"Only in America could the rich - who pay 86% of income taxes - be accused of not paying their "fair share" by those who pay nothing."
That's a tweet that wandered past recently. I can't begin to reply to it in a tweet. So here I am in Blogger again.
Firstly, I was unaware that the top rate of income tax in America was 86%, perhaps because it's nothing like that much. A quick Wikipedia check suggests between 21% & 16% "Effective income and payroll tax rate".
Somebody is hyping that 86% a little. But lets ignore that and just nod our heads sagely and say "Hmm yes, the rich sure are liable for a lot of Income Tax on all that money".
Notice I use the word "liable". Unfortunately, the very rich end of any countries population can afford to use tax loopholes like offshore tax haven accounts, declaring spouses as employees, declaring business expenses, and evading tax liability in basically as many wonderful ways as their tax avoidance guru accountants can suggest to them. Since we are dealing with people in the $400,000+ income bracket here, such avoidance quickly adds up to tens of thousands of $ per person. Hundreds of thousands for the super rich. Add them all together and ... that's a fair few million / billion in lost tax revenue. Most of it legal.
The bottom end of the salary scale doesn't get as much chance to avoid tax legally, but lets face it, wherever you look on the income scale, people will be attempting to pay as little tax as possible. If it's taxed at source in your pay packet though like a vast majority of working Joe's and Joanne's, that's it. It's paid in full. No argument.
Right down at the bottom you get the black economy of cash in hand work. Add all of that lot up together and ... hey .. it's also a fair whack of cash. Although individually we're only talking about a few $100 to $1000 avoided, there are a lot more poor people than rich people. Figures are murky here. A big chunk of low paid workers still pay the income tax and just struggle on in life, so we can deduct that from lost tax. It seems likely that the total tax evasion of the lower classes is still a lot less than the massive sums avoided by the upper classes.
BUT.
The argument is screwed from the start. The problem is, if EVERYONE at the top, bottom and middle of society actually paid the taxes without either legal or illegal tax avoidance then the amount taxed on everyone could be less. The problem is all the loopholes and dodges, mainly at the upper end of tax avoidance, that get exploited and never dealt with.
And it also ignores the far bigger problem of corporate tax evasion. The entire loss in tax income across all income tax for all citizens of the US is far smaller than the loss in tax due to corporate tax evasion. That doesn't even get a mention.
You can spot this one in the current fiscal cliff farce talks in Washington. Yes it is pretty pointless talking about solving a trillion $ debt problem by increasing personal taxation on the wealthy. But nobody in government has the balls to say "Well actually, it's the companies and corporations we need to collect proper taxes from".
And that folks. Is capitalism at work. It owns the government, it maintains the loopholes and god forbid anyone should try and address the real problem because they'll threaten you all with job losses and economic recession if you even dare think about it.
See?
Wasn't going to fit in a tweet was it?
29 Dec 2012
18 Dec 2012
The Gun Debate (cynical version) MOAR GUNS!
If you ever wanted a study in flawed logic, some of the messages and debate coming out of America following the vile tragedy of the recent school shooting is a good place to start.
It stirs emotion. This is good. But...
I follow a bit of an eclectic bunch on Twitter even after my own selective preferences, so I see a weird and broad spectrum of reactions scroll past. Here we go!
On the far left are those who can't believe fellow Americans want to stick with free gun ownership. They look at gun death rates in countries with gun control and wonder why on earth people want them around. I'm with these guys. They are in a vocal minority.
Also on the far left are those that utterly mistrust the US Government. They want to keep any guns and rights they have to defend themselves against their own government. Many see a coming collapse in America and want to protect themselves when it does happen. This could be true. If you want to be a hero and you're sure you're right? Keep an illegal gun or two for the end of times.
A little way in from there are those arguing for a ban on assault rifles and semi-automatics (either or both). They argue this kind of tragedy can only occur with guns designed for relatively rapid fire, but they still want rifles, shotguns and many of them pistols. Some for reason of defence against criminals, some for the above reason of defence against the US government. I sort of get this. It would be a decent step in the right direction. I don't think it will stop the next school massacre though. A couple of handguns and clips full of ammo will do plenty of damage.
Moving to the right there is the argument that guns are not the problem, but a screening and mental health check of gun owners is required. There's a bit of a hole in this one. It seems the killer in this case took his guns from, and killed his mother. He wouldn't of had a mental health check. Here is where we start to depart from logic. This one is pure and simple "I want my guns! Blame and identify mentally ill people!" ... Little realising it's their guns that can be used by the loony and that health screening won't catch everyone who has a bad Monday.
Sadly also in here are those who jumped to identify asberger's as a mental health problem that caused the shooting. Just no. I'm not aware of any link for decades between asberger's syndrome and violence. Cut that crap out.
There's another one in here that it's violent video games that do it. Not the guns. Oh jeez. Really? Well ok. You run your own nation. Go ahead. Ban all violent video games. I bet you in a few months time even after a ban like that, another bunch of innocents will be shot and you'll be looking for something new to blame. This one really is insane. The kinds of violent video games they are talking about exist in all the gun control countries as well. They have death rates sub 20 per year. America is 9,000+?! Logic fail and again "I want my guns! Blame something else!".
[Yes. There is an argument for trying to persuade the public that age limit's on games mean something. Wandering off on my own view for a while, the same is true for DVD's. It seems to be trivial for parents now to ignore age ratings on video and games simply because they have an older child that wants to watch it or play it. I don't think that's right. I don't think the age ratings games and DVD's get are always right either, but it would be better to have parents try harder to enforce the guidance. Kid's are exposed to enough violence and stress via main stream broadcast media already. There are good reasons why we put time and money in to rating films and games. But I digress...]
Further right are those wanting to give all school staff bullet proof vests and concealed firearms to protect the children they send to school. Oh come on! MORE guns will solve gun crime? Every nursery teacher wants to be Rambo? Logic here has taken an acid trip but .. spot the meme yet? "I want my guns!"
And in an odd camp. All on it's own. Are those that simply say "They aren't taking my guns". These guys also say "I want my guns!"
There are some (mainly women I've noticed) who have decided they now need to buy and train with firearms out of fear. I can see the fear, of all the reasons, I can see the straight line logic at work on this one, but ... ouch. This was a mum who was shot and her guns taken to commit mass murder, and here's a bunch more women (people in general) motivated to go buy guns and keep them at home. This is the self-perpetuating "I want my guns" logic at work. It's fear. America wants guns because they live in fear? Possibly. It's still more guns though.
My own position can be expressed a little like this:
"Hey! Everyone in the UK. We've had gun control for ages, but it's clearly a restriction on our freedom. So all those in favour of everyone having a semi-auto handgun and an assault rifle raise a hand!". Looks around the room. Looks at America. No. That's not going to work here. We don't get classroom's full of children slaughtered with guns much, and we're pretty ok with that. Virtually nobody in the UK would even entertain the thought of adopting US gun culture.
I'd call that pretty clear cut from my "smug, self satisfied European outlook". Yup. We are smug. Our kids don't get shot at the rate of 30+ mass killings in schools since 1999. That's something to be smug about. I'm smug. I'm self satisfied, and the children are not getting shot.
Looking back at the spectrum of response in America to the idea of gun control? Change is going to be incredibly hard. I know Obama made some "we must change" noises. But I'm not seeing much in the way of substance yet. Cynical me also realises that we've seen so many multiple shooting incidents in America, why should this one change anything?
So .....
Innocent children died. Horribly. I can't imagine the fear and horror of the dead or of those who survived. I'd expect that kind of trauma to scar many of them for life. It's vile and disgusting.
The chances of America actually changing? Are minimal indeed. I hope. But I doubt. The vast majority of reactions boil down to "I want my guns!".
Sorry America. You want them? Then you get used to people dying by them, and incidents like 20 children being slaughtered should be page 12 news. It comes with the territory.
It stirs emotion. This is good. But...
I follow a bit of an eclectic bunch on Twitter even after my own selective preferences, so I see a weird and broad spectrum of reactions scroll past. Here we go!
On the far left are those who can't believe fellow Americans want to stick with free gun ownership. They look at gun death rates in countries with gun control and wonder why on earth people want them around. I'm with these guys. They are in a vocal minority.
Also on the far left are those that utterly mistrust the US Government. They want to keep any guns and rights they have to defend themselves against their own government. Many see a coming collapse in America and want to protect themselves when it does happen. This could be true. If you want to be a hero and you're sure you're right? Keep an illegal gun or two for the end of times.
A little way in from there are those arguing for a ban on assault rifles and semi-automatics (either or both). They argue this kind of tragedy can only occur with guns designed for relatively rapid fire, but they still want rifles, shotguns and many of them pistols. Some for reason of defence against criminals, some for the above reason of defence against the US government. I sort of get this. It would be a decent step in the right direction. I don't think it will stop the next school massacre though. A couple of handguns and clips full of ammo will do plenty of damage.
Moving to the right there is the argument that guns are not the problem, but a screening and mental health check of gun owners is required. There's a bit of a hole in this one. It seems the killer in this case took his guns from, and killed his mother. He wouldn't of had a mental health check. Here is where we start to depart from logic. This one is pure and simple "I want my guns! Blame and identify mentally ill people!" ... Little realising it's their guns that can be used by the loony and that health screening won't catch everyone who has a bad Monday.
Sadly also in here are those who jumped to identify asberger's as a mental health problem that caused the shooting. Just no. I'm not aware of any link for decades between asberger's syndrome and violence. Cut that crap out.
There's another one in here that it's violent video games that do it. Not the guns. Oh jeez. Really? Well ok. You run your own nation. Go ahead. Ban all violent video games. I bet you in a few months time even after a ban like that, another bunch of innocents will be shot and you'll be looking for something new to blame. This one really is insane. The kinds of violent video games they are talking about exist in all the gun control countries as well. They have death rates sub 20 per year. America is 9,000+?! Logic fail and again "I want my guns! Blame something else!".
