Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
The Bermondsey Square Hotel is located in the heart of ever evolving Bermondsey, with its thriving restaurant, bar and club scene, art galleries, design studios and boutique shops.
Quaintly designed, the lounge area is an inviting space offering all day dining for guests and passing visitors; the perfect spot for you to reunite with an old friend or catch up on business after a busy day.
Getting your fuel for the day in the morning is important, and the Bermondsey Hotel put on a good spread, from a vegetarian fry up to fluffy pancakes. With a fantastic modern British inspired all day menu, a pantry area offering home-made cakes, pastries and hot & cold soft beverages to pick up at your leisure, you will be welcomed like an old friend to the lounge every time you visit.
Surrounding the hotel, you will see boutique shops showcasing the unique flair London never fails to offer. Bermondsey itself is a short distance from the city, the Design Museum, Borough Market, The Shard, Tate Modern and Tower Bridge; the hotel is ideally located for easy access to some of London’s finest sights whilst staying in an engaging neighbourhood.
Depending on the reason for your stay, the Bermondsey Square Hotel has a room for you. For those on a short, or long business break, the rooms are stylish and simplistic and offer a space for you to sit and work, as well as a balcony to admire the city views and evening hustle and bustle.
Their new state of the art meeting room can accommodate up to 20 people in a fixed boardroom layout, for those all important business conferences. Abbey has natural daylight, access to a shared outside terrace and all the newest technology to have a productive and successful meeting.
More features include:
-55inch LED screen
-Ceiling mounted projector and a drop down screen
-Click share technology
-Complimentary super-fast 100mb fibre-optic Wi-Fi and hardwire access
-Additional AV technology can be supplied
On a romantic trip? Stay in their Lucy in the Sky room. On the private outdoor terrace, you can gawp over the stunning city skyline, whilst enjoying a glass of champagne when relaxing in their Jacuzzi. Lucy is perfect for any special occasion or those looking to stay and live it up in London from the comfort of their own apart-style suite.
Travelling with your beloved family and don’t want to leave your furry child at home? Bermondsey also have pet friendly rooms and will advise you the best places to take your dog for a lively walk in central London, after welcoming your four legged travel companion a top up on treats.
Really staying true to what London is all about, you will be sure to meet people across the globe and from all walks of life at the Bermondsey Hotel; from families wanting to experience the city, to business people needing to get to their meeting on time, this boutique hotel is a wonderful place to rest your head at night.
Visit: www.bermondseysquarehotel.co.uk for more information.
Dr Michael Scheele has an impressive background working with international companies on commercial issues. After being exposed to foreign legal issues early in his career and representing the likes of Michael Jackson, Dr Scheele quickly developed a flair for international legal issues, especially in the MENA region.
In this article, he speaks about the role of the of-counsel network, and why choosing a boutique firm, such as Legal Alliance, has its advantages.
Why did you decide to give special attention to legal consulting in the MENA region?
Essentially, the need for legal services in the Gulf region is increasing for the following reason: two processes which will determine the development of relationships with the MENA countries are taking place simultaneously. The increased pace of economic internationalisation, which is proving to be the driving force behind global growth and the transformation of the economic and state structures in those countries.
Are western companies prepared for such challenges?
The described processes require that those active in the Middle East and North Africa economies double their efforts to adapt. Some MENA countries must undergo complicated reforms, move to private ownership and develop market economy whilst being exposed to increasingly keener global competition. Western companies investing in individual MENA countries must confront varying speeds of reform, changing infrastructures and unfamiliar cultural factors, all of which complicate the choice of location.
What do you consider to be your firm’s role in giving best advice and consultation in the decision-making process?
In future, legal and strategic consultants in this field will have a truly multi-cultural bridge building role. This will differ significantly from the role of consultants advising on exclusively Western matters. It will be necessary to assist companies and institutions to reduce the insecurity arising from structural change and to build up a basis of mutual trust, despite great differences in levels of development.
Ultimately, the services of Legal Alliance’s lawyers, include legal consultation and representation which are offered to individuals, business people, companies and management.
Legal Alliance has also engaged of-counsels in other than MENA countries, such as USA, Brazil, China, Hong Kong, India and various countries in Europe. Can you explain the reasons behind this?
Legal Alliance perceives and understands itself as the gateway for other lawyers and their clients, who are looking for an access to those markets and jurisdictions, where Legal Alliance is represented by members of its international network. We help to open doors for colleagues worldwide. But it is also our ambition, not to be a “one way” street only.
Could you explain this in more detail?
Sure, there are more and more companies in the MENA countries, who are looking for international cooperation partners, be it for investments in Western countries, for technology transfer or for import. And these companies need professional legal advice in the respective western countries or in China, India or the USA to name only a few of our member states, where we have of-counsels.
