DOCSLIB.ORG

Nottingham Law Journal

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nottingham Law Journal NOTTINGHAM LAW JOURNAL VOL. 22 2013 General Editor Dr Helen O’Nions, LLB (Middlesex), LLM (Leicester), PGDip HE Assistant Editor Ms Andrea Nicholson, LLB (Buckinghamshire), LLM (Durham) Advisory Board The Rt Hon the Lord Saville of Newdigate The Rt Hon Sir Philip Otton Judge Bostjan Zupancic, the European Court of Human Rights Prof Conor Gearty, London School of Economics Prof Mark Findlay, University of Sydney Prof Michael J. Gunn, University of Staffordshire Mr Jonathan Griffiths, Queen Mary, University of London Prof Geraint Howells, Lancaster University Prof Martin Hunter, Essex Court Chambers & Nottingham Prof Robert G. Lee, Exeter Law School Law School Mr Christopher Muttukumaru, Director of Legal Mr Roger Leng, University of Warwick Services, Department of Transport Prof Gary Watt, University of Warwick Prof John Peysner, University of Lincoln Prof Barry Rider, University of Cambridge Prof Mary Seneviratne, Nottingham Law School Mr Paul Smith, Partner, Eversheds Mr Marc S. Stauch, Leibnitz University, Hannover Mr John Snape, Warwick University Prof Adrian Walters, Nottingham Law School Dr Kim Stevenson, University of Plymouth Prof George A. Sarpong, former Director Ghana Dr Christian Twigg-Flesner, University of Hull School of Law Prof Stephen Weatherill, University of Oxford Editorial Board Development: Mrs Louise Taylor, LLB (Hons), Scots Law, University of Dundee (2002) Diploma in Legal Practice, University of Dundee (2003), PGCHE, Nottingham Trent University (2008). Book Reviews and Case Notes: Ms Janice Denoncourt, BA (McGill), LLB (W.Aust.), LLM, Solicitor Administrative Assistant Ms Carole Vaughan The Nottingham Law Journal is a refereed journal, normally published in Spring each year. Contributions of articles, case notes and book reviews to the Journal are welcomed. Intending contributors are invited to contact the Editor for a copy of the style sheet, which gives details of the format which submissions must follow. Submissions and enquiries should be addressed to: Dr Helen O’Nions, Nottingham Trent University, Burton Street, Nottingham, NG1 4BU. Telephone 0115 941 8418. Ms O’Nions can also be contacted on the following e-mail addresses: helen.o’[email protected]. Style notes and further details about the Journal are available on request. Intending subscribers should please contact Ms Carole Vaughan at the above address. Intending subscribers in North America are advised to contact Wm W Gaunt & Sons. Inc, Gaunt Building, 3011 Gulf Drive, Holmes Beach, Florida 3417 2199. The citation for this issue is (2013) 22 Nott L J. ISSN No. 0965–0660 Except as otherwise stated, 2013 Nottingham Trent University and contributors. All rights reserved. No part of this Journal may be reproduced or transmitted by any means or in any form or stored in a retrieval system of whatever kind without the prior written permission of the Editor. This does not include permitted fair dealing under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 or within the terms of a licence issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency for reprographic reproduction and/or photocopying. The authors of material in this issue have asserted their rights to be identified as such in accordance with the said Act. NOTTINGHAM LAW JOURNAL VOL 22 2013 CONTENTS v EDITORIAL Helen O’Nions ARTICLES 1 The Latest Attempt At Reform Of The House Of Lords – One Step Forward And Another One Back Mark Ryan 16 The Best Interests Of The Child In Uk Immigration Law Ayesha Christie 41 Neutrality Revised? Elizabeth Chadwick 53 The Pursuit Of ‘‘Socially Useful Banking’’ In Twenty-First Century Britain And Exploring Victorian Interactions Between Law, Religion, And Financial Marketplace Values Gary Wilson And Sarah Wilson Thematic Articles: Legal Perspectives on the Victim 76 Introduction Tom Lewis 77 Victims, Trauma, Testimony Sandra Walklate 90 The EU’s New Victims’ Rights Directive: Can Minimum Harmonization Work For A Concept Like Vulnerability? Richard Lang 104 Victimized By Regulation: The Victimogenicity Of Taxi Drivers Andy Noble 119 Anti-Social Behaviour, Harassment And The Context-Dependent Victim Phil Edwards CASE NOTES AND COMMENTARY 133 Key2Law (Surrey) LLP v De’Antiquis Court of Appeal (Civil Division) 20 December 2011 Paula Moffat and Sam Etukakpan 138 Reform to the Scheme for the Registration of Charges by Companies The Companies Act 2006 (Amendment of Part 25) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/600) Janice