Approximately 80 lawyers in Devon and Cornwall have become the latest legal professionals to make a stand against the proposals that would see criminal lawyers having to compete for a contract in order to be allowed to take on legal aid cases.

Miss Bentley, a solicitor from Exeter, said this kind of competitive bidding, and the fact that lawyers will have to charge up to 17.5% less for any work they do receive, will lead to local firms suffering financially. She said this will result in access to justice suffering, as criminal lawyers will have less incentive to take on legal aid cases. In addition, the changes could see defendants lose the right to choose their own legal representation.

An online petition set up by Miss Bentley to stop the Ministry of Justice from implementing the reforms has already gained more than 38,000 signatures.

The lawyers in Devon and Cornwall have followed in the footsteps of the Wales and Chester Circuit of Barristers, which last month voted unanimously to refuse to sign up to a new system of regulation.

In addition, barristers from the Northern circuit staged an all-day protest meeting on 22 April 2013 in Manchester. A spokesperson said the Government’s reforms “posed a threat to the future of the profession of criminal barrister.”

Justice Secretary Chris Grayling said the proposed reforms will save £2bn a year and that “we cannot close our eyes to the fact legal aid is still costing too much.”

Much of the discussion about the reforms to legal aid has focused on the potentially catastrophic effect they could have on society and the justice system. However, the action taken by the lawyers in Devon, Cornwall, Wales and Manchester shows that the legal profession has much to lose as well. And if the number and quality of legal aid lawyers is reduced, it is ultimately the public who will suffer.

As Miss Bentley said, “people think they will never need a criminal defence lawyer but once this system is dismantled you will never have access to the same rights as you do now.”

A recent example which has been posted by the wife of a barrister about the importance of high quality criminal representation is this story about a father accused of molesting his son.

Now, where’s that petition?

Sources:

BBC

Guardian

It is a dramatic fall from grace for a politician who was once considered one of the most dynamic ministers in the coalition. He only became an MP in 2005, but was energy secretary in the early stages of the coalition before the scandal broke.

He had initially agreed with his wife, Vicky Pryce, that she should take the points he accrued for speeding as he would have been handed a driving ban. They lied to the police, and the points went on her licence.

When the story broke in 2010, he maintained the lie until the evidence became overwhelming and he admitted the truth. Yesterday both he and his wife were jailed for eight months, although they will probably be out of jail, possibly with tags, after two months.

The incredible twist is that it was Pryce herself who leaked the story about the points swap, in order to gain revenge on Huhne for leaving her for his PR adviser, Carina Trimingham. But the judge jailed her as well, citing her ‘implacable’ desire for revenge, and her refusal to admit that she was guilty. She always maintained the points swap came about through marital coercion.

From a motoring perspective this is an interesting verdict. Judge Mr Justice Sweeney has taken a very strong line over this, sending out a message that lying about points – perjury – is a serious offence. According to the AA, in 2011 up to 300,000 drivers in the UK may have persuaded others to take their points.

That’s an awful lot of jail time.

Sources:

The Guardian

The Automotive Industry Digest

Until 2012 an app, the Chubby Checker, was available to download through Hewlett Packard software for their Palm OS software. Now the original Chubby Checker is suing HP and the company that made the app, Magic Apps, for $500m.

‘Chubby’ is slang for an erection, and the app was designed to be an amusing piece of software allowing women to estimate the size of a man’s penis. You can see why they used the name – it’s great.

Their original marketing text shows how seriously it was meant to be taken:

‘Any of you ladies out there just start seeing someone new and wondering what the size of there (sic) member is. All you need to do is find out the man’s shoe size and plug it … with The Chubby Checker there is no need for disappointment or surprise.’

The standard of grammar is a fairly strong indicator of seriousness.

Chubby Checker (Ernest Evans) has launched a suit which claims that the app ‘tarnishes’ his stage name. His lawyers believe the app has done ‘irreparable damage’ to his reputation by associating him with sexual content.

It will be really interesting to see what occurs with this lawsuit. There are various factors which will come into play. Firstly, Chubby Checker is a trademark, registered in 1997. Trademarks protect the public from believing one company or product is actually a different product – there are lots of companies with the same name. Is this a factor?

