UK British News Megathread - aka CWCissey's news thread

isalaide · Feb 20, 2025

Mound Dweller said:
I can't find it anywhere now but there were a few pieces on the Lady Chief Justice bitching and moaning that ser keith and baddienoch shouldn't dare critique the sacred judiciary, as if the "supreme court" isn't some americanized ballcocks imposed on us by "people" who hate us and want us to suffer.

The former fucking Director of Public Prosecutions should know not to comment on a matter that is still sub judice. Absolute basic shit, that. He should not be goaded by the ape in lipstick hooting across at him into behaving like he doesn't know any better.

BongoMongo · Feb 20, 2025

isalaide said:
The former fucking Director of Public Prosecutions should know not to comment on a matter that is still sub judice. Absolute basic shit, that. He should not be goaded by the ape in lipstick hooting across at him into behaving like he doesn't know any better.

There's a lot of things that man should know,but you only have to hear him flapping his gums for 30 seconds to realize he's hardly got anywhere based on his cognitive abilities.

He is absolutely not the sharpest knife in the drawer but let's face it, the nogs and Asians have raided that...

curbside2 · Feb 20, 2025

Krokodil Overdose · Feb 21, 2025

>IMPLYING said:
I think giving them less protections from being dismissed and streamline firings would be a good start. In America Trump was able to fire whole swathes of people on ideological grounds. In the UK just to fire 1 civil servant, you need an investigation, just cause for a disciplinary hearing (overseen by a judge who is also likely ideologically Lib) and if the judge rules the servant as being in the wrong, being dismissed is just one of many punishments the judge could decide to bestow. One could do what Trump did, and put them on 'paid leave' and simply hire people to occupy the now empty slots. Expensive but might be worth it in the long term if you can get it reformed all in one term.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but as I understand it the law in Bongland is whatever Parliament says it is. Why can't an appropriately inclined Commons just pass a law saying "the Prime Minister can dismiss any civil servant without cause or recourse by telling them to 'get stuffed.' This Act is not justicable."?

isalaide · Feb 21, 2025

Krokodil Overdose said:
Maybe I'm wrong here, but as I understand it the law in Bongland is whatever Parliament says it is. Why can't an appropriately inclined Commons just pass a law saying "the Prime Minister can dismiss any civil servant without cause or recourse by telling them to 'get stuffed.' This Act is not justicable."?

Parliament can't declare anything 'not justiciable'. The courts are His Majesty's, not some prime minister's to bar us from. The fucking rule of law requires that the actions of the administrative branch of the government be subject to binding oversight by the judiciary. The ability to petition the sovereign for equitable relief against his government or against fellow subjects is the fucking bedrock of such constitutional settlement as the UK has. 'lol no courts 4 u, luv the prezident 4 lyfe' is some fucking banana republic shithole behaviour. We are white people and this is a white country, it obeys white norms. White people have laws.

Krokodil Overdose · Feb 21, 2025

isalaide said:
Parliament can't declare anything 'not justiciable'. The courts are His Majesty's, not some prime minister's to bar us from. The fucking rule of law requires that the actions of the administrative branch of the government be subject to binding oversight by the judiciary. The ability to petition the sovereign for equitable relief against his government or against fellow subjects is the fucking bedrock of such constitutional settlement as the UK has. 'lol no courts 4 u, luv the prezident 4 lyfe' is some fucking banana republic shithole behaviour. We are white people and this is a white country, it obeys white norms. White people have laws.

So Parliment can suspend elections but cant tell the Harry Potter cosplayers to step off? God you people are goofy. Courts who "serve" a vestigial powerless monarchy and comprise a kinda-sorta-but-not-really second branch of government with no accountability (who even appoints these drag show rejects?)

Chaos Theorist · Feb 21, 2025

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...fuses-reveal-number-deportations-halted-echr/

FedPostalService · Feb 21, 2025

Krokodil Overdose said:
So Parliment can suspend elections but cant tell the Harry Potter cosplayers to step off? God you people are goofy. Courts who "serve" a vestigial powerless monarchy and comprise a kinda-sorta-but-not-really second branch of government with no accountability (who even appoints these drag show rejects?)