Denoncourt iii The Life and Work of Elinor Ostrom 141 Introduction Graham Ferris 143 How Property Works: The Complex World View Alison Clarke BOOK REVIEWS 155 Andrew Keay The Corporate Objective Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2011 and, Gary Wilson The Enlightened Shareholder Value Principle and Corporate Governance London, Routledge, 2012 160 A J Wurzer, T Grunewal and D Reinhardt Valuation of Patents The Netherlands, Wolters Kluwuer, 2012 Janice Denoncourt STUDENT ESSAY PRIZES 163 CCRJ Symposium Prize Matthew Caples Kevin De Silva Memorial Prize 167 How Does Public Opinion Influence The Law? Sanel Susak iv NOTTINGHAM LAW JOURNAL VOL. 22 2013 EDITORIAL I am pleased to introduce the second annual edition of the Nottingham Law Journal featuring a series of thematically linked articles in addition to several, stimulating articles on matters of contemporary legal interest. In this volume, our thematically linked pieces derive from the Symposium Legal Perspectives on the Victim hosted by Nottingham Law School’s Centre for Conflict Rights and Justice in December 2012. These papers are introduced by the Centre’s director, Tom Lewis. Our articles on contemporary legal significance include the second part of Mark Ryan’s timely analysis on House of Lords reform; the application of the child welfare principle in the context of immigration control and the principle of state neutrality. The subject of socially useful banking, of great concern to many of us, concludes our article submissions. We are also delighted to host the winners of two student essay competitions. Research is alive and well at Nottingham Law School: Our Centre for Business and Insolvency Law is currently developing an online Insolvency Journal titled the Nottingham Insolvency and Business Law Electronic Journal (NIBLeJ). This will be made available in electronic form on an open-access basis via the Law School’s website. Submissions to the journal will be peer-reviewed by an international panel of experts in the business, commercial, corporate and insolvency areas. The first issue will appear in September 2013 and we hope to include a selection of the best early submissions in Volume 23 of the Nottingham Law Journal. In addition to our three active research centres, there have been a number of research seminars in the fields of health and sports law. At the time of going to press we are hosting the David Price Memorial Seminar Series ‘The Influence of Faith and Belief on the Formulation, Content and Operation of Health Law in the United Kingdom’, and a lunchtime seminar by Luca Pezzano comparing sports law in Italy and England. The theme of student participation is a common point of discussion in law schools. To add to this debate, Dr Colin Anderson has provided a seminar and follow-up workshop on student engagement in a digital world, entitled ‘Eighty percent of life is just turning up.’ Our editorial team consider these contributions to be the best from a large number of high-quality submissions, featuring analysis on subjects as diverse as parentage laws in Pakistan, homosexuality in Nigeria and cloud computing. We remain a small but committed team. 2012 saw the departure of Kay Wheat as case-note editor. Kay has provided invaluable support to the Nottingham Law Journal over the years and we would like to thank her for this important contribution. Janice Denoncourt will now be adapting her role to include case-notes with book reviews and we are delighted to welcome Louise Taylor to the editorial team. I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank all our contributors, subscribers and reviewers for the vital part they play in supporting the journal. Particular gratitude is owed to Raffia Arshad and Chuka Agbu who have taken time out of their busy schedules to offer new perspectives on our submissions concerning overseas legal systems. Finally, I must thank the rest of the editorial team and extend special thanks to my associate editor, Andrea Nicholson and, as always, the indispensable Carole Vaughan. DR HELEN O’NIONS v NOTTINGHAM LAW JOURNAL VOL. 22 2013 ARTICLES The address for submission of articles is given at the beginning of this issue. THE LATEST ATTEMPT AT REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS – ONE STEP FORWARD AND ANOTHER ONE BACK. MARK RYAN* INTRODUCTION ‘‘When it comes to House of Lords reform during this Parliament, the ship has sailed’’.1 Sadiq Khan, Shadow Lord Chancellor and Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, January 2013. In September 2012 the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg made a statement in the House of Commons confirming that the House of Lords Reform Bill had been withdrawn.2 Although the Bill had secured a Second Reading in the House of Commons in July by the decisive margin of 462 to 124 votes,3 there was nevertheless an evident lack of support from MPs for the Bill’s accompanying Programme Motion. Without such a motion the Bill could not have realistically navigated its passage through the Commons.4 It might however have been so different as 2012 could have proved to have been the watershed year in the protracted history of Lords reform. Not only did a Joint Committee largely endorse the key elements of the Government’s draft Bill, but more significantly, the 2012 House of Lords Reform Bill was the first Government Bill aimed at substantial reform of the second chamber to be presented to the House of Commons since Harold Wilson’s Parliament (No. 2) Bill in December 1968.5 This article examines these most recent developments and concludes by considering the prospects for reform.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • EU Renegotiation: Fighting for a Flexible Union How to Renegotiate the Terms of the UK’S Membership of the EU
    EU Renegotiation: Fighting for a Flexible Union How to renegotiate the terms of the UK’s Membership of the EU (Quotation in title taken from President Glyn Gaskarth September 2013 ii © Civitas 2013 55 Tufton Street London SW1P 3QL Civitas is a registered charity (no. 1085494) and a company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales (no. 04023541) email: [email protected] Independence: Civitas: Institute for the Study of Civil Society is a registered educational charity (No. 1085494) and a company limited by guarantee (No. 04023541). Civitas is financed from a variety of private sources to avoid over-reliance on any single or small group of donors. All the Institute’s publications seek to further its objective of promoting the advancement of learning. The views expressed are those of the authors, not of the Institute. i Contents Acknowledgements ii Foreword, David Green iii Executive Summary iv Background 1 Introduction 3 Chapter One – Trade 9 Chapter Two – City Regulation 18 Chapter Three – Options for Britain 26 Chapter Four – Common Fisheries Policy 42 Chapter Five – National Borders and Immigration 49 Chapter Six – Foreign & Security Policy 58 Chapter Seven – European Arrest Warrant (EAW) 68 Conclusion 80 Bibliography 81 ii Acknowledgements I would like to thank Tamara Chehayeb Makarem and Susan Gaskarth for their support during the compilation of this paper and Dr David Green and Jonathan Lindsell of Civitas for their comments on the text. iii Foreword Our main aim should be the full return of our powers of self-government, but that can’t happen before the referendum promised for 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • The Prime Minister
    House of Commons Liaison Committee The Prime Minister Oral Evidence Tuesday 17 May 2011 Rt Hon David Cameron MP Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 17 May 2011 HC 608-ii Published on 11 July 2011 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £5.50 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SE] Processed: [08-07-2011 15:30] Job: 012362 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/012362/012362_w001_mick_11.06.17 ltr to Chair fm PM- response to Q.64.xml Ev 28 Liaison Committee: Evidence Tuesday 17 May 2011 Members present: Sir Alan Beith (Chair) Mr James Arbuthnot Richard Ottaway Mr Adrian Bailey Mr Laurence Robertson Dame Anne Begg Mr Graham Stuart Malcolm Bruce Mr Andrew Tyrie Sir Alan Haselhurst Keith Vaz Margaret Hodge Joan Walley Andrew Miller ________________ Examination of Witness Witness: Rt Hon David Cameron MP, Prime Minister, gave evidence. Chair: Welcome, Prime Minister, to your second give companies the capacity to enable Britain to grow session with the Liaison Committee in this Parliament. its way out of recession. The latest Bank of England We also welcome your agreement to come three times figures, however, show that bank lending has actually a year. That means that there will be three sessions, fallen. When are the Government going to use their of which this is first, before the end of this calendar powers, particularly with banks of their own, to ensure year. We have agreed that we will have shorter and that there is an increase in lending to business? more frequent meetings to allow us to cover a limited Mr Cameron: Obviously, the recent figures are number of subjects in greater depth.