Secondly, the amount. $500m is an awful lot of money. Certainly his lawyers will be claiming a loss of earning potential, but this is hard to gauge. In terms of real cash, the original development company, Magic Apps, is now out of business. And apparently the app was only downloaded around 100 times, at 99p per download.

But there is another argument in the real Chubby’s favour. It could be argued that the app was trading off his name by association, and that people believed he was endorsing it, like George Foreman.

The lesson is to be careful when choosing a product name. What excites at the beginning could end up being a disappointment, or a big problem. Protect yourself from getting stiffed.

Original story:

The Register
Independent

Do you feel you might have had your identity used without your permission – or are you on the end of a potential lawsuit? At Contact Law we can help you. Call us on 0800 533 5784 or visit our main site – www.contactlaw.co.uk.

The Information Tribunal has rejected an attempt by the Department for Education (DfE) to withhold information, concerning the identity of groups who have proposed to open so-called ‘free schools’ in England, as reported by BBC News.

The Information, including the names, location and religious affiliation of such groups, was requested in an attempt to highlight an alleged lack of transparency inherent in the system of proposing and setting up a free school.

The BBC reports that the requests for information, regarding groups that failed to progress beyond the initial application stage for free schools, came from the Guardian newspaper, the Association of Colleges and the British Humanist Association (BHA).

Although the DfE had argued the information required was exempted under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Information Commissioner backed the requests; however, the DfE decided to appeal the case at the first-tier Tribunal (Information Rights).

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals on Tuesday, and Judge Hughes stated: “The Free School programme involves substantial public funds and significant changes to the way the education service is controlled, managed and delivered. It is a matter of considerable public importance and the transparency of the process and its openness to public debate and consideration are of concern to communities across England.”

The Department for Education is considering the decision, but may submit a further appeal to the Upper Tribunal.

What are ‘Free Schools’?

‘Free school’ is the common term for new state schools that are independent of Local Authorities and funded directly by central Government. These schools can be set up by parents, teachers, charitable organisations, faith groups or businesses.

In addition, free schools can be run by an ‘education provider’, or company brought in by the group setting up the school, but at present they are not allowed to make a profit. Each Free School enters into a contract, or funding agreement, with the Secretary of State for Education.

The legal basis for this change to the state education system was provided for in the Academies Act 2010, which was the first piece of legislation passed by the Coalition Government. Academies are former local authority schools that have applied for and won independent status, and they also receive funds directly by the Government.

By September 2012, there were approximately 79 free schools and 2,300 academies operating in England, which represents around 12 per cent of all state schools. 113 further free schools are due to open in 2013.

Have any problems with free schools been identified?

The Freedom of Information case is evidence of the fact that there has been considerable anxiety about the new free schools system in some quarters, for example:

• teaching unions are concerned that these institutions can set their own rates on pay outside union agreements; neither do they have to adhere strictly to the National Curriculum
• newspapers have expressed concerns about the transparency of business interests in this sector that may be pushing for future profit-making

For example, some companies, such as the education charity Ark Schools, have acquired several academies to manage, and they retain around 5 per cent of the funds received from the DfE to provide central services for all its schools, such as Human resources and procurement. This funding is equivalent to that proportion of Government funds kept back by local authorities to make provision for special needs education in its area.

• Sections 9 and 10 of the Academies Act state that the Secretary of State must consult, regarding the proposed creation of an additional school, on other schools within the area in which the academy or free school is to be situated. However, this consultation is to be carried out only with ‘such persons as they may think appropriate’. In other words, public consultation is not enforced by legislation
• Organisations that champion a secular view are concerned that faith-group free schools may not be teaching some subjects in a broad-enough manner, as free schools do not have to conform exactly to the National Curriculum

Indeed, in November last year, the Government introduced new rules which state that evolution must be taught in free schools as a ‘comprehensive and coherent scientific theory’, after the Royal Society identified that some schools might be introducing the theory of creationism as scientific fact. If the free schools do not comply, their funding could be withdrawn.

• The Academies Commission, set up by the Pearson Think Tank and the Royal Society for the encouragement of the Arts, recently published its findings on the rapid ‘academisation’ of schools in England. The Commission, chaired by former Ofsted chief inspector, Christine Gilbert, reported that there is evidence some of the new schools attempt to select and exclude pupils on the basis of their behaviour and socio-economic background

The Commission recommended that Education Secretary, Michael Gove, should develop a system for admissions that allows parents “some independent recourse in terms of their relationship with an individual school, or each academy trust, acting as its own admissions authority”.