You have an elected temporary king

Mound Dweller · Feb 21, 2025

isalaide said:
The former fucking Director of Public Prosecutions should know not to comment on a matter that is still sub judice. Absolute basic shit, that. He should not be goaded by the ape in lipstick hooting across at him into behaving like he doesn't know any better.

Courts are a meme that only ever serve to make things worse and always have been not once ever has a judicial system been a force for actual goodness that wasn't meant to be the lawmakers job in the first place, "binding oversight" is rubbish that isn't worth the vellum it's scrawled on so long as MPs and the like have the opportunity to wring their hands and shrug "courts says so"; total chancellery death.

close · Feb 21, 2025

Y'all getting mad at Bog Standard, but he said he'd come back WHEN the fighting starts, not after it's over. Sounds to me like he's lost faith in the whites to have the testicular fortitude fight the brown horde, rather than not wanting to fight himself.

Mound Dweller · Feb 21, 2025

Steve Job's ghost cucked out which means all the rest shall soon follow, end-to-end encryption is dead, sure does feel good knowing what a VPN is;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgj54eq4vejo/https://archive.is/6JLOm

Apple is taking the unprecedented step of removing its highest level data security tool from customers in the UK, after the government demanded access to user data.
Advanced Data Protection (ADP) means only account holders can view items such as photos or documents they have stored online through a process known as end-to-end encryption.
But earlier this month the UK government asked for the right to see the data, which currently not even Apple can access.
Apple did not comment at the time but has consistently opposed creating a "backdoor" in its encryption service, arguing that if it did so, it would only be a matter of time before bad actors also found a way in.
Now the tech giant has decided it will no longer be possible to activate ADP in the UK.
It means eventually not all UK customer data stored on iCloud - Apple's cloud storage service - will be fully encrypted.
Data with standard encryption is accessible by Apple and shareable with law enforcement, if they have a warrant.
In a statement the Home Office said: "We do not comment on operational matters, including for example confirming or denying the existence of any such notices."
In a statement Apple said it was "gravely disappointed" that the security feature would no longer be available to British customers.
"As we have said many times before, we have never built a backdoor or master key to any of our products, and we never will," it continued.

How does encryption work?

The ADP service is opt-in, meaning people have to sign up to get the protection it provides.
From 1500GMT on Friday, any Apple user in the UK attempting to turn it on has been met with an error message.

Existing users' access will be disabled at a later date.
It is not known how many people have signed up for ADP since it became available to British Apple customers in December 2022.
Prof Alan Woodward - a cyber-security expert at Surrey University - said it was a "very disappointing development" which amounted to "an act of self harm" by the government.
"All the UK government has achieved is to weaken online security and privacy for UK based users," he told the BBC.
"It was naïve of the UK government to think they could tell a US technology company what to do globally," he added.

What did the UK ask for?

The request was served by the Home Office under the Investigatory Powers Act (IPA), which compels firms to provide information to law enforcement agencies.
Apple would not comment on the notice and the Home Office refused to either confirm or deny its existence, but the BBC and the Washington Post spoke to a number of sources familiar with the matter.
It provoked a fierce backlash from privacy campaigners, who called it an "unprecedented attack" on the private data of individuals.
Two senior US politicians said it was so serious a threat to American national security that the US government should re-evaluate its intelligence-sharing agreements with the UK unless it was withdrawn.
It is not clear that Apple's actions will fully address those concerns, as the IPA order applies worldwide and ADP will continue to operate in other countries.
In its statement, Apple said it regretted the action it had taken.
"Enhancing the security of cloud storage with end-to-end-encryption is more urgent than ever before," it said.
"Apple remains committed to offering our users the highest level of security for their personal data and are hopeful that we will be able to do so in future in the UK."
The row comes amid growing push-back in the US against regulation being imposed on its tech sector from elsewhere.
In a speech at the AI Action Summit in Paris at the beginning of February, US Vice President JD Vance made it clear that the US was increasingly concerned about it.
"The Trump administration is troubled by reports that some foreign governments are considering tightening the screws on US tech companies with international footprints," he said.