    [Show full text]
  • The Big Society
    House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee The Big Society Seventeenth Report of Session 2010–12 Volume II Oral and written evidence Additional written evidence is contained in Volume III, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/treascom Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 7 December 2011 HC 902-II [Incorporating HC 716] Published on 14 December 2011 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £13.00 The Public Administration Select Committee The Public Administration Select Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Health Service Commissioner for England, which are laid before this House, and matters in connection therewith, and to consider matters relating to the quality and standards of administration provided by civil service departments, and other matters relating to the civil service. Current membership Mr Bernard Jenkin MP (Conservative, Harwich and North Essex) (Chair) Alun Cairns MP (Conservative, Vale of Glamorgan) Michael Dugher MP (Labour, Barnsley East) Charlie Elphicke MP (Conservative, Dover) Paul Flynn MP (Labour, Newport West) Robert Halfon MP (Conservative, Harlow) David Heyes MP (Labour, Ashton under Lyne) Kelvin Hopkins MP (Labour, Luton North) Greg Mulholland MP (Liberal Democrat, Leeds North West) Priti Patel MP (Conservative, Witham) Lindsay Roy MP (Labour, Glenrothes) The following members were also members of the Committee during the inquiry: Nick de Bois MP (Conservative, Enfield North) Mr Charles Walker MP (Conservative, Broxbourne) Powers The powers of the Committee are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 146.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Business 6Th November 2019
    ORDERS APPROVED AND BUSINESS TRANSACTED AT THE PRIVY COUNCIL HELD BY THE QUEEN AT BUCKINGHAM PALACE ON 6TH NOVEMBER 2019 COUNSELLORS PRESENT The Rt Hon Jacob Rees-Mogg (Lord President) The Rt Hon Robert Buckland QC The Rt Hon Alister Jack The Rt Hon Alok Sharma Privy The Rt Hon The Lord Ashton of Hyde, the Rt Hon Conor Burns, Counsellors the Rt Hon Zac Goldsmith, the Rt Hon Alec Shelbrooke, the Rt Hon Christopher Skidmore and the Rt Hon Rishi Sunak were sworn as Members of Her Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council. Order appointing Jesse Norman a Member of Her Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council. Proclamations Proclamation declaring the calling of a new Parliament on the 17th of December 2019 and an Order directing the Lord Chancellor to cause the Great Seal to be affixed to the Proclamation. Six Proclamations:— 1. determining the specifications and designs for a new series of seven thousand pound, two thousand pound, one thousand pound and five hundred pound gold coins; and a new series of one thousand pound, five hundred pound and ten pound silver coins; 2. determining the specifications and designs for a new series of one thousand pound, five hundred pound, one hundred pound and twenty-five pound gold coins; a new series of five hundred pound, ten pound, five pound and two pound standard silver coins; a new series of ten pound silver piedfort coins; a new series of one hundred pound platinum coins; and a new series of five pound cupro-nickel coins; 3. determining the specifications and designs for a new series of five hundred pound, two hundred pound, one hundred pound, fifty pound, twenty-five pound, ten pound, one pound and fifty pence gold coins; a new series of five hundred pound, ten pound, two pound, one pound, fifty pence, twenty pence, ten pence and five pence silver coins; and a new series of twenty-five pound platinum coins; 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Committee Report