Could you give us an example?
All MENA countries have a deficit in infrastructure or a need in keeping pace with necessary constructions, such as roads, houses, extensions of ports and airports. One of our clients disposes of nanotechnological innovations, which are superior to the conventional methods in products and construction. The Arab company was considering either to import the product or to form a joint venture and have a technology transfer to such a joint venture company.
What was the final solution?
We advised our client, to begin the cooperation on a regular import basis to first test the reliability of the partner, especially with regard to the professional capability of implementing the new technology – of course with the assistance of our client’s engineers. This initial period was also used, to test the efficiency and practicability of the new technology.
How did it continue?
The results encouraged our client, to go to phase two, establishing a joint venture. This required substantial legal work, since the laws in this Arab country required a majority shareholder ship of the local partner. And the legal framework of such joint venture had to provide a legal security for our partner. Most importantly, we had to agree and implement arbitration clauses, which could and will safeguard fair and objective rulings, in case it should come to a conflict. It was essential, to cooperate with our local of-counsel, who was familiar with the laws in that jurisdiction.
Can you give us an example regarding the benefits of Legal Alliance’s service for private persons?
There is a demand from various nationals in the MENA region to get either residence permits or even citizenship in foreign countries, mainly in Europe. Likewise, there is a considerable demand from HNIW’s (those who own assets above a million Euro) to get residence permits, for example in the UAE.
We could and can assist in both cases – of course with the support of our of-counsel network.
What do you consider the most common cases, which Legal Alliance is handling, where your network is of greatest benefit?
Undoubtedly it is trade, export from Germany or other western countries to Arab countries. One of our clients, a relatively young company, is the producer of health products of dietary supplements and cosmetic products, which for some reasons have certain advantages and unique selling points compared to similar products. They first started the export to Egypt and found out that this market is exceptionally interesting. With the help of our network we could get other Arab countries interested in the same products. Being represented in these markets with a local of-counsel, the client did not need different law firms for each of the designated countries. The consulting work remained in our hand and in the hands of the respective of-counsels, where the client decided to get engaged.
The same applies to an Austrian consumer good called “Fellinger Royal”. A non-alcoholic, Halal produced sparkling wine. We assisted first in the UAE. And after a successful market entry there, this product made its way to other Muslim countries, including Iran, where we are also represented by an of-counsel.
Legal Alliance is, what you call, a boutique law firm. How did it happen or what were the reasons for you, to focus on international mandates?
My affinity to and interest for foreign countries is definitely due to the early experience as an exchange student in the USA. Soon thereafter, I graduated as an interpreter for English, became Honorary Consul for the young Republic of Seychelles (with jurisdiction in all of Germany). As a very young lawyer I had the privilege of representing Michael Jackson and other international celebrities. Also, I served as a member of the committee, which elaborated and drafted the first democratic constitution of the Republic of Albania.
In other words, international issues have been an integral part of my life as a lawyer. It gives me great satisfaction, to build or participate in building international bridges.
Can you understand or explain, why your internationally operating clients choose a boutique law firm rather than a “big player” law firm for their international transactions?
I guess, you would have to ask one of our clients, to get an objective answer. But seriously, apart from different “tariffs” we found, that the very individual and personal touch has always been decisive for the client. Let me give you an example: once we had to organise a hostile takeover of a cement company in Eastern Europe. Such actions require not only the necessary funds from the client, but a substantial trust in the discretion of the lawyer. A discretion, that can and may be better ensured with a small group of lawyers.
Dr Michael Scheele
Legal Alliance Rechtsanwalts GmbH
Prinzregentenplatz 15
81675 München
Tel +49 89 41 94 65 0
Fax +49 89 41 94 65 66
E-Mail: info@legalalliance.com
Dr. Michael Scheele was admitted to the bar in Munich in 1977, became member of the lawyer association in St. Petersburg (Russia) in 1991 and was licensed as legal consultant in Dubai (UAE) by the Ruler´s Court. He has advised numerous companies, which operate nationally and internationally in commercial issues as well as national and international artists in matters of media and press law. Dr. Scheele is also working as columnist for various newspapers and magazines and has published himself several popular scientific books as editor as well as author.
He studied law at the University of Munich (LMU) and Stetson University (Deland, Fla, USA) and was awarded Doctor of law 1978 (civil procedure law). From 1979 until 1989 he was accredited Honorary Consul of the Republic of Seychelles (jurisdiction Germany). Also he founded the citizens` group “Fair Press” and acted as member of the constitutional committee of the Republic of Albania.
In 2015 Dr. Scheele joint the law firm Meyer-Reumann (Dubai, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran) as an of-counsel-non equity Partner.