Great wooden(fire)wall soon?

Kier Starmer · Feb 21, 2025

I can confirm even for Apple users under ADP it is turned off. The level of rage and disgust I am feeling currently is unfathomable. Our forebears with actual ideals and dignity would be horrified at this outcome. This goes so beyond the pale for free speech.

isalaide · Feb 21, 2025

Mound Dweller said:
Courts are a meme that only ever serve to make things worse and always have been not once ever has a judicial system been a force for actual goodness that wasn't meant to be the lawmakers job in the first place, "binding oversight" is rubbish that isn't worth the vellum it's scrawled on so long as MPs and the like have the opportunity to wring their hands and shrug "courts says so"; total chancellery death.

The legislature formulates the laws.
The judiciary applies the laws as written to facts brought before them. This involves questions of interpreting the law as written to give effect to the legislature's intention in making the law.
This is how statutory interpretation works.
The legislature cannot by its very nature decide individual cases. There is no substitute for the role of the judiciary in any even partially functional system of government.
I know you know this. Chimping out about the existence of the rule of law is fine in the US politics thread, since they're having some kind of mass deathmatch to find the biggest literal retard there, but come on, we're not doing that here. We have achieved civilisation. We have the rule of law. Debating what the law on any particular issue should be is a fruitful and interesting discussion, but scrawling 'muH aNArchy In tHE Uk NOW' is low effort shitposting. We have the threads about our American cousins for that.

Mound Dweller · Feb 21, 2025

isalaide said:
I know you know this. Chimping out about the existence of the rule of law is fine in the US politics thread, since they're having some kind of mass deathmatch to find the biggest literal retard there, but come on, we're not doing that here. We have achieved civilisation. We have the rule of law. Debating what the law on any particular issue should be is a fruitful and interesting discussion, but scrawling 'muH aNArchy In tHE Uk NOW' is low effort shitposting. We have the threads about our American cousins for that.

That depends entirely on how you consider the legitimacy of any government post 1066.
Rule by lawyers was a mistake, the silywigs shouldn't be interpreting shit they ought to determining guilt and assessing evidence and all that other procedural crap that "law" is supposed to be for, determining application of gov policy? That is the rightful dominion of the government, any obstruction of this is heresy IMO but that's a whole other matter.

FedPostalService · Feb 21, 2025

Mound Dweller said:
That depends entirely on how you consider the legitimacy of any government post 1066.
Rule by lawyers was a mistake, the silywigs shouldn't be interpreting shit they ought to determining guilt and assessing evidence and all that other procedural crap that "law" is supposed to be for, determining application of gov policy? That is the rightful dominion of the government, any obstruction of this is heresy IMO but that's a whole other matter.

I don’t think you realise the country you are wishing for would be far more terrifying than the rainbow police state we are in now.

EddyRooney · Feb 21, 2025

BBC attempts to cram as many of its favourite topics into one story as it can

A teenager obsessed by murder wanted to carry out a mass shooting at his own school in Edinburgh.

A court heard how the boy "idolised" the killers behind the Columbine High School massacre in Colorado in the United States in 1999, which saw 12 students and a teacher murdered.
He repeatedly spoke about doing the same at his own secondary school - describing the "Doomsday" when he would "clear it out".
But a large-scale police probe was sparked in the summer of 2023 after a social media photo of him at school in full combat gear and carrying an imitation gun caused panic among pupils and parents.
The boy, who also held racist and pro-Nazi views, had already been referred to a UK-wide programme designed to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism.
The now 17-year-old appeared in the dock at the High Court in Glasgow.
He pleaded guilty via his defence KC Shelagh McCall to a breach of the peace and a charge under the Terrorism Act.

