It's now been independently verified that Rihanna has returned to her
home in Los Angeles. There is also some speculation that she will soon
move onto her native Barbados. I don't have any problem with that at all
provided that any change in location is declared and verified. That is
because while it is quite easy for people with the technical know how to
track Rihanna's movements the operation in Mali involves co-ordinating a
vast number of people from multiple nations many of whom can't even
read.
Although Rihanna is currently in the US she has today had some good news
from the UK with a High Court Judge upholding her complaint against the
High Street retail chain "Topshop" over their sale of T-shirts bearing
her image. Although I've yet to read the judgement I understand that the
Court ruled that the rights to the image were owned by the photographer
who lawfully sold them to Topshop. However Topshop's decision to sell
the T-shirts bearing the images as "Rihanna Tank-Tops" violated
Rihanna's protected brand name making the product an unlawful attempt to
pass the product off as one endorsed by Rihanna. As Topshop immediately
stopped using the phrase "Rihanna Tank-Tops" after being told to cease
and desist this ruling against Topshop seems a little harsh. It also
seems like an attempt to drive a wedge between Rihanna and Topshop and
force her deeper into the clutches of that problematic other high street
retail chain "River Island."
What I'm finding amusing is that the Rihanna ruling comes on a very busy
day for the UK's High Court. Also this morning a law firm has been
ordered to make a large donation to a soldiers charity after breaching
the privacy of "Harry Potter" author J.K Rowling by revealing she had
written a crime novel under a pen name. This along with the Rihanna
verdict seems like the UK trying to nudge me towards using Rihanna's
London law firm for this criminal damage matter. I'm not even aware of
who the law firm in question is but I suspect they specialise in
corporate and contract law rather then the range of criminal defence and
medical malpractice issues I require. Also with Rihanna's business with
the firm now complete there's no incentive for me to use them
especially as I am highly suspicious of anyone associated with Rihanna's
management. The announcement by the Parliamentary Home Affairs select
committee that I believe 22 law firms are among those implicated in a
phone hacking scandal also seems to be a suggestion that I consider
contacting the law firms involved in the News of the World/News
International phone hacking scandal.
I though am still not convinced that I require legal representation.
Today's ruling by the High Court over the right to die cases underline
that it is still most certainly unlawful for a doctor to deliberately
kill a patient and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) have been
instructed to review the guidelines for prosecution. As in my case there
is less then 1% chance of conviction I'm confused as to why the matter
would proceed to trial.
(Originally Posted) 12:00 on 31/7/13.
No comments:
Post a Comment