DISABLED ENTREPRENEUR – DISABILITY UK
Disability UK Online Health Journal – All In One Business In A Box – Forum – Business Directory – Useful Resources – Health – Human Rights – Politics
DISABLED ENTREPRENEUR – DISABILITY UK
Disability UK Online Health Journal – All In One Business In A Box – Forum – Business Directory – Useful Resources – Health – Human Rights – Politics
Browsing Category
As facial recognition continues to evolve, its deployment must be balanced against privacy laws, GDPR obligations, and fundamental human rights. Without stricter regulations and safeguards, the technology risks eroding the very freedoms it claims to protect.
Regardless if you are an able-bodied or disabled person, starting or expanding a business, one of the most important decisions is choosing the right legal structure. In the UK, the most common options are Sole Trader, Partnership, and Limited Company (Director-owned). Each comes with its own legal, financial, and tax obligations. Understanding the differences will help you make an informed choice, avoid pitfalls, and remain compliant with HMRC and Companies House.
Employing staff as a Disabled Entrepreneur Freelancer or Sole Trader is entirely possible and a powerful way to grow your business. By following these steps, registering as an employer, writing contracts, setting up payroll, issuing payslips, and fulfilling your legal obligations, you can build a reliable team to deliver contracts successfully. Whether you use fixed contracts or flexible zero-hours agreements, staying compliant ensures professionalism, protects your business, and builds trust with your employees.
Deepfake technology presents a growing threat to personal dignity, democratic integrity, and public trust. While the UK has acted against sexually explicit deepfakes, wider identity protection remains fragmented. Denmark is leading with a landmark law granting citizens copyright-like rights over their face, voice, and body. The UK now has the opportunity to go further, combining legal reform with technological innovation to safeguard identity in the digital age.
Inciting racial hatred is one of the most serious offenses under the UK’s hate crime legislation, carrying severe penalties for those found guilty. The law works to balance freedom of speech with the protection of vulnerable communities, acknowledging the devastating impact that hate speech can have on individuals and society as a whole.
Through tort law, individuals and organisations, councils included, can be sued for damages provided there’s evidence of negligence or intentional wrongdoing. Compensation is available and varies depending on the severity of harm and supporting evidence.
Britain’s strength has always been in its diversity and resilience. Those of us born here, regardless of our heritage or the sound of our names, are as much a part of this country as anyone else. Not all foreigners should be put in the same category. Our policies and attitudes should focus on real issues, such as illegal immigration, while protecting the dignity, safety, and rights of British citizens of all backgrounds.
Social media is not an innocent pastime for children; it is a powerful, addictive force that can shape their self-worth, behaviour, and future in dangerous ways. Without immediate action, more young lives will be damaged or lost, and the cycle of harm will continue unchecked. The responsibility lies with all of us, parents, schools, lawmakers, and tech companies, to act now. Banning phones in schools, enforcing strict age verification, and introducing robust child-safety laws are not optional measures; they are urgent necessities. We cannot afford to wait for another tragedy to spur change. The time to protect our children is today.
Attending an internal interview is a legitimate part of your employment and, in most cases, should not result in a loss of pay or forced time off in lieu. Unless your contract specifically allows for it, any deduction may be unlawful. If this happens, you have the right to challenge it and, if necessary, seek legal redress.
The question of whether murderers can be rehabilitated has long divided public opinion. In the UK, where the death penalty was abolished for all crimes in 1998 (with the last execution taking place in 1964), the debate occasionally resurfaces, often triggered by high-profile and shocking crimes. Some campaigners argue for its reinstatement, believing it would deter crime and deliver justice for victims’ families. Others insist that no one, not even the state, has the moral right to take a life.