Friday, September 30, 2005
Thursday, September 29, 2005
BRIGHTON, England -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair has apologized to an 82-year-old man who was thrown out of the Labour Party's annual meeting after heckling Foreign Secretary Jack Straw over the Iraq war.
Blair said stewards had been "overzealous" in their treatment of Walter Wolfgang, telling British television on Thursday: "I'm really sorry about it."
Wolfgang, a veteran peace campaigner who fled Nazi Germany as a Jewish refugee to make Britain his home, shouted "nonsense" at Straw on Wednesday as he said UK troops would remain in Iraq.
Stewards grabbed Wolfgang and physically removed him from the conference hall, prompting another delegate, Steve Forrest, to shout out a complaint about his treatment.
Forrest also was ejected from the conference center on Brighton's seafront.
Wolfgang tried to re-enter the conference venue but was stopped by police using powers under the Terrorism Act and had his pass confiscated, the UK's Press Association reported.
On Thursday, Blair told BBC television: "People are perfectly entitled to freedom of speech in our country and we should celebrate that fact and I'm really sorry about what happened to Walter and I've apologized to him.
"It's just an unfortunate thing that happened. The Labour Party has apologized. The chairman of the Labour Party and I have apologized to him."
On Wednesday night, Labour officials invited Wolfgang back to the conference Thursday provided he gave assurances he would not cause a disturbance.
"The Labour Party reserves its rights to remove from the conference site people who cause a persistent disturbance. However it is clear from TV footage that the way in which Mr. Wolfgang was removed was inappropriate," a party statement said.
The incident cast a shadow over the final session of the party's annual conference, as Blair was forced to field a series of questions about Wolfgang's treatment during a round of early morning broadcast interviews.
Wolfgang, from Richmond, southwest London, said he was approached by stewards after shouting "nonsense" as Straw was speaking.
Wolfgang said: "I shouted out 'nonsense.' That's all I said. Then these two toughies came round and wanted to manhandle me out.
"I said 'Do you want me to leave? I will leave, you don't need to manhandle me.' Physically, I am not too well, so I said I would follow them.
"Most of the Labour Party stewards are very nice people. One or two people lend themselves to this nonsense."
A Labour Party member of 57 years' standing, Wolfgang said: "It makes me feel that the people who resort to these tactics are very unsure of themselves and they are on the losing side." [...]
Well DUH, and my emphasis.
All the heckling and shouting in the world will not stop these people, "wake up, time to die..." I wonder just what it would take for someone like this to resign from the Labor party? Honestly, this man is a 'Jewish refugee as who fled Nazi Germany' Illegal invasions, bogus wars, unquestioned introduction of special powers, ID cards to be issued in response to a foreign threat, and then those powers used directly on you in front of millions without consequence...COME ON, how obvious do they have to make it?
And not that we needed any proof, but they used the terrorism act on this stupid man; just as everyone said, the police will use this legislation whenever they need it for any purpose not just the prevention of "terrorism", which now includes shouting out a single word of the english language.
The only reason why this man was apologised to was because they were all caught red handed on TV. Bliar all but admitted it himself; astonishing that he believes he can be exhonerated simply by granting apologies by the high priests of new labor, as if by virtue of their rank, the apology 'makes it all ok'.
"It's just an unfortunate thing that happened." The murderers of England are the unfortunate "thing" that has happened. They took over the great house, stripped off the wood paneling of the ancient rooms and burned them simply because the central heating went off in the middle of winter.
Summer is icumen in!
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Monday, September 26, 2005
Prison for tax protest pensionerA retired social worker from Devon has become the first woman pensioner to be jailed in England for refusing to pay her council tax. Ms Hardy was cheered by supporters when she arrived at court, complete with a packed bag in expectation of serving a jail term. She was jailed after missing a deadline to settle arrears of £53.71. She said she was not afraid of going to prison. Before the case she said: "If we pay it now, if they keep on increasing the taxes like they are doing, we eventually won't be able to afford to pay the bills and then we will have no existence at all, no quality of life at all. "We'll just have to sit at our homes and do nothing. That is not for me." When told that it would cost tax-payers' more to send her to prison than it would for her to pay, she said: "What we're doing now could save them money in the long-run. [...] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/4280040.stm The old people in this country have got the right idea. Now imagine the ten million people who are against the illegal occupation in Iraq taking a similar disobedient action. It would cause a total panic in government and would initiate a 180° policy turnaround. Nothing strikes fear into the heart of government more than mass tax disobedience. The stop war people should replace their planning team with OAPs - it looks like they are the only ones that have a got a grip!
