|LATER||Food Monopoly||Real Revolt?||Real Culture?||UK Suppression?||`Libel' Action3|
|Hollywood Lies||Competition||Ancient Images||New Archive||More Fascism?||`Libel' Action2|
|Dominos Fall?||`Libel' Action||`Libel' Corrupt||Criminal?||Pharaonic?||EARLIER|
Date:Tue, 3 Jan 2012 07:21:43 -0500
Subject: Petition European parliament Introduce tough rules on food speculation
Just before christmas there were some important developments in the fight against excessive speculation on food. Regulatory proposals to tackle food speculation were published in the EU and the European parliament started its process to scrutinise the plans, with the powers to make them stronger or weaker.
The lead MEP, Markus Ferber, wants input from `interested parties' to inform the discussions in the European parliament. It's vital that he hears from the public that we want strong rules to rein in the speculators. Otherwise the consultation will be dominated by the the finance industry who will be calling for the rules to be watered down.
Please sign this petition:
We will be delivering the petition to Markus Ferber on Wednesday 11th January. We want to get as many signatures as possible to demonstrate the strength of public support for strong, effective regulation.
Betting on food prices in financial markets is a scandal, fuelling high food prices and driving millions into hunger and poverty - you can help us to change this. This petition is just a first step and we will be keeping you updated with new legislative developments as they happen this year.
Please sign this petition:
Thank you for your ongoing support.
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:44:06 -0000
See that Putin is calling the Russian protesters `leaderless'. He's completely missing the point - real national revulsion and protest _is_ leaderless - otherwise it wouldn't have been genuine.
Elsewhere the media (+BBC) are glibly applying `leadership' labels to similar protesters around the world: `activists', `opposition groups', `criminal gangs'[UK], Islamists etc. - and they're all wrong! The protesters are genuine democrats - and therefore leaderless.
No wonder the western Press is dying - and maybe the Russian propaganda machine also.
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 06:02:59 -0000 Subject: "the path to servitude" - Camus
Don't often agree with French `cultural' pronouncements but this is different - coming from the people, not from corrupt gov'ts.
[Just remembered, am very fond of moody French films - real cinema.]
This piece also examples different meaning of `culture' in UK as opposed to Europe: in UK `culture' is mostly fake, cold and tasteless - i.e. it's the preserve of the tasteless rich. (UK's `traditions' were mostly invented in last 100 yrs or so, and the working poor are taxed to pay for rich people's opera seats - which the poor can't afford).
Whereas in Italy, and maybe France also, culture is often what the word means: the `life' of the people.
E.g. while working in Italy I finally gave in and attended the opera in Rome -
It was Aida; the outdoor summer-show, audience of over ten thousand, made up of folk from all walks of life. Was so warmed and impressed by the music, singing and spectacle (and by the audience) that I went again next summer and also went to winter (indoor theater) performances of the Teatro dell' Opera - again an eye-opener: (being chatted-up by some of the beautiful young ballerinas - who, maybe because of my velvet bowtie perhaps thought I was an impressario - was charming and alone almost worth the trip).
Paris cinemas protest at the degradation of culture
Saturday 24 December 2011
Two of the best-known independent cinemas in Paris have "abolished Christmas" to protest against the monopolisation of popular "art" films by the big, French cinema chains.
Le Balzac, a celebrated art-house cinema just off the Champs Elysées, has closed its three screens until 28 December. The frontage has been draped with a large banner, complaining that the family-owned cinema has been given no films worth showing for the Christmas period. "Everything which degrades culture shortens the path to servitude," says the banner, quoting the existentialist writer, Albert Camus.
Just down the avenue, another independent cinema, the Elysées-Lincoln, has closed two of its three screens in solidarity with the Balzac. Its director, Jean-Francois Merle, says that the future of both cinemas is threatened because "artistic but popular" movies are being diverted to big, multi-screen cinemas nearby.
"It is our role to support first time directors and other original work," he said. "But we can only survive if we have occasional access to films by directors who are now popular but might never have been discovered without cinemas like us."
The row may seem surprising in a country which prides itself in retaining a strong film industry and promoting "film d'auteur", or "art film", rather than purely commercial cinema. However, family-owned and independent cinemas throughout France have been complaining for years that the four large cinema-owning companies - Gaumont, MK2, UGC and Pathé - unfairly dominate the film-distribution system.
