Wednesday, 30 October 2013

not porn. just liberation of the biscuit

It seems that the UK didn't have its sexual revolution
yet, you know the one with the wanton sex? I don't
mean women's lib. Only a country that is unavoidably
stiff would do such idiotic things (see below) in public
to rid themselves of the pussy trolls that are "ruining
their sex lives".

That's why so many women are baring their slash
in public. Whatever turns your crank, weirdos.
Why not try to figure out what good sex is?
or what confidence is.
oh, that would be too difficult, I suppose.

Where I come from, we've figured out how to
enjoy life, so we don't think we need to flash
our biscuits or wear budgie-smuggler speedos.
It smacks of desperation, or date-less-ness.
Chicks going Audubon. pfffft!
from our less furry friends:

If this is British birds getting in touch with their
furry bushes, I wonder how long it'll be until they can
differentiate their anus from a hole in the ground.

check the reasons they give for flashing their nethers!

checkit: Guardian (I think)

[I thought this title was a plot to assassinate GWB43.]
Project Bush: the day I had my vagina photographed by an ad agency
I want to help break down taboos about women's bodies – having anything other than a Brazilian should not be a source of shame
Project Bush logo
Project Bush, developed by ad agency Mother, invites women to have their pubic regions photographed. Photograph: Mother

A trip to east London to get my vagina photographed was something I never imagined doing – until a few weeks ago.

Before Twitter started discussing the motives of Mother, the creative agency behind Project Bush, which is sold as a way of celebrating the diversity of women's nether regions, my sister had sent me a tongue-in-cheek email about it. The press release was enough to convince me that I wanted to experience it and write about it. I'm a big fan of gonzo journalism and I may not get another chance to do something so bizarre. More importantly, I fully support what Project Bush is trying to achieve.

Alex Holder, one of the people behind the campaign, summed up its purpose perfectly when she told me: "Women are expected to have Brazilians and men are not expected to do anything. If Project Bush can make just one young girl realise 'we don't have to do that', and help to take away the shame that many women seem to feel about that area of their bodies – because no one seems to like it or be proud of it – it will be worthwhile."
[it's not going to erase a lifetime of geeky-ness- Cos67]
So off I went to get my pubic region snapped for an exhibition. At Mother's London headquarters in Shoreditch, I was escorted up a wide staircase to a studio where, behind a black curtain, photographer Alisa Connan was waiting for me. One corner of the fabric tent was set up to offer participants some privacy to take off their clothes, which I'm sure Alanis Morissette, and probably a lot of you reading this, would consider ironic. I undressed and, feeling a little self-conscious, I walked to the feet marks facing the camera to take my position in the spotlight. Tucking my top into my bra, I stretched my arms up over my head [it's getting good- Cos67] for one pose and then Connan asked me to stay forward but arch my body for the second. [ya.ya.] A few snaps and we were done, leaving me with a natural high, that "I'm glad I did that" buzz. [imagine what will happen when she meets Mr Dildo-Cos67]

I asked Connan if women had been sharing their reasons for taking part. "Mothers saying they don't want their children growing up thinking they only had one option," she started. [relax.your kids will think you're nuts-Cos67] "A girl saying she was the only one in her social group with a full bush and she wanted to show it off, and another woman said her boyfriend really wanted her to do it. I don't know why, maybe he just really likes her bush and wants everyone to see it." With Connan witnessing the 97 participating women of all ages, sizes and backgrounds up-close-and-personal, I was keen to know: was there a majority preference? "It's been very varied," she said. "From nothing to full bush and everything in between."
[it's a pre-sapien bush monologue-Cos67]
When I stepped outside the studio, I spoke to Sophie Cook, a 20-year-old radio production student at the University of Westminster, who had originally only come to cover the story for her degree but ended up standing in front of the lens too. "I was really nervous but it wasn't as scary as I thought it would be," she told me. "I'm glad I did it. It's something you wouldn't normally do so it feels very inspirational."

