Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
In light of the recent crack down that universities are facing around their brand positioning and consequent marketing and advertising strategies, it begs the question - Is there really a direct correlation between university kudos and graduate salaries?
It would seem so, with a report commissioned by the Sutton Trust revealing that, graduates from Oxford and Cambridge will over their lifetimes earn on average £46,000 annually, compared with £41,000 earned by other Russell Group graduates, and just under £36,000 by graduates from other universities, so it comes as no surprise that universities are fabricating figures in a bid to boost applications.
In light of this, Satsuma reached out to graduates across the UK to find out more about life and more importantly, INCOME after study. The research found that although expectations were actually fairly in line with reality, there is still a fair amount of discontent floating around with only 24% of graduates agreeing that these salaries were fair for the current cost of living.
Further to this, exactly half of graduates feel that starting salaries are not at all in line with the cost of living, regardless of geographical variances in living costs and the proof is in the pudding with 49% of those surveyed admitting to living with parents during their first graduate job, just to sustain themselves until they get their first pay rise.
88% of the graduates who responded to the survey genuinely felt that the city in which they lived and worked was also a significant contributing factor affecting the size of their starting salary and it comes as no surprise that London came out on top as being perceived as the highest payer.
A spokes person for Satsuma commented, “Our research has found that a whopping 46% of graduates would go as far as to say that they actually feel embarrassed about their level of income. With the average debt for university leavers now at £44,000, apprentices who bypass a degree and learn on the job, may actually find themselves better off in the long run.”
*1.14m figure based on Universities UK data verifying that in 2015–16 there were 2.28 million students studying at UK higher education institutions.
(Source: Satsuma)
The Government has said that leaving the European Union will “bring about an end to the direct jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union.” The House of Lords EU Justice Sub-Committee recently launched a new inquiry on this issue and the question of enforcement and dispute resolution post-Brexit.
Following a session with four senior retired judges on 21st November, the Committee is now issuing a formal call for evidence. Issues under consideration include:
Chairman of the Committee Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws said: “The evidence that we received from four of the UK’s most senior former judges highlighted the dangers of legal uncertainty post Brexit.
“It was apparent that the judges had significant concerns about the operation of ‘retained EU law’ in the UK under Clause 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. The former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, warned that there could be a ‘very real problem for future judicial independence and the rule of law if this is not clarified.’ In addition to concerns about the wide discretion that might be given to the judiciary to take what might be seen as ‘political’ decisions, it is also far from clear that the provisions relating to the interpretation of retained EU law under Clause 6 of the Bill allow for a smooth transition. The Bill was clearly not drafted with a transitional period in mind. It would preclude references to the Court of Justice of the European Union, and not require UK domestic courts to take account of post-Brexit EU law, despite the fact that the UK may continue to be effectively bound by EU law during the transitional period.
“Going forward, the Government will have to ensure that it can agree a clear, certain and robust enforcement mechanism to ensure that any rights and obligations under the Withdrawal Agreement (and subsequent partnership arrangements with the EU) can be upheld in the event of a dispute. The Committee is seeking expert evidence on the most appropriate way of ensuring that dispute resolution procedures post-Brexit can be dealt with efficiently and effectively.”
The Committee asks for written submissions to be received by Friday 19th January.
(Source: House of Lords)
It is beyond reasonable debate that, just as in everyday life, bullying has no place in sport, whether amateur or professional, elite or grassroots. However, a major challenge lies in determining where the acceptable boundaries lie, particularly in the context of elite sports, an environment which is naturally characterized by high pressure and intense competition. With athlete welfare such a hot topic in sport today, Peter Crowther and Jade-Alexandra Fearns at Winston & Strawn, which represents the British Athletes Commission, discuss some legal implications surrounding recent cases, and what the recent developments likely mean for sports.
Background
There have been several recent investigations concerning alleged bullying, discrimination, and other so-called ‘duty of care’ issues across a range of elite sports. Except for general protection against criminal acts, legal protections and remedies afforded to athletes who are not considered employees are limited. These individuals instead have to rely on internal policies and procedures designed to prevent inappropriate behaviour and abuse, but recent investigations into alleged abuse suggest that existing systems are neither protecting athletes nor providing sufficient legal redress. The question is whether more can be done legally to protect athletes from improper conduct in an environment in which power structures can easily be abused.