Military tactical vest

The crimes spanned between June 2022 and July 2023.
The teenager, who cannot be identified due to his age, had his bail revoked by judge Lord Arthurson pending sentencing next month.
Ms McCall KC told the court: "This is a vulnerable young person. He has mental health difficulties.
"He is a transgender person - that would need to be taken into account."
Prosecutor Greg Farrell told how, on 20 June 2023, the boy had turned up at school wearing cargo trousers and carrying a military tactical vest and helmet.
Mr Farrell: "He was later seen at the school carrying an imitation firearm while wearing the vest and helmet.
"A photograph was circulated on social media. It was taken and published without his knowledge.
"The image provoked a considerable degree of fear and alarm among pupils and parents.
"Police were advised by a parent who saw the image."

Officers went on to discover that the boy had a TikTok account which had footage of him in black combat clothes as well as a skeleton mask.
Mr Farrell: "One piece of commentary referenced school shootings."
The teenager was immediately suspended.
Police, however, went on to take statements from other pupils who knew the boy.
Mr Farrell: "They provided information that the boy had exhibited a variety of alarming behaviours over a period of time.
"The greatest concern was the suggestion he had divulged to various people a desire to carry out a school shooting similar to that which had taken place in 1999 at Columbine High School in Colorado in the USA."
Classmates recalled how the boy "spoke excitedly and with considerable enthusiasm" when he talked about Columbine and other school shootings.
He "sympathised" with the pair behind it - Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris - and would copy how they had dressed.
One girl said he "idolised school shooters in America".
Mr Farrell said: "In November 2022, he told her how he would go about carrying out a school attack.
"He explained that he would start on the second floor and that he would 'clear it out' using guns.
"He would then move downstairs continuing to shoot until police arrived, at which point he would turn the gun on himself."

'Fed-up being bullied'

The boy described a possible mass shooting at his school as "Doomsday".
He was said to be so "interested" in Columbine that he stated he wanted to change his name "in an act of homage" to Klebold.
Mr Farrell said: "One pupil told police that the boy wore the same black trousers, trench coat, cap worn backwards and circular glasses as favoured by one of the Columbine pair.
"He often made comments that he 'looked like a school shooter'."
The boy told another classmate that he would "place a bomb in every second classroom".
He would then shoot people as they fled the building.
The boy told one girl he met online that he wanted to carry out a shooting as he was being bullied and was "fed-up" being there.
The teenager was stopped by police under the Terrorism Act as he returned from holiday with his family on 9 July 2023.

A number of his electronic devices were seized. There were various files on a mobile phone with some about "homemade" firearms and poisons.

The court heard he had 65 videos of Columbine and had added music which appeared to "glamourise" the mass killing.

He had recorded another clip of him at his own school which seemed to "mimic the actions" of the American shooters.

Police also seized a journal in which the boy had made various sinister remarks.

The hearing was told the teenager had twice previously been referred to the Prevent counter-terrorism programme while at school due to concerns but that he had "engaged" with the police.

The court heard a more recent concern was flagged up by the college the boy now attends of him allegedly remarking that he was "annoyed at getting caught".

Judge Lord Arthurson ruled not to continue bail while sentence was deferred for reports.

The boy is expected to be sent to a secure unit for young people or what was described as a "place of safety".]

1.School shooter ( sadly no mention of knives )
2.Sweaty sock
3.Racist, pro-Nazi ( regrettably doesn't mention Far Right, but this is implied - must try harder )
4.Terrorism and Prevent
5.Mental Health
6.Transgender
7.Tik Tok

This story would be good for BBC Bullshit Bingo. Other than it not mentioning the kid's views on global warming, it seems to feature everything.

isalaide · Feb 21, 2025

Mound Dweller said:
That depends entirely on how you consider the legitimacy of any government post 1066.
Rule by lawyers was a mistake, the silywigs shouldn't be interpreting shit they ought to determining guilt and assessing evidence and all that other procedural crap that "law" is supposed to be for, determining application of gov policy? That is the rightful dominion of the government, any obstruction of this is heresy IMO but that's a whole other matter.