In recent years, they say, the big chains, faced with problems of their own, have invaded the popular end of the "art" market. They have taken first showing rights not only to Hollywood blockbusters and commercial French movies but also to the best "films d'auteur" and "experimental" films.
Jean-Jacques Schpolansky, whose family has owned Le Balzac since 1935, said: "The system is just not working any more. Our ticket-sales are at their lowest ever level. We are being allocated too few films with minimum commercial potential. The company is in the red. We had to do something."
The Balzac, in a prime site just off the Champs- Elysées and a few steps from the Arc de Triomphe, is one of the most popular "art-house" cinemas in Paris. Mr Schpolansky has created a kind of movie-club atmosphere by giving talks before film and offering drinks and meetings with directors.
He says the Balzac, by showing experimental work in the heart of the capital's entertainment district, has played an important role in the history of French cinema. "The question is whether a cinema like the Balzac is still wanted and valued," he said.
The last straw for Mr Schpolansky was the decision to give two big cinemas on the Champs- Elysées the opening rights this week to the critically-acclaimed movie "Le Havre" by the Finnish director Aki Kaurismäki. The Franco-Finnish movie, about a down-and-out writer who befriends an illegal immigrant boy, is the kind of "serious but popular" film which was once Le Balzac's life blood.
Mr Schpolansky appealed unsuccessfully to the government's film distribution ombudsman. He has now called on the French government to hold talks on a fairer system for film distribution. It remains to be seen whether the Culture ministry - headed by Frédéric Mitterrand, who was the manager of the Balzac from 1980 to 1984 - will intervene.
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 04:31:42 -0000
Subject: Who's suspicious? - "Britain adding armored vehicles + drones
While cutbacks are taking place in most areas of UK military, inc. all `national' defensive / offensive weaponry and manpower (esp. manpower), the only expansion seems to be in stuff that's ideal for use against their own people - for suppression of unrest / `Arab Spring' movements. - Ray
Britain adding armored vehicles
Published: Dec. 22, 2011 at 5:20 PM
LONDON, Dec. 22 (UPI) -- Britain's Defense Ministry has announced multimillion-dollar investments for armored vehicles and unmanned aerial vehicle development.
Combined, the two programs are worth about $690 million.
The first program, worth $627 million, is for procurement of additional armored vehicles offering protection from improvised explosive devices.
About 100 Foxhound protected patrol vehicles will be produced by Force Protection Europe and will be used by British troops fighting insurgents in Afghanistan.
The Foxhound was designed, developed and built by FPE and Ricardo Plc.
"Success in Afghanistan is our No. 1 priority and protecting our forces from (improvised explosive devices) is our most urgent challenge," said British Defense Secretary Philip Hammond.
"Foxhound is designed, developed and built in the U.K. and this announcement demonstrates the government's commitment to providing our troops with world-class protective equipment.
"The vehicle will provide our armed forces with a highly protected and agile vehicle, and its manufacture in this country will create and sustain jobs across the U.K."
Britain had earlier ordered 200 Foxhound protected patrol vehicles from Force Protection Europe and they will be ready for deployment to Afghanistan next year.
Hammond said half of the money allocated for the program would be used for advanced counter-IED technology.
"The C-IED package is another major step forward in the battle against the bombers, using cutting-edge technology to defeat their evil campaign and protect our troops," he said.
Hammond, however, didn't elaborate on the technology envisioned.
The second major program involves a four-year Future Combat Air System award to BAE Systems to sustain and develop British UAV technology.
UAV's are used in Afghanistan and elsewhere by Britain and other nations mainly for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. In addition to ISR, the United States is using them in Afghanistan in a strike role.
"I am committed to providing sustained support for science and technology across all aspects of Defense," said Minister for Defense Equipment Support and Technology Peter Luff. "As part of our ongoing investment, the Ministry of Defense has and will continue to invest in aerospace sector projects like this to ensure that we develop and maintain the U.K.'s formidable strengths in this specialist field."
