Transferring power back to you, the ppl
https://t.co/26N2YYXycn

Of all the stupidest things I read this week, none was more stupid than the Ekiti State Police Command standing behind their dismissal of a pregnant policewoman because according to Mr. Babatunde Mobayo, the command’s commissioner,

“Section 126 of the regulation (states) that married woman police (sic) who is pregnant may be granted maternity leave, while Section 127 (states that) unmarried woman police (sic) who becomes pregnant shall be discharged from the Force" & needs IGP's approval to be enlisted

So if Sis had been married, she would not have been punished. And if the man who got her pregnant had been a police officer one is to assume he wouldn’t have lost his job. It wouldn’t have mattered then whether he was married or not.

It is frustrating that in this 21st century, our women are still being treated like second class citizens with single women at the bottom of the ladder. In some cities, young women can’t rent because foolish landlords refuse to rent to unmarried women.

Some hotels won’t let them in because no man. What’s next? Single women can’t drive? Shop? Eat? Women need to show proof of marriage to teach? Enter cabs? Travel? The ridiculousness knows no end. Na who do us this thing?

Several questions about protecting the inaugural, put to me by @ShawnAndersonDC and @bhaseltonWTOP on the air @wtop today.

1. How is Secret Service planning to protect the Inauguration from the violence that occurred last week?

Planning is the key word. They’ve been planning this inauguration for more than a year. And it’s important to note that comparing security around the Capitol on an ordinary day and an inauguration are like comparing an Apple to an entire Orange tree.

On Inauguration Day there are many thousands of people involved in protection that we don't see. There are technological capabilities, military and cyber assets, There are #WMD assets. The air, water and land are covered like a blanket.

2. What kind of threats are you hearing about...not just for the 20th...but other days too?

Many looking to engage violence in the run up to or during the inaugural are really upset because some of their social media sites are being taken offline, but plenty of others are still active and they are STILL talking about violence on those sites.

A necessary clarification needs to be made with regards to securities laws because I’ve been seeing a theory lately not based on law but based on false presumptions. Before I do so, I want to note that I DO NOT think that XRP is a security (before I get “FUD” responses). 1/

Here it goes: There has been a theory that the SEC should only be pursuing the sales of XRP by Ripple, and once it exchanges hands it is no longer a security. Basically the theory is that the XRP the common investor holds (who bought off an exchange) is not a security because 2/

there is no privity with Ripple. Stated differently, the assumption is the SEC should categorize XRP into two pots: 1) XRP sold by Ripple and 2) all other XRP . The theory continues that a difference should be made and the SEC should clarify that it is only alleging the 3/

transactions made by Ripple to be transactions of securities. This theory is a fallacy. I’ve seen this theory argued by comparing XRP to a stock and noting the differences. It is important to note that this type of comparison cannot apply. 4/

The SEC is not alleging that XRP is a stock, but rather an “investment contract”. An Investment Contract is (1) an investment of money (2) in a common enterprise (3) with the expectation of profit (4) derived solely from the efforts of others. 5/

A quick thread about the legal issues surrounding the imposition of a “quarantine at a hotel” requirement for international travellers. These are initial thoughts: would welcome thoughts and contributions! NB I’m thinking about 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 only but this probably applies equally to 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿.

The basic power is in section 45B of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984.

Subsection (2)(b) refers to the “detention, isolation, or quarantine of persons”.

So the legal basis looks clear. But regulations will also have to meet requirements of rationality. And since detaining people in a hotel room engages fundamental human rights (Article 5 of the ECHR), HRA tests of proportionality are in play too.

Though NB that Art 5(3)(e) ECHR expressly contemplates lawful detention for the prevention of the spreading of infectious disease.