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Friday, September 23, 2005
Guide aims to help bloggers beat censors
PARIS, France (AP) -- A Paris-based media watchdog has released an ABC guide of tips for bloggers and dissidents to sneak past Internet censors in countries from China to Iran.Reporters Without Borders' "Handbook for Blogger and Cyber-Dissidents" is partly financed by the French government and includes technical advice on how to remain anonymous online. [...] http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/09/22/blog.handbook.ap/index.html ??!! This is the same French government that banned and then u-turned the use of cryptography by individuals not so long ago...hmmmm! Now thats what I call a 'u-turn'. Perhaps in their next u-turn they will promote the production of GSM telephones with real public key encryption so that everyone's calls cant be intercepted and listened to at will, like they are now. This would be another real u-turn because it was the French that developed the crackable / crippleable A5 algorithm that is used in all GSM phones. Here is a link to the guide.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
This is particularly relevant given the EU's new plans on cross-border sharing of police databases: http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number3.19/dataprotection The weather was too cold for the season So, basically the Police have decided that wearing a rain jacket, carrying a rucksack with a laptop inside, looking down at the steps while going in a tube station and checking your phone for messages just tick too many checkmarks on their checklist and make you a terrorist suspect. How many other people are not only wrongly detained but wrongly arrested every week in similar circumstances as myself? And how many of them are also computer and telecoms enthusiasts that fit the Police's terrorist behavioural profile so well? I accept and understand spot checks can be useful, but profiling... this would be a joke if it didn't affect many ‘innocent bystanders’. The officers must have failed to hear the Met Commissioner Sir Ian Blair when he claimed ‘We are not in the business of stopping and searching people who fit a particular profile.’ Interestingly, while a police officer did state that my rain jacket ‘too warm for the season’, could it have been instead that the weather was too cold for the season? This is what the other Met, the Met Office had to say about the weather the day before: ‘London recorded its coldest July day for 25 years on the 27th when temperatures only reached 15.6 °C.’ At least I'm still alive and, over a month later, no longer under arrest. The Police eventually decided to take No Further Action (NFA): ‘a decision not to proceed with a prosecution’. In a democratic country such as the UK, one would be forgiven for naively thinking that this is the end of the matter. Under the current laws the Police are not only entitled to keep my fingerprints and DNA samples, but apparently, according to my solicitor, they are also entitled to hold on to what they gathered during their investigation: notepads of the arresting officers, photographs, interviewing tapes and any other documents they collected and entered in the Police National Computer (PNC). (Also, at the time of this writing, I still have no letter stating that I'm effectively off the hook and I still haven't been given any of my possessions back.) Aren't the Police supposed to keep tabs only on convicted criminals and individuals under investigation? So even though the Police consider me innocent, otherwise they would have had a duty to prosecute me, there will remain some mention (what exactly?) in the PNC and, if they fully share their information with Interpol, in other Police databases around the world as well. Isn't a state that keeps files on innocent persons a police state? This gradual erosion of our fundamental liberties should be of concern to us all. http://gizmonaut.net/bits/suspect.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1575532,00.htmlThis is real horrorshow, but something amazing about this story stands out to me. Days after the bombs went off in London, I was continually astonished to see people walking around with black backpacks similar to the ones used by the bombers. Even people who looked like the bombers were wearing them. Now, if we are talking about a place where a volcano is spilling out lava, destroying all the houses and covering the roads, you dont go there to eat lunch, do you? I know perfectly well that you have the right to wear whateve you want whenever you want, but if you know in advance that the police are using profiles to stop people, how stupid do you have to be to go out into the street, and then onto the Underground, deliberately fitting the profile? You can use any type of bag to carry your junk; why would you deliberately use a bag that is the same as the bags used by those dimwits? Obviously you can't change what you look like, but this isn't about that. This is about being reckless in a war zone, where the police have been given powers to destroy you just because you don't look right. Only a totally fast asleep fool would keep using a bag like that, knowing what everyone now knows about the modus operandi of these very stupid bombers. There is not a single person in the whole of the UK that does not know that the bombers who blew themselvs up in London wore dark backpacks. If you wear one in the streets of London, and then go onto the underground with it, you