That is, an independent admission appeals system might allow for greater transparency with regard to the mix of pupils being admitted to free schools and academies, especially as results in exams are still taken as the gold standard by local parents looking for a school for their child.

However, a spokesman for the Department for Education said: “All admissions authorities, be they local councils or self-governing schools, including academies, must comply with our new fair admissions code.

“We specifically changed the law so that anyone who has concerns about how any state-funded school is admitting pupils can formally object to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator.”

The Schools Admissions Code came into force in February 2012. The Schools Adjudicator is appointed by the Secretary of State for Education, and has the legal responsibility to take into account supporting evidence presented by each party regarding admissions; they must also take account of any general guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

Conclusion

While the aim of improving our state schools for the benefit of all pupils is a laudable idea, it seems there is still much debate as to whether the academies system, including free schools, is actually achieving this goal, or if the education changes are creating a new two-tier system ‘by stealth’.

That is, many local schools that are not academies, typically less ‘successful’ schools, may be disadvantaged as money earmarked for education is taken out of local authority control.

Currently, the sector might appear somewhat unregulated, as it may be argued that being free from local authority control also means free schools are less accountable to the public they are meant to serve.

There may be interesting legal developments in future, if further glitches in the running of free schools occur and the Government have to respond by tweaking the legislation; legislation that was rushed through Parliament in record time as a flagship development for the new Coalition Government.

Original story:

BBC | 2 | 3

Section 5 states that: “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour” could be deemed a criminal offence. The amendment to the Act was proposed last year by the former chief Constable of the West Midlands, Lord Dear, as part of the Crime and Courts Bill.#

Ahead of the Lords vote, the BBC reported that the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, wrote: “We are unable to identify a case in which the alleged behaviour leading to conviction could not properly be characterised as ‘abusive’ as well as ‘insulting’.

“I therefore agree that the word ‘insulting’ could safely be removed without the risk of undermining the ability of the CPS to bring prosecutions.”

Mrs May said that, following the DPP’s intervention, ministers would not challenge the Lords amendment.

There has been a vigorous campaign to change the law after suggestions it has been used over-zealously by the authorities.

For example, the Daily Mail reports that in 2008 a teenager was charged for holding a sign outside the London headquarters of the Scientology movement, which labelled it a ‘dangerous cult’. The arrest was justified because Scientologists might find the sentiment expressed insulting.

The coalition against the ‘new intolerance’ included normally dissimilar groups, such as the Christian Institute and National Secular Society as well as Big Brother Watch and The Peter Tatchell Foundation. The campaign was led by the TV comedian, Rowan Atkinson.

The star of the irreverent Blackadder TV series outlined the major argument, saying: “The clear problem of the outlawing of insult is that too many things can be interpreted as such. Criticism, ridicule, sarcasm, merely stating an alternative point of view to the orthodoxy, can be interpreted as insult.”

However, the shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, counters that the line between mere insult and illegal discrimination might not be clear-cut; therefore it is important to make sure vulnerable groups can be protected.

Nevertheless, since there are already laws against matters such as defamation, discrimination and abusive language, it may be argued that there should be some leeway for robust ways in which to express an opinion.

Former shadow home secretary, David Davis, points out that in a free society there should be no right not to be insulted; thus, the best tactic may be to rise above insult when it is offered.

Indeed, the Twentieth century Belgian philosopher, Raoul Vaneigem, offered this sage observation: “Daily life is governed by an economic system in which the production and consumption of insults tends to balance out.”

Original story:

The Daily Mail

BBC

For example, according to the Telegraph, Pickles says that it is ‘ludicrous’ fines can be issued for trivial matters such as over-filling wheelie-bins, putting yoghurt pots into the wrong recycling container, and leaving bins out too long after collections.

When the regulations were introduced by Labour in 2000, Pickles complained they would not encourage environmental action, and said the fines were a ‘stealth tax’ that would encourage fly-tipping and a rise in the burning of rubbish in back gardens.