Added Nick Joad, head of the Defense Science and Technology Laboratory's Air Domain: "This is an important step in ensuring that the (Ministry of Defense) continues to develop its capabilities in this area and is able to exploit potentially game-changing technologies.
"We have worked very hard with BAE Systems to ensure that we have a high-impact program and look forward to seeing the fruits of this investment of both money and intellectual capital."
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 21:39:08 +0000
Subject: All we want for Christmas is our MPs to back libel reform in the Queen's Speech
We are writing as people who have battled libel threats and actions to ask for your help to make sure reform of the laws gets into next year's Queen's Speech, which sets the legislative agenda for 2012.
People are still being threatened by a law that allows the rich and powerful to bully critics and shut down public debate. Libel reform needs urgent action. The campaign and all its supporters have worked hard to persuade the Ministry of Justice to draw up an effective defamation bill, but if it is not in the Queen's Speech in the spring, then libel reform will be delayed for at least another year, which will be a victory for those who want to silence honest criticism. We can't bear to let this opportunity slip away.
We know we will have to battle against those who want to delay or derail libel reform, and the best way to get our message across is to lobby MPs for support. Please help us by clicking here to send an email to your MP - www.writetothem.com/ - so they know that all we want for Christmas is our MPs to back the inclusion of libel reform in the Queen's Speech.
Dr Ben Goldacre
Dr Peter Wilmshurst
Dr Fiona Godlee, Editor in Chief, BMJ
Dr Philip Campbell, Editor in Chief, Nature
Justine Roberts, Founder and CEO, Mumsnet
Richard Dunstan, Social Policy Officer, Citizens Advice
David Osler, journalist
Professor David Colquhoun
Professor Francisco Lacerda
Rhys Morgan, blogger
John Gray, blogger
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 22:36:21 -0000
Subject: Re-writing History - again
Ha! If you needed an example of how our MSM media, inc. Hollywood, re-writes history to brainwash us; here's a beauty
"There aren't many males in the film, so you don't get a real sense of the truth. Instead, it suggests that it was just her that brought the Soviet Union down. It's over-simplified history and there is too much concentration on her" -
[So] History's re-write is that Thatcher and Reagan "brought down the Berlin Wall and [caused] the collapse of the Soviet Union".
Ha! (again). The truth was that both Thatcher and Reagan were desperately trying to _preserve_ the Berlin Wall (a divided Germany) _and_ the Soviet Union (as an "enemy" to justify high taxes and corrupt suppression of human rights).
As it happens, managed to save a fragment of truth which surfaced a couple of years ago:-
What Thatcher and Gorbachev really thought when the Berlin Wall came down
Leaked Kremlin documents show that history makes fools of us, especially our leaders
The Times, Published: 11 September 2009
"Two months earlier Margaret Thatcher had arrived in the Kremlin on a mission: to halt reunification. She trusted Mr Gorbachev. She trusted him to keep her secrets. She asked him to stop the tape recorders and the notetakers. Then she began. "The reunification of Germany is not in the interests of Britain and Western Europe," she said. Forget what you have heard or read in Nato communiqués. "We don't want a united Germany." It would lead to a change in Europe's postwar borders. "We cannot allow that, because such development would undermine the stability of the whole international situation and could endanger our security."
Unfortunately for her, the notetakers did not forget what she said. They performed a service to history. We now know that 1989 was almost as traumatic for the West as it was for the East.
Mrs Thatcher and François Mitterrand could not understand what the Russians were up to.
The French especially were horrified. Why had Moscow not done anything to prevent the prospect of a united Germany? Mitterrand and the French Establishment, Mr Gorbachev's colleagues reported, were having nightmares. One, Jacques Attali, even said that he would go and live on Mars if unification occurred.
But Mr Gorbachev was determined not to fall back on the old response of a wounded Russian bear. He was not going to send in the troops to prop up the old communist dinosaurs. He thought Eric Honecker, East Germany's unbending autocrat, an "arsehole". And he naively believed that, if Russia were to allow the demonstrators to overthrow the old dictators, the peoples of Eastern Europe would be grateful."
So we can see what the MSM media _really_ does - just like George Orwell wrote in "1984":
the `Ministry of Truth' was actually a ministry of continual lies
(he was writing about the BBC, where he worked for some years witnessing the perpetual generation of [elitist] propaganda* being broadcast as `News').
