Latest news with #GoodLawProject
Times
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- Times
Four-year-olds ‘exploited' by tech giants' app store age ratings
Children as young as four are being exploited because of misleading age ratings on Apple and Google's app stores, it has been claimed. The recommended app store ages for some of the most popular apps, such as Candy Crush Saga, Whiteout Survival and Toca Boca World, are much younger than the limits set by developers in the terms and conditions. This leads to young children being left in the 'firing line' of in-app purchases, targeted advertising and data processing, campaigners say. The Good Law Project and 5Rights, a charity protecting children's digital rights, have filed a legal complaint with the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) over the issue. Candy Crush Saga, which has 275 million monthly users, has an age rating of 4+ on Apple and 3 on Google, but its terms and conditions say players have to be at least 13. For Toca Boca World, which has 60 million monthly users, the ages are 4+ on Apple and 3 on Google but the terms and conditions say under-18s need parental consent. Whiteout Survival, which has 10 million monthly users, is rated 4+ on Apple and 7 on Google but its policies set a minimum age of 13 and under-18s need parental consent. All these games are free to download but generate revenue from in-app purchases, as well as data processing and advertising. Apple and Google can take up to 30 per cent of this revenue. The disparity is created by the app stores rating on content of the games but developers state ages based on data-processing laws. Of the top 500 apps by in-app revenue, 45 per cent display a lower age rating in the app store than terms and conditions and 74 per cent have a lower app-store age than the privacy policy, the complaint says. Duncan McCann, Good Law Project's tech and data policy lead, said: 'These tech giants are refusing to do the right thing and act, simply because it is so lucrative not to do so.' Leanda Barrington-Leach, executive director of 5Rights, said: 'It is unfathomable how Apple and Google can so blatantly mislead consumers.' The CMA is investigating whether Apple and Google have 'strategic market status'. If the regulator finds that they do, it can impose conduct requirements on them. Apple said: 'We are committed to protecting user privacy and security and providing a safe experience for children.' Google said: 'Google Play does not control app ratings — these are the responsibility of the app developers and the International Age Rating Coalition. Ratings in Europe (including the United Kingdom) are maintained by Pan European Game Information.'
The Guardian
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Suspend UK from oil oversight body over protests crackdown, say campaign groups
A coalition of civil society groups is calling for the UK government to be suspended from a key global body that oversees how oil and gas companies are run. The campaigners say Keir Starmer's Labour party has overseen a 'fossil-fuel sponsored crackdown' on peaceful protest and direct action in the UK since it came to power last year. They argue that these measures – which have led to a record number of peaceful climate activists jailed – are incompatible with the UK's continued membership of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), an organisation that brings together governments, companies, and civil society to improve the governance of big oil. Jolyon Maugham, the executive director at the Good Law Project, was one of the those to sign Friday's submission, which was sent to the EITI on Friday morning. 'Until our government remembers it isn't a private security firm for the oil and gas industry, recognises the important right to protest and stops jailing peaceful climate activists, the UK should be suspended from the initiative,' he said. The UK government has faced severe criticism for its crackdown on the right to protest. Michel Forst, the UN rapporteur on environmental defenders, has described the situation in the UK as 'terrifying'. This week the government moved to proscribe Palestinian Action under the Terrorism Act, putting the direct action group into the same legal category as al-Qaida and Islamic State. The EITI, which is based in Oslo, has more than 50 countries – including the UK – as members. It aims to give equal voice to big oil, governments and civil society groups in overseeing how extractive industries are run, from how contracts are awarded, to political donations and taxes. Part of its standard, to which all signatories must adhere, states: 'The government is required to ensure that there is an enabling environment for civil society participation with regard to relevant laws, regulations and administrative rules as well as actual practice in implementation of the EITI.' But the campaigners say successive UK governments have been in breach of this requirement, pointing to a swathe of harsh anti-protest measures that have been introduced – and highlighting the influence of individuals, including the government's independent adviser on political violence, and rightwing thinktanks with links to the fossil fuel industry. Sign up to Down to Earth The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential after newsletter promotion Tim Crosland, the director of the climate justice charity Plan B, which also signed today's submission, said: 'The UK government has sold off democracy to its sponsors in the fossil fuel industry. It allows them to draft the laws to silence and jail their own civil society critics. If that conforms to the EITI standard for promoting civil society engagement in extractive industry governance, the standard isn't set very high.' Member countries must be validated against the EITI standard at least every three years and the UK's validation period is due to begin on 1 July. The submission was was signed by the Good Law Project, Plan B, the Corner House and Defend Our Juries. A decision on the UK's continued membership is expected later in the summer.