are insane. I have sympathy for anyone stopped by the police for no reason, but if you go out and provoke them, well, like jumping into a stream of lava, you can expect to be burned, and you will get no sympathy from me. What is happening in the UK is not a joke. It is not fun and games. It is real, and it deserves a real response from everyone who lives here. My advice to you is do not provoke the police into destroying you. Stay off of the Underground. Make sure that in your clothing and the places you go, you do not fit the profile by changing everything that you can change to cause a mismatch. If you want to restore the UK to what it was, then this is the first step to doing it. Change your behaviour --- can you imagine what it would be like if everyone stopped using the stations where this arrest happened? This is the only signal that the mass of people can give, indicating that we will not live for one second in a police state. Sadly, most people don't have any imagination at all, and are quite willing to carry on as if nothing is wrong. Some will even blame the people who are the victims; I just now, have poured scorn on this man for carrying the wrong type of bag. Imagination however, is crucial. Imagine if it was you that was arrested simply because you fit the profile? Imagine the humiliaton the fear...its not hard to do, and once you put yourself in someone else's shoes, you can understand the horror almost first hand, and that should be enough to spur you to act. Or not act as appropriate. I wonder how many people have to be stopped before everyone wakes up and takes notice. Really, it should only take one, but thanks to the low imagination rates, that isn't enough. Indeed, they have already KILLED one man and no one's behaviour changed, so why should we be concerned about this man who was stopped with a black backpack. It's the laptop!
The "prosperity bonus" is aimed at giving Joe and Jane Lunchbucket a concrete, tax-free share of the province's gushing oil riches.
You'd think giving away $1.4 billion wouldn't be that difficult, but Finance Department staff were left scrambling Wednesday to figure out how to make it happen by year-end.
That's right. Alberta's No. 1 Despot plans to buy the all-too eager public into complacency. While this article makes it seem like many people are questioning the policy, my own cynicism tells me to think otherwise (though I would hope to be proven wrong). The people of Alberta all too often play into this government's lazy, unimaginative tricks. I can see so many people just spending it as fast as they can on some useless commodity. Because really, that's the Albertan way. It doesn't matter what you buy, all that matters is that you spend your money as fast as possible.
I don't really want to look this gift horse in the mouth, but I will. Every Albertan should be insulted by this diversionary tactic. This government has so brutally dismantled education, senior's care, prisons, and health care (the latter in an effort to sneak in private third-party health care rather than reforming what we've got), that it seems odd that it would just throw all this money around rather than put it to some constructive use; especially since many of the people it's throwing the money to have no idea how to properly spend it (yeah, I'm blatantly insulting a large portion of Alberta's population - I went there).
It is baffling how many people think that the government's interests are the same as their own. Surreal. Freedom is Slavery!
On another note, this 'gift' would probably be bigger had Alberta not given away several very lucrative Natural Gas and Oil contracts to the United States. It was practically robbery, considering how many more royalties we'd be getting. But that's another story and it's late.
Fine, I'll just point you to some other blogger who is whining. (that's the word Ralph Klein uses to describe critics, interchangeable with "yippers")
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
A typical response about the desirability of such measures comes from Barry Burton, from nearby Netherton.
"I'm all for making everything more secure," he says. "If you've got nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear."
The roadshow is on stop three of a seven-day tour of the UK, in what has been described as a "charm offensive" to promote biometric passports and, ultimately, the government's ID card scheme, which will also rely on biometric technology.
They must believe that people in the UK are amongst the stupidest in the world to write such a thing and get away with it. For your information JACKASS the British are amongst the smartest per capita on earth, and they laugh at these pathetic word tricks and outright lies that you try to spread.
I would like to know who, as in the NAME of the person who has editorial control over the articles that appear on the BBQ site. Someone MUST check off each article, and really, these names should be prepended to every article that appears on the site so that we can monitor bias.
It's all very well signing up for creative commons and all that, but BBQ News needs to be more accountable on the article level. 'And why not?' as Barry Norman used to say; why not give all of these details at the end of each article? Time constraints cannot be given as an excuse, since the time it takes to read and approve an article will not be increased by 'signing' it - what exactly does the BBQ have to hide? Why should there not be a profile of every writer that works for the BBQ news service?