LEGAL ALLIANCE is a firm of lawyers and tax counsellors in Munich (headquarter) Berlin and Hamburg, specialized in business law, corporate and commercial law, mergers & acquisitions, media law, (intellectual property, copyright, press), tax planning, law of financial services, insolvency law and cross border transactions. To meet the self-determined high-quality standard of professional service, LEGAL ALLIANCE employs and cooperates only with lawyers and accountants who have proved their qualifications by above average university degrees and/or doctors degree in law. All members of the professional staff speak at least one foreign language.
Earlier this month, the UK government unveiled a tool that can accurately detect jihadist content and block it from being viewed. This is obviously good news for tackling extremism and protecting sensitive eyes from seeing morbid content. It will prevent deranged messages from being spread and the confused from following delusional propaganda, which again, is a middle finger to extreme terrorists such as the much-despised ISIS.
I, as much as the next person, gain no thrill from viewing twisted, abusive videos, but there is a growing concern that such a tool blocking us from seeing such content is like pulling wool over our eyes on what is really going on in the world.
Such censorship raises several questions: what counts as ‘extremist’ and where do we draw the line between not conforming to societal expectations and being ‘extreme’?
Gandhi was once considered ‘extreme’, by some, for protesting against the controversial Rowlatt Act, which allowed the British to imprison anyone they suspected of terrorism without trial. We can see why Gandhi rebelled, and in hindsight it was for the greater good, but nonetheless his stance from the British point of view was once deemed extremist.
I’m not saying that in the year 2050 we may be thanking ISIS, but blocking a controversial voice can impede the development of a better society.
There are several arguments around this. Restricting access to information is somewhat an infringement of democratic freedoms. And what about our rights to freedom of speech? Content constructed to impede governments and constitutions of free speech are subject to judicial review, especially in the US.
And as previously discussed, we have some rights when it comes to freedom of speech, but they won’t always soften the blow if we fall head first when speaking out on something controversial.
Interestingly enough, in a survey conducted by the Internet Society, 86% of the 10,789 participants strongly agreed with freedom of expression on the internet[1].
Nonetheless, tying our hands behind our backs to prevent us from speaking out is a debate which will never end; some will agree, others will disagree. Society is everchanging and today’s madman could become next year’s saviour… that is if our internet browser will allow us to read the madman’s words.
Is this a step back into 1984?
Blocking extremist propaganda is censorship at its best and the more we read into it, the more we admire Orwell for potentially predicting the future.
Censorship mechanisms which are imposed by governments often not only prevents certain discourse, but also identifies and punishes those who engage in what authorities may perceive as the wrong, or a form of distasteful, discourse.
“You have to be odd to be number one”, said Dr Seuss, but I am not sure he knew that being the black sheep of the herd could translate to jailtime[i].
So, what is ‘Big Brother’ watching out for? Commonly censored materials include those:
An example of upcoming internet censorship laws are the reforms to the Digital Economy Act; in April the UK will see legislative reforms regarding online pornography play pretend father for children by protecting them from viewing explicit content.
In the UK, there are no government restrictions on access to the Internet. Individuals and groups routinely use the Internet, to express a wide range of views.[ii] The notion for filtering content originally derived from manifesto commitments concerning "the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood" given by David Cameron and Nick Clegg in 2010.[iii]
However, this did see an adversary effect, where many sites often providing advice, such as child protection services and drug and sexual health advice being blocked. Even though censored websites are more regulated now by people than solely ISPs and AI, will hiding content save our children? Probably not. One day they will be exposed to it all and mollycoddling them throughout their teens may result in a detrimental ‘Arkangelic’ episode.
Yet it seems that, on such situations, governments are yet to provide a compelling reason for online censorship laws other than for common ‘decency’. Where there are clear positive intentions to censorship, it most likely will not change anything: where there is a will there is a way, and extremists will find a way to get their message across.
Even so, there is an estimated six billion hours of footage uploaded on YouTube each month, content goes unseen more often than not, and we click on things we want to see. And remember: not everyone who watches terrorist videos, actually becomes an extremist.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship
[i] https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/guide-to-online-censorship/
[ii] https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2012humanrightsreport/index.htm?year=2012&dlid=204352#wrapper
[iii] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78977/coalition_programme_for_government.pdf
Dennis Miralis has acted in some of Australia’s most complex fraud matters involving global financial institutions and has advised multinational banks and corporations on the practice and procedure of investigations focusing on fraud and money laundering. He speaks with Lawyer Monthly on changes occurring in Australia to prevent economic fraud, especially with the rise of Bitcoin.
Have there been any recent regulatory changes or interesting developments in your jurisdiction in white collar crime ?
Australia is experiencing an active period of legislative reform covering white collar crime, which is likely to continue into the next 12-18 months as a number of important pieces of proposed legislation are debated and introduced by the Federal Government.