Employment Rights and Duty of Care
Employees are of course afforded wide protections under UK law, especially in relation to discrimination, abuse, and dismissal. However, the rights of athletes (who are generally not considered to be employees) are not so clear cut and their rights of legal redress against relevant organisations and individual perpetrators of non-criminal abuse are accordingly restricted. This is one of the main issues in Jessica Varnish’s action against Shane Sutton and UK Sport in relation to alleged discrimination suffered while with British Cycling. Next year, an employment tribunal is to determine whether she was an employee so that she can rely on employment law protections.
An alternative course of action is to claim that a duty of care has been breached at common law. To succeed, it must be proved that a duty of care is owed by the defendant to the claimant, that the defendant has breached their duty of care, and that the claimant suffered damage as a result of the breach, subject to reasonableness. It is well established that sports organisations owe a duty of care to children and young people in relation to physical risks of participating in sport, but there has been a dearth of case law in relation to less tangible issues like welfare and emotional-wellbeing.
Internal Policies and Procedures
In the UK, sports bodies are expected to implement policies and procedures to ensure safety and welfare of all athletes. Sport England makes it clear that having satisfactory safeguarding measures in place is a pre-requisite to an entity being recognized as the governing body of its respective sport (and therefore receiving access to public funds for that sports). The NSPCC Child Protection Support Unit’s Standards for Safeguarding and Protecting Children in Sport supports such systems preventing participants suffering a wide range of abuse. The NSPCC call this a “moral duty of care”.
Many of the internal procedures adopted by sporting bodies in the UK do in fact incorporate the Equality Act 2010, which prohibits direct and indirect discrimination, as well as harassment and victimisation. Yet despite recognition of the obligation to avoid unacceptable conduct (and the existence of internal policies to this effect), recent elite sport bullying allegations and investigations strongly suggest a systemic disregard for such policies. Furthermore, although perpetrators of abuse who are employees (such as coaches) have on occasion been dismissed by sporting organisations (or have chosen to resign), there is little evidence of effective redress having been obtained by athletes for the loss and damage they have suffered at the hands of such employees.
Duty of Care in Sport Review
In light of the many recent high profile investigations into unacceptable conduct by coaching staff across a range of sports, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport Duty of Care in Sport Review, published earlier this year, has assumed a substantial importance. Perhaps not surprisingly, the Review identifies failings within the present system and highlights the need to improve athlete welfare. It sets out recommendations to address welfare-related concerns, including the appointment of a Sports Ombudsman empowered to hold sporting bodies to account.
It is hoped that the recommendations set out in the Review, the impending results of current investigations, and the outcome of ongoing cases will all have a wide-ranging positive impact on sports governance. Nevertheless, despite the significant number of ongoing investigations and cases there are those who argue that the current system is fit for purpose. Ultimately, however, the case for maintaining the status quo appears to be weak and sporting bodies and those employed by those bodies, need finally to be held to account.
Bar leaders recently published a paper tackling issues raised both by the Irish border question and the vision for ‘frictionless’ trade set out by the Prime Minister earlier this year.
Brexit Paper no. 25 looks at the legal and historic links between the EU, the internal market and customs union, and how the UK could negotiate a reduced role for the ECJ as well as tighter controls on EU worker migration while protecting key economic interests.
Chair of the Brexit Working Group, Hugh Mercer QC said: “By building on the legal framework covering the UK’s existing opt-outs, the Government could solve some of the most difficult issues in the current talks while keeping the power to negotiate bi-lateral deals on agriculture, fisheries, competition, trade and environment, which would end the ECJ’s jurisdiction in those areas.”
According to the report’s authors, the ECJ would no longer have jurisdiction to interpret rights derived from EU citizenship in the UK and a deal could be struck to confirm UK sovereignty over internal market and customs union matters and to define clearly the status of ECJ rulings in those areas.
Hugh Mercer QC said: “Opting into the internal market and customs union could be negotiated along-side a complete opt-out from the political elements of the EU and an overhaul of the scope and role of the ECJ so far as the UK is concerned. The status of its rulings and its jurisdiction would be significantly reduced and much more clearly defined to ensure the sovereignty of the UK Parliament.”
The paper explains that a worker registration scheme could be used as part of a managed approach to migration, giving the Government access to data on the parts of the economy that draw in EU workers. Ministers would set the criteria to refuse admission or deport those who are not in employment, and Parliament would set the terms on which EU citizens access social security and pass employment laws to support British workers.
Chair of the Bar, Andrew Langdon QC said: “The UK is at a crucial stage in the negotiations and the legal consequences of all the options available must be carefully considered. This analysis sign-posts some of the legal avenues that could help Government to manage the competing demands and priorities inherent in the negotiations.”
One of the Bar Council’s Third Edition Brexit Papers, published earlier this year, looked at the legal consequences of leaving the European Union without first agreeing a trade deal and the implications of relying on international trade under terms set by the WTO.