Of course it's all still ongoing.
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 06:22:24 -0000
Subject: Competition and Freedom
It's fairly obvious, from comments in last two days, that even finance ministers and national bank bosses don't know how `economics' actually works: here's the biggest comment:-
"Christian Noyer, head of the Bank of France, said a French downgrade would not be justified on economic fundamentals. On that basis, he said: "They should begin by downgrading the United Kingdom which has bigger deficits, more debt, higher inflation, less growth than us and where credit is shrinking." (text)
You can see the policos/bosses seem to think that `economics' should obey financial rules - No chance!
In fact economics always follows rules of `feudalism' >> `slavery'. Always.
I.e. We shouldn't be surprised that rating agencies were so slow to downgrade the USA's banking and national credit, nor that they are equally tardy about the UK's perilous position.
Because they know that the wealth-producers, the working people (~99% of population), of _both_ countries are actually prisoners. Due to limitations of education and language,* of geography and mind-set, most are totally unable to escape a corrupt slave-environment where they pay all the taxes* but enjoy none of the benefits.
That is why the `market' isn't worried about US and UK results, - the `markets' know that the rulers of US and UK will simply increase (already-penal) taxation of (captive*) working people even higher, to advantage the rich - and the markets.
Whereas Europe has the big problem of competition: even the biggest European country has close neighbours with different tax / duty rates, and where language isn't much of an impediment (see border-languages ed4.html#lang1) to stop people moving. So (EU) taxes _were_ always being driven down,* as was general oppression, by that competition.
So, although I was pro-EU some years ago (let them strengthen their position), it's not too sad that Europe might stay fragmented. Diversity means competition - and competition is good for the tax-payer and for liberty.
PS - which is why I believe in de-federalizing wherever possible - so long as ordinary folk have the right to jail (or lynch) fraudulent politicos. (And the education to recognize those fraudsters, of course)
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 21:27:23 -0000
Subject: Another image browsing source
Penn Museum provides information about its collections to the public via an online database that draws upon the Museum's EMu collections management system. As a work in progress, the Museum continuously strives to improve both the quantity and quality of the data contained within the online database.
Currently, the online database contains more than 314,000 objects records representing 660,000 objects with 46,000 images illustrating 21,000 object records. Based on current workflows, we expect the number of objects records to increase by roughly 7,000 records every six months, with an additional 5,000 object photographs added as well.
Publication of the Museum's collections data is rooted in an ideal of open access.
Core details about Museum objects are available for the majority of the Museum's digitized object records.
Note, however, that not all records included herein have been reviewed for completeness or accuracy. That process is ongoing and the Museum would welcome your assistance in drawing our attention to any particularly egregious omissions or inaccuracies. Some object records and/or details are not available for public access due to issues of cultural sensitivity or based on other considerations.
If you have any questions or concerns about the objects or object information that you discover in this database, please email firstname.lastname@example.org and cite the relevant object number(s).
Please contact us before publishing object information taken from this website as not all records have been reviewed for accuracy. Images may not be used for print publication or commercial purposes without written approval from the Penn Museum. To request licensing of an image for print publication or commercial use, or to request publication-quality photography of an object, please email email@example.com.
All information (data, images, and text) on the Penn Museum's website are made available for limited non-commercial, educational, and personal use only, or for fair use as defined in the United States copyright laws:
Website users may link to, embed, or download these files for use motivated by private interest only. You are free to copy and adapt the images as long as you credit the Museum: "Object [insert object number(s)]. Courtesy of the Penn Museum." and in no way suggest an endorsement of you or your use of the image or content.
Featured Collections / Themes [click on image or title]
Ur (Modern Day Iraq)
Hair & Makeup
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 11:14:58 -0000
Subject: You might like to snoop around in these Archives
Intro page for Brit Library Archive
"The British Library and online publisher brightsolid today launch a website that will transform the way that people use historical newspapers to find out about the past. The British Newspaper Archive website will offer access to up to 4 million fully searchable pages, featuring more than 200 newspaper titles from every part of the UK and Ireland. The newspapers - which mainly date from the 19th century, but which include runs dating back to the first half of the 18th century - cover every aspect of local, regional and national news."