Broadly speaking, the changes cover a wide spectrum of white collar crime activity and include changes to: foreign bribery laws; the introduction of deferred prosecution agreements; whistleblower protection in the private sector; increased powers of the corporate regulator ASIC to investigate and prosecute breaches of the corporations law; an increase in the available penalties applicable to white collar/corporate crime, and changes to the anti money laundering laws to regulate bitcoin exchanges. Many of these reforms have been on the horizon for some time. The focus of the regulatory and legal changes is to address some of the perceived challenges involved in the detection and prosecution of white collar crimes. These changes therefore will seek to make it easier to allow white collar crimes to be identified, detected and investigated and ultimately successfully prosecuted.
Additionally, in late 2017, the Federal Government announced a Royal Commission into Banks which will be given significant powers to examine alleged bank misconduct in the banking, superannuation and financial services industry. These changes will better align Australia’s domestic laws with international developments that have already taken place across the Europe and in the USA in the past few years.
Can you outline the key fraud and white collar crime trends in Australia?
The key white collar crime and fraud trend appears to be a shift towards an increase in criminal penalties and providing the regulators and law enforcement with more powers to investigate and prosecute white collar crime. This has been accompanied by the recognition of the harm that such offences create to Australia’s economy, and a recognition that the penalties for white collar crime have to date, not adequately reflected the objective seriousness of such offending. We are also likely to continue to see heightened activity by ASIC against banks who may have had failed to properly comply with their obligations to regarding issuing credit and for breaches of Australia’s AML regime along with increased powers in the areas of exchange of information and the ability to freeze assets.
Additionally, the Australian Federal Police are being provided with more resources and training to investigate international fraud matters including bribery of foreign officials. The new proposed bribery laws have been drafted to broaden the offence of bribery of a foreign public official by creating a new strict liability offence for failing to prevent foreign bribery.
The amendments to Australia’s AML laws will ensure that “bitcoin exchanges” will be regulated and will impose reporting and record-keeping obligations on digital currency exchange providers, and require them to enrol and register on the Digital Currency Exchange Register maintained by Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) and to comply with protocols to identify and mitigate the risks of money laundering and terrorism financing. A Bill to establish an Australian Home Affairs portfolio was introduced into the Australian Parliament on 7 December 2017, which is likely to lead to centralisation of federal agencies working more collaboratively to investigate sophisticated white collar crimes, including those with an international dimension. As Australia’s key intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies will now come under this new portfolio, there will be a significant increase in the investigative capacities to detect serious international financial crime with an Australian nexus.
The introduction of new whistleblower laws will assist in the identification of white collar crimes and will expand the scope of whistleblower protection beyond the Corporations Act including protections to a broader class of persons, including former employees, contractors and relatives. The legislation will also increase the kinds of disclosures that are protected under the Corporations Act to include disclosures of conduct which constitutes misconduct or an improper state of affairs or circumstances. The combination of all of these changes occurring in parallel demonstrates a paradigm shift that will align Australia with changes seen across the UK and the USA.
What complications or difficulties arise from international cross-border fraud & white collar crime?
From a defence perspective, one of the main complications in the investigation of cross border fraud and white collar crime is the need to acquire a detailed understanding of the laws governing fraud offences, data exchange, extradition, mutual assistance and the right to silence, across multiple jurisdictions, which often can have very different laws covering these areas and sometimes different legal system altogether. The above areas of law will generally play a significant role in how a cross border investigation will be conducted and ultimately, if there is an indictment and a trial, where and how the criminal trial will be undertaken. The focus remains on ensuring that a client’s right to a fair trial(s) is not prejudiced because of any irregularities in the area of data exchange, mutual assistance and potential breaches of fundamental human rights, such as the right to silence, across each jurisdiction where criminal and regulatory exposure exists. Having access to up to date local knowledge concerning which Government lawyers will be taking on the case, profiling the appetite of the particular prosecution team to try and resolve the matter through a negotiated plea/settlement/DPA and making the key forensic decisions very early on about your client’s potential value to the Prosecution are some additional challenges that arise in cross border investigations. It is advisable to work collaboratively with experienced lawyers in all the jurisdictions where your client may be facing criminal and regulatory exposure to navigate some of these challenges.
In an ideal world what would you like to see implemented or changed in the area of international white collar crime?
