintiff, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), alleged the assessment of fairness of charges imposed by Abbey National PLC. to its customer's bank account. The eight defendant banks, collectively Abbey, appealed against the decision of the Court of Appeals in 2009 in relation to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999. It focuses on the bank and customer bargaining contracts.