Archive entry page
and another one, looks commercial
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 10:22:50 -0000
Subject: "Malaysian lawyers protest over street rally ban
It's obvious why they're doing this - and have an idea that UK and US (and other corrupt gov'ts) would like to do the same - Ray
Malaysian lawyers protest over street rally ban
Proposed law would restrict demonstrations to stadia and public halls
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 November 2011 09.36 GMT
Hundreds of Malaysian lawyers have staged a rare protest march demanding that the government abandon plans for a law that will forbid street rallies.
Amnesty International on Monday called the Peaceful Assembly Act "a legislative attack on Malaysians' right to peaceful protest", while Human Rights Watch said the law was being pushed through parliament with "undue haste".
Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim told reporters at parliament on Tuesday that he believed the law would be "more Draconian" than laws in Zimbabwe or Burma.
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 20:47:07 +0000
Subject: News from the libel reform meeting in Parliament
Many thanks to all of you who joined us in the crowded committee room in Parliament on Wednesday 9th November to urge action on libel reform to protect public interest discussions.
Over 150 supporters, including representatives from Citizens Advice, Nature, Mumsnet, Liberty, Which?, the Publishers Association, Global Witness, AOL and Facebook, and libel defendants Simon Singh and Peter Wilmshurst, packed into the room.
They told the Justice Minister Lord McNally, Shadow Justice Minister Andy Slaughter and more than a dozen other parliamentarians that libel reform must be in the next Queen's Speech, must include a strong public interest defence, and must protect discussion on the internet.
Lord McNally told us that we "have fought a wonderful campaign, and got very close to the try-line," but we must keep campaigning to get it into the next Queen's Speech.
There is a short report on the event pasted below and on the website here: www.libelreform.org/~back-urgent-action-on-libel-law-reform
Thanks again for your continued support. We'll be in touch to ask for your help with the next steps very soon.
Síle and Mike
Campaigners call on the Minster to back urgent action on libel law reform
Wednesday 9th November 2011
Hundreds of campaigners gathered in a crowded committee room in the House of Commons to tell parliamentarians that reform of the libel laws to protect public interest discussions can't come soon enough.
Citizens Advice, Nature, Mumsnet, Liberty, Which?, The Publishers Association, Global Witness, Facebook, AOL and libel defendants Dr Simon Singh and Dr Peter Wilmshurst spoke with the Libel Reform Campaign to tell MPs that the laws allow the rich and powerful to bully critics into shutting down public debate. Richard Dunstan of Citizens Advice described threats they received trying to publish a report on "a secretive, exploitative and quite possibly illegal practice called `civil recovery'" and said "we need a clear and effective public interest defence." Hosts of online discussions and social media sites told MPs the laws need to be modernised to accommodate the internet to prevent them becoming, as Rowan Davis of Mumsnet described, "tactical targets for those who wish to clamp down on criticism or investigation of their activities." Campaigners were unanimous that libel reform needs urgent action. Dr Simon Singh said "people are still being threatened."
Justice Minister Lord McNally announced that his department will publish a new Defamation Bill in January 2012. The Government brought forward a draft Defamation Bill last March which went through two public consultations and in October the Joint Committee set up to scrutinise the draft Bill published its recommendations. Lord McNally said the new Bill will respond to proposals from the public and the scrutiny committee and told campaigners to "keep campaigning until Spring to get it into the Queen's Speech."
Dr Julian Huppert MP, who hosted the event, said to do this we all need to write to our MPs to make sure they know how important this is. He addressed the dozens of parliamentarians at the meeting too, saying: "Too often we see parties trying to find nuanced differences: in this case, we need agreement. We can make sure this happens, and make sure it is passed. I will keep on working on this and hope you will all do too."
The meeting was chaired by Dr Evan Harris, former Lib Dem MP, who pointed out the audience included Hardeep Singh, Dalia Nield, Professor David Colquhoun and many others who have been affected by the laws. He reminded us how far the campaign has come and urged everyone to push to get libel reform into the Queen's Speech.
His comments were echoed by MPs and Peers:
Lord McNally, Minister of State for Justice said "You have fought a wonderful campaign. I can see some very influential parliamentarians from across the parties here... Now comes the difficult bit. The campaign isn't over."
