web analytics

Those whom the gods wish to destroy…..

By Mike Cunningham On July 28th, 2015 at 3:36 pm

Being a fairly rational soul, I just cannot fathom the reality which certain people, nearly all of whom are politicians or high-profile so-called sporting celebrities, seem to wish to reside in. Times without number, we see men and women in high office or public standing, brought low as a direct result of truly foolish, usually sexual but not always, behaviour. Is it simply hubris, that strange sensation which tells them that ‘they can get away with it’; or ‘no-one is watching’, or the last and probably the most foolish, ‘no-one can touch me because of who I am’?

The list is endless, but just the latest in a long sordid line are the revelations regarding Lord Sewel, some cocaine and a couple of prostitutes who were obviously more mercenary than usual. Here is a man who was at the very backbone of political life, and he throws it all away for what? Seemingly for very little indeed. John Buttifant The Lord Sewel, Baron Sewel CBE, BA, MScEcon, PhD, LL.D., by very virtue of the letters after his name and title, is not a daft man; he’s got a Degree, a Masters, a PhD, and he piloted through the Lords the whole Scottish Devolution kerfuffle. Okay, he didn’t do the last job totally by himself, but his finger was on the thread, and his team did the business. So why the hookers? Why the totally stupid faffing about with an orange bra? He’ll be lucky if he’s not doing time along with the ordinary criminals, except, if he is charged, it’ll probably be a stiff slap on; no better not, he may enjoy that!

The list of politicians who have grovelled for forgiveness just goes on, with the name of John Prescott, he who ‘WorkedForCunard’ featuring prominently, alongside such paragons as Jeremy Thorpe, cleared of plotting the murder of his homosexual lover, but really as guilty as sin; David Mellor for having taken a holiday courtesy of the PLO, as well as screwing some whore; Neil Hamilton for taking cash for questions from that paragon of virtue Mohammed Fayed. John Major, the man who would later become Prime Minister, screwing Edwina Currie in a four-year long affair: the mind boggles, not for the affair, but for risking everything for a screw with the Westminster Bicycle?

Move the red-lined ‘scope towards the ‘Celebs’ and the target area becomes almost too rich, with the ‘clean-living family man’ image of the wealthy Ryan Giggs ever-so-slightly tarnished after the super-injunction failed to stop the news of his sexual activity with some slapper, and then the bombshell of his eight-year affair with his brother’s wife; then the strangely-hushed reporting of the suicide of some football bloke called Gary Speed. or the strange case of the ex-wife of the Sultan of Brunei who claimed she could silence the UK Parliament over the facts of her abortion and gambling. (follow the link, and search for ‘Burby’) As I wrote, there are too many to select more than a few names, but the reader must get the picture. The ‘sportsmen’ or celebrity builds up a reputation with a sporting ability, which appears to draw a fan following; they parlay that ability into the big bucks, and then; what happens? Do they lose sight of their character? Do they realise the pressure which their screwing around places on their families? Do they even care?
The reason for my writing is important, for one of the very few freedoms given us by our rulers is under review. It is true that Sewel’s ruin would have been made public without the Act; but we would not have learned about the scope of the Expenses scandal without it. A great many stories have come under scrutiny because of the Freedom of Information Act, and the politicians have learned to detest this one Act, which makes them ‘reveal all’. A committee has been formed to scrutinise the Freedom of Information Act, and as Tony Blair himself stated that his one regret was proceeding with this Act, we can only watch and listen as our freedoms are once more curtailed, by the very people who said it would be so good!

Congress shall make no law

By Patrick Van Roy On February 11th, 2015 at 4:43 pm

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Unless of course you’re a Democrat on the FEC.  These people need to be Tarred and Feathered (just an expression, I’m not calling for it to actually happen)

They once again are trying to take away our Freedom of Speech… this is an outrage!

 

Federal Election Commission to Consider Regulating Online Political Speech

(CNSNews.com) — The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is holding a hearing today to receive public feedback on whether it should create new rules regulating political speech, including political speech on the Internet that one commissioner warned could affect blogs, YouTube videos and even websites like the Drudge Report.