[Yes. There is an argument for trying to persuade the public that age limit's on games mean something. Wandering off on my own view for a while, the same is true for DVD's. It seems to be trivial for parents now to ignore age ratings on video and games simply because they have an older child that wants to watch it or play it. I don't think that's right. I don't think the age ratings games and DVD's get are always right either, but it would be better to have parents try harder to enforce the guidance. Kid's are exposed to enough violence and stress via main stream broadcast media already. There are good reasons why we put time and money in to rating films and games. But I digress...]
Further right are those wanting to give all school staff bullet proof vests and concealed firearms to protect the children they send to school. Oh come on! MORE guns will solve gun crime? Every nursery teacher wants to be Rambo? Logic here has taken an acid trip but .. spot the meme yet? "I want my guns!"
And in an odd camp. All on it's own. Are those that simply say "They aren't taking my guns". These guys also say "I want my guns!"
There are some (mainly women I've noticed) who have decided they now need to buy and train with firearms out of fear. I can see the fear, of all the reasons, I can see the straight line logic at work on this one, but ... ouch. This was a mum who was shot and her guns taken to commit mass murder, and here's a bunch more women (people in general) motivated to go buy guns and keep them at home. This is the self-perpetuating "I want my guns" logic at work. It's fear. America wants guns because they live in fear? Possibly. It's still more guns though.
My own position can be expressed a little like this:
"Hey! Everyone in the UK. We've had gun control for ages, but it's clearly a restriction on our freedom. So all those in favour of everyone having a semi-auto handgun and an assault rifle raise a hand!". Looks around the room. Looks at America. No. That's not going to work here. We don't get classroom's full of children slaughtered with guns much, and we're pretty ok with that. Virtually nobody in the UK would even entertain the thought of adopting US gun culture.
I'd call that pretty clear cut from my "smug, self satisfied European outlook". Yup. We are smug. Our kids don't get shot at the rate of 30+ mass killings in schools since 1999. That's something to be smug about. I'm smug. I'm self satisfied, and the children are not getting shot.
Looking back at the spectrum of response in America to the idea of gun control? Change is going to be incredibly hard. I know Obama made some "we must change" noises. But I'm not seeing much in the way of substance yet. Cynical me also realises that we've seen so many multiple shooting incidents in America, why should this one change anything?
So .....
Innocent children died. Horribly. I can't imagine the fear and horror of the dead or of those who survived. I'd expect that kind of trauma to scar many of them for life. It's vile and disgusting.
The chances of America actually changing? Are minimal indeed. I hope. But I doubt. The vast majority of reactions boil down to "I want my guns!".
Sorry America. You want them? Then you get used to people dying by them, and incidents like 20 children being slaughtered should be page 12 news. It comes with the territory.
1 Dec 2012
Welfare Mythology
Current popular wisdom in economic circles is that the welfare state is doomed and in part, or entirely to blame for some of the economic troubles of the world.
First off, there are components to this generic Welfare term.
Pensions, healthcare, social security.
Pensions
In my humble opinion, the problem with pensions is not only that when birth rates decrease, fewer people are around to generate the wealth for the pension pots, but also the constant bubble mentality of pension fund planners. Expected annual growth of funds is estimated too high over lengthy periods of time. All it takes is a few years downturn or an unforeseen event in the basket of bonds & shares to knock a big hole in the finances.
So my view on pensions? Yeah big problem. Anticipating yields over 30 years simply isn't something we seem to be good at. There are far too many unknown variables. We even seem to have entirely failed to take in to account changing demographics as a factor. It's more a case of stupidity than the pension plans of the world sucking the life out of economies. Hey ... Guess what kind of people it is that manage the pension funds and happily promise high yield returns? Nope. It's not that guy who's worried about loosing his job through ill health at the factory, it's that other guy who just got a huge bonus and has private healthcare.
Sadly the end result is. Yes. Pensions are now a problem for developed economies all over the place.
Healthcare
Here I've got a bit of an inside view on the UK's NHS problems. Being a bit of an oldie it spans a few years. Over that time I've seen a continuing cycle:
"We need cheaper centrally managed healthcare, it's an economy of scale"
vs.
"We need regional efficient, effective deployment of services"
There are many back arguments to the above, but that's the cycle I've seen repeating often with each change of government. So what happens then?
A few things. The old sites need to be sold off, often in such a bulk that it distorts the market a little in each region. Sometimes the huge sites lie dormant for years and years. They need paid security to stop travellers and squatters moving in. They don't immediately sell for millions and fund the changes. Funnily enough, when the call comes back to centralise, the derelict ex-hospital sites aren't considered because they are now so out of date and in need of demolition that it's cheaper to do a deal with a developer on a PFI deal on a new site, or expanding a smaller existing site.
So there's your every 4 year+ for various developers to take a bite out of the NHS. A fair few years back, the NHS had to bin it's own property management and architects. "Couldn't afford them. Would be cheaper to out source it". Ping. Wave goodbye to staff who previously had decades of experience managing NHS property. That costs! And welcome in PFI Bob and his golf buddy friends. No. Actually they aren't quite as bothered about getting value for money for the tax payer as the guy who was being paid by the tax payer. They'd rather have a new BMW / Audi for the family, and a nice big wedge of cash out of the next deal thank you very much. Oh. And they know less about hospitals than the people we just put out of a job.
It's not just the property department either. (Can you tell what side of the NHS I dealt with yet?). Every time this contraction, expansion cycle happens, it's taken as a chance to shed some staff along with the few that just can't physically work from the new locations. There goes some more in house skill.
The personal skill factor of employee's is something I see ignored. I think it costs businesses a hell of a lot more over time than is appreciated, especially so in an organisation as huge as a government or health service. It's like constantly stripping the bonus efficiency you had out of a system and binning it. It's also often false economy. Binning the NHS property management levels actually cost more in external consultancy fees even before you get to the increased costs in contract administration, and you're doing with people who know less than the people you had, so on a time charge basis, you're just screwing yourself badly.
Sighs.
Point is. I've seen the NHS get mauled like this time and time again. Every time you get a new bunch of suits and ties who gouge out a profit for as long as they can. PFI was a gift to everyone except the NHS and the tax payer. You're not talking pennies here. Each cycle of change would be flipping costs in the £100's of millions *per county*. A big chunk of that was heading in to private firm hands with the emphasis firmly on profit ahead of value for tax-payers money.
It's even possible. That there may have been the odd bit of behind closed door deals going on. Contractors like public funded work. The bills get paid.
Back to the point. No. Actually, I don't see the NHS as being an entirely impossible idea. I see continual greed and mismanagement, right up to government sanctioned PFI deals, cashing in on the NHS time and time again. I see skills being bled out of the system with very little chance for a system to develop before it's ripped up and changed again. Then there's Mr Economist pointing his finger at it and saying "Hey the NHS costs too much". It never stood a chance Mr Economist. Guess who kicks these cyclical changes off? The finance and economics departments looking for targeted savings with each change of boss. There is no easy billion £ saving, so lets just re-organise the whole thing again, and by the time you've done that, I'll have my pay packet and be out of the door.
Social Security
By now I've almost lost the will to keep typing.
Just no. Are you honestly telling me, that if someone gets made redundant, or falls ill, we as a society just don't give a shit. Nope. I don't want to put my employment insurance with one firm and my health insurance with another, because I've seen what profiteering ass-holes run insurance funds. I've already got private pension funds in my past that are worth nothing now. The government wanted me to go on to those because they didn't want to pay so much out on my state pension. Cheers guys. Nicely shafted me again. So no. I'm not buying that private insurance is safe at all, if it even ever paid out. "We're you miss sold PPI?"...
Blurgh
I'm getting so fed up with the stupidity and narrow minded view on "Welfare" same as the "Socialism" warmongering. I'm fed up with people who have run systems that have constantly failed for decades to be telling us that the only hope of salvation is more of the same. Maybe try figuring out the economics for a system not based on greed for once in the entire history of the human race? What if you did run a health service with very tight monitoring of *any* external profit made from tax-payer money? You supply towels? Beds? Buildings? Machines that go ping? We want to see all your accounts and you're allowed X% profit. No more.... Well ideally, you'd actually get value for money with fair profits and wages resulting from it. In reality? You'll get falsified salary claims, beefed up expenses, all the same old greed as usual, just via new and different methods. Even so. I'd still rather give my method a try than let people die for loosing a job.
First off, there are components to this generic Welfare term.
Pensions, healthcare, social security.
Pensions
In my humble opinion, the problem with pensions is not only that when birth rates decrease, fewer people are around to generate the wealth for the pension pots, but also the constant bubble mentality of pension fund planners. Expected annual growth of funds is estimated too high over lengthy periods of time. All it takes is a few years downturn or an unforeseen event in the basket of bonds & shares to knock a big hole in the finances.
So my view on pensions? Yeah big problem. Anticipating yields over 30 years simply isn't something we seem to be good at. There are far too many unknown variables. We even seem to have entirely failed to take in to account changing demographics as a factor. It's more a case of stupidity than the pension plans of the world sucking the life out of economies. Hey ... Guess what kind of people it is that manage the pension funds and happily promise high yield returns? Nope. It's not that guy who's worried about loosing his job through ill health at the factory, it's that other guy who just got a huge bonus and has private healthcare.
Sadly the end result is. Yes. Pensions are now a problem for developed economies all over the place.
Healthcare
Here I've got a bit of an inside view on the UK's NHS problems. Being a bit of an oldie it spans a few years. Over that time I've seen a continuing cycle:
"We need cheaper centrally managed healthcare, it's an economy of scale"
vs.
"We need regional efficient, effective deployment of services"
There are many back arguments to the above, but that's the cycle I've seen repeating often with each change of government. So what happens then?
A few things. The old sites need to be sold off, often in such a bulk that it distorts the market a little in each region. Sometimes the huge sites lie dormant for years and years. They need paid security to stop travellers and squatters moving in. They don't immediately sell for millions and fund the changes. Funnily enough, when the call comes back to centralise, the derelict ex-hospital sites aren't considered because they are now so out of date and in need of demolition that it's cheaper to do a deal with a developer on a PFI deal on a new site, or expanding a smaller existing site.