Shadow Justice Minister Andy Slaughter MP agreed that libel reform "needs action now. The campaign needs to press and press and press."
Sir Peter Bottomley MP told the meeting libel reform must not be wrapped up with privacy and gagging legislation. He said "I would like to commend this campaign - not just those that are here, but those that are not."
Tom Brake MP said: "I am pleased to hear that there will be a government response in the New Year. [The Government's draft proposals] still need some fine tuning."
Richard Dunstan, Social Policy Officer, Citizens Advice told MPs they spent an entire year's research and campaign contingency budget to libel-proof a report on firms employed by High Street stores that it still can't publish in full. "Current libel law makes it very easy to issue a libel action, and very expensive to defend one, even if it is without foundation. It is wrong that those engaging in scurrilous practices can, simply by throwing the L-word around, shut down criticism by those working in the public interest. We need a clear and effective public interest defence."
On the same day that it found itself in the High Court in a libel action that has prevented it from discussing the behaviour of a journal editor for 2 years, Tim Appenzeller, Chief Magazine Editor of the scientific journal Nature told MPs they constantly have to self censor. "Roughly five times a year we come across an important story we want to publish but when we weigh it against the risk of a libel action we don't. We are asking for a broader public interest defence and a higher threshold for substantial harm."
David Marshall, In-house lawyer, Which? magazine: "It is clear that the current position makes exploiting uncertainty and inequality of arms worth it for reputation management."
Victoria Lustigman, Head of Communications, The Publishers Association: "Publishers are denied the right to be truly independent and speak out on matters in the public interest. Publishers are less likely to support projects in the public interest, and will not be prepared to defend libel threats."
Charmian Gooch, Global Witness: "We publish detailed reports on a regular basis, and get regular threats. The rights of organisations to report on matters of serious public interest need to be protected. This is not a tabloid issue."
Sophie Farthing, Policy Officer, Liberty: "Voices being silenced and organisations and individuals are not able to hold big businesses to account. As human rights campaigners it is great to hear that reform is on its way, and we would like to echo calls for a Defamation Bill in the Queen's Speech."
Individuals who have battled libel actions to defend their words told MPs of the costs of the laws. Dr Peter Wilmshurst who was sued by medical device company NMT Medical: "Patients have suffered because the draconian defamation laws were used to silence doctors with legitimate concerns about medical safety. ... It is hypocritical for parliamentarians to expect ordinary citizens to speak out on matters of public interest and safety, when they do not allow ordinary citizens the same protection that MPs reserve for themselves to protect them from misuse of the defamation law."
Simon Singh, science writer and defendant in BCA v Singh spoke about how far we have come since the beginning of the campaign. "This has not gone away. People are still being threatened. In the last seven days we have heard about new cases: Nature, a blogger who wrote about a clinic charging patients for untested treatments, Citizens Advice...It's scientists, consumers, mothers and patients who are being affected."
Hosts of online discussions and social media sites told MPs the laws need to be modernised to accommodate the internet.
Rowan Davis, Mumsnet: "While the draft Defamation Bill was a very good start, it didn't go far enough to protect freedom of expression, particularly in the online environment. Websites and hosts of user-generated comment risk becoming tactical targets for those who wish to clamp down on criticism or investigation of their activities."
Richard Allan, Director of Policy, Europe, Facebook: "If the law is correct, online space is open for people to talk freely. If the law is wrong, spaces for open public discussion like ours get smaller."
Lisa Fitzgerald, AOL (UK): "Current law requires clarity around who is and who is not a publisher in an online context. The current law discourages involvement and inhibits freedom of speech."
Tracey Brown, Managing Director, Sense About Science: "Libel law is complicated, but the problem is quite simple. If we want to have a robust discussion about these matters of public interest, we must have a public interest defence."
Jo Glanville, Index on Censorship: "All of you here are testament to the success and breadth of the campaign. We are close to the finish - we still have a big push to make it there. We need to drag libel law into the 21st century and make sure that it is fit for purpose."
Jonathan Heawood, Director, English PEN: "Libel silences publishers, scientists and bloggers and at the same time does nothing on the side of the press. Neither side is effectively protected. Let's all keep fighting. Let's come back in a few months to celebrate."