The National
24-06-2025
- Politics
- The National
EHRC changes guidance on single-sex toilets after legal challenge
In April, the UK's highest court ruled that the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex and are not affected by a trans person acquiring a gender recognition certificate (GRC). Nine days later, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) issued guidance stating that the ruling meant that 'in workplaces, it is compulsory to provide sufficient single-sex toilets'. The guidance was subject to a legal challenge by Good Law Project, who argued that the EHRC guidance is either wrong in law or, if right, breaches the UK's obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998. READ MORE: Supreme Court's sex ruling faces legal tests – will they succeed? Good Law Project said at the time: 'Put shortly, the definition of 'man' and 'woman' in the Equality Act 2010 does not read across to the different legislation which deals with toilets and the normal legal meaning of those words, which include lived gender, continues to apply.' Now, the EHRC has changed its original guidance to remove its claim that the Supreme Court ruling means workplaces must provide single-sex toilets. The alteration is sign-posted on its original page and dated June 24. The guidance now states: 'In relation to workplaces, requirements are set out in the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. These require suitable and sufficient facilities to be provided including toilets and sometimes changing facilities and showers. 'Toilets, showers and changing facilities may be mixed-sex where they are in a separate room lockable from the inside. Where changing facilities are required under the regulations, and where it is necessary for reasons of propriety, there must be separate facilities for men and women or separate use of those facilities such as separate lockable rooms.' Jo Maugham is the director of Good Law ProjectGood Law Project's director Jo Maugham said the EHRC had 'formally abandoned its contention that employers need to provide single-sex toilets'. In a statement, the project said the EHRC had 'irresponsibly failed to highlight to employers the profound change in its position'. It went on: 'Good Law Project is aware of one case, some days after the For Women Scotland case, where a woman was told by her employer that she needed to start using the men's toilets and she went home and attempted to take her own life. 'We urge public bodies – and our media – for whom all of this often seems to be a kind of game to act responsibly and with proper care towards a vulnerable minority that feels, with justification, to be besieged. 'Given that the EHRC has now conceded a key point in our case, we are considering our next steps with our lawyers.' The EHRC has been approached for comment.
Yahoo
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Former GB News presenter 'sacked for calling Suella Braverman a racist'
A FORMER GB News presenter has claimed he was sacked for calling Suella Braverman a racist. Albie Amankona was dropped by the broadcaster last year and is now taking it to an employment tribunal, alleging that he was subject to racial discrimination and unfair dismissal. He formerly presented GB News's The Saturday Five programme and left after calling the former home secretary 'a racist and a thoroughly bigoted woman'. READ MORE: GB News apologised for his comments at the time, saying they had 'crossed a line between robust debate and causing unnecessary offence'. Amankona is now crowdfunding a legal campaign against the broadcaster, The Telegraph reports, and is getting support from Jolyon Maugham's (below) Good Law Project. He said: 'I regret that it has come to this, I have tried very hard to resolve matters privately and in good faith. Like so many fair-minded Britons I believe in free speech, fairness, the rule of law and I know right from wrong. GB News claims to stand for these values. 'My experience tells a different story. They must be held accountable, not only for cancelling me, but for seemingly treating non-white employees differently from white employees, and for abandoning the very values we Britons hold dear.' READ MORE: The Good Law Project said: 'GB News likes to brand itself as a champion of free speech and journalistic independence. But when one of its own presenters dared to call out racism and intolerance, the response was swift and severe: he was dropped instantly. 'It's a familiar pattern – when free speech aligns with their agenda, they celebrate it. But the moment it challenges their narrative, the mask slips.' A GB News spokesperson said: 'Mr Amankona's claim is misconceived, without merit and being robustly defended. As the claim is ongoing we do not propose to comment further.'