So there's your every 4 year+ for various developers to take a bite out of the NHS. A fair few years back, the NHS had to bin it's own property management and architects. "Couldn't afford them. Would be cheaper to out source it". Ping. Wave goodbye to staff who previously had decades of experience managing NHS property. That costs! And welcome in PFI Bob and his golf buddy friends. No. Actually they aren't quite as bothered about getting value for money for the tax payer as the guy who was being paid by the tax payer. They'd rather have a new BMW / Audi for the family, and a nice big wedge of cash out of the next deal thank you very much. Oh. And they know less about hospitals than the people we just put out of a job.
It's not just the property department either. (Can you tell what side of the NHS I dealt with yet?). Every time this contraction, expansion cycle happens, it's taken as a chance to shed some staff along with the few that just can't physically work from the new locations. There goes some more in house skill.
The personal skill factor of employee's is something I see ignored. I think it costs businesses a hell of a lot more over time than is appreciated, especially so in an organisation as huge as a government or health service. It's like constantly stripping the bonus efficiency you had out of a system and binning it. It's also often false economy. Binning the NHS property management levels actually cost more in external consultancy fees even before you get to the increased costs in contract administration, and you're doing with people who know less than the people you had, so on a time charge basis, you're just screwing yourself badly.
Sighs.
Point is. I've seen the NHS get mauled like this time and time again. Every time you get a new bunch of suits and ties who gouge out a profit for as long as they can. PFI was a gift to everyone except the NHS and the tax payer. You're not talking pennies here. Each cycle of change would be flipping costs in the £100's of millions *per county*. A big chunk of that was heading in to private firm hands with the emphasis firmly on profit ahead of value for tax-payers money.
It's even possible. That there may have been the odd bit of behind closed door deals going on. Contractors like public funded work. The bills get paid.
Back to the point. No. Actually, I don't see the NHS as being an entirely impossible idea. I see continual greed and mismanagement, right up to government sanctioned PFI deals, cashing in on the NHS time and time again. I see skills being bled out of the system with very little chance for a system to develop before it's ripped up and changed again. Then there's Mr Economist pointing his finger at it and saying "Hey the NHS costs too much". It never stood a chance Mr Economist. Guess who kicks these cyclical changes off? The finance and economics departments looking for targeted savings with each change of boss. There is no easy billion £ saving, so lets just re-organise the whole thing again, and by the time you've done that, I'll have my pay packet and be out of the door.
Social Security
By now I've almost lost the will to keep typing.
Just no. Are you honestly telling me, that if someone gets made redundant, or falls ill, we as a society just don't give a shit. Nope. I don't want to put my employment insurance with one firm and my health insurance with another, because I've seen what profiteering ass-holes run insurance funds. I've already got private pension funds in my past that are worth nothing now. The government wanted me to go on to those because they didn't want to pay so much out on my state pension. Cheers guys. Nicely shafted me again. So no. I'm not buying that private insurance is safe at all, if it even ever paid out. "We're you miss sold PPI?"...
Blurgh
I'm getting so fed up with the stupidity and narrow minded view on "Welfare" same as the "Socialism" warmongering. I'm fed up with people who have run systems that have constantly failed for decades to be telling us that the only hope of salvation is more of the same. Maybe try figuring out the economics for a system not based on greed for once in the entire history of the human race? What if you did run a health service with very tight monitoring of *any* external profit made from tax-payer money? You supply towels? Beds? Buildings? Machines that go ping? We want to see all your accounts and you're allowed X% profit. No more.... Well ideally, you'd actually get value for money with fair profits and wages resulting from it. In reality? You'll get falsified salary claims, beefed up expenses, all the same old greed as usual, just via new and different methods. Even so. I'd still rather give my method a try than let people die for loosing a job.
30 Nov 2012
Pond scum
Despite my best efforts.
"Pond Scum"
A reasonably accurate way to describe the human race.
We learn nothing. Despite knowing it for years. Example? Oh I don't know, take the recent UK paedophile revelations. Looks on shelf. Yeah. Lets take the Leveson report and Murdoch as well.
What's going on here then? Well. A bunch of people did illegal, immoral and wrong things. Raping children, hacking a dead girl's voice messages, bribing the police and so on and so on.
This happens because as a species we already know that if 49 people in the room say "Ah just do it. Press the button, give the guy a 240v electric shock and then we can all go home". The chances are the guy on the button, whether he wants to or not, will fry the victim. Peer pressure. We all suffer from it.
Where we excel at being pond scum however is:
We naively assumed that our governments and officials in places of power were somehow better than that. Wrong. Actually, if you give people power and opportunity to cover things up, they'll tend to go with that. Stop wagging your finger at the government. I'll bet you're just as bad. I am. It's just my lies and cover ups tend to extend to covering up for forgotten appointments, instead of forgetting to mention to anyone about this guy raping small children or taking a bribe as a police officer.
Thing is. The government and the police get the chance to cover up *really big things!* for years and years and years. Better yet, they can get fairly wealthy at the same time. It's win win.
The other factor in our pond scum skill is:
We have no culture at all for dealing with it. There is no incentive for anyone to break rank and reveal wrong that they've been a part of. First, they'll get victimised by everyone else that's still in on the cover up. But being a brilliant bunch, the general public, despite being better off for the knowledge will lynch them as well. Maybe 2% of the population will be smart enough to go "Hey thanks! You're a bit of an asshole for all that, but at least you did the right thing in the end".
Leveson is pond scum gold. Corruption upon corruption, with only the corrupt investigating the corrupt, to find that they don't need to change anything because that would annoy the corrupt people that started the need for Leveson in the first place.
Paedophile cover up. Same deal. Huge public swell in demand for enquiries, some credible queries and evidence of very notable public figures being involved. And what do we get? Lord McFuckingAlpine. Sorry. Lord McAlpine (fucking), in my opinion deliberately trying to stifle public debate about allegations. To my knowledge, not one single case of libel has been heard or proved. Not one. NOTHING. McAlpine is 100% bluff and bullshit and the only reason that I can see for that is HE IS PROTECTING KNOWN PAEDOPHILES. They might be live, they might be dead, I don't know. But that appears to be his aim as determined from his own actions. Not one thought of "Maybe we should do the right thing here". Just pure denial, concealment and cover up.
Pond scum.
We excel at it.
"Pond Scum"
A reasonably accurate way to describe the human race.
We learn nothing. Despite knowing it for years. Example? Oh I don't know, take the recent UK paedophile revelations. Looks on shelf. Yeah. Lets take the Leveson report and Murdoch as well.
What's going on here then? Well. A bunch of people did illegal, immoral and wrong things. Raping children, hacking a dead girl's voice messages, bribing the police and so on and so on.
This happens because as a species we already know that if 49 people in the room say "Ah just do it. Press the button, give the guy a 240v electric shock and then we can all go home". The chances are the guy on the button, whether he wants to or not, will fry the victim. Peer pressure. We all suffer from it.
Where we excel at being pond scum however is:
We naively assumed that our governments and officials in places of power were somehow better than that. Wrong. Actually, if you give people power and opportunity to cover things up, they'll tend to go with that. Stop wagging your finger at the government. I'll bet you're just as bad. I am. It's just my lies and cover ups tend to extend to covering up for forgotten appointments, instead of forgetting to mention to anyone about this guy raping small children or taking a bribe as a police officer.
Thing is. The government and the police get the chance to cover up *really big things!* for years and years and years. Better yet, they can get fairly wealthy at the same time. It's win win.
The other factor in our pond scum skill is:
We have no culture at all for dealing with it. There is no incentive for anyone to break rank and reveal wrong that they've been a part of. First, they'll get victimised by everyone else that's still in on the cover up. But being a brilliant bunch, the general public, despite being better off for the knowledge will lynch them as well. Maybe 2% of the population will be smart enough to go "Hey thanks! You're a bit of an asshole for all that, but at least you did the right thing in the end".
Leveson is pond scum gold. Corruption upon corruption, with only the corrupt investigating the corrupt, to find that they don't need to change anything because that would annoy the corrupt people that started the need for Leveson in the first place.
Paedophile cover up. Same deal. Huge public swell in demand for enquiries, some credible queries and evidence of very notable public figures being involved. And what do we get? Lord McFuckingAlpine. Sorry. Lord McAlpine (fucking), in my opinion deliberately trying to stifle public debate about allegations. To my knowledge, not one single case of libel has been heard or proved. Not one. NOTHING. McAlpine is 100% bluff and bullshit and the only reason that I can see for that is HE IS PROTECTING KNOWN PAEDOPHILES. They might be live, they might be dead, I don't know. But that appears to be his aim as determined from his own actions. Not one thought of "Maybe we should do the right thing here". Just pure denial, concealment and cover up.
Pond scum.
We excel at it.
12 Nov 2012
Remembrance Day
Reality check time.
To me. Remembrance Day is remembering the almost unbelievable numbers of souls who died in two world wars. The clue is in the "Remembrance" part. From that. My heart and mind is reminded every year of the duty to never allow such global insanity and death to happen again. That is "In their honour". I Honour them by remembering, learning and preventing.
What spooks me a little. Is the subtle twist on that to make it "Thank you to everyone serving in the forces" day. Just stop right there.
In the UK it's "Remembrance" day. It's Remembrance of the deaths in the two world wars. Nothing else. Not "And thanks guys that we might send to another pointless deaths counted in millions upon millions".
I guess growing numbers of people are unaware of the death toll of the two world wars. It becomes abstract over time. This is why we have a Remembrance day. So it doesn't become an abstract. We remember and learn.
Here are the simple facts:
Dead, wounded and missing. First World War: 31,500,000
Civilian and Military deaths. Second World War: 52,200,000
Total from both:
83.7 million
Pause.
Look at that number.
Remember that every single year and why we can't let it happen again.
This year it's bugged me enough to write this little post. Remembrance day (to me) is about remembering the past and learning from it. Nothing else. It doesn't begin to creep in to a celebration of the Military. It's honouring the deaths of unimaginable millions who came before us.
There is nothing wrong with respecting those who put themselves in the military, but that is a totally different issue.