‘Brexit Paper 25: The relationship between the single market, the customs union and the European Union’ is available here.
(Source: The Bar Council)
With less than a month to go before the upcoming MiFID II legislation comes into force on 3rd January 2018, latest research has found that a shocking 39% of UK financial organisations are unaware whether their organisation is compliant or not. A quarter confirmed that they are not yet compliant with recording technology and 29% are still going through the compliance process - despite the fact that companies can be fined up to 5 million euros or 10% of annual turnover for non-compliance.
The new research by Timico also found that just 8% of companies said that employees were fully aware of the legal implications of MiFID II and had received training on the processes required to be compliant.
The Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) is EU legislation that regulates firms who provide services to clients linked to ‘financial instruments’ (shares, bonds, units in collective investment schemes and derivatives), and the venues where those instruments are traded. Recital 57 of the Directive states that “…firms will be obliged to record all communications that are intended to result in a transaction. Regardless of the original source, whether on a mobile phone, legacy call recording system, cloud based solution or a newly installed recording system, recordings must be stored for at least five years…”
Staff in the dark on compliance and penalties
The study also found that 14% of staff were unaware of what processes are required to be compliant, 37% are in the process of initiating a training programme and a worrying 41% did not know if staff were aware of the legal requirements of MifiD II or had received any training on the legislation.
Kevin Linsell, Chief Technology Officer at Timico, said: “With just under a month to go and Christmas holidays in between, it’s clear that many businesses are massively unprepared for MiFID II, despite having had the last 12 months to prepare for the impending legislation.
“It’s imperative that companies get ready and fast, with robust, compliant recording technology in place and employees fully trained and up to speed on the new requirements if companies are going to avoid potentially incurring huge financial penalties.”
Lack of mobile compliance and firms oblivious to BYOD policies
Of those polled, over a third (35%) were unaware if there was a BYOD (bring your own device) compliance strategy in place in preparation for the looming MiFID II deadline, while 12% stated that there was no policy in place to adhere to the new requirements.
42% of businesses said that they do not have a mobile compliant platform in place to record calls. Adds Kevin: “The fact that nearly half of UK financial organisations that we have surveyed currently have no mobile compliance platform in place is highly concerning.
“We know from our own financial clients that a large section of the workforce conduct business on mobiles, as teams are constantly travelling between markets and working remotely. It is essential companies get compliant systems in place for not only mobiles, but across all communication platforms to ensure they meet the January deadline.”
(Source: Timico)
‘Transformative’ isn’t a word used to typically describe the professional services industry. The same is even more apt when analysing the digital efforts emerging from the law sector. Below Craig Johnson at Kagool discusses the opportunities for digital marketing in the legal sphere.
Often falling short of today’s fast-paced online world, law practices can be seen leaving themselves open to the risk of being usurped by innovative, forward-thinking competitors who get it right because, it’s fair to say, they would be in a minority.
But what’s the key? Understanding your customers should come first and foremost when implementing a strategy of any type. Your customers already have a propensity to turn to digital as second nature – whether to consume news, communicate with friends, or research for work. So if you’re not using digital to attract them, you’re not appealing to their instinct, meaning you’re less likely to see them convert into a customer.
Simply by implementing an effective digital strategy, law practices will arm themselves with the tools and capacity to develop more effective teams, achieve stronger results and secure long-term new business.
Want to know how to get started? Read on.
With thousands of potential customers searching Google for law firms each day, SEO should be at the forefront of a digital strategy, but few get it right. This offers a great opportunity for a team that is dedicated to doing it well.
Granted, there is a wealth of search terms associated with law, for example, but it shouldn’t be feared. Do your research, create content around the most relevant search terms for your business offering, and upload it to your site’s architecture. That way, when your customers are looking for advice and support, they’re more likely to visit your site over a competitor’s.
Tip: Analyse the keywords and phrases used by prospective customers when searching Google and identify the terms targeted by competitors. These should be the core areas for your digital content plan.
To encourage a potential customer to engage with you, you have to evoke a reaction of some form – whether that’s happiness, laughter, anger or tears. Creating and utilising the right content on your online channels will encourage your target audience to associate with you, because they align themselves with your messaging in some shape or form.
Regular blog posts are a great starting point to position you as a thought leader, but need to be based on more than just facts. Sharing your opinion on current affairs (only where relevant), or changes to your industry that affect your customer will bring out the personality behind your brand and it’s this that will make them see you’re the brand for them.