As the internationalisation of white collar crime continues apace, unprecedented cooperation between regulators and law enforcement bodies will exponentially increase in the areas of tax fraud, cyber fraud, foreign bribery, bitcoin investigations and money laundering. The legal mechanism which will give effect to this cooperation will include mutual assistance, Memorandums Of Understanding, and informal contact between financial regulators and law enforcement with their partner agencies across the globe. These developments are necessary to properly deal with the complexities of a globalised world where the nature of de regulated markets and the fluidity of capital through the internet has eroded the concept of national crime. Often, however, much of what is occurring in this space is not sufficiently subjected to the necessary regulatory and or judicial oversight required. Given that these developments have the capacity to interfere with the protection of fundamental rights I would like to see a clearer framework developed that strikes the right balance between the need for appropriate powers to be provided to Governments and the protection of important rights, such as the right to an a fair trial and the right to silence. More work needs to be done at an international level in the area of harmonisation of data exchange between jurisdictions, determinations concerning where someone will be tried in circumstances where multiple trials are possible and agreements about extradition across states when multiple indictments have been found. I believe these are areas which will ultimately need to be dealt with by the courts if sensible international standards through bilateral or multilateral agreements cannot be implemented.
Dennis Miralis
Partner
Nyman Gibson Miralis
Criminal Defence Lawyers
Level 9, 299 Elizabeth Street, Sydney NSW 2000
PO BOX 21147, World Square NSW 2002
DX 11543 SYDNEY DOWNTOWN
p +61 2 9264 8884 f 9264 9797 m 0414 933 168
Dennis Miralis is a leading Australian criminal defence lawyer and adviser who specialises in complex white collar crime, including national and international criminal investigations and prosecutions, with a focus on money laundering, tax evasion, bribery, corruption, cybercrime and regulatory offences. Dennis has expertise in advising and representing commercial institutions and individuals being investigated by the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Securities Investment Commission, the Australian Transactions Reports and Analysis Centre Financial Reporting Centre, the Australian Tax Office , the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission , the Commonwealth and State Director of Public Prosecutions, as well some of the largest law enforcement and financial regulators world-wide, including the US Department of Justice, the Securities Exchange Commission, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the UK Serious Economic Fraud Unit.
The news that an artificial intelligence (AI) system has been developed that can diagnose scans for heart disease and lung cancer raises clear questions about accountability. Put simply, if a misdiagnosis is made by an AI system, who is to blame: the hospital or the developer of the software?
Michael Carson, Senior Lawyer at Fletchers Solicitors speaks: “Any software system capable of making life-changing recommendations will need to be developed in close collaboration with the end user. The output of the software will be a result of calculations made using parameters the end user has stipulated, not the developer. For instance, it’s been reported that the new AI system will be able to search scans for clumps of cells in the lungs and then advise whether the cells are harmless or potentially cancerous - it can only do this with radiographers and oncologists being heavily involved in the development process.
“Once the AI software is up and running, the developer will insist on the end user essentially signing a contract to say that they are happy the software meets the specifications set out at the beginning of development. This ought to indemnify the developer against any claims for misdiagnosis.
“Interestingly, the Consumer Rights Act [2015] contains information relating to digital content, including software. It provides that a user may seek a remedy if the software a) is not of satisfactory quality b) is not fit for a particular purpose, or c) does not meet the description (or specification). It may well be then that the consumer, i.e. the NHS, could seek to recover damages paid out in a medical negligence claim via this route.
“It seems, therefore, that we should view AI as just another piece of hospital equipment. Any errors or misdiagnosis made by the AI should be dealt with as a medical negligence claim, with the AI merely being a tool used by the hospital.”
Rise of the Robo-Diagnosis
With the rapid progression in medical technology and a greater global reliance on big data, the role of the doctor as sole diagnostician is changing dramatically. Greg McEwen, Partner at BLM, considers what this might mean for our trust in human decisions and the accuracy of diagnoses.
The word ‘diagnosis’ can be defined as “the act of identifying a disease from its signs and symptoms”. As a society, we have traditionally looked to our healthcare professionals to diagnose and treat our ailments, from minor aches and pains to major, life-threatening conditions.
The existence of lawyers who specialise in clinical negligence, from both a claimant and defendant perspective, is a reminder of the industry that has grown up around litigation in this area. In the year 2015-16, the NHS Litigation Authority received nearly 11,000 new claims for clinical negligence and nearly 1,000 referrals about the performance of doctors, dentists and pharmacists. Of course, not all claims relate to diagnostic error. Likewise, not every error in diagnosis results in a claim. Nor should it, since the mere fact of an incorrect diagnosis does not equate to negligence. But could advances in technology lead to earlier or more accurate diagnoses?
Technology has long played a part in the diagnostic process. From cancer screening to MRI scanning, to optometry, computers have been employed with a view to informing and improving key decision making. The caveat to this is that the technology is operated and, most importantly, interpreted and acted upon by people exercising judgment. Diagnosis remains an art as much as a science but that has not stopped the onward march of technology, with AI and big data seeking to chip away at the role of diagnostician and decision maker. Whether it’s through a wearable consumer device such as a Fitbit, or AI trained to identify potentially cancerous tumours, the average patient today is exposed to technology that can monitor heart rate, nutritional intake and sleep patterns, all the way up to identifying serious, life-threatening conditions.