Please write to your MP to tell them how important libel reform is to you.
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011
Subject: Beware Politicians' Temptations
This being Remembrance Day in UK, and with the ongoing situation in the centers of politics and greed - the trading capitals of Europe and USA - maybe it's time to remember an old warning.
When rulers / politicians' hold on money and power is threatened they are only too ready to wipe out their debts and people's memories by resorting to War.
They can then rely on fear and pain to invoke fake and real `patriotism' in the minds of the people: those who'll have to pay - in blood and a lifetime's penal taxation.
Since the time of the Crusades the war-prompters are almost always the usurers: those who stand to gain the most, hiding in the safety of their counting houses (along with the politicos).
I think an ear-to-the-ground can pick-up the tell-tale now.
`Why?' War Hist.
[ other definitions and references in message below ]
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 23:45:11 -0000
Subject: That Greek "debt" scandal
Right, and it doesn't only apply to Greece. ANY debt incurred by a national gov't is usually a swindle.
Analyse it and you see gov'ts shouldn't need to incur debt - they have annual tax income and KNOW if they spend more than that they're in trouble.
Any `debt' is merely syphoning tax-money to their friends in the usury business: thieving from taxpayers (and the next generation). That's why - in UK at least - when politicos `retire' they immediately get high-paid positions on the boards of `City' finance houses 1* (see below) - the usurers. *
And we shouldn't forget that in UK, as recently reluctantly admitted, 2* the net (real) taxpayer is the working `poor' (95% - 99% of population): the rich (and politicans) don't pay tax in UK 3* - by that I mean they get so many huge tax allowances and special exemptions that their taxes are many, many times less than an ordinary person's.
I feel angry for the Greek people - and also for UK's and USA's peoples.
BTW - the Greek then Italian tax structures are about as corrupt as the UK's - maybe a teeny bit worse. So the dominos could fall: GR > ITAL > UK > FR > GER.
[* Lying politicos claim the `City of London' (wiki) generates wealth - it does not! It merely skims-off (and gambles with) our wages, profits and taxes [and pensions 4*] - and then pays-off the politicos. If the `City' 5* disappeared tomorrow the UK would actually be better-off. 6*
[2013 Update: check this 4-part series `How You Pay for the City' - a somewhat tardy attempt by a corrupt BBC]
** If our police, courts and judges weren't so corrupt, 7* those politicos and senior bureaucrats would be in jail - or worse, if folk got really angry!]
May 2012 - later update (and confirm) from 12 year-old Victoria Grant of Canada - (maybe read down the comments) - UPDATE: here's later (and clearer) version
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 15:18:11 +0000
Subject: Join us in Parliament on Wednesday
Many thanks for letting us know if you are coming to Parliament on Wednesday 9th November at 6pm. We need a really busy room to show parliamentarians the huge support that exists for libel reform so please do pass on this invitation (below) to others who might like to join us and RSVP to us if you haven't already.
The Justice Minister Lord McNally will open the meeting, and supporters including Simon Singh, Society of Editors, Nature, Which?, Global Witness, Yahoo!, AOL, Mumsnet, The Publishers Association, Liberty and representatives from the Libel Reform Campaign will tell parliamentarians why libel law reform can't wait.
It would be fantastic if you could write to your MP, http://www.writetothem.com/, encouraging them to attend. It only takes a minute but makes clear the importance of an urgent commitment to libel reform.
We look forward to seeing you there.
Síle and Mike
Invitation - for an easy print copy please see:
The Libel Reform Campaign invites you to hear why
Now is the time to reform our libel laws
Wednesday 9th November 2011, 6pm
Committee Room 10, House of Commons, SW1A 0AA
The Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill urged the government to strengthen their proposals for reform, in line with recommendations from the Libel Reform Campaign.
There is still work to be done to protect free speech from the stifling effects of current libel law and to provide a stronger, wider and more accessible public interest defence.
Join the Libel Reform Campaign, John Kampfner, Index on Censorship, Jonathan Heawood, English PEN and Tracey Brown, Sense About Science, and supporters including: Simon Singh; Society of Editors; Which?; Global Witness; AOL; Mumsnet and others on why legislation to reform the libel laws must be put before Parliament in the current session.