The application of the law to the facts established is a completely indivisible part of establishing guilt. To establish whether you have done something that the say Anti-Pants-Shitting Act of 2025 prohibits, the court has to be satisfied that what the statute actually prohibits covers what you actually did. It has to be satisfied that although the statute explicitly criminalises a shart, since all the court has found evidence for was a skidmark, that the statute intended to also criminalise skidmarks as well as sharts by the wording 'allowing matter from the rectum to discharge upon the underwear or clothing'. It is not fucking possible to apply law to IRL facts without some kind of interpretation of the law happening.
I think I must just be explaining this badly since what you're suggesting is literally impossible. Lord Sales gave a lecture on statutory interpretation a while back, I've found a copy online and the link is here and that explains better https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/speech_lord_sales_240919_1e4f3f8d1f.pdf
I am not actively trying to be a wanker but reading 'opinions' on A&N that amount to 'the only acceptable solution is something that the base fabric of reality would not allow' is fucking tiresome and generally not in your wheelhouse as I recall, so it is quite likely we are not talking about the same thing. I see this thing about 'the courts shouldn't interpret the law' flung around but it's mostly by retards who would also argue that water shouldn't be wet. I do not consider you one of these benighted individuals so I think we are probably not talking about the same specific issue?

Almighty Space Duck · Feb 21, 2025

Chaotic Pizzaparty said:
I can confirm even for Apple users under ADP it is turned off. The level of rage and disgust I am feeling currently is unfathomable. Our forebears with actual ideals and dignity would be horrified at this outcome. This goes so beyond the pale for free speech.

For now mine is still on.

There has been mention of a grace period before some kind of forced deactivation happens but no specifics.

Kier Starmer · Feb 21, 2025

See on my Macbook I had it on but not on my phone. What does this entail for stuff like WhatsApp though since they end-to-end encrypt and are not Apple-owned? Does that mean it is protected since it is not an Apple service? What is Android like in comparison because I might just shift over there?

Keep using those VPNs though guys.

Mr Bunny · Feb 21, 2025

Good evening, Bongs!
Your government picked the worse time to go full retard with an American company. With the news of Apple giving up security features due to the threat of fines and penalties just fresh off the presses, consider this an ultimatum to your retarded government.

Defending American Companies and Innovators From Overseas Extortion and Unfair Fines and Penalties
February 21, 2025
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY

THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE

THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

THE SENIOR COUNSELOR TO THE PRESIDENT FOR TRADE

AND MANUFACTURING

SUBJECT: Defending American Companies and Innovators From
Overseas Extortion and Unfair Fines and Penalties

Section 1. Purpose. In recent years, the gross domestic product of the United States’ digital economy alone, driven by cutting-edge American technology companies, has been bigger than the entire economy of Australia, Canada, or most members of the European Union. Instead of empowering their own workers and economies, foreign governments have increasingly exerted extraterritorial authority over American companies, particularly in the technology sector, hindering these companies’ success and appropriating revenues that should contribute to our Nation’s well-being, not theirs.

Beginning in 2019, several trading partners enacted digital services taxes (DSTs) that could cost American companies billions of dollars and that foreign government officials openly admit are designed to plunder American companies. Foreign countries have additionally adopted regulations governing digital services that are more burdensome and restrictive on United States companies than their own domestic companies. Additional foreign legal regimes limit cross-border data flows, require American streaming services to fund local productions, and charge network usage and Internet termination fees. All of these measures violate American sovereignty and offshore American jobs, limit American companies’ global competitiveness, and increase American operational costs while exposing our sensitive information to potentially hostile foreign regulators.

My Administration will not allow American companies and workers and American economic and national security interests to be compromised by one-sided, anti-competitive policies and practices of foreign governments. American businesses will no longer prop up failed foreign economies through extortive fines and taxes.

Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of my Administration that where a foreign government, through its tax or regulatory structure, imposes a fine, penalty, tax, or other burden that is discriminatory, disproportionate, or designed to transfer significant funds or intellectual property from American companies to the foreign government or the foreign government’s favored domestic entities, my Administration will act, imposing tariffs and taking such other responsive actions necessary to mitigate the harm to the United States and to repair any resulting imbalance.