To me. Remembrance Day is remembering the almost unbelievable numbers of souls who died in two world wars. The clue is in the "Remembrance" part. From that. My heart and mind is reminded every year of the duty to never allow such global insanity and death to happen again. That is "In their honour". I Honour them by remembering, learning and preventing.
What spooks me a little. Is the subtle twist on that to make it "Thank you to everyone serving in the forces" day. Just stop right there.
In the UK it's "Remembrance" day. It's Remembrance of the deaths in the two world wars. Nothing else. Not "And thanks guys that we might send to another pointless deaths counted in millions upon millions".
I guess growing numbers of people are unaware of the death toll of the two world wars. It becomes abstract over time. This is why we have a Remembrance day. So it doesn't become an abstract. We remember and learn.
Here are the simple facts:
Dead, wounded and missing. First World War: 31,500,000
Civilian and Military deaths. Second World War: 52,200,000
Total from both:
83.7 million
Pause.
Look at that number.
Remember that every single year and why we can't let it happen again.
This year it's bugged me enough to write this little post. Remembrance day (to me) is about remembering the past and learning from it. Nothing else. It doesn't begin to creep in to a celebration of the Military. It's honouring the deaths of unimaginable millions who came before us.
There is nothing wrong with respecting those who put themselves in the military, but that is a totally different issue.
6 Nov 2012
E-cigs (what you may not know)
Hey it's my blog.
I'm allowed to ramble.
Electronic cigarettes. One way to stop inhaling a vast wad of lung blackening gack. On the surface of it, not a bad idea at all! But here's some insight from a relatively recent tester...
It works.
I went from my regular intake of roll ups down to 1, maybe 2 a day. I didn't buy the first ecig with an intent to stop either. I was intrigued and thought I'd give one a try. How fast it replaced smoking is pretty impressive.
Little side note here. This could be because it's a healthier way to pump nicotine in me at potentially massive doses. That "Oh E-Cigs!" urge could just be "Oh! Pure nicotine!". Which when you think about it, might not be such a brilliant plan.
Put that aside though. Potentially, it's a much healthier and far cheaper way of improving on a tobacco habit. So what's the blog post about?
Initial smoker looks at e-cigs and wants something roughly cigarette like. Something roughly the same size and not that weird please. I did. First kit I got was just a tiny bit larger than a standard superking cigarette. So what's wrong with that?
A couple of things. At that size you're limited by the power of the battery which seems to peak around 300mAh, many being much lower rated. That's the power that heats the coil that gives you the vapour. At this kind of level it's something that will last a few hours with a low power "atomiser". That's the bit that heats the fluid in to the vapour you inhale.
Trouble is, low power, small sized atomisers aren't all that great. You don't get a big fluid reservoir so you have to keep topping things up. You don't get a big surface area of heat because your battery won't take it, so topping it up is even more important for a consistent vape (smoke) experience.
Enter the world of "shiny".
Shiny is what E-Cig forums call all the bits and pieces you then buy to improve on your initial vape. A word of advice here. Keep track of every penny or cent you pay out on e-cig land. Match it up against what smoking was costing you. I reckon it'll take you at the very least 2 or 3 months to begin to break even given the savings on tobacco in the UK.
You get tied to the initial battery format you bought, trying to find the best atomiser / fluid combination for the batteries you spent money on. You also start sampling the range of flavours to find you really don't like quite a lot of them. If you're lucky, you've found a site that only sells top quality items. But a majority of this stuff is mass produced from China, and in my limited experience, sometimes barely meets the test of "suitable for purpose".
Why mention that? Because some of the shiny you'll end up buying sooner than you thought will be replacements for parts you thought might last a few months, but now it's failed on you after two weeks, it feels too late to return it, but it's still useless.
Still. You're determined to stay off the evil tobacco toxins, you stick with it. (Like me). And about £250 later ... hopefully. Still behind breakeven on the fluids and different combinations of systems I've tried. I might have something that will work.
It's nothing like that initial "I want it to look like a ciggie" perception. It's four times the battery power. Manual switched not automatic. More like a cigar than a cigarette, and I have no idea if it'll finally be "the solution" or not.
I've got a worrying theory this straight hit of nicotine habit is enabling some hefty spending in search of an optimal method that doesn't actually exist in E-Cig format. That... Or maybe I'll strike lucky this time and end up with something that will last a few months and make the breakeven worthwhile.
Oh and something else they don't tell you. E-Cig fluids are VG or PG based, or a mix of the two. Some cartridges and tanks will work fine with pure PG, some work far better with a stronger VG ratio in the mix. Basically, expect leaks, burnt atomisers and disappointing taste while you figure all of that out on the way.
Point is? Unless you were a casual smoker anyway, you have to expect figuring out a reliable E-Cig alternative to smoking will cost you a LOT more than that initial kit you may be looking at. Still. How much value do you put on zero tar and 99% less carcinogens while you figure it out? A fair bit apparently. So I'll keep trying...
I'm allowed to ramble.
Electronic cigarettes. One way to stop inhaling a vast wad of lung blackening gack. On the surface of it, not a bad idea at all! But here's some insight from a relatively recent tester...
It works.
I went from my regular intake of roll ups down to 1, maybe 2 a day. I didn't buy the first ecig with an intent to stop either. I was intrigued and thought I'd give one a try. How fast it replaced smoking is pretty impressive.
Little side note here. This could be because it's a healthier way to pump nicotine in me at potentially massive doses. That "Oh E-Cigs!" urge could just be "Oh! Pure nicotine!". Which when you think about it, might not be such a brilliant plan.
Put that aside though. Potentially, it's a much healthier and far cheaper way of improving on a tobacco habit. So what's the blog post about?
Initial smoker looks at e-cigs and wants something roughly cigarette like. Something roughly the same size and not that weird please. I did. First kit I got was just a tiny bit larger than a standard superking cigarette. So what's wrong with that?
A couple of things. At that size you're limited by the power of the battery which seems to peak around 300mAh, many being much lower rated. That's the power that heats the coil that gives you the vapour. At this kind of level it's something that will last a few hours with a low power "atomiser". That's the bit that heats the fluid in to the vapour you inhale.
Trouble is, low power, small sized atomisers aren't all that great. You don't get a big fluid reservoir so you have to keep topping things up. You don't get a big surface area of heat because your battery won't take it, so topping it up is even more important for a consistent vape (smoke) experience.
Enter the world of "shiny".
Shiny is what E-Cig forums call all the bits and pieces you then buy to improve on your initial vape. A word of advice here. Keep track of every penny or cent you pay out on e-cig land. Match it up against what smoking was costing you. I reckon it'll take you at the very least 2 or 3 months to begin to break even given the savings on tobacco in the UK.
You get tied to the initial battery format you bought, trying to find the best atomiser / fluid combination for the batteries you spent money on. You also start sampling the range of flavours to find you really don't like quite a lot of them. If you're lucky, you've found a site that only sells top quality items. But a majority of this stuff is mass produced from China, and in my limited experience, sometimes barely meets the test of "suitable for purpose".
Why mention that? Because some of the shiny you'll end up buying sooner than you thought will be replacements for parts you thought might last a few months, but now it's failed on you after two weeks, it feels too late to return it, but it's still useless.
Still. You're determined to stay off the evil tobacco toxins, you stick with it. (Like me). And about £250 later ... hopefully. Still behind breakeven on the fluids and different combinations of systems I've tried. I might have something that will work.
It's nothing like that initial "I want it to look like a ciggie" perception. It's four times the battery power. Manual switched not automatic. More like a cigar than a cigarette, and I have no idea if it'll finally be "the solution" or not.
I've got a worrying theory this straight hit of nicotine habit is enabling some hefty spending in search of an optimal method that doesn't actually exist in E-Cig format. That... Or maybe I'll strike lucky this time and end up with something that will last a few months and make the breakeven worthwhile.
Oh and something else they don't tell you. E-Cig fluids are VG or PG based, or a mix of the two. Some cartridges and tanks will work fine with pure PG, some work far better with a stronger VG ratio in the mix. Basically, expect leaks, burnt atomisers and disappointing taste while you figure all of that out on the way.
Point is? Unless you were a casual smoker anyway, you have to expect figuring out a reliable E-Cig alternative to smoking will cost you a LOT more than that initial kit you may be looking at. Still. How much value do you put on zero tar and 99% less carcinogens while you figure it out? A fair bit apparently. So I'll keep trying...
2 Nov 2012
Dad thoughts...
This one's about the UK attitude to kids.
It's because I have my kids to entertain and it's revealing. You'd think in this day and age, a playground for kids would be fairly easy to find. Councils provide them, moan about how much they cost, teenagers get drunk and smoke there when the sun goes down (because there's no where else to go). It's a playground. A fairly central social hub.
Well not really. If you're new to an area, try finding a playground. It's not on Google Maps or more local searches. I can't speak for all councils, but they often aren't listed on council websites, not at all around here. They don't get listed in "Local attractions" either. Somehow the playgrounds of the UK have managed to slide past the internet world entirely unnoticed.
The only way I've discovered to find them is to ask people who have kids and have lived in the area for long enough to know a couple. It's bizarre. Even amongst that sample, you'll find people who know of one place, but not another, or 'think there still is one there but not sure'. It's just very odd. Never seem to be signposted. Not marked on maps. Not listed in yellow pages ...
Still. Not to be utterly defeated. Lets search for indoor play areas instead...
Now an odd thing happens here as well. For those of you who have kids, will know by the time 8-9-10 kicks in, kids generally are no longer interested in indoor play areas. Not only that? They are positively unwelcome even before that age. Most complaints I hear in indoor play hellzones are about older children mixing with the younger kids in play areas and tears resulting. Generally a parent gets glowered at. It's all good fun. Point is. What the hell is the 7yr+ kid supposed to do? A few tired arcade machines seems to be the answer. Neat. Just what I wanted to do, pay to go to a large noisy building and then pay even more to let them play computer games instead of stay at home and do it for free.
What bugs this Dad anyway is this void around youth, I'd say worst from 7 to around 14. By the time 14 is kicking around, they can blend in with the skate park crew and things like 10 pin bowling, lasertag, all that kind of stuff opens up. Below 7 the indoor play area exists. I'm struggling to figure out how the British cope with 7 to 14. It's almost like they are just inconvenient, not wanted in adult places, get in the way in toddler places, not big enough to mix at the skate park
Sighs.