The hearing is a response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC last year, which struck down the FEC’s previous cap on aggregate campaign contributions from a single donor in an election cycle.

Before the decision, individuals were limited to a combined total of $46,200 in contributions to all federal candidates, and $70,800 to federal political action committees and parties.

Individuals are no longer restricted by aggregate limits, which Chief Justice John Roberts said “intrude without justification on a citizen’s ability to exercise ‘the most fundamental First Amendment activities’.”

They may now “contribute up to $2,600 per election to a federal candidate, $10,000 per calendar year to a state party committee, $32,400 per calendar year to a national party committee, and $5,000 per calendar year to a PAC [political action committee],” according to the FEC.

The commission, which consists of three Republican and three Democratic members, last considered such regulations in 2005. However, intense opposition from First Amendment groups resulted in rules that were limited to paid advertisements from political campaigns, parties, and PACs.

This time around, organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation have warned that some Democrats on the commission would like to impose much more burdensome regulations that could serve as the equivalent of spending caps in restricting political speech.

Read the rest of this entry »

Frankie shoots from the hip: and misses!

By Mike Cunningham On January 16th, 2015 at 10:05 am

When still a young man, I served a five-year apprenticeship. Once out of my ‘time’, I joined the Merchant Navy, and realised how much I still had to learn; about people, about my work, about the fact that, when you are an Electrical Engineering Officer, you are the guy to go to when things go wrong. You learn fast, or you don’t survive. All the other Engineering Officers, junior and senior, know very little about your line of work, because that’s what you have been trained for. So you cope; you answer the questions, and those answers had better be right, from Day One.

Transfer those thoughts, those ideals and ideas, to another line of work, a significantly different work, and a much more responsible position, and the answers must still be the correct ones, every time. Imagine you have been in the ranks of the Roman Catholic priesthood, and through a certain rigorous process, you become a Cardinal, a Prince of the Church of Rome. Then, one day, out of a cloudless blue sky, comes the thunderbolt: your close colleagues believe you have the qualities to be their leader, the religious prince of Princes, the Pope. You impress many with your humility, your willingness to learn, your acceptance of a simple life, even as Head of the Church of Rome. You continue to stay in a small religious hotel, you don’t want all the fuss, the attention. You commence your own crusades for tolerance, for acceptance, for peace; and it is commonly felt, even amongst your opponents, that you are doing a pretty good job.

And then you screw it all up, in the space of ten seconds, when you state that the Freedom to Speak, the very Freedom of Expression, has its limits. The Pope said “”One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people’s faith, one cannot make fun of faith.”.

Well, Frankie, you are dead wrong. You may be considered ‘infallible’ by your billion-strong congregation, but only on matters of Dogma, of Faith: in everything else, you are just another fallible human being, and you got the Freedom bit totally, utterly wrong! What you have espoused, what you have told your followers; that is the excuse used by the murderous killers of the Charlie Hebdo staffers.

‘Freedom’ is more than a state of mind

By Mike Cunningham On August 29th, 2014 at 10:56 am

 

I wish to claim a new British and all-comers world record for the shortest time that a comment has been up on a Guardian website before being removed for not abiding by ‘Community Standards’; which of course is Guardian code-speak for obliterating any comment which they do not agree with.

My comment was on the article which covered the funeral of the black bloke shot in St. Louis, and the attendance of the rabble-rousing Al Sharpton at that funeral.

My comment, taken from my own site’s comment upon the stories surrounding the ‘alleged victim‘ was actually visible for forty-nine seconds, which, by Guardian standards, is actually pretty good!

‘Bad taste’ does not deserve the sack!

By Mike Cunningham On June 17th, 2014 at 5:28 pm

It is a strange truth about this strange nation which we have morphed into, that a young man can be sacked for speaking his mind, and telling the truth as he sees it.

A civil servant in Liverpool has been fired for using government computers to post abuse about the Hillsborough disaster on the Wikipedia website following an investigation by The Telegraph.
The Whitehall official used the government intranet to mock the 1989 tragedy in which 96 Liverpool fans died at Sheffield Wednesday’s football ground. An inquest into the deaths is being held.
The man, an administrative officer, edited the phrase “You’ll never walk alone”, the anthem of Liverpool FC, to read: “You’ll never walk again.”
The 24 year-old later added the phrase “This is a s—hole” to the Wikipedia page for Anfield and “nothing for the victims of the Heysel disaster” to a section of the site dedicated to the Liverpool ground’s Hillsborough memorial.