Tip: After uploading a piece of content to your blog, amplify it via your social media channels, send it as an e-newsletter to your database, and post it to a director’s LinkedIn profile. The more times your content is noticed, the more likely you are to attract customers.
Just like when they’re checking out a restaurant, new film to watch at the cinema or gift for a loved one, if a customer wants an honest review or to find out more, they will take to social media. Therefore it’s imperative your social media offering is transparent, informative and relevant, without being at all salesy.
Having an ‘always on’ presence on social media shows your customers you’re available, and opens the door for dialogue with customers.
Tip: For those working in law, social media is key to customer engagement and advocacy, as well as being a powerful recruitment tool. Engage in debate on social media and establish your organisation as an authority in your areas of expertise.
Personalisation is expected as the norm – social media, ecommerce sites and even TV channels give users tailored content, so the general consumer finds it hard to engage with anything that doesn’t offer a personalised interface as standard.
Customers don’t tend to visit your website simply to browse – they come with intent. By quickly identifying their need for visiting your site, you can present them with content that makes them more likely to take their enquiry a step further, and therefore have a better chance of converting. Something as simple as showing users content that is relevant to their location, or previous viewing habits, puts you miles ahead.
By personalising content to users, your website will be more relevant and will increase the chances of conversion. This will prevent customers dropping off your site and seeking out the competition.
Tip: Platforms like Sitecore help professional services marketers to quickly and easily personalise content to meet users specific needs and deliver a great experience.
Those using your services are, more often than not, facing a challenging time in their lives. So nothing is more reassuring, or instils more confidence that they’re using the right organisation, than a previous customer telling them you’re a brilliant firm to work with. Because while every situation is different, there are commonalities across the reasons people reach out to use your services, so you’re more likely to secure a new client if they know you’re experienced in dealing with their issue.
Tip: Encourage previous customers to spend two minutes writing a Google or Trust Pilot review, or a case study for your website, and share these again via your social media channels so they’re getting maximum exposure. If you struggle securing reviews, incentivise it with a small amount of prizes – it’s amazing what people will do for a freebie!
Logan Paul, social media star, set up a pop-up shop on board an Emirates A380 and attracted 11,000 fans to The Dubai Mall.
Though variant figures have emerged, the bill the UK will have to pay out to exit the EU amounts to a significant amount of the nation’s GDP. The latest figure is reported to be £39 billion. Amelia Bishop, of Amelia Bishop Consulting, believes this sum of cash could and should be spent on far more important economic priorities.
Paying the EU £39bn is a lot of money that could be better used elsewhere, whilst considering where else could benefit massively it occurred to me that there are so many areas of our lives that could be improved with a financial boost and narrowing it down hasn’t been an easy task.
Prioritising such a list also has its challenges, as so many needy areas see themselves as a priority when asked, and they are often well justified.
Whilst the beneficiaries of my assignment of £39 billion are all in somewhat equal need they are prioritised partly by need and partly by urgency.
1. The NHS £20bn
The government’s pledge of an additional £8bn in May 17 was claimed by experts to result in a £12bn deficit in the same period due to NHS spend increasing by 1.2% per annum. An additional £6.3bn pledged by the government during this parliament in the recent autumn budget would not bridge the deficit gap therefore I would assign the NHS and additional £12.5bn to totally remove the deficit and provide the NHS with an additional £6.8bn cashflow to spend on additional staff and efficiency improvements.
In recent months a number of safe centres have been earmarked for closure in part being due to insufficient expansion room and the cost of building new centres being too high. An additional £6.5bn will provide cashflow to enable the building of new mental health centres, this additional funding combined with the sale of existing mental health centres for development land would provide funding to assist with the provision of much needed additional bed space in newly developed mental health centres.
We are currently in times of high employment with many employers struggling to fill vacancies and seeing increased competition in retaining their existing staff. Providing support and workplace training for disabled people will provide an additional pool of resource for employers and give many disabled people additional skills and self-esteem to gain opportunities of work.
2. Charities £2bn – End of life care, saving and improving lives specifically
The new GDPR legislation is putting increased pressure on the limited resource that charities have to become compliant by May 2018. Money is also being diverted for GDPR readiness taking it away from the cause that these charities fundraise for, an additional £1bn fund will assist these charities in continuing to support their causes.
With all times of uncertainty, donations are sacrificed for essentials, charities always struggle to provide the necessary support for their cause, an additional £1bn fund will help to cover the shortfall in donations.
3. Brexit - SME readiness funding £8bn
There are many risks and wholesale changes coming with our leaving the EU and the cost for business is sizeable depending on the size of the business, SME’s will struggle to fund the changes and contingency planning their business needs therefore a funding pot of £5bn should be provided to support this activity.