The fact is, they need to hide these details because it would then be trivial to expose bias in the articles, and the BBQ administration don't want that.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Monday, September 19, 2005
Popeye faced a different opponent in almost every adventure. Halfway through 1932, Segar wrote a narrative titled, "The Eighth Sea". A fearless fiend named, 'Bluto the Terrible' was introduced into this story. He was treated as a 'throwaway' character, the same way that Segar had originally planned to handle Popeye when he debuted in January of 1929. In the case of Bluto, Segar never returned him after Popeye was allowed to engage him in a bloody battle and defeat him with his legendary 'twisker punch'.
The following year Popeye made his motion picture debut at the hands of Max and Dave Fleischer. To add some spice to the cartoon, Olive Oyl was cast in the role of the jealous girlfriend, but the Fleischer's wanted to really spice things up, so they resurrected Bluto to be Popeye's on screen 'enemy'. He was immediately accepted as Popeye's number one nemesis.
In 1956, the old theatrical cartoons were released to television. The 'Popeye' phenomenon met an entirely new group of fans - the 'Baby Boomers'. Popeye's popularity soared. The kiddies of the 'nifty fifties' were consuming the cartoons faster than Popeye could open his can of spinach. King Features Syndicate recognized the potential of their animated adventurer - so 220 new cartoons were ordered. BUT there was a problem, the Disney organization complained that Bluto sounded too much like Pluto. To avoid legal hassles, Brutus made his screen debut in 1960's
For the next 18 years, Brutus was Popeye's formidable foe. In 1978, Hanna-Barbera introduced, "The All New Adventures of Popeye" - (aka "The Popeye Hour"), and Bluto was returned to the stories. Unfortunately, Brutus was not. It's too bad, because the cartoon series might have been fun with the two bad guys teaming-up against good guy Popeye.
Sunday, September 18, 2005
Saturday, September 17, 2005
Friday, September 16, 2005
US world's dictator: Cuba
CUBAN National Assembly speaker Ricardo Alarcon has accused the United States of trying to turn the United Nations into "an instrument of its global dictatorship".Speaking on behalf of Cuba at the closing session of the three-day world summit here, Alarcon echoed criticism expressed on Thursday by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez of conditions in which the UN reform package was approved by the UN General Assembly.
"We are witnessing an unforgivable fraud," he said.
As the UN blueprint to restructure the world body was approved by the General Assembly on Tuesday, Cuba's UN delegate Abelardo Moreno raised objections about what he called "distortions" added to the text.
"Particular emphasis was given to the interests of a number of powerful countries to the detriment of smaller countries and underdeveloped countries," he noted.
"Those who see themselves as masters of the planet do not want to remember promises" of the Millenium Declaration," Alarcon said overnight, referring to poverty reduction goals set by world leaders here five years ago.
"They try to impose a so-called reform of the United Nations which only aims to completely dominate the organisation and turn it into an instrument of their global dictatorship," Alarcon said.
These "masters of the world want to make war and hegemonism norms that the whole world should follow without protest. In the process, with the help of docile spokesmen, they flout the (UN) Charter, seek to reduce the Secretariat into a slavish tool and insult the Assembly and the world."
On Thursday, Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez called the United States a "terrorist state" and said the United Nations headquarters should be moved away from New York.
The outspoken Chavez littered his speech to the UN world summit with anti-US comments which were strongly applauded. Chavez, a strong ally of Cuba's President Fidel Castro, followed this up with a press conference at which he accused the US administration of supporting terrorism.
To loud applause he took up the call of Latin American revolutionary Simon Bolivar for the UN headquarters to be moved to "an international city" in the southern hemisphere.
"It is time to think about an international city," he said.
- "...if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility." John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859).
- "In a free state, tongues too should be free." Erasmus, The Education of a Christian Prince (1516).
- "The principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate." US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in United States v. Schwimmer (1929).
