jump to navigation

sec crowdfunding proposals October 23, 2013

Posted by Bradley in : consultation , add a comment

All 585 pages of them are here. Public comments may be submitted via this page. The SEC notes:

We understand that these proposed rules, if adopted, could significantly affect the viability of crowdfunding as a capital-raising method for startups and small businesses. Rules that are unduly burdensome could discourage participation in crowdfunding. Rules that are too permissive, however, may increase the risks for individual investors, thereby undermining the facilitation of capital raising for startups and small businesses.

drone strikes October 22, 2013

Posted by Bradley in : fundamental rights , add a comment

My walk to school this morning was overshadowed by a loud helicopter hovering overhead. It made me think of Amnesty International’s report, “Will I be Next?”.

review of the relationship between the uk and the eu continues October 21, 2013

Posted by Bradley in : governance , add a comment

The UK Government has announced a number of reviews as part of its ongoing review of the balance of competences described as “an audit of what the EU does and how it affects the UK.” Contributions are now invited by January 13, 2014 to the review of the single market in services, cohesion, agriculture, fisheries, competition and consumer policy, and fundamental rights. Contributions are invited by January 17, 2014 for the reviews of financial services and the free movement of capital and the EU budget.

friday question: should law students be reading literature? October 4, 2013

Posted by Bradley in : law , add a comment

This New York Times piece, reporting on David Kidd and Emanuele Castano‘s article, Reading Literary Fiction Improves Theory of Mind suggests that the answer may be yes.

improved consultations October 3, 2013

Posted by Bradley in : consultation , add a comment

Two examples of what I would like to see more of in consultations: from the EU’s crowdfunding consultation, and the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) consultation on the regulation of consumer credit. Although comments can currently be submitted to the EU crowdfunding consultation in English only the web page suggests that it will soon be possible to submit comments in German, Spanish, French, Italian, and Polish. The consultation landing page seems to be available only in English French and German, and right now it seems that the consultation document is only available in English. So there is some improvement in terms of openness to comments from people who don’t write English (who presumably will rely on online sources and newspapers for information about the consultation). Increasing the amount of translation would enhance transparency further.

The FCA’s consumer credit consultation explicitly invites comments from regular people:

The majority of adults in the UK are customers, or potential customers, of financial services firms. So anyone may be interested in commenting on how we propose to regulate consumer credit firms.

And there’s an outline of the proposals in addition to the 193 page consultation document and 429 pages of appendices. But although the FCA seems to be trying to communicate with people and not just with regulated firms, this article in the Guardian which describes some aspects of the proposals does not encourage people to comment on them but rather seems to present the proposed new rules as a done deal. The Independent takes a similar approach, although an article on the Express website states that “a consultation is open until December 3 and the FCA will publish its final rules and guidance in February.” Which? announced that it is collecting consumers’ stories of their experiences with the credit industry to share them with the FCA.

lady hale on women judges October 2, 2013

Posted by Bradley in : gender , add a comment

From the Independent:

Lady Justice Hale, who is still the only woman amongst the 12 Supreme Court judges, said: “While I am flattered and proud to have been the first woman to have been appointed as a law lord in 2004, I don’t want to be the last. I’m disappointed that in the 10 years since I was appointed, not one among the 13 subsequent appointments to this court has been a woman.”

cake, anyone? October 1, 2013

Posted by Bradley in : inequality , add a comment

Or, rather, home-baked granary bread made from locally sourced flour (anyone can do it, and it’s better for you). And there’s more austerity to come.

what it would be like to teach a course based on decisions of women judges… September 28, 2013

Posted by Bradley in : gender , add a comment

A thought experiment prompted (in part) by reading this article.

more uk anti-union moves September 19, 2013

Posted by Bradley in : inequality , add a comment

Business good, unions bad. Deloitte wins a Big Society award. On top of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill 2013-14 (latest version here), the UK Government issues a call for evidence about what is characterized as a huge waste of resources in paying trade union representatives who are teachers for time off to do union work. The actual call for evidence is drafted in relatively moderate terms but the press release states:

There is also evidence that taxpayers are funding a large number of union representatives who are paid as teachers but do not spend any of their contracted time, whether they are full or part time, teaching. This creates additional work for the very many hardworking teachers across the country. Some of these local, regional and national union representatives have therefore not taught in a school for many years. Some are nominally employed as ‘home tutors’ by their local authority, while others receive large salaries on the teachers’ scale (in some cases up to £70,000 a year) but have no teaching timetable or leadership responsibilities. This represents a significant cost to the taxpayer of many millions of pounds.

uk lobbying regulation bill – second reading September 3, 2013

Posted by Bradley in : lobbying , add a comment

The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill 2013-14 is having its second reading in Parliament today (Richard III, fracking, BSkyB, and tobacco have featured in the debate). The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee issued a call for, and received, written evidence about the regulation of consultant lobbyists under the Bill. Many of the submissions argued that the Bill would create uncertainty and risked reducing rather than enhancing transparency with respect to lobbying. The Committee took oral evidence today. Meanwhile, charities and even MPs have expressed concern about the Bill. The NCVO published legal advice it obtained about the Bill from Helen Mountfield QC which identifies a number of problems of uncertainty. For example:

Much of the activity which charities and VSOs undertake is, by its nature, policy-orientated and therefore ‘political’ in the widest sense. In my view, many materials produced by charities and VSOs compatibly with the guidance in the Charity Commission Guidance CCR9 are capable of falling within the definition of ‘election materials’ (in s85(3) PPERA as it stands), or of being for an ‘election purpose’ (in s85 (2A) and s85(3) PPERA as prospectively amended by clause 26 of the Bill)… For example, an anti-poverty charity which advocates continuing to spend a particular proportion of GDP on overseas aid and publishes material saying so during the relevant period could ‘reasonably be regarded’ as intending to promote or procure electoral success for a party or parties or candidates who advocate the same in connection with future elections, even though such material could reasonably be regarded as also intended to achieve another purpose such as maintaining a high level of public expenditure on poverty reduction abroad. Thus, expenditure on materials of this kind during the year before a general election could well fall within the definition of ‘election materials’ in PPERA as it stands.