I went on to ask Cook if she considered herself a feminist. "I think I am," she said. "I do care about equal rights for women. And when it comes to this, a lot of women think a certain way due to the pressure of men or porn but I think you should be able to have it the way you want it. Project Bush has definitely got people talking on Twitter so it's helping to break the taboo of discussing the subject. Once we break down the barrier of talking about boobs, bums and vaginas, [are you even listening to yourself, talking like that?- Cos67] it will be a lot better for everyone." I couldn't agree more. [I'm supposing you'll still seek legal redress if a guy makes a comment-Cos67]

Project Bush will be exhibiting at Downstairs at Mother from 6-8 November. Admission is free. For more information, contact

• This article was amended on 15 October 2013 after the first sentence was found to be too similar to an earlier article on the same project. While we believe this to have been an inadvertent error we have decided to change it to avoid any duplication.

Tuesday, 29 October 2013

Questioning the questioners

This story is about a BBC tv show called Question Time.
It's an institution and it rings up on Twitter every time
it's on.

Unfortunately, in this country which has democracy every
5 years, #bbcqt is the closest thing to having an audience
with the queen.

I've stopped watching it because of its rampant bias in
favour of the banks.
Now I have proof to say that bbcqt is bent.

1 Guardian

Everything that's wrong with BBC Question Time in one graph

Reality TV stars from The Apprentice and Dragons' Den have clocked up more appearances on Question Time than all scientists in the world put together since the last general election

Appearances on BBC Question Time
Number of appearances on BBC Question Time between May 2010 and June 2013 by...

Okay, so perhaps not quite 'everything', but come on. Since the last general election 13 comedians have appeared on Question Time, and Russell Brand will make it 14 next week. The ubiquitous Nigel Farage, leader of a protest party with zero MPs and a manifesto comprised entirely of bits of old Jeremy Clarkson jokes, has been on 8 times. The "dragons" of Dragons' Den have appeared 4 times between them. Scientists have appeared just twice. Katie Hopkins from The Apprentice has been on as many times as all scientists or science writers put together.

I may have missed one somewhere, but as far as I can tell the last guest from the world of science to appear on Question Time was Professor Colin Blakemore, way back in November 2011. One blogger, Callum Hackett, went through a year's worth of episodes up to last May, counting appearances by profession. Only one scientist had appeared in all that time.

In the year since he wrote that post, no more have surfaced. Brian Cox the actor is far more likely to appear than Brian Cox the professor. Literary performance artist James Delingpole is more likely to appear than any meteorologist. Peter Hitchens is far more likely to appear than any expert on drugs or addiction - as his his nemesis, Russell Brand. A man who infamously claimed that "not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion" is more likely to appear than any expert on criminology or sexual health. When the e-mails of climate scientists were hacked, this is the show that brought on Marcus Brigstocke to defend them against the conspiracy theories of Melanie Phillips.

Question Time is, in short, a pretty miserable failure when it comes to informed debate. The bulk of panellists are drawn from the same upper-middle-class, upper-middle-aged pot of journalists, lawyers and politicians, and are often profoundly ignorant on topics outside of that narrow culture. Science, sex, the internet … attempts to tackle anything outside their world result in bewildering exchanges that confuse more often than they inform. It was Question Time that taught me I should be careful when doing my work on the Facebook.

A great example of this occurred in last night's show, which addressed the mysterious topic of Scottish independence by pitching a single advocate against an array of opponents that included George Galloway, and noted Scottish politician Nigel Farage. Parties that actually have elected representatives in Scotland were bizarrely excluded. David Dimbleby mounted a tetchy defence of the policy, but his argument that it didn't matter because the audience were "split fifty-fifty" on the issue only dug him deeper into a hole. The obvious retort: if it's so important for Question Time's audience to be balanced, why not also the panel?

But then the 'balanced' audience, like so much else about the program, seems little more than a television gimmick; one of many conceits in a political theatre that tries to replicate the features of a serious debate without ever really understanding their meaning or importance. Yes, it's possible that an imbalanced audience could introduce a subtle bias into proceedings, just as it's possible that putting tomato in a kebab adds a few calories to it.

Increasingly though – perhaps accelerated by the explosion of the #bbcqt hashtag on Twitter – even the pretence of heavyweight political discussion seems to have given way to the courting of petty drama and minor celebrity. Appearances by the likes of Russell Brand are trailed well in advance. David Starkey's particularly nasty behaviour, much of it directed at women, should have seen him denied a platform until he could learn how to act like an adult and treat his colleagues with respect. Instead, the BBC have rewarded his tantrums with a place or two in every series for his.