Terror Bill targets bookshops and extends detention By Sam Knight, Times Online, 15/9/05 Terrorism suspects will be held for up to three months without charge and booksellers who stock publications that encourage extremist violence could be imprisoned, under proposed legislation published today... In a document accompanying the proposed legislation, the Home Office explained that police need to be able to hold terrorism suspects for longer while investigators examine CCTV footage, encrypted electronic evidence and international terror networks... http://www.timesonline.co.uk ~~ 3 Dissemination of terrorist publications (1) A person commits an offence if he (a) distributes or circulates a terrorist publication; (b) gives, sells or lends such a publication; (c) offers such a publication for sale or loan; (d) transmits the contents of such a publication electronically; (e) makes available to others (whether electronically or otherwise) a facility for enabling them to obtain, read, listen to or look at such a publication, or to acquire it by means of a gift, sale or loan; or (f) has such a publication in his possession with a view to its becoming the subject of conduct falling with any of paragraphs (a) to (e). (9) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable (a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment (11) In this section publication means an article or record of any description that contains any of the following, or any combination of them (a) matter to be read; (b) matter to be listened to; (c) matter to be looked at or watched; and references in this section to what is contained in an article or record include references to anything that is embodied or stored in or on it and to anything that may be reproduced from it using apparatus designed or adapted for the purpose. (12) In this section article includes anything for storing data; lend includes let on hire, and loan is to be construed accordingly; record means a record so far as not comprised in an article, including a temporary record created electronically and existing solely in the course of, and for the purposes of, the transmission of the whole or a part of its contents. draftbill.pdf [...]You think? Lets go through this step by step. (1) A person commits an offence if he (a) distributes or circulates a terrorist publication; No, because everyone has the right to publish whatever they want without restriction in a free country. This includes any sort of opinion that you may care to express. If not, then there would have to be a class of opinion designated as 'terrorist opinion' meaning that it would then be impossible to write something like "It is my opinion that Guy Fawlkes was right, and the House of Commos should be blown to bits." Clearly that is not on. (b) gives, sells or lends such a publication; everyone has the right to read whatever they like, and to sell or lend any type of book that they like. Obviously I am not talking about publications covered by obscenity laws; I am talking only about books that publish opinions and facts. Lenders have the right to set up whatever type of library they like, subject to the copyright laws. This part doesn't work either. (c) offers such a publication for sale or loan; Same for above. You cannot stop people from offering books and pamphlets for sale or loan just because you dont like the opinion or philosophy espoused in the text. (d) transmits the contents of such a publication electronically; ??!! This would make it illegal to send texts via email, simply because the content is objectionable to Bliar and his cabal of stinky murderers. Transmit covers sending text to a blog server in another jurisdiction, so they could use this to stop people in the UK publishing blogs on servers in other countries. Theoretically. (e) makes available to others (whether electronically or otherwise) a facility for enabling them to obtain, read, listen to or look at such a publication, or to acquire it by means of a gift, sale or loan; or Mail order services would not be able to send books to you by mail on banned subjects. Streaming servers on the internet would not be able to stream you audio without being liable. Any blog server hosting a PDF of a publication would be subject to this. Ebay would not be able to auction these publications. Its totally absurd on its face. (f) has such a publication in his possession with a view to its becoming the subject of conduct falling with any of paragraphs (a) to (e). So, does this mean that you can posess these texts for your own use, but you cannot posess it if you want to lend it transmit it sell it or make it available? Is this like 'not inhaling'? (9) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable (a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment What-ever. (11) In this section publication means an article or record of any description that contains any of the following, or any combination of them (a) matter to be read; (b) matter to be listened to; (c) matter to be looked at or watched; and references in this section to what is contained in an article or record include references to anything that is embodied or stored in or on it and to anything that may be reproduced from it using apparatus designed or adapted for the purpose. This of course, means blogs, websites, photocopies, books, CDs audio files etc etc. Ogrish.com from where you can get uncensored videos released by the 'insurgents' regularly will immediately fall foul of these regulations. (12) In this section article includes anything for storing data; lend includes let on hire, and loan is to be construed accordingly; record means a record so far as not comprised in an article, including a temporary record created electronically and existing solely in the course of, and for the purposes of, the transmission of the whole or a part of its contents. Heh. Whoever wrote this must understand what a cache is. These proposals are illegal, cannot work to achieve their stated aim and are an affront to all decent people. This proposed nonsense is useless unless every country everywhere institutes regulations of an identical nature. This is probably why, during his classic insane neurolinguistic doubletalk rant at the UN, Bliar urged every government to introduce measures like this. The fact of the matter is, the USA, for all its faults will NEVER do it, meaning that anyone at any time will be able to read whatever they want whenever they want, for the duration of this absurd time. Speaking of The Untruthful one's speech at the UN it would be nice to read a rebuttal by a historian of all these problems to this oft repeated claim that motivation of 'terrorists' has nothing to do with western foreign policy. This sort of nonsense simply cannot be left to stand unchallenged. Someone somewhere must have done it subsequent to that sickening speech...