RSVP, if possible, to Mark Brook
mbrook *at* senseaboutscience.org
020 7490 9590
Kindly sponsored by Dr Julian Huppert MP
Enter via Cromwell Green entrance.
Please allow 20 minutes to get through security.
Subject: Please come to Parliament on Wednesday 9th November
Can you join us in Parliament on Wednesday 9th November to tell MPs why libel reform has to happen now?
The Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill last week urged the government to strengthen their proposals for reform, in line with recommendations from the Libel Reform Campaign. There is still work to be done to protect free speech from the stifling effects of current libel law: to provide a stronger, wider and more accessible public interest defence; and to make sure proposals on the internet work for bloggers and forums.
Our biggest battle will be to make sure libel reform does not get pushed off a crowded parliamentary agenda. It is vital that we ensure Parliamentarians know the strength of support for libel reform. Please join us and supporters including Simon Singh, Which?, Society of Editors, Global Witness, AOL and Liberty:
Wednesday 9th November 2011, 6pm
Committee Room 10, House of Commons
Every day we hear about new cases of scientists, publishers and bloggers being threatened with libel action. We have we got to this historic point with your support. If we let the momentum slip now, the opportunity for change could be lost.
We really hope you can join us to show MPs that libel law reform can't wait. Please reply to this email to let us know if you can come.
Síle and Mike
Date: TUES 25 Oct. '11
Hello PAYPAL, I've no connection with your company but have received this email (source w/headers)
- Delivered-To: MY EMAIL
Received: by 10.142.86.4 with SMTP id j4cs87876wfb;
Tue, 25 Oct 2011 02:04:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.5.23 with SMTP id 23mr79099ibt.46.1319533446880;
Tue, 25 Oct 2011 02:04:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nitix.nicksheltonlaw.com (adsl-068-157-210-061.sip.bna.bellsouth.net. [188.8.131.52])
by mx.google.com with SMTP id y15si4794326ibh.22.2011.10.25.02.04.06;
Tue, 25 Oct 2011 02:04:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 184.108.40.206 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of firstname.lastname@example.org) client-ip=220.127.116.11;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 18.104.22.168 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of email@example.com) firstname.lastname@example.org
Received: (qmail 9120 invoked by uid 5008); 25 Oct 2011 12:35:15 -0000
Date: 25 Oct 2011 12:35:15 -0000
To: MY EMAIL
Subject: Notification: Your address has been changed!
From: PayPal <email@example.com>
X-NITI-Logged: nicksheltonlaw.com 123456748901234567890
<html> <FONT face="Arial" size="2"> This email confirms that you have added the following address to your<BR>account:<BR><BR>5 Birchdale Avenue<BR>Bedfordshire, MK42 8NU<BR>United Kingdom <BR><BR>If you did not authorize this change <a target="_blank" href="www.samsungcenter.ir/shop/images/hua.html" >Click here</a><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR> </FONT> </html> -
Please stop whoever is mailing me in your name and prosecute any criminal activity if necessary.
Tried the PAYPAL site but, like most companies, they make it impossible to email a complaint - Actually, as this mail won't go to PAYPAL anyway, it is meant for the guys in dark glasses based at the Houses of Parliament who read these pages daily. Wonder why? - RD
PS - funny enough, Moscow, Washington, Brussels and intermittently Beijing (just north of `Forbidden City') tend to do the same.
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:32:39 +0100
Subject: Pharaonic Capitalism
"Sir Peter - people of his sort are exactly the sort of people who receive knighthoods in Britain - has just accepted a lump sum of four million pounds from his firm for agreeing to become its chairman, even though he has been under fire because, during his tenure, Sainsbury's has not done well; if Sir Peter continues to perform badly, there is some possibility he will be fired, in which case Sir Peter will retain only half of his promotion bonus.
On the same day that this deal was announced, Sainsbury's also announced the firing of 200 staff. It is not believed that their redundancy notices made any mention of the fact that the savings so generated would help pay for the promotion bonus accorded the man whose incompetence as chief executive had been threatening their workplace, and who had just now fired them."
- John Clute