    HOUSE OF LORDS European Union Committee Session 2019-2021 Progress of Scrutiny 2nd edition 1 February – 23 April 2020 Published 19 May 2020 EUC-2 1 56B60BThe European Union Committee The European Union Committee of the House of Lords considers EU documents and other matters relating to the EU. 57B61BProgress of Scrutiny This document records decisions taken on EU documents sent to the Committee for scrutiny. The Committee’s reports and correspondence are online. The web addresses for the Committee and its Sub-Committees are in the last chapter. The report is divided into five sections: i. Documents under scrutiny or awaiting correspondence; ii. Inquiries and reports; iii. Documents cleared from scrutiny; iv. Committee members and contact details. Scrutiny items are ordered by Council number, the most recent first. Each scrutiny item is presented in three columns: Council numbers Document title and details of the Scrutiny information including and associated Committee’s scrutiny. This may include Sub-Committee, sift date and documents. correspondence, inquiries, reports and cleared date. scrutiny overrides. Documents without “IPEX” here indicates that a Council number scrutiny information has been are listed as uploaded to IPEX, the “OTNYR” (Official interparliamentary scrutiny Text Not Yet database at 27T27T2TU2T U27TUUUwww.ipex.eu UUUUU2T 2T27T Received) with the date of the explanatory memorandum. Enquiries relating to this document and general enquiries about the work of the European Union Committee and its Sub-Committees should be
    [Show full text]
  • LGBT+ Conservatives Annual Report 2020.Pdf
    LGBT+ CONSERVATIVES TEAM April 2019 - July 20201 OFFICERS CHAIRMAN - Colm Howard-Lloyd DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - John Cope HONORARY SECRETARY - Niall McDougall HONORARY TREASURER - Cllr. Sean Anstee CBE VICE-CHAIRMAN CANDIDATES’ FUND - Cllr. Scott Seaman-Digby VICE-CHAIRMAN COMMUNICATIONS - Elena Bunbury (resigned Dec 2019) VICE-CHAIRMAN EVENTS - Richard Salt MEMBERSHIP OFFICER - Ben Joce STUDENT OFFICER - Jason Birt (resigned Sept 2019) GENERAL COUNCIL Cllr. Andrew Jarvie Barry Flux David Findlay Dolly Theis Cllr. Joe Porter Owen Meredith Sue Pascoe Xavier White REGIONAL COORDINATORS EAST MIDLANDS - David Findlay EAST OF ENGLAND - Thomas Smith LONDON - Charley Jarrett NORTH EAST - Barry Flux SCOTLAND - Andrew Jarvie WALES - Mark Brown WEST MIDLANDS - John Gardiner YORKSHIRE AND THE HUMBER - Cllr. Jacob Birch CHAIRMAN’S REPORT After a decade with LGBT+ Conservatives, more than half of them in the chair, it’s time to hand-on the baton I’m not disappearing completely. One of my proudest achievements here has been the LGBT+ Conservatives Candidates’ Fund, which has supported so many people into parliament and raised tens of thousands of pounds. As the fund matures it is moving into a new governance structure, and I hope to play a role in that future. I am thrilled to be succeeded by Elena Bunbury. I know that she will bring new energy to the organisation, and I hope it will continue to thrive under her leadership. I am so grateful to everyone who has supported me on this journey. In particular Emma Warman, Matthew Green and John Cope who have provided wise counsel as Deputy Chairman. To Sean Anstee who has transformed the finances of the organisation.
    [Show full text]
  • THE 422 Mps WHO BACKED the MOTION Conservative 1. Bim
    THE 422 MPs WHO BACKED THE MOTION Conservative 1. Bim Afolami 2. Peter Aldous 3. Edward Argar 4. Victoria Atkins 5. Harriett Baldwin 6. Steve Barclay 7. Henry Bellingham 8. Guto Bebb 9. Richard Benyon 10. Paul Beresford 11. Peter Bottomley 12. Andrew Bowie 13. Karen Bradley 14. Steve Brine 15. James Brokenshire 16. Robert Buckland 17. Alex Burghart 18. Alistair Burt 19. Alun Cairns 20. James Cartlidge 21. Alex Chalk 22. Jo Churchill 23. Greg Clark 24. Colin Clark 25. Ken Clarke 26. James Cleverly 27. Thérèse Coffey 28. Alberto Costa 29. Glyn Davies 30. Jonathan Djanogly 31. Leo Docherty 32. Oliver Dowden 33. David Duguid 34. Alan Duncan 35. Philip Dunne 36. Michael Ellis 37. Tobias Ellwood 38. Mark Field 39. Vicky Ford 40. Kevin Foster 41. Lucy Frazer 42. George Freeman 43. Mike Freer 44. Mark Garnier 45. David Gauke 46. Nick Gibb 47. John Glen 48. Robert Goodwill 49. Michael Gove 50. Luke Graham 51. Richard Graham 52. Bill Grant 53. Helen Grant 54. Damian Green 55. Justine Greening 56. Dominic Grieve 57. Sam Gyimah 58. Kirstene Hair 59. Luke Hall 60. Philip Hammond 61. Stephen Hammond 62. Matt Hancock 63. Richard Harrington 64. Simon Hart 65. Oliver Heald 66. Peter Heaton-Jones 67. Damian Hinds 68. Simon Hoare 69. George Hollingbery 70. Kevin Hollinrake 71. Nigel Huddleston 72. Jeremy Hunt 73. Nick Hurd 74. Alister Jack (Teller) 75. Margot James 76. Sajid Javid 77. Robert Jenrick 78. Jo Johnson 79. Andrew Jones 80. Gillian Keegan 81. Seema Kennedy 82. Stephen Kerr 83. Mark Lancaster 84.