2 Nick Shaxson

Jun 04 2013
Is the BBC afraid of the City of London?

I’ve chosen this headline because I wanted to follow on from an earlier blog I wrote entitled Is the BBC afraid of tax havens? That was a very good question then, and it remains a very good question now. Amid all the global noise now about tax havens, the BBC remains a timid follower of the story, at best, raising serious questions of the extent to which the BBC is fulfilling its mandate to be, in the words of its Director General, ‘unflinching in holding power to account.’

Today’s blog looks at research from Dr. Mike Berry, lecturer at the University of Cardiff. It focuses on one small but influential part of the BBC – its flagship Today Programme on BBC Radio 4. I think it’s fair to say that my colleagues and I have always been under the impression – hard to prove but still a strong impression — that the Today Programme is substantially ‘captured’ by the City of London, the UK’s Financial Services industry. (And for what ‘capture’ means here, see this.)

The article is called The Today programme and the banking crisis, and it meticulously researches six weeks’ of coverage by the Today Programme, during the crucial period of the British bank rescues in October 2008. The article’s abstract should surprise nobody who knows the programme:

“Results indicated that City sources dominated coverage, particularly during the two- week period around the British bank rescue plan. The consequence of this was that listeners were offered a prescribed range of debate on the UK government’s bank rescue plan and possible reforms to the financial sector. The research raises key questions regarding impartiality and balance in public service broadcasting.”

Berry’s paper provides some context, exploring other analyses that have been done of the media response to particular episodes: Forte’s hostile takeover of Granada; the FT’s coverage of the Asian financial crisis, the recent Greek crisis, and more. He cites earlier research into the run-up to Ireland’s country’s banking crisis, for example:

“They [journalists] viewed them [bankers and property developers] as friends and allies and essentially became advocates for them. Their approach was justified editorially because many developers and bankers limited access to such an extent that it became seen to be better to write soft stories about them than to lose access.”

(Others have spoken of a Green Jersey agenda, which turned support for the Irish financial sector into something patriotic.)

All this goes back to the ‘capture‘ I’ve been talking about.

The article looks at the entire range of the Today Programme’s coverage of banking from September 15th, 2008, the day Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, to October 31, 2008, three weeks after the conclusion of the British banking rescue.

The results? This first graph gives a good idea:

Berry says this effectively understates the City input,

“since many of the individuals classified in Figure 1 as politicians, regulators, academics and business representatives also have close links with the City and broader financial services community.
. . .
This is magnified by the presence of other groups such as business lobbyists, neoclassical economists and journalists from the financial press who all tend to share a similar laissez-faire outlook on how the economy should be managed.”

And for me, a more dramatic statistic:

“Organised labour is almost completely absent from the Today programme with only a single appearance from one union leader (0.4%)”

That shows an astonishing myopia from the BBC, especially given the City of London’s impact of organised labour, as shown here.

Although Berry studied six weeks’ radio output, he paid particular attention to a crucial two-week period around the banking bailout, from October 6th-17th, 2008. And here the picture is particularly telling:

3 The Guardian
Russell Brand: what I made of Morning Joe and Question Time
So what really happened behind the scenes when Russell Brand turned up with his mum to take part in Question Time? And what did he make of Boris?
Russell Brand
Friday 28 June 2013 22.15 BST
Jump to comments (653)
Question Time
'We were excited – Question Time, like Match of the Day or Corrie, is a potent piece of living heritage' …Russell Brand, Tessa Jowell, Boris Johnson, David Dimbleby, Ed
More from acute awareness of Instant Karma's immediate sting than morality, I have learned to treat people apparently lacking power with cordiality. This means that when I arrived at the New York studios of Morning Joe, the gleaming, informal mid-morning MSNBC news analysis show, I was polite to everyone there.
I was surprised by the soundman's impatient intrusiveness and yet more surprised as I stood just off set, beside the faux-newsroom near the pseudo-researchers who appear on camera as pulsating set dressing, when the soundman yapped me to heel with the curt entitlement of Idi Amin's PA. In response I wandered calmly from the studio and into the corridor, where a passing group of holidaymakers were enjoying the NBC tour. Often when you encounter rudeness from the crew, it is an indication that the show is not running smoothly, perhaps that day, or maybe in general. When I landed in my chair, on camera, and was introduced to the show's hosts – a typical trident of blonde, brunette and affable chump – it became clear that, in spite of the show's stated left-leaning inclination, the frequency they were actually broadcasting was the shrill, white noise of dumb current affairs.
One of the things that's surprising when you go on telly a lot is that often the on-camera "talent" (yuck!) are perfectly amiable when you chat to them normally, but when the red light goes on they immediately transform into shark-eyed Stepford berks talking in a cadence you encounter nowhere else but TV-land – a meter that implies simultaneously carefree whimsy and stifled hysteria. There is usually a detachment from the content. "Coming up after the break, we'll be slicing my belly open and watching while smooth black eels loll out in a sinewy cascade of demented horror." This abstraction I think occurs through institutionalisation. If your function is to robotically report a pre-existing agenda, you needn't directly interface with the content. I was surprised when the Morning Joe clip "went viral" (I have parenthesised a sexist joke here: "Many of my casual transactions with daft blondes go viral – I put penicillin on me Frosties"; don't read this if you are offended by that sort of thing) because a lot of my promotional interviews or appearances on these kind of shows have the odd "cuckoo" ambience that defines this transient slice of pop cultural life. It's the unreal, sustained glitch in naturalism that makes this genre of TV disturbing to either watch or be on. The Lynchian subjugation of our humanity; warmth and humour, usurped by a sterile, pastel-coloured steel blade benignly thrust again and again into a grey brain....

Monday, 28 October 2013

she ain't nothing but a piece

Bill thinks so, too

what she ain't, is a singer.

Here, she performs at the top of Somerset House
in London, doing her best Walrus impersonation.
"uuuu uuuu uuuu"1:08 1:24

[nobody ever told you never to sing those notes?]

media roadtrip, spies in hot pursuit

In order to counter the bullcrap from the movie luvvies,
Julian Assange has presented a documentary that gets
to the heart of his work.
Benj Cumberbatch, each your cabbagepatch heart out.

[a previous such road trip]

Press Release: WikiLeaks Releases Fifth Estate Challenger: Mediastan - A WikiLeaks Road Movie
Friday, 11 October 2013, 17:30 UTC
Tonight WikiLeaks and Sixteen Films release MEDIASTAN—a WikiLeaks road movie.
The release of MEDIASTAN is timed to challenge the UK opening today of THE FIFTH ESTATE - the multi-million dollar Hollywood anti-WikiLeaks movie produced by Dreamworks in collaboration with Disney. UK audiences will be able to watch MEDIASTAN online for free during The Fifth Estate’s opening weekend.
Video on Demand is available globally from Journeyman Pictures.
For the first time ever, audiences get a behind-the-scenes insight into the world’s first truly global media event: "Operation Cablerun" : the 2011 operation during which WikiLeaks ran hundreds of thousands of secret US government cables to media outlets around the world.
In MEDIASTAN, an undercover team of journalists drives across the central Asian republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and into US occupied Afghanistan, before continuing its journey into the west; regrouping in Julian Assange’s kitchen, ambushing the editor of the Guardian, and obtaining candid footage of the New York Times editor and its publisher Arthur Sulzberger speaking about Obama.
Julian Assange, explaining why he produced the film stated, “Central Asia is the most fascinating geopolitical region in the world. It is the cream in the geopolitical layer cake. On the top, Russia, on the bottom, China; in the middle, a fight for US influence" But, Mr. Assange explained, "what started out as a geopolitical road movie transformed into a tale of comparative censorship as our adventure continued into the unexpected heart of MEDIASTAN."
Following a trail of censorship and media collusion with power eventually takes them to the London Guardian and the New York Times.
The Guardian’s editor Alan Rusbridger, questioned by Assange, talks about how the Guardian censored US cables about rich kleptocrats and western oil companies.
New York Times editor Bill Keller unknowingly talks about the Times’ daily telephone calls with the US government, his decision to conceal the NSA’s mass surveillance program and the newspaper’s ’favourite subject’—WikiLeaks.
MEDIASTAN director Johannes Wahlström explained "Mediastan is not so much a physical place as it is a state of mind among many of the journalists and editors who form our perceptions of the world."
Producer Julian Assange said: "This is journalism in extremis. This is how it is done. This weekend, instead of wasting your time and money on Hollywood propaganda, why not get all your friends around and spend your time watching MEDIASTAN instead?"
MEDIASTAN is fresh from its October 2nd London Raindance film festival premiere.
Video on Demand is available globally
The film will be available for free in the UK this weekend only. Today also marks the film’s worldwide pay-per-view release.
MEDIASTAN was directed by Johannes Wahlström and produced by Julian Assange with Rebecca O’Brien and Lauren Dark at Sixteen Films. It is being distributed by Journeyman Pictures.