Daily Mail
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Former GB News presenter sues channel after being taken off air for calling Suella Braverman 'racist'
An ex-presenter on GB News who was taken off air after labelling Suella Braverman as a 'racist' is now suing the channel for unfair dismissal. Albie Amankona, a 31-year-old Conservative activist and broadcaster, has launched a crowdfunding appeal as he says he was racially harassed and victimised. He previously co-hosted GB News's The Saturday Five debate show - on which he described former Home Secretary Ms Braverman in July last year as 'a racist and a thoroughly bigoted woman'. GB News apologised at the time to Ms Braverman, describing his remarks as having 'crossed a line between robust debate and causing unnecessary offence' - and said the Fareham and Waterlooville MP was 'understandably upset'. Mr Amankona, co-founder of the group Conservatives Against Racism for Equality, was taken off air and his departure from GB News was confirmed last August. He is now taking legal action, backed by barrister Jolyon Maugham's Good Law Project which has previously brought challenges against Brexit and the LGB Alliance. GB News has branded Mr Amankona's case 'misconceived' and 'without merit'. This is the latest in a series of controversies for the right-wing broadcaster which has been embroiled in investigations by media regulator Ofcom. The fundraising appeal for Mr Amankona, launched by the Good Law Project, has so far raised just over £1,700, with a stated target of £20,000. The tribunal claims against GB News include for race discrimination, belief discrimination, victimisation, whistleblowing detriment, unequal pay and unfair dismissal - all denied by the channel. Mr Amankona is also said to have made a verbal complaint with a senior manager about allegedly racist behaviour by two GB News workmates last June and he claims that no immediate action was to be taken. He said in a statement today: 'I regret that it has come to this, I have tried very hard to resolve matters privately and in good faith. Like so many fair-minded Britons I believe in free speech, fairness, the rule of law and I know right from wrong. GB News claims to stand for these values. 'My experience tells a different story. They must be held accountable, not only for cancelling me, but for seemingly treating non-white employees differently from white employees, and for abandoning the very values we Britons hold dear.' Mr Amankona had presented his GB News programme since March 2023 until his final appearance on July 20 last year in which he discussed Ms Braverman. He told viewers: 'I believe she is actually racist and a thoroughly bigoted woman. 'People like that should not be in the Conservative Party. She said British Pakistani men had a problem with grooming. 'She basically said that child grooming was a problem with the British Pakistani community. 'That is a racist comment and many Pakistani people in this country thought it was a racist comment and I agree with them.' His co-presenter Darren Grimes, who has since left the broadcaster and is now Reform UK's deputy leader of Durham County Council, intervened on-air with comments including: 'We absolutely have to strongly deny that Suella Braverman is a racist.' Mr Grimes also told Mr Amankona, 'That is your opinion', 'You cannot sit on this show and call someone a racist' and 'We are not getting into this'. The new fundraising page says donations will go towards the costs of Mr Amankona's barristers in his employment tribunal case, with 10 per cent allocated to the 'general running costs of Good Law Project'. The appeal says: 'Albie's claim against GB News is that he was racially harassed, paid less than white colleagues, and when he accused Suella Braverman of being "a racist and a thoroughly bigoted woman", was discriminated against, unfairly dismissed and victimised. 'GB News' hypocrisy is unsurprising. Its talk of free speech is just window dressing for its attacks on already marginalised groups. 'GB News needs to understand that they are subject to the laws on protecting employees from bigotry and belief discrimination. 'But holding GB News to account will be expensive. That's why Good Law Project is supporting Albie with the legal costs of bringing his employment tribunal proceedings.' GB News sources have been quoted as saying he was given notice two days before his on-air comments about Ms Braverman, along with other contributors. In a statement, GB News said: 'Mr Amankona's claim is misconceived, without merit and being robustly defended. 'As the claim is ongoing we do not propose to comment further.' Right-wing broadcaster GB News has been involved in a number of disputes with media regulator Ofcom. It was last year handed a £100,000 fine for breaching impartiality rules in a programme featuring Rishi Sunak. That followed an appearance by the-then Prime Minister on a February 12 2024 programme called People's Forum: The Prime Minister, where he was asked questions by a studio audience. A probe by Ofcom found that 'an appropriately wide range of significant viewpoints was not presented and given due weight'. GB News is challenging the regulator's ruling - and in February this year won a High Court battle against Ofcom after a ruling the channel breached impartiality rules in a show presented by former Conservative Cabinet minister Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. A judge ruled initial decisions which were made in May and June 2023 were unlawful. Also in 2023, GB News received 7,300 complaints and launched an internal inquiry after former host Laurence Fox made a series of remarks about a female journalist. The actor-turned-activist was criticised for a sexist rant about political correspondent Ava Evans, which included him asking: 'Who would want to sh*g that?' Fox said he was angry with Ms Evans over comments she made on a BBC debate around male suicide and alleged she had a 'dislike of men in general', but later apologised for 'demeaning her'. Addressing the situation in a video posted to X, he said: 'If I was going to be sensible and I could replay it, I would say: "Any self-respecting man in 2023 would probably be well advised to avoid a woman who possessed that worldview because she would probably cause him nothing but harm". 'But what I did say was, you know, "I wouldn't s**g that', and all that sort of stuff, which is not right. It's demeaning to her, to Ava, so I'm sorry for demeaning you in that way. 'However angry I am with you still for doing that, and it demeans me because it's not representative of who I am.' GB News suspended Fox from the channel in response to his comments and stated the following month that his contract had been terminated. Ofcom ruled in March last year that Fox had breached broadcasting rules with commends described as 'misogynistic' as well as 'degrading and demeaning both to [Ms Evans] and women' generally '. Ofcom has also in March this year scrapped 11 probes or rulings into alleged breaches of impartiality rules when it comes to politicians announcing news stories, the majority of them relating to GB News.