Householders have a legal responsibility or ‘duty of care’ to ensure that their waste is stored securely for collection, and managed in a way that does not adversely affect human health or pollute the environment; this duty is set out in Section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Currently, if a householder is negligent in this matter, their local council can serve them with a legal Notice in accordance with Section 46 of the Act.

The Notice will detail penalties that can be imposed for further offences. If a householder ignores the warning, they may receive a Fixed Penalty Notice for up to £80; if criminal proceedings are started, they could have to go to court and face a fine of up to £1,000.

According to the Daily Mail, around 3,200 fines were issued by local authorities in the year 2011-12 for rubbish-related offences, including seemingly trivial matters such as leaving bin lids open.

Pickles wants families to be encouraged to recycle their rubbish, and advocates a reward scheme to achieve this aim.

For example, in Windsor and Maidenhead many householders receive vouchers to spend in local shops or leisure facilities in return for recycling their waste. Households put their recyclable material into special recycling bins, which are micro-chipped, so that refuse trucks can weigh how much waste each home has contributed.

Last year, the Communities Secretary also threatened to cut grants for councils which refused to reinstate weekly bin collections, after nearly 180 local authorities decided rubbish trucks would only collect once a fortnight to save money.

According to the Mail, Pickles said the decrease in rubbish collections was a breach of citizens’ ‘fundamental rights’.

Hard-pressed households could probably do without the threat of fines for something as mundane as failing to sort their rubbish correctly, although councils will continue to be able to issue fines if people allow their waste to become a serious problem.

However, encouraging more households to recycle can only be a good thing for the environment; furthermore, as the old saying goes, “where there’s muck, there’s brass”.

Original story:

The Telegraph

The Daily Mail

The list of Healthcare Providers, situated throughout England, was compiled from the latest CQC inspections carried out as recently as November; it was obtained and made public by the Labour party.

In all, 17 NHS hospitals, the London Ambulance Service and eight mental health units were named as failing to have sufficient or appropriate staff.

Inspectors found that some patients, who were unable to communicate their needs, were forced to do without items such as drinks or warm clothing. Additionally, although staff were often busy, some did not seem to notice their patients’ discomfort.

The CQC was established under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 to regulate all health and adult social care services in England.

By law, all NHS providers must register with the CQC. If health providers fail to meet essential standards of quality and safety, putting patients at risk, the regulator has various enforcement powers at its disposal.

For example, the CQC can hand out fines and public warnings, close hospital wards and services or remove a service from its register; the Commission has issued warnings about staffing to all the failing Health Providers on this list.

Members of the public contact the CQC to make complaints about poor NHS care, although if they think a crime has been committed, the police should be contacted.

Employees in the Health Service can report concerns about matters such as staffing to the CQC in confidentiality; however, they would be wise to speak to a senior member of staff about matters first, and take into account their employer’s policy on ‘whistleblowing’.

Andy Burnham, the shadow health secretary, commented: “Almost 7,000 nursing posts have been lost since David Cameron entered Downing Street. The public has a right to know if their local hospital is taking risks with staffing levels.”

However, the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, countered: “There can be no excuse for not providing appropriate staff levels when across the NHS generally there are now more clinical staff working than there were in May 2010, including nearly 5,000 more doctors and almost 900 extra midwives.”

While NHS organisations must do their utmost to provide excellent care and put patient safety first; this may prove difficult to achieve in the midst of budget cuts, as well as during the current system-wide re-organisation.

Enforcement from the CQC may help with problems caused by mismanagement; but frequent public criticism of the people who make up the NHS could also risk further demoralisation regarding the service.
Original story:

The Telegraph

The incident was reported by the Daily Mail and concerns the beheading by sword of a Sri Lankan national, Rizana Nafeek, despite claims that she was only 17 years old in 2005 when the alleged crime was committed. Nafeek was executed this Wednesday for causing the death of a four-month-old baby in her care, while working as a housemaid in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is ruled by adherents of the Wahhabi branch of the Sunni sect of Islam, which endorses the strict application of sharia law. According to Al-Jazeera, this means judges in that country base decisions on their own interpretation of relevant sacred texts, rather than relying on a written legal code or legal precedent.