Brexit will create many opportunities across all industry sectors for entrepreneurs. Exploring opportunities takes time and money, therefore funding of exploring and seizing opportunities will help to remove financial hurdles for entrepreneurs who in the longer term will benefit the UK’s economy and raise the UK’s profile for innovation.
4. People in Poverty £5bn – Bringing people and families out of poverty
With so many people and families falling into the poverty bracket funding should be provided to help with childcare and training to help people out of poverty and into work. This will also help with making additional people available to assist with filling the vacancies that have been created by the fall in available workers.
5. Social Housing £4bn – Building more affordable homes
The government committed £1bn to the creation of affordable homes in the recent autumn budget. With house prices so high across the country many young people stand no chance of buying their own home, therefore I would invest another £4bn to boost the amount of affordable homes, creating many jobs in the process.
Following the recent Bermuda cyber-attacks, the Panama and the Paradise papers, the EU has released a blacklist of 17 non-compliant tax jurisdictions, with 47 countries getting off with a warning notice.
Some of the countries mentioned on the blacklist include South Korea, Mongolia, Namibia, Panama, Trinidad & Tobago, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates.
Meanwhile the Government of Bermuda recently announced that the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) has reaffirmed Bermuda’s status as a cooperative tax jurisdiction.
Despite this, reports indicate Bermuda, alongside the Cayman Islands, Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man, have been placed on a ‘grey list’ by the EU, and continue to be countries committed to reform their tax structures so that companies do not abuse their 0% tax models to hide cash.
The Hon E David Burt JP, MP, Premier of Bermuda, said: “Once again the EU has recognized Bermuda’s status as a cooperative jurisdiction, despite the interest surrounding a hack on a global law firm and related documents in the public domain. The outcome of the ECOFIN decision demonstrates Bermuda’s position as a global leader in international tax transparency.
“Bermuda welcomes continued dialogue with the EU Code of Conduct Group and EU Member States.”
Still, Bermuda got a warning notice, and may not be on the ‘blacklist’ but certainly under scrutiny moving forward. So the phrasing of a ‘global leader’ remains a little strong.
Following the introduction of plain packaging for tobacco products in some countries and calls to extend the legislation to other sectors, Brand Finance has analysed the potential financial impact of such a policy on food and beverage brands in four categories: alcohol, confectionery, savoury snacks, and sugary drinks.
Eight major brand-owning companies are predicted to lose a total of $187 billion should plain packaging be mandated for other FMCG products, with alcohol and sugary drinks brands most vulnerable.
The Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo are among those corporations with most value at risk; $47.3 and $43.0 billion respectively, equal to 24% and 27% of their total enterprise values.
Entire brand portfolios of companies specialising in alcoholic drinks, such as Heineken, AB InBev, and Pernod Ricard, would fall within the scope of the legislation, jeopardising future revenue streams.
An extrapolation of the results to all major alcohol and sugary drinks brands, points towards a potential loss of $293 billion for the beverage industry globally.
The estimates refer to the loss of value derived specifically from brands and do not account for further potential losses resulting from changes in price and volume of the products sold, or illicit trade. Therefore, the total damage to businesses affected is likely to be higher.
David Haigh, CEO of Brand Finance, commented: “To apply plain packaging in the food and drink sector would render some of the world’s most iconic brands unrecognisable, changing the look of household cupboards and supermarket shelves forever, and result in astronomical losses for the holding companies.
“Predicted loss of brand contribution to companies at risk is only the tip of the iceberg. Plain packaging also means losses in the creative industries, including design and advertising services, which are heavily reliant on FMCG contracts.”
Background
Plain packaging is often referred to as a branding ban or brand censorship. By imposing strict rules and regulations, the legislator requires producers to remove all branded features from external packaging, except for the brand name written in a standardised font, with all surfaces in a standard colour.
An increasing number of countries are introducing strict regulations on the marketing and advertising of food and drink products in an attempt to prevent obesity and lifestyle diseases. With calls for more intrusive measures growing, the prospect of further applications of plain packaging looks increasingly likely.
In 2015, the WHO-backed Tobacco Atlas, called for extending plain packaging to alcohol and some food and drink products. In 2016, Public Health England released a report calling for plain packaging to be considered for alcohol, a topic which was raised again only last month in medical journal, The Lancet. Also in the past month, Canada’s Yukon became the first territory in the world to introduce sizeable health warning labels on all alcohol products, cautioning against the risk of cancer.
(Source: Brand Finance)