    [Show full text]
  • FDN-274688 Disclosure
    FDN-274688 Disclosure MP Total Adam Afriyie 5 Adam Holloway 4 Adrian Bailey 7 Alan Campbell 3 Alan Duncan 2 Alan Haselhurst 5 Alan Johnson 5 Alan Meale 2 Alan Whitehead 1 Alasdair McDonnell 1 Albert Owen 5 Alberto Costa 7 Alec Shelbrooke 3 Alex Chalk 6 Alex Cunningham 1 Alex Salmond 2 Alison McGovern 2 Alison Thewliss 1 Alistair Burt 6 Alistair Carmichael 1 Alok Sharma 4 Alun Cairns 3 Amanda Solloway 1 Amber Rudd 10 Andrea Jenkyns 9 Andrea Leadsom 3 Andrew Bingham 6 Andrew Bridgen 1 Andrew Griffiths 4 Andrew Gwynne 2 Andrew Jones 1 Andrew Mitchell 9 Andrew Murrison 4 Andrew Percy 4 Andrew Rosindell 4 Andrew Selous 10 Andrew Smith 5 Andrew Stephenson 4 Andrew Turner 3 Andrew Tyrie 8 Andy Burnham 1 Andy McDonald 2 Andy Slaughter 8 FDN-274688 Disclosure Angela Crawley 3 Angela Eagle 3 Angela Rayner 7 Angela Smith 3 Angela Watkinson 1 Angus MacNeil 1 Ann Clwyd 3 Ann Coffey 5 Anna Soubry 1 Anna Turley 6 Anne Main 4 Anne McLaughlin 3 Anne Milton 4 Anne-Marie Morris 1 Anne-Marie Trevelyan 3 Antoinette Sandbach 1 Barry Gardiner 9 Barry Sheerman 3 Ben Bradshaw 6 Ben Gummer 3 Ben Howlett 2 Ben Wallace 8 Bernard Jenkin 45 Bill Wiggin 4 Bob Blackman 3 Bob Stewart 4 Boris Johnson 5 Brandon Lewis 1 Brendan O'Hara 5 Bridget Phillipson 2 Byron Davies 1 Callum McCaig 6 Calum Kerr 3 Carol Monaghan 6 Caroline Ansell 4 Caroline Dinenage 4 Caroline Flint 2 Caroline Johnson 4 Caroline Lucas 7 Caroline Nokes 2 Caroline Spelman 3 Carolyn Harris 3 Cat Smith 4 Catherine McKinnell 1 FDN-274688 Disclosure Catherine West 7 Charles Walker 8 Charlie Elphicke 7 Charlotte
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)
    Monday Volume 524 7 March 2011 No. 127 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Monday 7 March 2011 £5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2011 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through The National Archives website at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/parliamentary-licence-information.htm Enquiries to The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected] 621 7 MARCH 2011 622 Mrs May: I understand where the hon. Gentleman is House of Commons trying to lead his question. Of course there are rules on that offence in relation to exclusions from the United Monday 7 March 2011 Kingdom. Decisions on exclusions are taken by the Home Secretary on the basis of evidence put forward by the UK Border Agency. The House met at half-past Two o’clock Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con): On temporary residence, is it not clear that under the Government’s PRAYERS plans students are welcome to come and study in this country, and, indeed, should be made welcome? However, [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] is it not part of the inheritance of this Government that large numbers of people have used the study route as a means of coming to the country to work, rather than to study? Will my right hon. Friend give me an assurance Oral Answers to Questions that this Government will bear down on bogus students and bogus colleges who abuse the system? Mrs May: I am grateful to my hon.