Plymouth rock landed on them

as Malcolm X had discovered, some white folks
landed on Plymouth Rock, and that Rock landed
on the minorities that were there to be victimised.
That includes the indigenous people.

They're still waiting for imperialism to end.

checkit: CBC News
Idle No More protests mark proclamation's 250th anniversary
Posted: Oct 07, 2013 1:30 PM ET|Last Updated: Oct 07, 2013 7:58 PM ET
Idle No More supporters gathered outside the Canadian Museum of Civilization on Monday afternoon as part of a worldwide mass day of action to mark the 250th anniversary of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, a historic document that legally mandated Canada to recognize indigenous land rights.
Heavy rain dampened the event in Gatineau, Que., where 20 to 30 people gathered to mark the 250th anniversary of the Royal Proclamation, while another 80 Idle No More supporters gathered to protest at Dundurn Castle in Hamilton.
In downtown Calgary, a small group of people gathered in Tomkins Park.
“The world is watching Canada,” said Wendy Walker, one of the Calgary organizers. “We’ve been pretty patient, I think. For 250 years we have been waiting and holding that promise that they would keep their word, that they would honour the treaties. That they would honour our land, protect our water, protect our air so that we could protect our children and our grandchildren.”

how the Internet can save brave minstrels

The internet has been a problem for some artists.
I've been known to sample a bit of online music,
and I guess it undercuts their income. They really
don't make any money from Youtube or the
Spotify type services.

It's always a battle between established artists
and those waiting to get noticed. Is the Internet
racket strong enough for a known artist to dump
his record company? Perhaps.
I recommend supporting artists who have gone
for the gold by dumping their pimps and making
their own link to the public.

You see, the record companies didn't give much
money to artists anyway.

How is it that we are to support new artists? I
recommend going to a local grunge dive and
opening your mind. You may have the only
phone video of the next Sex Pistols.

That way we can promote good new talent
and keep the talent pool fresh. It's tough
work though, because you gotta open your mind
and not use your ass to judge a band.

With a lively scene, like CBGBs from 1974-1978,
it becomes a hot house for new stars.

[The Ramones were begging to be discovered. Here they're
introduced by a transvestite at cbgb. by the second song
they're kickin it. Joey is all limbs]

here, they're  in the loft above Blondie's flat.
Amazingly geeky and amazing in equal parts.

[from Columbia Japan]
the Ramones are kick-ass super strong
7:10 debbie harry really sounds like a NY neighbourhood chick.
but Blondie're not anywhere near punk 24:40 and should not be
on this. Tommy Ramone was a gentleman for not dissing them
(about 50:00)

I've always thought that going to see young nobodies that
I was doing research. It helps you sift through the crap
to the diamonds. Really, it's old-headedness that makes
people want to listen to the same sh*t all the time. you
become a joke after a while. Pink Floyd Rolling Stones
Eric Crapton