Thursday, September 15, 2005
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - The Dutch government plans to open an electronic file on every child at birth as a tool to spot and protect the troubled kids of the future.
Beginning Jan. 1, 2007, all citizens will be tracked from cradle to grave in a single database — including health, education, family and police records — the health ministry said Tuesday.
As a privacy safeguard, no single person or agency will be able to access all contents of a file. But organizations can raise "red flags" in the dossier to caution other agencies about problems, ministry spokesman Jan Brouwer said.
The intention is to protect troubled children, Brouwer said. Until now, schools and police have been unable to communicate with each other about truancy records and criminality, which are often linked.
"Child protection services will say, 'Hey, there's a warning flag from the police. There's another one from school. There's another one from the doctor," Brouwer said. "Something must be going on and it's time to call the parents in for a meeting."
Every child will get a Citizens Service Number, making it easier to keep track of children with problems even when their families move, said Secretary of Health Clemence Ross.
"Safety, guidance, education and supervision are incredibly important for the development of children," Ross said.
All Dutch births are currently registered with local authorities. [...]
This makes me sick to my stomach.
As a privacy safeguard, no single person or agency will be able to access all contents of a file.
That is a lie.
The intention is to protect troubled children,
these children need protection, its true. Protection from THE STATE.
"Something must be going on and it's time to call the parents in for a meeting."
This is not a dream, this is REAL. Its actually happening, and these people who promote it and who are creating it think that its perfectly acceptable and reasonable and desireable.
Citizens Service Number
see how they couch it in gentle language, when it is anyting but gentle; this number is a branding number, burned into the child forever, from which he can never escape. No one will ever be allowed a second chance in this system, you will have your every discression recorded for future perusal. It's a horrifying, inhuman and horrible idea, and shame on the Dutch for allowing it to be created. Heh, maybe they HAVE been smoking too much pot, because you would have to be stoned to think this is a good idea, and you would have to be doubly stoned to not protest its creation.
This phrase is reverse doubletalk. This number puts the individual at the service of the state, it is not a number so that the citizen can recieve service from the state, which is how it sounds at first glance. And don't you believe for an instant that this number will not be transformed into your adult number, which will be used for everything else you can imagine and probably things you can't imagine.
"Safety, guidance, education and supervision are incredibly important for the development of children,"
That is the job of a parent, not the state. The states job is to clean the streets and catch criminals AFTER they have done a crime; it is not their job to submit people to eternal surveillance.
SHAME SHAME SHAME on you you dirty BASTARDS.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
The Pigs Ear Bar & Dining Room - reviews bar - modern and european
"This place is the greatest find in Chelsea......great food...great wine list....great atmosphere.....not an ounce of the Chelsea pretentious attitude from the staff....they know what's needed around here....this is our local and we love it ! x" Hilary F 01/08 "Finally an authentic, no bullshit place that serves superb food without pretentious dramatics. "The Brasserie lunch/supper menu in the ground floor pub must rate as the best pub-grub in Chelsea? The gorgeous first floor Dining Room is a real find in SW3. "Loathed to share this place with you!!." MM 02/06[...] For example. Yes indeed, we could post the details of soooooooo many pubs in London that are teh r0xorz, but then why rub it in? While we are at it, the Electric Cinema in Notting Hill (which is not a pub) does the most perfect Pork Belly... Swine. There's nothing like it.
An unprecedented ruling yesterday by the supreme court in Europe gives Brussels the power to introduce harmonised criminal law across the EU, creating for the first time a body of European criminal law that all member states must adopt. The judgment by the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg was bitterly fought by 11 EU governments, including Britain, and marks a dramatic transfer of power from national capitals to Brussels.
The Commission said that it would use its new powers only in extreme circumstances, but its officials are already talking about introducing EU crimes for overfishing, deliberate polluting, money laundering and price fixing.
EU members have always insisted that the power to set criminal law goes to the heart of national sovereignty and must be decided by national governments and parliaments. The Luxembourg judges ruled, however, that national governments could not exempt EU law from being upheld by criminal sanctions.
José Manuel Barroso, the President of the Commission, said: “This is a watershed decision. It paves the way for more democratic and more efficient lawmaking at EU level.”