    [Show full text]
  • Download (9MB)
    A University of Sussex PhD thesis Available online via Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/ This thesis is protected by copyright which belongs to the author. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the Author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the Author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Please visit Sussex Research Online for more information and further details 2018 Behavioural Models for Identifying Authenticity in the Twitter Feeds of UK Members of Parliament A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF UK MPS’ TWEETS BETWEEN 2011 AND 2012; A LONGITUDINAL STUDY MARK MARGARETTEN Mark Stuart Margaretten Submitted for the degree of Doctor of PhilosoPhy at the University of Sussex June 2018 1 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................ 1 DECLARATION .................................................................................................................................. 4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................................... 5 FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................... 6 TABLES ............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Big Society Capital
    Saïd Business School Case Big Society Capital The World’s First Social Investment Wholesale Bank Jess Daggers Alex Nicholls October 2016 1 Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank all the many people who contributed to the development of this case, notably Aunnie Patton who was responsible for much of initial fieldwork behind the case. We would also like to express our gratitude to key staff at Big Society Capital - including Simon Rowell, Nick O’Donohoe and Cliff Prior – for their very helpful comments on earlier versions of the case. This case reveals the development of Big Society Capital as something of a ‘secret history’ by focussing, particularly, on the individuals, sets of relationships and pivotal events that lead to its establishment. As such, the case narrative is built upon a range of reflections that represent the views of many key actors during the main phases of its development rather than a post hoc set of observations. In this sense, the case attempts to piece together a complex story from a variety of evidence and perspectives that may not always be consistent and which do not incorporate the benefits of hindsight. It is hoped that this approach will provide a more ‘true’ account of the development of this important institution in contrast to the more rationalized version of events typical of many histories of institution building. 2 Introduction Big Society Capital (BSC) is a financial institution set up for the purpose of building the market for social investment in the UK. BSC defines social investment as ‘the use of repayable finance to achieve a social as well as a financial return’.
    [Show full text]
  • JP__Lehndorff__Divisive Integration PRELIMS Ver 8.Indd
    European Trade Union Institute Bd du Roi Albert II, 5 1210 Brussels Belgium Tel.: +32 (0)2 224 04 70 Fax: +32 (0)2 224 05 02 [email protected] www.etui.org Divisive integration The triumph of failed ideas in Europe — revisited Edited by Steffen Lehndorff Divisive integration Among numerous publications on the European crisis, the edited volume A triumph of failed ideas stood out in that it viewed the crisis through the lens of individual countries. The triumph of failed ideas Since the book’s publication in 2012, Europe has undergone further far-reaching changes: economic and social developments across the continent have become disjointed, and in Europe — revisited many Europeans, experiencing or witnessing the effects of austerity and labour market deregulation, now regard the whole European endeavour and its governing institutions as a menace rather than an achievement; in several EU countries these citizens’ fears — have served to boost support for right-wing nationalist parties. The current multifaceted Edited by European crisis exhibits many new features; its political, social and economic facets are Steffen Lehndorff no longer a mere continuation of trends triggered by the financial havoc of 2008/2009 and the ensuing euro-zone crisis in 2010. Against this changed background the same integration Divisive — revisited ideas in Europe of failed The triumph Lehndorff by Steffen Edited team of authors presents a new book. The new message delivered is the following: a gradual recovery from protracted crisis in the EU is feasible only if a change of course in individual countries triggers reactions in other nations’ policies, thereby causing jolts at the EU level; however, a change of course in individual countries is nowadays generally ruled out in the absence of a green light – or at least a stance of tolerance – on the part of the European institutions.
    [Show full text]