The penalties recommended for criminals by sharia law in strict Muslim countries might appear foreign to UK citizens, but there has been recent controversy over Muslim Arbitration Tribunals (MATs), which operate under the Arbitration Act 1996. Several of these panels have been set up since 2007 in areas where there are high concentrations of Muslim residents.

For example, in cities such as London, Bradford, Manchester and Birmingham, there are MATs where at least two members, one a scholar of Islamic law and the other a registered solicitor or barrister, can hear civil cases where the participants involved agree to be bound by traditional sharia law.

Matters decided by the MATs should only relate to minor cases, such as property and financial issues. However, Baroness Cox, a Christian cross-party peer, is concerned these Tribunals are starting to hear complex family issues, such as divorce disputes and child custody matters, which she says should be referred to the mainstream justice system.

Furthermore, sharia remedies for such matters may be markedly different from those supplied by UK law. For example, in a case of domestic violence, Baroness Cox claims a wife may be told to give the marriage another try while the husband may be sent on an anger-management course, without any police involvement.

In addition, it may be argued that Muslim women are not accorded equal rights with men under sharia law; for example, the testimony of a man is worth double compared to the testimony of a woman. Therefore, Baroness Cox and her supporters argue that the basis on which some decisions are made by the MATs is fundamentally at odds with UK law.

Likewise, there are many informal sharia councils throughout Britain that adjudicate, mostly on family matters, for local Muslims. Baroness Cox and other campaigners are alarmed these may be overstepping their bounds by implying to participants that their decisions are legally binding, when this is not the case.

The decisions that result from formal arbitration, including other religious and secular Tribunals, can be enforceable by courts in England and Wales, if the requirements of the 1996 Arbitration Act are satisfied. However, the Ministry of Justice states that if any decisions by Tribunals are illegal or contrary to public policy under English law, they would not be enforceable.

Baroness Cox’s Private Member’s Bill, the Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill, was supported by many members of the House of Lords from all political parties and sponsored by the Secular Society. The Bill sought to create a new criminal offence of ‘falsely claiming legal jurisdiction’ for any person who adjudicates upon matters which ought to be decided by criminal or family courts.

Baroness Cox told the Daily Mail that moreover: “the Bill would make it easier to challenge in a civil court any settlement made in a Sharia court based on gender discrimination. In addition, there would be a statutory duty on police and local authorities to inform women of their rights under UK law.”

The Bill also received strong support from Muslim women’s organisations such as the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation, the Henna Foundation and British Muslims for Secular Democracy.

Despite a well-argued debate during the second reading of the Bill in October in the House of Lords, Conservative peer, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, representing the Government, said it was not convinced there was need for a change in the law.

Although the MATs do not adjudicate on serious criminal matters which demand strict sentences according to sharia law, such as stoning for adultery, some observers are still worried about what they see as the influence of sharia law in the UK.

For example, Baroness Cox told the Daily Mail that, in an undercover operation, two imams from Muslim centres had expressed their willingness to marry 12-year-old Muslim girls to men in their twenties, under the aegis of religious law. The Baroness blames various authorities’ over-enthusiasm for multiculturalism, which means they fail to act and support vulnerable Muslim women and girls in instances such as these.

She says agencies, such as the police, appear to side with traditionalists in the Muslim religion, rather than supporting modernisers, in an effort not to offend religious adherents.

While it is admirable that citizens of the UK can practice many different religions freely, it can be argued that the underlying principle of one law for everyone should be upheld as a cornerstone of our democracy.

However, this ideal needs to be promoted more thoroughly by informing all citizens of their rights under the law of the land, particularly women, so that they have choices. Cultural issues can mean that someone acting contrary to the social mores of their community and asserting their legal rights presents a daunting task; therefore help should be available for mainstream legal advice, if required.

Nevertheless, the sharia Tribunals and councils may also do much good work in settling small disputes before they escalate, and the ultra-conservative application of sharia law in other countries should not obviate this perspective, as there are many interpretations of Islamic law by its very nature.

Original story:

The Daily Mail | 2

Al Jazeera 

Related article:

Baroness Cox introduces bill to curb sharia tribunals in the UK

With regard to this unsafe practice, a 29-year-old woman, Susan Noble from Armthorpe near Doncaster, was given a jail sentence at Teesside Crown Court on Monday. At an earlier hearing she had pleaded guilty to causing the death by dangerous driving of 25-year-old Alexandru Braninski, in December 2011.

