. If you took another picture at that point you would be trespassing and and since that is an indictable offence they could actually arrest you at that point and hold you for the police.

This is not the case in Scotland, where the events took place. There, trespass is not an indictable offence (it's a civil delict), and, even if it were, the rights of non-police to detain people is very limited, especially if force is required.

the police told him they were entitled to confiscate his phone (under anti-terrorism legislation)

Which, for the record, he had no power to do, under anti-terrorism legislation, or any other provision.

(Ignoring the England/Scotland confusion...)

It's also highly unlikely that such ah onerous contract term (camera confiscation) would be binding, unless the conditions were very prominently displayed (Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd). And I can tell you that they are not - I've been to the Braehead mall many times (I used to work nearby), and such signs, if they exist, are not prominent.

the UK or indeed any other common law country

Just a point of information, this happened in Scotland, which, technically, isn't a Common Law country - it's one of the few mixed jurisdictions, like Louisiana and South Africa.

They don't void the entire contract (nor render it voidable), they just invalidate the violating clause.

Only if they are inciting their listeners to commit a crime.

The law of England doesn't agree with you.

In English law, mere planning isn't illegal; it becomes illegal as soon as you take steps to implement the plan, however small the steps. Like, say, setting up a FaceBook page...

And your bomb exercise is irrelevant; that's planning an exercise, not a bombing. It's not the action that matters, but the intent.

The lawsuits will be attached to the parent company, News International Newspapers, not the brand that was NoTW. So they can't escape them that easily. And even if the NoTW was itself incorporated, the directors would remain accountable even after the company ceased to exist.

True for England and Wales, but not for Scotland; Scottish universities (where number of the founders of the Ivy League schools were educated) generally require non-core subjects to be studied. Although if you're doing CS they will likely be sciences like physics, chemistry, maths, etc, rather than English or history (unless you choose to do them).

Since you haven't got a degree just how do you know it comes with "railcar loads of bullshit"? Sounds to me that you are simply trying to justify your choice. Which doesn't really need justified beyond being your choice

And, to the original questioner: go to an English university. They (mostly) don't believe in broad education, and if you so a BSc in CS there, that's pretty much all you will do.

The EU hasn't adopted a single ID card yet because it simply doesn't have the power to do so.

Actually, EDSAC was originally built pretty quickly for the time (about 2 years) precisely because Wilkes, the project leader, decided to use only proven techniques and methods so as to supply a usable computing facility to Cambridge University, rather than extend the state of the art.

EDSAC was built post WW2.

He did file the papers himself - it says so on them; that's what the "Pro Se" below his signature means, No lawyers involved - after three years at law school, most JDs can at least spell.