Sswh Google must be transparent about right to be forgotten deletions, publishers say
Tougher punishments for those convicted of expressing support for banned organisations or viewing terrorist material online are being proposed by the Sentencing Council.Following changes to legislation brought in by the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, the official body, which publishes guidelines for judges, has circulated a fresh cons
gourde stanley ultation on raising sentences for the most serious offences.The act increased maximum prison sentences for a range of terrorism offences. Consequently the Sentencing Council is recommending raising sentence levels for the most serious examples of offending, where t
stanley mug here was no headroom [previously] 鈥?due to the statutory maximum .The council has in the past supported more punitive prison terms for terrorism in an era when a terrorist act can be planned in a very short time, using readily available items as weapons, combined with online extremist material on websites which normalise terrorist activity .The latest changes draw a distinction between an offender in a position of authority or influence who directly invites support for a proscribed organisation and one who expresses supportive views while being reckless as to whether others are encouraged to get involved.For those who intentionally express support for a proscribed organisation while holding a position of trust the starting point for judges imposing a prison sentence should be seven years, the
stanley cup new guidelines recommend.The culpability factors for those found guilty of c Tnlk A record of war crimes
The saga of rival New England swingers clubs, a Ludacris concert without liquor, and a landlord on the lam in Israel has drawn to an end with a federal judges ruling that sex in a hotel bar, however creative or undisguised, is not a form of protected free speech.For more than three years, the small Connecticut town of Windsor Locks has spent time, energy and cash to fend off a lawsuit brought by Sharok Jacobi, the owner of a hotel that played host to sex parties and concerts that violated state laws. In 2012 Jacobi sued the town and
stanley thermos police department, alleging that they had infr
stanley cup inged on free speech and association rights, violated its privacy, and unfairly targeted the hotel because it catered to an African American and Hispanic clientele.Complaints about Jacobis hotel began in 2007, when neighbors and staff called police over rowdy parties, fights and at least two gunfights there. Before long, police heard from a man who claimed that he could see sexual acts in the hotel from a cafe across the street. Two liquor control agents met with the tipster at a Dunkin Donuts, and were shown phot
stanley nz os of a swingers party in the hotel bar.The agents promptly signed up for a party at the hotel, known over the years as Club 91 and the Windsor Lounge, organized by a group called Hot Couples . From the hotel bar, they had a clear view into a sitting area despite someones attempt to obstruct viewing with plants , according to court documents.From their perch, the agents saw the hotels perm