According to Sky News, Braninski was struck by Noble’s vehicle when he was standing behind a stationary car, in which he had been a passenger, on the northbound carriageway of the A19 near Northallerton. He was waiting while a punctured tyre was being changed. Braninski suffered traumatic injuries and was pronounced dead at the scene.

North Yorkshire police found evidence that Noble had been texting a friend on her mobile phone for a period before the time of the crash.

In 2008, changes were made to the law contained in the Road Safety Act 2006, with tougher penalties for motorists who cause accidents due to using their mobile phones while driving, particularly to send text messages.

Texting requires far more attention to be taken away from the road by a driver than speaking to a hands-free phone, for instance.

A prison term of up to five years can be handed out for causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving. Careless driving could consist of glancing at a text message.

If a court finds a motorist has been guilty of a “gross avoidable distraction” such as repeated texting over a period of time, they could be charged with the more serious offence of causing death by dangerous driving. This carries a jail term of between two and 14 years.

The only time it is permissible to use a hand held device when driving a car is to call 999 in an emergency situation.

Noble was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment; additionally, she was disqualified from driving for six years and will have to take an extended driving test in order to be allowed back behind the wheel.

Sky News reports that Traffic Sergeant John Lumbard, of North Yorkshire Police’s roads policing group, said: “I want this tragedy to send a very clear message to drivers that using mobile phones whilst driving can and does lead to horrific consequences.”

A graphic PSA film, about the dangers of texting while driving, was made in 2009 by Gwent police and Tredegar Comprehensive School in Wales. This became a worldwide hit on YouTube after being shown on The Today Show in America.
But perhaps it is time for the Government to launch a national TV campaign about this menace; particularly since it appears texting during all kinds of everyday interactions is becoming more socially acceptable.

Original story:

Sky News

The basis for succession law rests on constitutional developments surrounding the abdication of the last Roman Catholic monarch of the British Isles, James II, encouraged by the Protestant Parliament. These events culminated in the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701, so it may be high time for some movement on the issue.

The modernisation will be hurried along, using procedures usually reserved for anti-terror laws, because of the pregnancy of the Duchess of Cambridge. The Government is concerned the population will protest if the eldest child of William and Kate is a girl, but they later have a boy who will leap-frog his sister for the top title.

In addition, the Prime Minister feels it is unfair that a future monarch is barred from marrying a Roman Catholic.

However, Cameron also made clear that because the monarch must be a full member of the Church of England, in their role as head of the established church, the ban on Roman Catholics ascending the throne will stand.

Prince Charles, according to the Mail, backs the changes but feels they have not been thought through thoroughly enough; it is reported he raised his concerns in a recent meeting with Richard Heaton, permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office.

For example, he thinks a problem could still arise if a future monarch were to marry a Roman Catholic. This is because that church has rules, which state that children of mixed faith marriages should be brought up as Catholics nevertheless.

Prince Charles also raised concerns about the potential impact of new succession rules for other titles in Britain that are passed down through the male line. Pressure might be brought to change peerage law, thereby allowing the eldest female child to inherit. The prince feels this may cause turmoil in some titled families.

However, after the announcement of Cameron’s plans for the monarchy last October, Lord Strathclyde, the leader of the House of Lords, ruled out any change to the rules governing succession to hereditary titles, as these would be: “far more complicated to implement.”

Lord Fellowes, the writer of Downton Abbey, led a campaign to protest about the rules that will prevent his wife, Emma Kitchener, from inheriting the family’s title, the Earldom of Kitchener, from her uncle.

The Telegraph reported that Fellowes commented: “If you’re asking me if I find it ridiculous that in 2011, a perfectly sentient adult woman has no rights of inheritance whatsoever when it comes to a hereditary title, I think it’s outrageous, actually.”

While it is a positive move for gender equality that the heir to the throne can be male or female, whoever is born first, it seems outdated and unfair that the same rule should not apply to daughters of the peerage. It might be said that the retention of such blatant inequality means there is more work to be done on some of Britain’s anachronistic laws.

Original story:

The Daily Mail

The Telegraph