As with the ‘Sacred Inquiry’, as well as the ‘Holy Inquests’, the truth about what happened at that football ground will never really be established, mainly because the thousand-odd drunken Liverpool ‘fans’, and their truly disgraceful conduct of swarming the gates; which ended in the death by suffocation of their compatriots at the front of the enclosure, will be either disregarded, or passed over, and the police will be blamed for everything.

 

and if you don’t write it; you might thrive!

By Mike Cunningham On November 9th, 2013 at 10:04 am

I am not a long-term fan of Michael Bloomberg, the multi-billionaire owner of the leading business information system Bloomberg Terminals, and now of course the ex-Mayor of New York City. He used his wealth and position to capitalise on the grief of the Sandy Hook families, bereft and lost after the tragic and senseless massacre of their children, to attempt to swing ever-firmer and restrictive gun law on a reluctant America. He also utilised the information resident within those best-selling Terminals to allow his own journalists to gain information on his competitors, and to access proprietary information which should have been shielded from outsiders prying open the blinds.

But now we find that the bully has met his match, when it was discovered that he had instructed  his Bloomberg News editor to spike or scrap stories on the elite and new-rich of China, along with the Leaders of the Chinese Communist Party because he feared reprisals aginst his lucractive business in mainland China.

Seems that his reporters had been working on stories linking one of the richest men in China with members of the Politburo Standing Committee, the most powerful, and some would say the real emperors of modern China. They were told to spike those stories, and a similar fate happened to stories linking Committee family members with American banks. Everything was blocked, because Michael Bloomberg wanted to carry on his lucrative business with China. So the world can continue to speculate on the wealth, connections and power of the Chinese elite, but you won’t read about it on Bloomberg!

Remind you of a certain Royal Charter, signed just a few days ago? The power isn’t there yet, but it only takes two-thirds of Both Houses, and, Ta-Daaaa, you have an British Politburo up and running! And when, you may well ask yourselves, have you ever, ever seen politicians reluctant to act against the Press?

IT MUST HAVE PAINED OUR MASTERS TO ADMIT THIS

By Pete Moore On June 20th, 2013 at 2:09 pm

The Crown Prosecution Service has published advice on what the peons may say: “Guidelines on prosecuting cases involving communications sent via social media”

Paras 34, 40-41 and 44-45 get to the point, as does para 35, which says that Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights takes precedence:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers …

Para 40 states that “prosecutors should only proceed with cases under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 where they are satisfied there is sufficient evidence that the communication in question is more than:

  • Offensive, shocking or disturbing; or
  • Satirical, iconoclastic or rude comment; or
  • The expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it.”

In short, it seems that only a specific threat to a person is verboten. Old Holborn has more.

 

Obama’s World

By Patrick Van Roy On June 1st, 2013 at 1:02 pm

DOJ: Social Media Posts Trashing Muslims May Violate Civil Rights

In its latest effort to protect followers of Islam in the U.S. the Obama Justice Department warns against using social media to spread information considered inflammatory against Muslims, threatening that it could constitute a violation of civil rights.

The move comes a few years after the administration became the first in history to dispatch a U.S. Attorney General to personally reassure Muslims that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is dedicated to protecting them. In the unprecedented event, Attorney General Eric Holder assured a San Francisco-based organization (Muslim Advocates) that urges members not to cooperate in federal terrorism investigations that the “us versus them” environment created by the U.S. government, law enforcement agents and fellow citizens is unacceptable and inconsistent with what America is all about.

“Muslims and Arab Americans have helped build and strengthen our nation,” Holder said after expressing that he is “grateful” to have Muslims as a partner in promoting tolerance, ensuring public safety and protecting civil rights. He also vowed to strengthen “crucial dialogue” between Muslim and Arab-American communities and law enforcement.

