June 4

WhatsApp to crack down on fake news in India

first_imgHome WhatsApp to crack down on fake news in India Related WhatsApp sues India over new internet regulations Saleha Riaz Author Previous ArticleNokia reveals licensing rates for 5G devicesNext ArticleUS states fight for net neutrality India amenaza con actuar contra la nueva política de privacidad de WhatsApp Tags center_img AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to LinkedInLinkedInLinkedInShare to TwitterTwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookFacebookShare to MoreAddThisMore 21 AUG 2018 FacebookIndiaWhatsApp Español WhatsApp shrugs off India privacy update pressure WhatsApp promised the Indian government it will work to tackle messages containing fake news which have led to incidents of violence, Reuters reported.Earlier this month the government was said to be looking at ways to block social media services including WhatsApp in extreme scenarios, as concerns grow around the role such platforms play in public disorder. This is obviously worrying for WhatsApp as India is its biggest market, with more than 200 million users.There have also been concerns in the country that political parties are using social media to spread fake news in the run-up to national elections due to be held in 2019.In the wake of all this, WhatsApp CEO Chris Daniels held a meeting with India’s IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad and assured him the company would figure out how to find the source of “sinister” messages. It will also appoint a grievance officer to deal with issues in the country.“It does not need rocket science to locate a message,” Prasad said after the meeting.He added the Facebook-owned messaging service is working with law enforcement agencies plus developing plans to to educate users about fake messages.Last month WhatsApp said it is limiting the number of groups a message can be forwarded to worldwide, with further restrictions in India, where it removed a quick forward button found next to media messages.At the time, the Indian government said WhatsApp was not doing enough. It said if WhatsApp can target users for advertising purposes, it should be able to find “explosive messages filled with rumours”. Subscribe to our daily newsletter Back Saleha joined Mobile World Live in October 2014 as a reporter and works across all e-newsletters – creating content, writing blogs and reports as well as conducting feature interviews…More Read more last_img read more