Some of this technology has the potential to reduce or replace human input, but will it lead to better outcomes? There certainly seems to be a belief that it will amongst some major stakeholders, both healthcare providers and technology companies alike. IBM’s Watson supercomputer is currently being used in the US to help produce tailored treatment plans for cancer patients. Here in the UK, Babylon Health is reported to have secured £50m to further develop its AI diagnostic tool, itself a development on its existing clinical triage app, trialled in the NHS.
Are we hurtling head first into futuristic healthcare, then? Does this threaten the role of doctor as sole diagnostician? And what happens if AI gets it wrong?
The obvious concern over AI diagnoses centres around the issue of liability for errors. Where would medical and legal responsibility fall if a patient incorrectly receives the all-clear on the basis of an AI algorithm? It seems unlikely that this technology will be used to diagnose patients in isolation for various reasons, not least that the lines of clinical responsibility and legal liability need to remain clear. Patients need to know who is ultimately responsible for their medical treatment and who they can look to for redress in the event that something goes wrong. Therefore, we assume that primary responsibility is likely to remain with the healthcare provide.
Yet whether healthcare professionals will be able to measure the accuracy and reliability of AI-output remains uncertain, given the complexity of the software and the protection of proprietary information. For insurers and healthcare organisations, this step into the unknown opens up the important issue around digital malpractice, lengthening the chain of responsibility to manufacturers and software developers. Increasingly, we have to consider whether mishaps and mistakes fall into the category of negligence, product liability or both, particularly as we move through a period in which doctors increasingly work in tandem with AI and big data.
There’s cause for optimism as well. AI also brings great opportunity. People are not machines and human error is as much a possibility in healthcare as any walk of life. The number of known diseases in humans has been put at anywhere between 10,000 and 30,000 depending on the criteria employed. Some estimates have suggested that as any as one in six diagnoses within the NHS turn out to be incorrect. Using AI as an assistive tool has the potential to improve accuracy and reduce diagnostic errors, within an increasingly stretched Health Service. The use of AI to detect heart disease, for example, has been estimated to save the NHS over £300 million a year.
There is however a flip side when comparing machines with their human counterparts. Diagnoses and treatment plans are not simply a matter of logic and deduction. They affect real people. The fact that a computer aided cancer diagnosis is accurate doesn’t make it any less devastating for the recipient. Machines cannot empathise. There will always be a need for healthcare professionals in the diagnostic process, however advanced the technology becomes.
What we can say is that the risks are broadening along with the benefits, for all involved in the delivery of healthcare in the digital age. As technology increasingly plays a part in the diagnostic process, we’re likely to see a host of new issues arising around the attribution of liability, arguably the price of progress.
Greg McEwen
Partner, BLM
www.blmlaw.com
About BLM
As the world becomes ever more polarised along the political party lines, has politics permeated the workplace to such a degree that if your views oppose your employers you could find yourself ostracised, discriminated against, or even out of a job?
Politics. The mere sound of the word can cause problems prior to even delving into the topics at hand, yet, it is what most nations are built on. You can choose to ignore the topic, claim your views are independent from the left and right wing, but you will fall somewhere on the spectrum. And in the age of social media where hard line opinions are freely expressed largely without recrimination it’s likely that wherever you land, there is someone on the opposing end waiting to jump at you.
Nonetheless in the developed world, we stand strong on the notion that we have a right to freedom of speech, but are we shackled to a post that will only let us stretch so far?
But could that freedom of speech cause more issues in the modern age, and in the workplace?
To kickstart 2018 the right way, James Damore, former employee at Google, filed a lawsuit to sue his old workplace for firing him for being ‘intolerant of white male conservatives’. This was followed from the leaked memo where Damore stated that women are more ‘neurotic’ and argued that psychological gender differences could explain why 80% of Google’s engineers, and most of the company’s leaders, are men. A viewpoint that has received some support is from controversial psychologist Jordan B Peterson.
A small snippet of the memo, to spark some thought: “I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership”, wrote Damore.
Google waved goodbye to Damore on the basis that he was advancing ‘harmful gender stereotypes in the workplace’ and following being adopted by right-wing media as a victim of Silicon Valley’s liberal bias, Damore retaliated on the basis that white, male conservative employees at Google are ‘ostracized, belittled, and punished’. So, was Google right in firing Damore, should he have kept his controversial opinion to himself, and are we entering a new era where politics can result in dismissals?
Was Damore discriminated against?
An integral aspect of UK labour law is that it is unlawful to discriminate against a person based on their age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. It does not mention freedom of speech, however, The Human Rights Act (HRA) specifies that individuals should have the right to freedom of expression, but there are limitations.