A British government official said: “We firmly believed it was inappropriate to harmonise criminal law at EU level. We believe criminal law is a matter for member states co-operating intergovernmentally.” He added that they would consult other countries to consider the options, although the governments have no right of appeal against the court.[...] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1779849,00.html This means that if you publish something in the UK that the Germans don't like, you can be arrested right here in the UK, at the order of a German, and there is nothing you can do about it, no appeal you can launch....nothing. Soon the penny will drop, that all bets are off. The rules are all broken, and something very drastic has to happen if we are to bee properly separated from our cousins with funny ideas.
"And I say that absolutely, fundamentally," she said. "You go to any other meeting around the world and show me the kind of diversity that you see in America's Cabinet, in America's foreign service, in America's business community, in America's journalistic community.
"Show me that kind of diversity anyplace else in the world, and I'm prepared to be lectured about race."
Rice -- who was born in Birmingham, Alabama, and spent most of her childhood there -- said the confluence of race and poverty is a vestige of American history.
"It's a vestige of particularly the Old South in this case," she said.
"We will be making a mistake if we let people jump to the conclusion that the United States has therefore not dealt with issues of race, particularly if you look at how issues of race are dealt with in most of the world."
Rice also said she believes the Hurricane Katrina disaster provides an opportunity for Americans to launch a comprehensive attack on poverty. [...]
Is it me, or is this an example of seamless, flawless and perfect doublespeak?
From the outside, just from say, watching something innofensive like 'Oprah' the usa appears to be one of the most racist countries on earth.
That woman uses the term 'bi-racial' constantly, as if she is describing somehting real. Everywhere has its language and perception problems, but in this case, the us is right up there with South Africa and Brazil in its obsession with describing and categorizing people like animals. What makes it one million times more offensive is when one of their citizens says that this behaviour is right, or when they use these terminologies without caveat, like Oprah constantly does.
That is why you can have the absurd difference between the entries for Europe and Africa at Wikipedia. Its dominated by americans, and so one entry talks about 'race' and the other doesn't. When someone tried to put in a section about the European 'races' (categorizing europeans in the way that animals are sorted) it was cut out for being racist. Why is it offensive tothe people maintaining the Europe page to categorize humans from one continent but not another?
The first thing you ask would be, "well, what do they look like?".
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Police blotter: Cell phone tracking rejected
"Police blotter" is a weekly report on the intersection of technology and the law. This episode: Feds' location-tracking rebuffed.
What: In the first case of its kind, a federal judge chastises the U.S. Department of Justice for trying to constantly track a cell phone user's location without providing any proof of criminal behavior.
When: Decided Aug. 25 by U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein in Central Islip, N.Y.
Outcome: Justice Department's Patriot Act surveillance request was denied.
What happened: Burton T. Ryan Jr., an assistant U.S. attorney, sought a court order that would permit federal agents to track a suspect though his cell phone--but he couldn't offer any evidence of actual criminal activity.
Ryan asked Orenstein to sign an order requiring the unnamed cellular provider to divulge the information, which would reveal the suspect's location whenever his cell phone was in use. (Cell phones must provide this information because of potential 911 emergencies, the Federal Communications Commission has ruled.)
Such location-tracking was permitted under the 2001 Patriot Act, which amended the definition of a "pen register," Ryan argued. A pen register records phone numbers that are dialed.
Orenstein disagreed. Location information amounts to a wiretap, he said, and therefore requires prosecutors to show "probable cause"--that is, at least some evidence of criminal behavior. Such an order "would effectively allow the installation of a tracking device without the showing of probable cause normally required for a warrant."
Citing congressional testimony by former FBI Director Louis Freeh, Orenstein rejected the request and told the Justice Department to appeal if it wanted further clarification. Freeh had assured Congress that "the authority for pen registers and trap and trace devices cannot be used to obtain tracking or location information."
Excerpt from Orenstein's opinion: "My research on this question has failed to reveal any federal case law directly on point. Moreover, it is my understanding based on anecdotal information that magistrate judges in other jurisdictions are being confronted with the same issue but have not yet achieved consensus on how to resolve it. If the government intends to continue seeking authority to obtain cell site location information in aid of its criminal investigations, I urge it to seek appropriate review of this order so that magistrate judges will have more authoritative guidance in determining whether controlling law permits such relief on the basis of the relaxed standard set forth (under federal law), or instead requires adherence to the more exacting standard of probable cause. [...]
Yes, sounds like a win for the good guys doesn't it? Or is it just the last sparks of the fire of freedom, as it burns out and not one person remains to put new logs on.
We can throw all the surveillance logs on this fire!!!!!