In taking such responsive action, my Administration shall consider:

(a) taxes imposed on United States companies by foreign governments, including those that may discriminate against United States companies;

(b) regulations imposed on United States companies by foreign governments that could inhibit the growth or intended operation of United States companies;

(c) any act, policy, or practice of a foreign government that could require a United States company to jeopardize its intellectual property; and

(d) Any other act, policy, or practice of a foreign government that serves to undermine the global competitiveness of United States companies.

Sec. 3. Agency Responsibilities. (a) The United States Trade Representative shall determine, in accordance with applicable law, whether to renew investigations under section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2411) of the DSTs of France, Austria, Italy, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, which were initiated under my Administration on July 16, 2019, and June 5, 2020. If the United States Trade Representative determines to renew such investigations, he shall take all appropriate and feasible action in response to those DSTs.

(b) The United States Trade Representative shall determine, consistent with section 302(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2412(b)) (section 302(b)), whether to investigate the DST of any other country that may discriminate against United States companies or burden or restrict United States commerce. He shall further determine whether to pursue a panel under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement on the DST imposed by Canada and whether to investigate Canada’s DST under section 302(b). In making these determinations, the United States Trade Representative shall consult with the Secretary of the Treasury, as appropriate.

(c) The Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, and the United States Trade Representative shall jointly identify trade and other regulatory practices by other countries, including, without limitation, those described in section 2 of this memorandum, that discriminate against, disproportionately affect, or otherwise undermine the global competitiveness or intended operation of United States companies, in the digital economy and more generally, and recommend to me appropriate actions to counter such practices under applicable authorities. The United States Trade Representative shall include the results of this review as part of the report required in section 5(c) of the Presidential Memorandum of January 20, 2025 (America First Trade Policy) (America First Trade Policy Memorandum).

(d) The Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, and the United States Trade Representative shall investigate whether any act, policy, or practice of any country in the European Union or the United Kingdom has the effect of requiring or incentivizing the use or development of United States companies’ products or services in ways that undermine freedom of speech and political engagement or otherwise moderate content, and recommend appropriate actions to counter such practices under applicable authorities. The United States Trade Representative shall include the results of this review as part of the report required in section 5(c) of the America First Trade Policy Memorandum.

(e) The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative, shall determine whether any foreign country subjects United States citizens or companies, including, without limitation, in the digital economy, to discriminatory or extraterritorial taxes, or has any tax measure in place that otherwise undermines the global competitiveness of United States companies, is inconsistent with any tax treaty of the United States, or is otherwise actionable under section 891 of title 26, United States Code, or other tax-related legal authority. The Secretary of the Treasury shall include the results of this determination as part of the report required in section 2 of the Presidential Memorandum of January 20, 2025 (The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) Global Tax Deal).

(f) The United States Trade Representative shall identify tools the United States can use to secure among trading partners a permanent moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions. The United States Trade Representative shall include the results of this review as part of the report required in section 5(c) of the America First Trade Policy Memorandum.

(g) The United States Trade Representative, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce and the Senior Counselor to the President for Trade and Manufacturing, shall establish a process that allows American businesses to report to the United States Trade Representative foreign tax or regulatory practices that disproportionately harm United States companies.

Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(d) The United States Trade Representative is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

Source (Archive)

UK British News Megathread - aka CWCissey's news thread

has no gun and a bad lawyer

Porn + Weed = White Guy Shoah

[|][||][||][|_]

has no gun and a bad lawyer

[|][||][||][|_]

It would be spiteful To put jellyfish in a trifle

Delivering threats in Minecraft

Orcneas

Orcneas

What did the UK ask for?​

PM of Island of Strangers

has no gun and a bad lawyer

Orcneas

Delivering threats in Minecraft

Military tactical vest​

'Fed-up being bullied'​

has no gun and a bad lawyer

Weeeeeee

PM of Island of Strangers

I for one welcome the rabbit overlords.

Defending American Companies and Innovators From Overseas Extortion and Unfair Fines and Penalties​

What did the UK ask for?

Military tactical vest

'Fed-up being bullied'

Defending American Companies and Innovators From Overseas Extortion and Unfair Fines and Penalties