The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations also provide protection for individuals against any unfair treatment or abuse due to their “religion, religious belief or similar philosophical belief”.
Interestingly, during test cases, the aforementioned legislations were not enough to cover extreme right-wing views[1].
Hannah Cottam, Group Director of recruitment firm Sellick Partnership enlightens us: “Companies must ensure they are not standing in the way of free speech amongst their employees. Not only does it display that they have an opinion on important matters, but it also shows they have a strong character and are not afraid to speak up, which is important for me when looking for candidates that are the right culture fit.
“I would however stress to all candidates that they need to be careful, and advise against airing any extreme viewpoints on open platforms that may go against the values and morals of their place of work.”
Freedom of speech
So, aside from perceived sexism, generalising and stereotyping the sexes, Damore didn’t really do anything that wrong to get him fired; he has the right to freedom of speech.
It is a similar situation for those in the US, too. In the US The First Amendment (Amendment I) is often associated with freedom of speech, but ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech… or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.’[2], does not extend to speech protections in the workplace; it addresses actions by the government to impede speech and does not relate to the private sector.
Federal laws prevent employers from firing employees for the same reasons as the UK Labour law, and again, does not imply any protection for political viewpoints; however, there are a few states that make it illegal to discriminate an employee based on their political activity, unless it interferes with company values and the functions of its business.
Unpopular opinions can cause rage, but it also provokes thought. How any society tolerates disfavoured notions reflects where we are at in progressing forward, and by firing him, Google are acknowledging that women are just as capable as men, and staying true to their values…or did Google buckle under the pressure that Damore expressed arguably sexist views, so out of fear of public retaliation, they chose to fire him and avoid a negative backlash on their business? We could go back and forth and debate on this all day long, but what we really want to know more about is who has the stronger leg to stand on? Legally, by only slightly delving into this issue, it does seems like Damore’s is far weaker.
“Employers must be very careful when using the personal viewpoints of employees as grounds for dismissal, and ensure that whatever they uphold are in line with their company values. Whatever these values may be, it is important for companies to uphold their policies across the board and stay true to these morals.”, explains Hannah.
Which they did, as the CEO Sundar Pichai stated, without an ounce of regret, that their decision to fire Damore was not based on his political view: "I regret that people misunderstand that we may have made this [decision] for a political position one way or another," Pichai said in an interview.
According to Pichai, Damore was fired because his memo violated Google's code of conduct, and that it was “not okay” to “advance harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.".
As Hannah stated: “Only when these values and morals are put in jeopardy can a company investigate and take action, however action should only be taken if the company feels their reputation or employer brand is at stake. Companies should set out a clear set of values, and a code of conduct championed by the Senior Management Team that is readily available to all current and prospective candidates that details what is and is not appropriate. This should be enforced across the organisation, and any instances where the origination feels these have not been met should be formally investigated.”
Damore will argue that Google has violated Californian law, by singling out, mistreating and terminating employees that expressed views deviating from the majority view.
Nonetheless, the lawsuit has been filled for by Dhillon Law Group[3], who aims to represent: “all employees of Google discriminated against (i) due to their perceived conservative political views” in the last four years, “due to their male gender” and/or “due to their Caucasian race” in the last year”.
It is an interesting case for us to keep our eyes on, but what is certain is that there is now a chance you could get fired for your strong political views. If you would like to keep your job, perhaps keeping strong, ‘controversial’ (sexist, racist, or anything demeaning and derogatory) opinions to yourself in the workplace, is the smarter way to go, because legally you are unlikely to succeed in convincing the courts that being a conservative cost you your job.
[1] https://www.thehrbooth.co.uk/blog/hr-news/is-there-really-freedom-of-speech-in-the-workplace
[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
[3] https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/08/james-damore-just-filed-a-class-action-lawsuit-against-google-saying-it-discriminates-against-white-male-conservatives/?ncid=rss
The laws surrounding copyright and trademarking can be both confusing and daunting, especially when approaching your children on the topic: How much will they understand? This video aims to cover the basics, and is worth a look if you're thinking to broach the topic to your young ones.
There’s a new tax law in town. It passed without a single vote from Democrats in the House or the Senate, and it’s a huge windfall for the richest Americans, including President Donald Trump.
But Republicans didn’t just want any new tax law, they wanted to reform the tax code. To give the richest Americans a big tax cut while still funding the government’s essential functions, like building roads and flying fighter jets, the GOP needed to find tax revenue somewhere else. To do that, they had to start taxing income that used to be tax-free, by closing loopholes and eliminating deductions.
If all of that sounds boring and confusing, fear not. We’ve broken it down in this video. Just don’t blame us if it leaves you craving cereal.