It just feels to me that somehow in other countries I've visited that isn't the attitude. In countries where I can't even speak the language, I've usually been able to find playgrounds either from road signs or just because they sensibly put them smack bang in the middle of the shopping arcade. What could be simpler? Kids hate being dragged to the shops, coffee houses / restaurants are happy to serve near enough so you can watch the kids. Kids happier, parents happier, less pissed off kids around, shop owners happier, everyone happier!
I guess in the UK there would be complaints about the noise, or that teenagers hang around it at night and make a mess, or it costs too much ... I'm not sure what it is. But it doesn't seem to happen in the UK.
And a heads up. Yes teenage kids do need to hang around places with other teenage kids doing stupid things like learning to cough up smoke, discovering hangovers and grope the wrong people. That's part of growing up.
Pointless rant. I just wish the British were a bit more inclusive when it came to children, provided more and moaned a hell of a lot less. Maybe even valued them? Seems a bit strange not to consider children as little people who get darn bored unless us provider adult types actually provide some form of entertainment or inclusion. The other side of the rant is perhaps stirred by all the recent pedo allegations flying around. It's saddening and sickening. How can it be so easy for things on this scale to be brushed under a carpet for years with countless victims? Reminds me it's not just some people that ignore or consider kids a liability in Britain. It seems to be the prevalent attitude. No wonder it seems so easy to ignore them.
It's because I have my kids to entertain and it's revealing. You'd think in this day and age, a playground for kids would be fairly easy to find. Councils provide them, moan about how much they cost, teenagers get drunk and smoke there when the sun goes down (because there's no where else to go). It's a playground. A fairly central social hub.
Well not really. If you're new to an area, try finding a playground. It's not on Google Maps or more local searches. I can't speak for all councils, but they often aren't listed on council websites, not at all around here. They don't get listed in "Local attractions" either. Somehow the playgrounds of the UK have managed to slide past the internet world entirely unnoticed.
The only way I've discovered to find them is to ask people who have kids and have lived in the area for long enough to know a couple. It's bizarre. Even amongst that sample, you'll find people who know of one place, but not another, or 'think there still is one there but not sure'. It's just very odd. Never seem to be signposted. Not marked on maps. Not listed in yellow pages ...
Still. Not to be utterly defeated. Lets search for indoor play areas instead...
Now an odd thing happens here as well. For those of you who have kids, will know by the time 8-9-10 kicks in, kids generally are no longer interested in indoor play areas. Not only that? They are positively unwelcome even before that age. Most complaints I hear in indoor play hellzones are about older children mixing with the younger kids in play areas and tears resulting. Generally a parent gets glowered at. It's all good fun. Point is. What the hell is the 7yr+ kid supposed to do? A few tired arcade machines seems to be the answer. Neat. Just what I wanted to do, pay to go to a large noisy building and then pay even more to let them play computer games instead of stay at home and do it for free.
What bugs this Dad anyway is this void around youth, I'd say worst from 7 to around 14. By the time 14 is kicking around, they can blend in with the skate park crew and things like 10 pin bowling, lasertag, all that kind of stuff opens up. Below 7 the indoor play area exists. I'm struggling to figure out how the British cope with 7 to 14. It's almost like they are just inconvenient, not wanted in adult places, get in the way in toddler places, not big enough to mix at the skate park
Sighs.
It just feels to me that somehow in other countries I've visited that isn't the attitude. In countries where I can't even speak the language, I've usually been able to find playgrounds either from road signs or just because they sensibly put them smack bang in the middle of the shopping arcade. What could be simpler? Kids hate being dragged to the shops, coffee houses / restaurants are happy to serve near enough so you can watch the kids. Kids happier, parents happier, less pissed off kids around, shop owners happier, everyone happier!
I guess in the UK there would be complaints about the noise, or that teenagers hang around it at night and make a mess, or it costs too much ... I'm not sure what it is. But it doesn't seem to happen in the UK.
And a heads up. Yes teenage kids do need to hang around places with other teenage kids doing stupid things like learning to cough up smoke, discovering hangovers and grope the wrong people. That's part of growing up.
Pointless rant. I just wish the British were a bit more inclusive when it came to children, provided more and moaned a hell of a lot less. Maybe even valued them? Seems a bit strange not to consider children as little people who get darn bored unless us provider adult types actually provide some form of entertainment or inclusion. The other side of the rant is perhaps stirred by all the recent pedo allegations flying around. It's saddening and sickening. How can it be so easy for things on this scale to be brushed under a carpet for years with countless victims? Reminds me it's not just some people that ignore or consider kids a liability in Britain. It seems to be the prevalent attitude. No wonder it seems so easy to ignore them.
11 Sept 2012
Living in Denial
Yes it's Assange time once more!
This time due to the bewildering logic of denial I keep finding in the likes of David Allen Green and other anti Assange foghorns.
One aspect of the insane arguments between Assange supporters and haters are "facts".
Both sides like to claim they have all the relevant facts. Of course. Being an Assange supporter I'm amused by the denial of simple fact I encounter.
Take a really simple one:
On the same day the women were first interviewed concerning charges against Assange, First prosecutor Maria Haljebo Kjellstrand unlawfully told the press Julian was wanted for rape. Julian was not interviewed or informed. He found out in the tabloid newspaper “Expressen” that he was wanted for double rape.
This is a simple statement of facts that have been recorded. But it's not a fact Assange haters are very comfortable with. You can see the bizarre lengths some haters will go to evade acceptance in this little snippet: http://storify.com/Anoninom/pgpboard-gets-twisted
In the UK at least, we take integrity of the court process rather seriously. In a case where such an unlawful leak has occurred (by the prosecution itself?!) it would be nigh on impossible to form an unbiased jury, and equally impossible to go ahead and prosecute the case. The prosecution has acted illegally to disadvantage the defendant. It's a serious flaw in Sweden's prosecution, not just a fact to argue about for no reason.
Now this brings up the "It's a matter for the courts" foghorn. Apparently that aces historical fact. What kind of logic is that? I was born. According to the foghorn, this isn't actually true unless a court finds it to be so. But lets go a little deeper. Time and time again you can mention this simple fact of a major breach of due process by the prosecution to the alleged victim's disadvantage and be told "It's a matter for the courts".
By taking this view, Assange hater isn't interested in protecting the rights of the potential rape victims. Having tarred anyone who defends Assange as a "Rape Apologist", they then go on to show they have complete disregard for the integrity of the case defending the potential rape victim's rights. You can see David Allen Green's wilful ignorance and denial here: http://storify.com/fluffkin/david-allen-green-drops-in-for-a-chat
Another way of looking at this strange attitude is that the Assange hater has a very strong interest in due process when it comes to having Julian sent to jail in Sweden, but an utter contempt for due process when it comes to some astounding flaws in the prosecution. "Does it send Julian to jail? Yes it's due process. Does it defend the alleged victim's rights? I don't care about due process". Once again. That is the attitude of a rape apologist. What the women of this world need is a strong determined interest in following due process by the prosecution to ensure that rape claim's are brought to court fairly and with good chance of success. David Allen Green and Alan Taylor have utter contempt for defending women's rights, they really are "Rape Apologists" because they don't care at all about the importance of due process in defending victim's rights.
[Later Edit: David Allen Green is a particularly strange case here. In some cases he does indeed defend rape victim's rights as in a recent case in the UK. So the case with David becomes even stranger. Why is he perfectly able to form an opinion on a case in defence of rape victims rights in any other case, but not in the case of Assange? Hmm. Double standards does not maketh the man Dave. What's going on? Social climber who doesn't want to rock the establishment boat? Someone leaning on him? Fear? Makes it worse in a way. A man who portrays himself as fair and reasonable caring more about his social status than the truth?]
The foghorn will smile smugly back and say, that no actually, by insisting the court decides they are defending the victim's rights. Sorry guys. That doesn't cut it. The facts undermining the prosecution are widely known and available. You are choosing to utterly ignore something that a sane balanced individual would be able to comment on given currently available information. If you have in interest in protecting the representation of rape victim's in court, then actually it's a pretty huge detail. The "let the court's decide" argument is simple evasion of an interest in protecting rape victim's rights in general. Why can't you discuss it, or in some cases even bring yourself to admit that it's true? On one hand you'll delight in any detail you can find that presents Julian in a bad light, so why can't you comment on problems in the prosecution? "Let the courts decide" is a smoke screen that makes you look not only stupid, but I'll say it again .. Like a Rape Apologist.
The very same anti Assange foghorn rape apologists will seize on any fact they can find at an absurdly superficial level. "Assange has had his chance of appeal and lost it". For example. Selectively ignoring the highly unusual way Assange's last appeal was overturned. It set a precedent in UK law by being refused on grounds that were not present in the appeal! That's pretty bad news for a fair legal system in the UK let alone for Assange. But the foghorn's are incapable of taking on board such detail. They in this case will stick to the "The court's decided" view and ignore the detail. Again. Any detail that contradicts their blind faith in the legal system is ignored or denied. In the case of David Allen Green, this makes him look like a joke. A self proclaimed legal expert with no interest in the legal process when it suits him?
To quote Craig Murray's recent blog post
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/
"Finally, to those useful idiots who claim that the way to test these matters is in court, I would say of course, you are right, we should trust the state always, fit-ups never happen, and we should absolutely condemn the disgraceful behaviour of those who campaigned for the Birmingham Six."
I'd recommend you go see the article that came from, and other entries in Craig Murray's site.
It's hard work keeping up the continual debate with the foghorn's but the more vile and insulting the foghorn's are, the more important it becomes to keep at it.
This is the kind of vile I'm talking about from the delightful @PGPBOARD (Alan Taylor)
@ArabellaSL @gerge42 @ingeniarius08 @PME200 @DavidAllenGreen Christine was so coked up on acid back then she probably remembers little.