Evidently that was a precursor of sorts for an upcoming Tennessee event (“Public Disclosure in a Diverse Society”) that will feature the region’s top DOJ official, who serves as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and an FBI representative. The goal is to increase awareness and understanding that American Muslims are not the terrorists some have made them out to be in social media and other circles, according to a local newspaper report. The June 4 powwow is sponsored by the American Muslim Advisory Council of Tennessee.

The area’s top federal prosecutor, Bill Killian, will address a topic that most Americans are likely unfamiliar with, even those well versed on the Constitution; that federal civil rights laws can actually be violated by those who post inflammatory documents aimed at Muslims on social media. “This is an educational effort with civil rights laws as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion,” Killian says in the local news story. “This is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.”

Over the years the Obama administration has embarked on a fervent crusade to befriend Muslims by creating a variety of outreach programs at a number of key federal agencies. For instance the nation’s Homeland Security covertly met with a group of extremist Arab, Muslim and Sikh organizations to discuss national security matters and the State Department sent a controversial, anti-America Imam (Feisal Abdul Rauf) to the Middle East to foster greater understanding and outreach among Muslim majority communities.

The Obama Administration has also hired a special Homeland Security adviser (Mohamed Elibiary) who openly supports a radical Islamist theologian and renowned jihadist ideologue and a special Islam envoy that condemns U.S. prosecutions of terrorists as “politically motivated persecutions” and has close ties to radical extremist groups.

The president has even ordered the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to shift its mission from space exploration to Muslim diplomacy and the government started a special service that delivers halal meals, prepared according to Islamic law, to home-bound seniors in Detroit. Who could forget Hillary Clinton’s special order allowing the reentry of two radical Islamic academics whose terrorist ties have long banned them from the U.S.?

HT: Judicial Watch

Freedom of Speech can not be infringed. If you are not threatening anyone or creating a public panic (yelling fire in a theater) you can NOT be told what you can and can not say.

PRESS FREEDOM INDEX 2013

By Pete Moore On April 25th, 2013 at 2:36 pm

“Reporters Without Borders” has released its 2013 World Press Freedom Index. It’s not great, though it could be worse. Ireland is 15th, The UK is in 29th place and the Land of the Free is 32nd, behind Ghana and Suriname. Israel, “the only democracy in the Middle East”, is 112th, behind Lebanon.

2013_wpfi_world_press_freedom_map

Eritrea is in last place, behind even North Korea.

..and I will legislate to retain freedom; so there!

By Mike Cunningham On March 30th, 2013 at 11:47 am

Labour or Tory politician, football star or banker, they are all indeed the same. They strive to keep their own or their family’s misdeeds out of the public eye. We read of Caroline Spelman’s dramatic call for ‘privacy’ when she failed to gain a permanent injunction to help protect her hulking son from the publicity surrounding his steroid abuse after a rugby injury. We all remember the long-running saga of the well-known ‘family man’ footballer Ryan Giggs, and how his legal team spent loads of his cash trying to keep his name out of the headlines, when all along he was not only shagging some whore, he was also screwing his sister-in-law, and had been doing this for years. We now read of the Labour councillor who tried for over a year to suppress the facts that she was arrested for being drunk whilst in charge of her 2 year-old daughter, and who sought an injunction on the grounds that the publicity would damage her daughter. The final name on this particular list is that of Fred Goodwin, and now that everyone is aware of his crimes after his injunction was quashed, no further mention need be made.

The point I am making is that, after Dave Cameron, in one of his more spectacular misjudgements, set up a judicial enquiry after the mobile phone hacking row broke, and of course the truly illiberal Lord Leveson answered the call with the first legal chain around the neck of the Press in Great Britain. We are already seeing the glee with which all politicians, and all the suddenly publicity-shy ‘celebrities’ who were upset after their own misdeeds, such as Hugh Grant’s adventures in oral sex with some whore in America, were laid bare for the public’s gaze, fasten upon the fact that they will be protected from press scrutiny by legal force.

All the stories, all the reporters and policemen charged, all the phones whose digital memories were unlawfully accessed; all these items were processed under laws presently in place; in other words, no complainant has been forced to wait for action upon a new press muzzle, but that is the outcome of the Leveson Inquiry.