The perfect break for summer is a trip to Ely, where you can explore and celebrate medieval and modern times, surrounded by a cathedral that stands triumphant over an award-winning hotel. Home to 21 bedrooms including eight master suites, the Poet’s House Hotel, which has been awarded 4 AA Silver Stars, welcomes guests to explore the beauty of Cambridgeshire.
Poets House is the ideal place to celebrate all manner of events. The hotel is superb for weddings with the famous Ely Cathedral as a unique backdrop; the hotel can host up to 50 guests for weddings to include sole use of the courtyard garden. The hotel also offers two event spaces including 'The Writing Room' and 'The Boardroom' for more intimate meetings or private dining for up to 20 guests.
The hotel’s design is contemporary and is home to a street facing restaurant 'The Dining Room', serving both traditional and modern British dishes with a twist and a contemporary modern cocktail bar facing the hotel's courtyard. Originally consisting of three Grade-II-listed properties of the early 1900s and the home of a renowned local author, today Poets House is a stylish award-winning luxury hotel.
Ely in Cambridgeshire is perfect for summer walks. The city has a beautiful waterside for strolls where you can discover the local countryside, and under the sunshine in summer, visitors can enjoy a serene boat trip along the River Great Ouse.
Another unique asset is Ely's Eel Trail! This walk invites walkers to discover the architecture and history of this small, quaint city. Ely's marshland and waters once contained many eels which were part of the local staple diet and you can still sample smoked eel at Ely's award-winning Farmers Market. The Eel Trail highlights around 18 local attractions starting at Oliver Cromwell's House and leading on for you to discover The Bishop's Palace, Ely Porta, Ely Museum, the antiques centre by the Waterside, and of course, the world famous Ely cathedral. Ely Cathedral perfectly dominates the skyline and sits just opposite Poets House Hotel. The Cathedral has been the set for many major productions and most recently appeared in the Netflix drama The Crown. Ely is no stranger to film stars and over the years these have included Cate Blanchette, Natalie Portman, Kristin Scott Thomas and Eddie Redmayne and others. Throughout the summer months Poets House offer a package which includes a boat trip.
Poets House and restaurant is located just 17 miles from Cambridge and 5 minutes by taxi or a pleasant 15-minute walk from Ely train station with direct, regular train services, to London Kings Cross.
Poets House Hotel
40-44 St Marys Street, Ely CB7 4EY
01353 887777
B&B priced from £180.00 per room, per night Summer Boat Break (Available July, August and September 2017
Donald Trump has excommunicated Stephen K. Bannon, his former chief strategist.
The news broke when Trump accused Bannon - who had spoken to Michael Wolff, the Author of the upcoming book ‘Fire and Fury’ - of defamation, in which he described the president as being ‘unprepared for the job’.
In response, Trump said that Bannon had ‘lost his mind’ and that he was ‘only in it for himself’.
The Alleged Wrongdoing
Among other things, the book claims that Bannon thought a meeting between Donald Trump Jr and a Russian lawyer in Trump Tower was ‘treasonous’ and ‘unpatriotic’.
Trump is also unimpressed over the fact that Bannon allegedly told Mr. Wolff in an interview that The Trump team was shocked and horrified by his election win, that the new president ‘found the White House to be vexing and even a little scary’, and that Ivanka Trump ridiculed her dad's ‘comb-over’ hairstyle and ‘often described the mechanics behind it to friends’.
On Bannon, Donald Trump Jr. tweeted: ‘Steve had the honor of working in the White House & serving the country. Unfortunately, he squandered that privilege & turned that opportunity into a nightmare of backstabbing, harassing, leaking, lying & undermining the President’.
The cease-and-desist letter is five pages long and orders Bannon to retain any letters or emails.
Who is Michael Wolff?
Former columnist for New York magazine and Vanity Fair, Michael Wolff was able to exploit the Trump administration’s lack of political background to gain an unforeseen amount of insight into the team.
However, the legitimacy of his stories has been questioned, with The Washington Post calling him a ‘provocateur and media polemicist’.
Media and news website Axios reported that Wolff recorded the interviews held for the book, featuring former White House Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon and former White House Deputy Chief of staff Katie Walsh.
With these recordings, he intends to back up the quotes he will use in ‘Fire and Fury’.
Defence from Both Sides
In Trump’s defence, Press Secretary Sarah Sanders has dismissed the book as ‘trashy tabloid fiction’ that was ‘filled with false and misleading accounts from individuals who have no access or influence with the White House’.
Conversely, in Bannon’s defence, UK Editor of Breitbart News Raheem Kassam said that Wolff’s interviews could have been taken out of context.
He also said that, as Bannon had served in the US Navy, he was justified to speak on the Russia controversy.
Mr Bannon has not yet spoken publicly about the president's comments, the book or the legal action taken against him.