checkit: The Guardian
David Byrne: 'The internet will suck all creative content out of the world'
The boom in digital streaming may generate profits for record labels and free content for consumers, but it spells disaster for today's artists across the creative industries
        David Byrne     
        Friday 11 October 2013 15.53 BST  
        Jump to comments (848)
David Byrne
‘I’ve pulled as much of my catalogue from Spotify as I can’ … David Byrne. Photograph: Chris Sembrot for the Guardian
Awhile ago Thom Yorke and the rest of Radiohead got some attention when they pulled their recent record from Spotify. A number of other artists have also been in the news, publicly complaining about streaming music services (Black Keys, Aimee Mann and David Lowery of Camper van Beethoven and Cracker). Bob Dylan, Metallica and Pink Floyd were longtime Spotify holdouts – until recently. I've pulled as much of my catalogue from Spotify as I can. AC/DC, Garth Brooks and Led Zeppelin have never agreed to be on these services in the first place.
So, what's the deal? What are these services, what do they do and why are these musicians complaining?
There are a number of ways to stream music online: Pandora is like a radio station that plays stuff you like but doesn't take requests; YouTube plays individual songs that folks and corporations have uploaded and Spotify is a music library that plays whatever you want (if they have it), whenever you want it. Some of these services only work when you're online, but some, like Spotify, allow you to download your playlist songs and carry them around. For many music listeners, the choice is obvious – why would you ever buy a CD or pay for a download when you can stream your favourite albums and artists either for free, or for a nominal monthly charge?
Not surprisingly, streaming looks to be the future of music consumption – it already is the future in Scandinavia, where Spotify (the largest streaming service) started, and in Spain. Other countries are following close behind. Spotify is the second largest source of digital music revenue for labels in Europe, according to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI). Significantly, that's income for labels, not artists. There are other streaming services, too – Deezer, Google Play, Apple and Jimmy Iovine of Interscope has one coming called Daisy – though my guess is that, as with most web-based businesses, only one will be left standing in the end. There aren't two Facebooks or Amazons. Domination and monopoly is the name of the game in the web marketplace.
The amounts these services pay per stream is miniscule – their idea being that if enough people use the service those tiny grains of sand will pile up. Domination and ubiquity are therefore to be encouraged. We should readjust our values because in the web-based world we are told that monopoly is good for us. The major record labels usually siphon off most of this income, and then they dribble about 15-20% of what's left down to their artists. Indie labels are often a lot fairer – sometimes sharing the income 50/50. Damon Krukowski (Galaxie 500, Damon & Naomi) has published abysmal data on payouts from Pandora and Spotify for his song "Tugboat" and Lowery even wrote a piece entitled "My Song Got Played on Pandora 1 Million Times and All I Got Was $16.89, Less Than What I Make from a Single T-shirt Sale!" For a band of four people that makes a 15% royalty from Spotify streams, it would take 236,549,020 streams for each person to earn a minimum wage of $15,080 (£9,435) a year. For perspective, Daft Punk's song of the summer, "Get Lucky", reached 104,760,000 Spotify streams by the end of August: the two Daft Punk guys stand to make somewhere around $13,000 each. Not bad, but remember this is just one song from a lengthy recording that took a lot of time and money to develop. That won't pay their bills if it's their principal source of income. And what happens to the bands who don't have massive international summer hits?...

On your marks, mon. Shoot some steroids

This is an update of the 100-metre story from last month.
I was mentioning how a Jamaican had recently been
caught doping.
Well, it looks like the Jamaicans in charge of
periodic piss-take testing have been delaying their
work. It's beginning to look like the superficial
laziness of Jamaicans is truly just a cover up
for sporting malfeasance.

[say it. me don wan drugs]

Could this be a cover-up for doping? It's looking
increasingly like it is.

Will Jamaican athletes be singing for redemption?

read 'em: Daily Telegraph Oz

Jamaica facing Olympic ban as WADA vows to take action over drug tests

October 22, 2013 5:43PM

Jamaica's Usain Bolt celebrates after winning the 100 metres final at the 2013 IAAF World Championships. Source: AFP

THE World Anti-Doping Agency has revealed that Jamaica could face an Olympic ban if the country is found to be non-compliant of its drug testing obligations.

WADA president John Fahey was scathing in his criticism of the island Caribbean nation after attempts to defer an audit into its anti-doping program, saying the situation is "farcical".

"The current position is unacceptable to WADA and we’re not going to take it lying down, their suggestion that they’ll talk to us next year." Fahey told London’s Daily Telegraph.

"To suggest to WADA they’re not ready to meet with us to talk about their problem until sometime next year is unsatisfactory. It’s totally unacceptable to me and we shall act appropriately within an appropriate time frame."

Jamaica’s prime minister had invited WADA to investigate allegations that no drug tests had been performed by the Jamaican Anti-Doping Commission in the lead-up to last year’s Olympics in London.

Furious with JADCO and its attempts to defer any investigations, Fahey promised an "appropriate" response from WADA.

captured the mafia's imagination

I don't know if you would expect anything from the
Daily Telegraph, which is only a few letters away
from the Daily Mail.