I'd call that slander. It goes without comment from David Allen Green who is also fond of hurling the odd bit of abuse at Christine. A reminder to David Allen Green & Alan Taylor and your indefensible personal attacks. You're insulting the mother of a multi award winning journalist. I'm not aware that either of you have raised a child who has become as internationally significant as Julian has, or even that you have a single award between you, except perhaps for being rape apologist's? Here. I'll award you that one.
This time due to the bewildering logic of denial I keep finding in the likes of David Allen Green and other anti Assange foghorns.
One aspect of the insane arguments between Assange supporters and haters are "facts".
Both sides like to claim they have all the relevant facts. Of course. Being an Assange supporter I'm amused by the denial of simple fact I encounter.
Take a really simple one:
On the same day the women were first interviewed concerning charges against Assange, First prosecutor Maria Haljebo Kjellstrand unlawfully told the press Julian was wanted for rape. Julian was not interviewed or informed. He found out in the tabloid newspaper “Expressen” that he was wanted for double rape.
This is a simple statement of facts that have been recorded. But it's not a fact Assange haters are very comfortable with. You can see the bizarre lengths some haters will go to evade acceptance in this little snippet: http://storify.com/Anoninom/pgpboard-gets-twisted
In the UK at least, we take integrity of the court process rather seriously. In a case where such an unlawful leak has occurred (by the prosecution itself?!) it would be nigh on impossible to form an unbiased jury, and equally impossible to go ahead and prosecute the case. The prosecution has acted illegally to disadvantage the defendant. It's a serious flaw in Sweden's prosecution, not just a fact to argue about for no reason.
Now this brings up the "It's a matter for the courts" foghorn. Apparently that aces historical fact. What kind of logic is that? I was born. According to the foghorn, this isn't actually true unless a court finds it to be so. But lets go a little deeper. Time and time again you can mention this simple fact of a major breach of due process by the prosecution to the alleged victim's disadvantage and be told "It's a matter for the courts".
By taking this view, Assange hater isn't interested in protecting the rights of the potential rape victims. Having tarred anyone who defends Assange as a "Rape Apologist", they then go on to show they have complete disregard for the integrity of the case defending the potential rape victim's rights. You can see David Allen Green's wilful ignorance and denial here: http://storify.com/fluffkin/david-allen-green-drops-in-for-a-chat
Another way of looking at this strange attitude is that the Assange hater has a very strong interest in due process when it comes to having Julian sent to jail in Sweden, but an utter contempt for due process when it comes to some astounding flaws in the prosecution. "Does it send Julian to jail? Yes it's due process. Does it defend the alleged victim's rights? I don't care about due process". Once again. That is the attitude of a rape apologist. What the women of this world need is a strong determined interest in following due process by the prosecution to ensure that rape claim's are brought to court fairly and with good chance of success. David Allen Green and Alan Taylor have utter contempt for defending women's rights, they really are "Rape Apologists" because they don't care at all about the importance of due process in defending victim's rights.
[Later Edit: David Allen Green is a particularly strange case here. In some cases he does indeed defend rape victim's rights as in a recent case in the UK. So the case with David becomes even stranger. Why is he perfectly able to form an opinion on a case in defence of rape victims rights in any other case, but not in the case of Assange? Hmm. Double standards does not maketh the man Dave. What's going on? Social climber who doesn't want to rock the establishment boat? Someone leaning on him? Fear? Makes it worse in a way. A man who portrays himself as fair and reasonable caring more about his social status than the truth?]
The foghorn will smile smugly back and say, that no actually, by insisting the court decides they are defending the victim's rights. Sorry guys. That doesn't cut it. The facts undermining the prosecution are widely known and available. You are choosing to utterly ignore something that a sane balanced individual would be able to comment on given currently available information. If you have in interest in protecting the representation of rape victim's in court, then actually it's a pretty huge detail. The "let the court's decide" argument is simple evasion of an interest in protecting rape victim's rights in general. Why can't you discuss it, or in some cases even bring yourself to admit that it's true? On one hand you'll delight in any detail you can find that presents Julian in a bad light, so why can't you comment on problems in the prosecution? "Let the courts decide" is a smoke screen that makes you look not only stupid, but I'll say it again .. Like a Rape Apologist.
The very same anti Assange foghorn rape apologists will seize on any fact they can find at an absurdly superficial level. "Assange has had his chance of appeal and lost it". For example. Selectively ignoring the highly unusual way Assange's last appeal was overturned. It set a precedent in UK law by being refused on grounds that were not present in the appeal! That's pretty bad news for a fair legal system in the UK let alone for Assange. But the foghorn's are incapable of taking on board such detail. They in this case will stick to the "The court's decided" view and ignore the detail. Again. Any detail that contradicts their blind faith in the legal system is ignored or denied. In the case of David Allen Green, this makes him look like a joke. A self proclaimed legal expert with no interest in the legal process when it suits him?
To quote Craig Murray's recent blog post
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/
"Finally, to those useful idiots who claim that the way to test these matters is in court, I would say of course, you are right, we should trust the state always, fit-ups never happen, and we should absolutely condemn the disgraceful behaviour of those who campaigned for the Birmingham Six."
I'd recommend you go see the article that came from, and other entries in Craig Murray's site.
It's hard work keeping up the continual debate with the foghorn's but the more vile and insulting the foghorn's are, the more important it becomes to keep at it.
This is the kind of vile I'm talking about from the delightful @PGPBOARD (Alan Taylor)
@ArabellaSL @gerge42 @ingeniarius08 @PME200 @DavidAllenGreen Christine was so coked up on acid back then she probably remembers little.
I'd call that slander. It goes without comment from David Allen Green who is also fond of hurling the odd bit of abuse at Christine. A reminder to David Allen Green & Alan Taylor and your indefensible personal attacks. You're insulting the mother of a multi award winning journalist. I'm not aware that either of you have raised a child who has become as internationally significant as Julian has, or even that you have a single award between you, except perhaps for being rape apologist's? Here. I'll award you that one.
Award for Rape Apologists 2012
David Allen Green & Alan Taylor.
"For services in strongly defending a flawed potential rape prosecution at the expense of the not just the alleged victims rights, but the integrity of rape prosecutions in general."
9 Sept 2012
Redressing the balance on Assange
A common accusation against those who wish to see Julian Assange shipped to Sweden for no particular reason (but they *really* want it to happen), is that Asssange's supporters are evasive of facts. As it happens. That's what we accuse the rabid pitbull types in the anti-Assange camp of.
Here's a whole bundle of facts lifted from a comment on Naomi Wolf's piece here: http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02/eight-big-problems-with-the-case-against-assange-must-read-by-naomi-wolf/
The only attribution I have is "Jettatura". As posted in the comments.
However, here are *SOME* of the facts the anti-Assange Troll's are delighted to ignore. No really! Even this misses some points including one of J.A.'s accusers previously working for the CIA's mutual benefit! If I sent you this page link, this is a pretty darn good summary, the rabbit hole goes even deeper, and whoever you thought was telling you the turth didn't mention even one tenth of it did they?
If you want the surface skim version, skip down to around point 24, although honestly? I think it's worth being reminded of the previous 23 points so I left them all in.
If you want the surface skim version, skip down to around point 24, although honestly? I think it's worth being reminded of the previous 23 points so I left them all in.
Christine Assange, mother of WikiLeaks founder and Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange, has spent many long months reaching out to supporters and urging them to contact their local political representatives. Recognising that many politicians still do not know the true story behind WikiLeaks and her son’s legal battles, she asks supporters to give them the facts and request their assistance.
Christine has been using her @AssangeC Twitter account and the #fact4mp hashtag to post the following important talking points for supporters to disseminate:
1. WikiLeaks and Julian Assange have not been charged with any crime in any country in the world. See http://justice4assange.com
2. WikiLeaks and Julian Assange have been recognized for quality investigative journalism with many prestigious awards, including:
- Julian was unanimously given the Sam Adams Award in 2010, for Integrity in Intelligence (Iraq War Logs) by a panel of retired senior U.S. military and intelligence officers.
- Julian won the Amnesty UK Media Award in 2009 for the “Cry of Blood” report into extra-judicial killings and disappearances in Kenya.
- Julian won The Economist magazine’s Freedom of Expression Award in 2008.
- Julian won the Sydney Peace Foundation’s Gold Medal in 2011 “For exceptional courage and initiative in pursuit of human rights”. The Sydney Peace Foundation has only awarded 4 Gold Medals in 16 years, with Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama being 2 of the other 3 recipients.
- Julian won the Martha Gellhorn Prize For Journalism in 2011: “He is brave, determined and independent and a true agent of people not power… [WikiLeaks'] goal of justice through transparency is in the oldest and finest tradition of journalism.”
- Julian won a Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism in 2011.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange for more.
3. WikiLeaks has a perfect record regarding information reliability. No government has denied the authenticity of any documents.
4. WikiLeaks redacts its documents, so to date not one person has been physically harmed by its publications.
5. WikiLeaks exposes government and corporate corruption, fraud, shady deals, war crimes, torture, and kidnapping. It is in the public interest to know these things.
6. WikiLeaks partnered with The Guardian, New York Times, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, and El Pais to publish Cablegate. Why target only WikiLeaks?
7. WikiLeaks acts in accordance with traditional journalism. It publishes information given by various sources.
8. WikiLeaks acts like traditional media but protects its sources with a secure anonymous Drop Box.
9. WikiLeaks is a legal, legitimate, online news publisher, recognized as such by other journalist organizations worldwide. In 2012, WikiLeaks is partnered with nearly 100 media organisations around the world.
10. WikiLeaks is a non-profit independent publisher funded by donations from ordinary citizens from around the world. Because WikiLeaks believes in transparency its financial records are publicly accountable.
11. WikiLeaks goal is altruistic: “Justice Through Transparency.” WikiLeaks is a catalyst for democracy movements around the world.
12. WikiLeaks launched in 2006 to provide safety for whistleblowers in Third World regimes and dictatorships, and to inform the world of their plight.
13. For the first four years, WikiLeaks published government and corporate wrong-doings from many countries.
14. In 2010 WikiLeaks received files for the U.S. Collateral Murder video, Afghan War Diaries, Iraq War logs, and U.S. Embassy cables.
