With ever-changing landscapes and new global challenges (such as the COVID-19 pandemic), educators and learners around the world have had to adapt. In this new era, connecting with friends and family had to happen over WhatsApp, FaceTime, or Zoom, and so education has followed suit. Online learning primarily includes learning over the internet, while in-person learning is a traditional experience in an actual classroom setting. The emergence of online learning has `disrupted` the education system. Schooling has traditionally happened in person, which has had limitations for individuals unable to attend. So, the most obvious benefit of offering learning opportunities online is that you open education up to many more people. But face-to-face learning wins out in the end. In the classroom, a teacher`s value extends beyond the class being delivered. To get the best out of their students, a teacher`s role is also to motivate, encourage and supervise – the latter being particularly difficult to do through video conferencing software.
(3) As for the issue regarding telephone tapping/interceptions by the Post Office, as during the period of the case, it is unfortunate that there is no legislation effectively ruling the interception of telephone line by plaintiff’s phone illegal. Ultimately, recording disclosed by the third party (Post Office) helping resolve the misconducted the plaintiff alleges through Convention Rights violations. Thus, as far as telephone tapping is concerned, the use of a warrant from the Home Secretary bears relevance effectively in English law according to Section 80 of the Post Office Act 1969.
(a) As a conscious reminder, there is not a legal consequence that arises if Secretary of State agree to sign the warrant which, in conclusion, gives Post Office relevant permissions for interception of telephone line and communication.
(4) When following the current Human Rights violations by plaintiff, Article 13 distinctively mentions if violations have been ‘set forth within the convention rights and freedoms requires persons to have a remedy’. However, I believe this is irrelevant suggesting this comment as the national authority requires for the legislation to be in existence. Here, I entirely agree that there is no effective legislation nor treaty, as council for plaintiff should recognise, in domestic courts for there to be an existing violation of privacy in accordance to plaintiff’s rights.
Here, I have referenced the cases used within my judgement;
Coco v A.N. Clark (Engineers) Ltd. [1967] R.P.C. 41
Fraser v Evans [1969] 1 QB. 349; [1968] 3 W.L.R. 1172; [1969] 1 All E.R. 8, C.A
Hanson v Radcliffe Urban District Council [1922] 2 Ch. 490, C.A.
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 US 475 – Supreme Court (1973)
Klass and Others (European Court of Human Rights, July 4, 1978).
MOTION:
An injunction was issued by this court to protect law-abiding citizens from mistreatment of domestic privacy law. Thus, the order for injunction was granted to the plaintiff through judicial jurisdiction, thus, the court presented the option of a civil proceeding in confliction with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner;
(a) Plaintiff sought an injunction against the particular act of interception and mishandling of telephone communications. Thus, in relation to the Post office, interception information through telephone lines. Ultima