September 30

Real property

first_img (1) Stewart John Pattle (2) Craig Pattle v Secretary of State for Transport: UT (Lands) (Judge Huskinson, Andrew Trott): 21 July 2009 Simon Pickles, Gerard van Tonder (instructed by Kingsley Smith) for the claimants; Guy Roots QC (instructed by Ashurst) for the defendant. The tribunal was required to determine as a preliminary issue whether the claimants (P) were entitled, as part of their claim for compensation for the compulsory acquisition of a part of an industrial site that they owned, to claim compensation for a hypothetical loss of rents from units on the site. P had obtained outline planning permission for the redevelopment of the site by the demolition of existing units and the construction of new units. A condition of the grant was that no development could occur within a part of the site (the reference land), safeguarded for the construction of the Channel tunnel rail link (CTRL) pursuant to an order of the defendant secretary of state. P deferred the redevelopment, apparently because of the prospective acquisition of the reference land and the general blighting effects of the CTRL scheme, but leased the existing units. The reference land was later compulsorily acquired by the secretary of state. P claimed compensation for the value of the reference land and, under rule 6 of schedule 5 to the Land Compensation Act 1961, for losses allegedly sustained by them prior to the date of compulsory acquisition, by way of the lower value in rents actually obtained compared to the allegedly higher rents they would have received from a redevelopment of the site. The secretary of state contended that any deferment by P of a proposed redevelopment of the site had been because of blight in the area rather than because of the prospective acquisition of the reference land. The secretary of state further argued that the claim for lost rents was excluded under rule 6 because it was directly based on the value of the land and because a claim for lost rents could not be pursued in respect of an assumed development which had not taken place. P contended that compensation for the value of the land for injurious affection or severance on the retained land should be assessed on the basis of the difference between the value of the land with planning permission for the units and the value of land with planning permission for fewer units, apportioned between the acquired land and the retained land. Held: (1) It was appropriate for the tribunal to determine the preliminary issue upon the basis that P might be able to prove that the deferment of their redevelopment on the site was reasonably attributable to the prospective acquisition of the reference land. As such it had been agreed by P and the secretary of state that the tribunal was not concerned with questions of causation, remoteness or reasonableness. (2) In relation to a claim by a person with a compensatable interest, compensation under rule 6 of schedule 5 was not limited to loss to occupiers, nor was it limited to claims for costs or expenses, and it extended to any loss attributable to the compulsory acquisition, subject only to the ordinary principles of causation and remoteness, Wrexham Maelor BC v MacDougall [1995] 69 P & CR 109 CA (Civ Div) applied. Further, it was clear that a claim under rule 6 of schedule 5 could extend to losses reasonably attributable not merely to the actual acquisition of the land but to the prospective acquisition of the land, Director of Buildings and Lands v Shun Fung Ironworks Ltd [1995] 2 AC 111 PC (HK) applied. Rule 6 of schedule 5 required that the compensation claimed for was not directly based on the ‘value of land’. ‘Value of land’ in rule 6 of schedule 5 was to be ascribed the meaning given to value of land in rule 2 of schedule 5 and it could not be said that a claim for rents lost when the prospective acquisition was known about but possession had not taken place was not a claim for a matter directly based on the value of land. While the fact that the alleged lost rents were mostly from land which had not been acquired and which had not potentially been subject to acquisition might make for difficulties of proof of causation for P, the tribunal was not concerned with questions of causation, remoteness or reasonableness. There was no reason in principle why the losses claimed under rule 6 of schedule 5 had to be capable of being proved to have been sustained on and only on the land ultimately acquired. Furthermore, there was no reason why P had to calculate their lost rents by reference to the land in its existing state so that the extra rents which P could have obtained from some obvious and minor refurbishment had to be disregarded or, therefore, why a potential redevelopment could not be taken into account. (3) It could not be said that the before and after valuation method should not be used as a matter of law in respect of calculating the compensation claimed by P. Such a method always produced a valuation that included the value of the land taken and any severance or injurious affection even if they were not identified separately in the valuation process, Hoveringham Gravels Ltd v Chiltern DC 76 LGR 533 CA (Civ Div) distinguished. Preliminary issue determined in favour of claimant.center_img Compensation – Compulsory purchase – Neighbouring land – Rental valuelast_img read more

September 29

Lerwick harbour deep-water facility opens ahead of schedule

first_imgWork was accelerated on an 80 m section of the quay under development at Greenhead to make it available for use byTechnip, an energy industry project management, engineering and construction company.Technip was awarded a contract by Maersk Oil North Sea UK Limited for the Gryphon area reinstatement programme, covering installation of 15 dynamic risers, two dynamic and two static umbilicals and 11 flexible flowlines, as well as subsea equipment. Technip will utilise Lerwick Harbour as its main offshore support base during execution of this project.Designated Berth Seven, the new quay was originally due for completion this month, but the Technip requirement meant Lerwick Port Authority advancing the timetable for most of the facility. The section was handed over by the main contractor, Tulloch Developments, in late February.Early completion has enabled Technip to hire in a specialist crane erected on theport’s latest heavy-lift pad which is incorporated into the quay. The 1,250 tonne capacity Sarens crane is believed to be the biggest yet seen at the harbour.The coaster, Abis Belfast, arrived on February 27 with the first of numerous deliveries of reels by various vessels – pictured below. On March 7, the ROV support vessel, Fugro Symphony berthed at the new quay to collect the first of the reels, weighing up to 270 tonnes each, for installation on the field in a project expected to take around six months.Sandra Laurenson, Lerwick Port Authority chief executive, said: “Berth Seven is a common-user facility, but designed with support of offshore industry operations very much in mind. With nine-metres’ water depth and an extensive laydown area, it is another important addition at a time when larger vessels are using the port. The facility brings improvements for current users and will help attract more traffic, across a range of activities.”The remainder of the 100-metre-plus quay at the south end of the well-established Greenhead Base is due for completion during March.www.lerwick-harbour.co.uklast_img read more