15. The U.S. war videos and documents revealed war crimes and lying by the U.S. government, regarding civilian casualties and war progress.
16. U.S. cables revealed government and corporate exploitation, bullying, and manipulation of other governments (as well as good actions by U.S. officials).
17. The cables revealed and confirmed to people WHO in their own governments and corporations was involved in shady wrong-doings.
18. WikiLeaks exposed the attempted ALP “Clean Feed” internet censorship plan for Australia.
19. The Australian government promoted “Clean Feed” as a way to filter child porn. The police opposed this as the images were peer-to-peer (not websites).
20. WikiLeaks published the “Clean Feed” blacklist, which included politically contentious sites, anti-abortion sites, and euthanasia sites as well as WikiLeaks.
21. “Clean Feed” was abandoned as a direct result of WikiLeaks’ exposure of its fundamentally undemocratic political nature.
22. WikiLeaks exposed ALP Senator Mark Arbib as a protected source for the U.S. government for 4 years. Arbib was involved in an ALP coup that overthrew an elected Australian Prime Minister.
23. A 2007 WikiLeaks cable showed that the Australian government was risking the Great Barrier Reef, and secretly wavering penalties for U.S. tankers breaching laws in Torres Strait.
24. In line with WikiLeaks’ harm-minimization procedures, WikiLeaks asked the U.S. State Department to help with cable redactions. They refused.
25. Note the timing:
5/4/10 Collateral Murder video released
24/6/10 Gillard coup
25/7/10 Afghan Diaries released
20/8/10 Sex allegations surface
22/10/10 Iraq War logs released
28/11/10 Cablegate released
18 August 2010 (two days before the sex allegations) Anders Hellner, a senior policy adviser to the Swedish Foreign Policy Institute, told Swedish TV News Rapport: “The situation is escalating because an official Swedish party which is represented at the European Parliament (the Pirate Party, which had announced it would host WikiLeaks servers) is taking up what the U.S views is a very controversial role. The Americans are looking to stop this somehow.”
26. After the Afghan War Diary release, Julian visited Sweden to obtain residency and base WikiLeaks there (because they have good whistleblower laws).
27. The U.S. was aware of more WikiLeaks releases to come and wrote threatening letters. Julian warned of entrapment plans.
28. Woman AA invited Julian to speak in Sweden at a seminar about Afghanistan in mid August 2010
29. Woman AA offered Julian her flat to stay in as she was going to be away but returned early.
30. Woman SW stated she went to seminar to meet Julian & invited him to stay at her place.
31. Both women have stated to police and media that sex was consensual and non-violent.
32. Exculpatory evidence (txts 2 friends) show women had no complaints re sex till finding out about each other.
33. Evidence (100+ txts btwn AA and SW) speak of revenge, making money, and ruining Julian’s reputation by going to press.
34. AA takes SW to visit a police station, not close by, but where her friend Officer Irmeli Krans works.
35. Officer Krans stayed back hours after shift ended to interview SW.
36. Swedish police breach all their own procedures interviewing women AA & SW.
37. Police interviews with women AA & SW were not recorded (against procedure).
38. SW was so upset that police were going to allege rape, she does not sign her interview statement.
39. SW has stated she felt “railroaded” into making the complaint.
40. In Sweden, consensual, non-violent sex can be legally defined as “rape”.
41. On the same day, 1st prosecutor Maria Haljebo Kjellstrand unlawfully told the press Julian was wanted for rape.
42. Julian was not interviewed or informed. He found out in the tabloid newspaper “Expressen” that he was wanted for double rape.
43. Within hours there were millions of website hits for “Assange” + “rape” causing irreparable harm to Julian’s reputation.
44. Next day, after reviewing the file, Stockholm’s Chief Prosecutor Eva Finne threw out the rape allegation.
45. “I consider there are no grounds 4 suspecting he has committed rape,” said Eva Finne, the Chief Prosecutor.
46. The investigation into the lesser allegations of harassment only continued.
47. Julian offered himself for interview on 30/8/10. Police promised not to unlawfully leak interview to the media again.
48. Julian’s police interview unlawfully turned up in the tabloid Expressen again the next day.
49. Julian and his witnesses’ interviews are videotaped while the women and their witnesses are not.
50. The witness list becomes unbalanced against Julian as police do not follow up interviews with his witnesses.
51. Police continue to leak file to tabloid media redacting sections favourable to Julian or unfavourable to women.
52. The interpreter in police interrogation Gun Von Krusenstjerna was not authorized by relevant authority.
53. Swedish Social Democrat politician Claus Borgstrum is appointed as lawyer for AA & SW.
54. Claus Borgstrum and partner Thomas Bodstrum run a thriving legal practice around rape cases.
55. Officer Krans, Borgstrum, Bodstrum and AA are all members of the Swedish Social Democrats Party.
56. One month after the Assange sex allegations, they all stood for election on a sexual offences reform platform.
57. Swedish judge Brita Sundberg-Weitman (retired) says: “Mr Borgstrum is a politician whose platform is associated with radical feminist activism, and he has developed a legal practice around acting for complainants in rape cases. In recent years, elements of the Social Democrats Party, including one of the complainants (AA) who is a well-known and aspiring social democrat politician, and her lawyer Mr Borgstrum and some public officials like Ms Ny, have taken the lead amending Swedish law, so as to try to make it more favourable to women. It is a fact that people like Marianne Ny and Claes Borgstrum have worked in co-operation to produce our new, more stringent sexual offences laws.”
58. Borgstrum appealed the decision to dismiss the rape investigation to prosecutor Marianne Ny.
59. Julian Assange was not informed about the appeal, so he had no opportunity to make submissions.
60. On the 1st of September 2010, Marianne Ny granted the appeal and reinstated the rape investigation.
61. “It is completely false that we are afraid of Assange and therefore didn’t want to file a complaint… He is not violent and I do not feel threatened by him,” woman AA told Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet on 21st August 2010.
62. The alleged “deliberately torn” condom (submitted as evidence by AA) contained NO DNA from either AA or JA.
63. There are significant differences between the SW’s original statement and the one that was released to the media.
64. Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet’s application for access to police file was granted on Sept 1st 2010. Julian’s Swedish lawyer Mr Hurtig’s applications for access to the police file (in September-November) were denied.
65. Julian remained in Sweden for 5 weeks to answer the allegations against him. Through his lawyer, Mr Hurtig, Julian made proactive attempts to arrange an interview with the Swedish prosecutor. Prosecutor Ny refused all Julian’s offers for interview before giving him permission to leave Sweden on September 15th 2010.
66. In September 22nd 2010, an interview was finally agreed to by Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny for September 29th 2010. The US Pentagon announced a 120 man team dedicated to “taking action” against WikiLeaks, ahead of the release of the Iraq War Logs and Cablegate. Julian was maintaining a low profile regarding threats to his security and could not be contacted and informed of the September 29th interview date. Julian left Sweden on September 27th 2010 for a pre-arranged business meeting with Cablegate media partner Der Spiegel. Julian didn’t “flee” Sweden. He stayed in Sweden a total of 37 days, after these allegations delayed his business overseas. He left with official Swedish permission.
67. On September 29th 2010, Julian phoned his lawyer to report that his luggage (including three laptops) had disappeared on the Stolkholm-Berlin flight. His Swedish lawyer Mr Hurtig then informed Julian (for the first time) of the 28th September interview. Julian offered to return to Sweden for an interview on the 9th or 10th of October. This was rejected because it was the weekend. Julian then offered to return to Sweden on October 11th 2010. This was rejected as “too far away”.
68. In October-November 2010, Julian was in London working on the Iraq War Logs release and preparing for Cablegate with media partners The Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, El Pais, and the New York Times. The WikLeaks Iraq War Logs were released on October 23rd 2010. On October 27th, the CIA refused to either confirm or deny suggestions of plans to assassinate Julian. Julian had been staying at the Frontline Club (a London club for journalists) during much of October and November 2010. He conducted several talks during this period, including an address at the UN in Geneva.
69. In October-November 2010 Julian’s UK lawyers offered him for interview under the Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) Scheme between the UK and Sweden. Swedish prosecutor Ny refused all Julian’s offers for interview by the usual MLA protocol.
70. On November 2nd 2010, Julian’s lawyers informed U.K police that he could be contacted through them for the legal process.
71. Despite refusing to interview Julian for seven weeks, Sweden was granted a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) to question him (November 18th, 2010).
72. Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny also sought to have Julian held incommunicado pending a future trial.
73. An EAW is used for prosecution, not questioning. Julian’s EAW is highly irregular. “An EAW should not be used for the purposes of investigation.” – UK Parliament Joint Committee on Human Rights, June 2011.
74. November 20th 2010 Despite being informed of Julian Assange’s whereabouts, Sweden authorized Interpol to make a PUBLIC Red Notice for him.
75. “I consider it inappropriate and disproportionate that Ms Ny sought an Interpol Arrest Warrant and EAW for Mr Assange” said expert witness (retired) Swedish judge Britta Sundberg-Weitman. The only recent example of Sweden issuing an Interpol Red Notice and an EAW for a sex offence involved a repeat offending paedophile.
76. November 26th 2010 Sweden issued an EAW for Julian (2 days before WikiLeaks started publishing Cablegate). This would have lead to Julian’s arrest within 10 days but the warrant was invalid and had to be re-issued on December 2nd 2010.
77. November 27th 2010 The U.S State Department sent an intimidating letter in reply to a letter from Julian requesting input regarding harm-minimization from Cablegate.
78. November 28th 2010 WikiLeaks commenced ppublishing the U.S. diplomatic cables (a.k.a. Cablegate).
79. WikiLeaks US cables revealed secret dealings between U.S. and Swedish officials to bypass the democratic process in Sweden. Sweden secretly agreed to allow U.S. access to large amounts of data on Swedish citizens. Swedish MP Camilla Lindberg resigned in protest, declaring: “By selling out its own people, the government has sought to curry the favour of the U.S. Little by little we continue to dismantle democracy.”
80. Karl Rove, former political adviser to U.S. President George Bush, is a political adviser to Swedish Prime Minister Fredrick Reinfeldt. Rove quit U.S. politics in disgrace after orchestrating vicious smear campaigns against political opponents. Karl Rove is also good friends with Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt.
81. November 29th 2010: U.S. politicians ‘declared war’ on Wikieaks:
“Assange is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency as Al Qaeda?” – Sarah Palin.
“I would look at this as a military issue, with potentially military action against him and his organization.” – Tom Shaffer, former Defence Intelligence Agency official, Fox News.
“Anything less than execution is too kind a penalty.” – Mike Huckabee, Republican Presidential candidate.
82. November 30th 2010: Interpol issued a Red Notice for Julian Paul Assange to 188 countries.
83. More threats from politicians:
“Well, I think Assange should be assassinated, actually. I think Obama should put out a contract and maybe use a drone or something. … I would not feel unhappy if Assange ‘disappeared’.” – Tom Flannagan, former senior adviser to Canadian PM, November 30th 2010.
“We’re at war. I hope (US Attorney General) Eric Holder… will… get our laws in line with being at war.” – Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, November 30th 2010.
Julian Assange should be “prosecuted as a terrorist.” – Senator Rick Santorum, GOP presidential candidate, November 30th 2010.
“He should be treated as an enemy combatant. WikiLeaks should be closed down.” – Newt Gingrich, 5 December 2010.
“A dead man can’t leak stuff… Illegally shoot the son of a bitch.” – Bob Beckel, Fox News, December 6th 2010.
84. December 7th 2010: Obama administration pressures Paypal, Visa and Mastercard to block donations to WikiLeaks, shutting off 95% of their funds. Western Union and Bank of America followed soon afterwards. In early December 2010 Paypal also froze 60,000 euros of WikiLeaks donations held by the German charity Wau Holland Foundation.
On December 6th 2010 Julian’s Defence Fund (containing 31,000 euros) was frozen by Swiss Bank Post Finance. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and UN Rapporteur for Freedom of Opinion and Expression condemned the WikiLeaks blockade.
“The financial blockade is a free speech issue,” said Trevor Timm, activist for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “The government, realizing they couldn’t charge WikiLeaks with a crime for publishing classified information – because all newspapers do that – decided to pressure private companies like Amazon, Visa, and MasterCard into banning WikiLeaks.”
The suppression of donations is essentially an end-run around the First Amendment, asserted Timm. “The government is not technically doing the censoring – they’re leaving the dirty work to private corporations. Mainstream newspapers like The New York Times or the Wall Street Journal print classified information all the time. It’s been happening for decades, and no one has ever been prosecuted for it.”
On January 14th 2011 the U.S.Treasury declined Senator Peter King’s request to blacklist WikiLeaks or Assange as there were no grounds to do so.
In July 2011 WikiLeaks lodged a complaint about the financial blockade with the European Commissioner for infringement of EU Anti-Trust Laws. They are still awaiting an answer.
It is estimated that since the blockade WikiLeaks has been prevented from receiving over $20 million in donations.
85. The U.S government also pressured Internet providers to terminate services to WikiLeaks. For example, on December 1st 2010, Amazon removed WikiLeaks from their storage servers. On December 2nd the DNS register serving WikiLeaks.org stopped pointing to the domain. On December 20th Apple removed an app that allowed iPhone users to search WikiLeaks cables.
86. December 5th 2010 Prosecutor Ny mislead the public by stating: “Both British and Swedish law prevent me from questioning Assange in London.” She made the same allegation in a December 3rd interview with TIME magazine.
The use of a video link is an established protocol per Swedish ruling (SC-NJA (2007) 337), which also states that it is disproportionate to issue EAW’s for questioning when a person is co-operating. The proper, proportionate, and legal means of requesting a person for questioning in UK is through the Mutual Legal Assistance Scheme. Since Julian’s UK house arrest in 2010, Swedish prosecutor Ny has rejected ALL his offers to be interviewed at Scotland Yard or the Swedish Embassy.
87. On December 7th 2010 Julian went voluntarily with his lawyer to the Kentish Town police station in London to answer the EAW. The EAW was the first document Julian received from Swedish Prosecutors in English (a translation was provided by UK police). This was also the first time Julian had been informed in writing of the specific allegations and potential charges against him.
88. The EAW and Interpol Red Notice were issued just before and executed just after Cablegate began publishing. Had Julian returned to Sweden in October/November he would have been held incommunicado in prison and we may not have seen Cablegate.
89. On December 7th 2010 Julian went into voluntary custody in the UK. He spent ten days in solitary confinement in the maximum security Wandsworth Prison. Bail of £180,000 was put up for Julian, but Sweden opposed bail and Judge Riddle refused it.
90. December 8th 2010 The Independent newspaper cited “diplomatic sources” confirming informal talks between Sweden and the US about extraditing Julian.
Michael Mukasey, a former U.S. Attorney General stated: “When one is accused of a very serious crime, it is common to hold him in respect of a lesser crime, while you assemble evidence of a second crime.” (The Guardian 7/12/10)
91. On December 14th 2010 Julian was granted bail of $374,000 (cash and sureties) and surrendered his passport. He was placed under house arrest with a nightly curfew, fitted with an electronic ankle tracking device, and ordered to report daily to the local police station. The Swedish government opposed bail and filed an appeal, so Julian went back to prison for 48 hrs till the appeal hearing on December 16th 2010. Sweden lost the appeal and Julian was released on bail till the EAW hearing, set down for January 11th 2011.
*
UK Supreme Court Agreed Statement of Facts (i.e. facts agreed by Swedish authorities):http://t.co/x62F9ah2
Former Australian diplomat Tony Kevin’s brief to Australian MPs on political agenda, U.S and Sweden, entrapment: http://wlcentral.org/node/1414
Lawyer Jen Robinson brief to Australian MPs on facts, timeline, players, concerns re Sweden fit up re WikiLeaks: http://wlcentral.org/node/1418
Lawyer Peter Kemp brief to Australian MPs 2/3/11 re breaches of legal and human rights, political agendas, extradition: http://wlcentral.org/node/1414
Comprehensive verifiable facts and media resources on Swedish extradition and US Extradition:http://www.justice4assange.com
OzWikiWatch, a site to help Australians contact their MPs and Senators and build a register of political support of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks: http://ozwikiwatch.blogspot.com
2012-06-20 Swedish extradition facts from Christine Assange
Julian Assange’s mother Christine recently tweeted the following facts about extraditions involving the US, the UK, Sweden, and Australia.
1. Australian PM Julia Gillard and Opposition leader Tony Abbot backed new Extradition Act Amendments making it easier for U.S.A to extradite Aussies. The Greens fought it.
2. For the FIRST TIME Aussies can be now be extradited for minor offences.
3. The protection of “political” motives has been weakened. If the charge is “terrorism” then “political” cannot apply to prevent extradition.
4. The U.S.A. recently expanded its definition of “terrorist” to include peaceful protesters – “Low level terrorism”.
5. Under the new NDAA legislation, the U.S became a police state – citizens and foreigners can be arrested without warrant and indefinite detention applies.
6. In 1971 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it legal to publish classified documents. Obama is now trying to label media who do so as terrorists.
7. Modifications to the act included changing “protection from death penalty” to “likelihood the death penalty would be carried out”.
8. Note that the U.S.A is in the top 5 countries for killing its own citizens, and the only Western country in that top 5.
9. Even Minor Offences under the new Extradition Amendments are punished with up to 12 months imprisonment.
10. The UK/US Bilateral Treaty allows the U.S.A to extradite from the UK without any prima facie case (i.e. evidence).
11. The Swedish/US Bilateral Treaty gets around safeguards of normal extradition with a fast-track “Temporary Surrender” clause.
12. The US Grand Jury convenes in secret. There are 4 prosecutors, no defence, and no judge. It can issue indictments for Extradition with no proper legal process.
13. Sweden has NEVER refused an Extradition request from the U.S.A.
14. In 2001 Sweden gave two innocent Egyptian refugees to the CIA for rendition to Egypt, where they were tortured.
15. The Swedish Justice Minister who signed off on the CIA rendition torture flight was Thomas Bodström.
16. Thomas Bodström is now the business partner of Claes Borgström, the politician/lawyer of the two Swedish women in the Assange case.
17. The Australian Greens supported a motion by Senator Scott Ludlam to protect Julian from “Temporary Surrender” to the U.S.A via Sweden. Both Labor and the Coalition opposed it.
7 Sept 2012
David Allen Green finds me on Twitter...
The point from all this is (if you bother to read it), the likes of David Allen Green have outspoken views on the fact that Assange should be prosecuted in Sweden. This, in the eyes of many makes them defenders of the alleged victims in the case. However David constantly fails to take any account of the complete failure of the Swedish police and media to follow due process in the prosecution.
In summary, he isn't arguing in the interests of providing the best case for possible prosecution and the defence of alleged sexual assault victim's rights. He is arguing solely for the prosecution of Assange, with acute interest to detail of due process on the defence side, and complete disregard for due process on the side of the prosecution.
Knowing that and reading the below, can you honestly find David Allen Green an unbiased and well informed commentator on the case against Assange? Can you honestly say he is acting in the defence of the alleged victims? I can't. I find him unable to answer simple questions, evasive and resorting to producing an argument entirely unrelated to the state of the Swedish prosecution to defend his lack of ability to explain himself.
For the sake of it, David's sole defence is that Assange's lawyer misled the court by claiming Assange made himself available for further interview before leaving Sweden. You might be stunned to find the main references to this go back to an article written by David Allen Green. Point one. It's clearly stated in other accounts that Assange did offer to attend interviews and was refused by Sweden. David describes this as a "scathing comment" on Assange's lawyer. In fact it appears no more than a simply stated finding that the magistrate in this case found the Swedish prosecution had made attempts to interview Assange. Yes they did. They also refused to accept the times that Assange could make himself available. So who's the winner on that point? The point all of David's defence of his position rests... Is tenacious at best.
Question
for people
RT'ng David Allen Green. Are you aware of the complete disregard
for due process by Swedish police, media etc?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)