They reported Wonga's record earnings recently
and as if that wasn't enough, they write that
Wonga's interest rate is 5 853%, as if nothing
is going on.
At that rate, the owners of Wonga will soon
be dining at the Camerons' house.

So, what's the DT's conclusion? Well, they took
one look at the puppets from the tv ads and
opined that
"Wonga's advertising has 
captured the public's imagination"
[get stuffed]

Actually, they remind me of Thatcher

I'll bet they've irritated the mafia's dons because those kinds
of interest rates used to be illegal and thus in the mafia's
embrace. Tony the Spoon says "they're putting us out of bizness"

Friday, 18 October 2013

one of this country’s most precious liberties

That's what the Telegraph calls the freedom of the press,
when it's trying to fry Ed Milliband. Ed doesn't have the
power to censor anyone.

I wonder what the Telegraph think of government censorship,
then. Well, the UK government is going quite far to
hide a story about impending charges regarding the Libor
scandal, to protect British bankers, and has gone to the trouble
to threaten the WALL STREET JOURNAL(!) for an article
that it has already published. They, in their Orwellian splendour,
want history expunged.

And if that doesn't work, they've also stitched up the Libel
laws to ensnare anybody who's unable to pay the millions
to fight the case in the courts. One such potential victim is
Ian Hislop (owner of the only real UK news-paper, Private Eye)
who is explaining the UK libel law below:

Here's something that may help the Private Eye get in libel
trouble; the truth about the Daily Mail owner Lord Rothermere's
shady tax deals: [private eye 1351 p29]
"under the absurd rules governning non-dom status, when
Rothermere fils was born in 1967 he immediately acquired
France as his domicile of birth"
"so in 2008 HM Revenue & Customs were poised to investigate
whether- based on such evidence as building a sprawling neo-
Palladian family home, Ferne House, in 240 acres of grounds
in Wiltshire and his position as a freeman of the City of London
-Rothermere had surrendered his non-dom status. Following the
intervention of the then HMRC tax boss Dave Hartnett, however,
the investigation was pulled"
"in this way a non-dom brings non-taxable returns of capital rather
than income back into the UK, although offshore secrecy..."
"for a non dom, even land deep in the English countryside ultimately
escapes inheritance tax if held through offshore trusts"

Read 'em:  Techdirt

UK Continues To Censor The Press: Orders Wall Street Journal To Pull Details From Already Published Story
from the no-freedom-of-the-press dept
The UK's issue broad injunctions that try to silence the press from naming names of people accused of crimes. Given that, a court apparently ordered the Wall Street Journal to remove the names of bankers the WSJ had noted were expected to be named as being involved in the criminal manipulation of the LIBOR rate:

    A British judge ordered the Journal and David Enrich, the newspaper's European banking editor, to comply with a request by the U.K.'s Serious Fraud Office prohibiting the newspaper from publishing names of individuals not yet made public in the government's ongoing investigation into alleged manipulation of the London interbank offered rate, or Libor.

    The order, which applies to publication in England and Wales, also demanded that the Journal remove "any existing Internet publication" divulging the details. It threatened Mr. Enrich and "any third party" with penalties including a fine, imprisonment and asset seizure.

Except, as the Journal notes, it had already published the story out on the wire, and while it took down its own web story, and is protesting the injunction, it's not at all difficult to find other stories that published the names:

    In Friday’s U.S. edition of the newspaper, 11 names were printed, including former UBS AG (NYSE:UBS) and Citigroup Inc. (NYSE:C) trader Tom Hayes; his former boss at UBS, Michael Pieri; and two former brokers at R.P. Martin Holdings Ltd., Terry Farr and James Gilmour.

And, of course, anyone who got the print version, which had already gone to press, could see the names as well:
And, in the end, all this has really done is draw that much more attention to the names.

the story about a story's inside story

The Ralph Milliband story has become a media
miracle. It is left out in public and no light can
pass through it. It's such a complex story about
subjective opinions, and politicians interfering
with the media by saying "hey, wait a minute!"

Ed Milliband came to the defence of his father
whose good name was being impugned in the
Daily Mail.
The DM used unprovable concepts to scare up
a Red Menace feeling in the people. Ed fell
into the trap of talking sense to f^%&*&king

So, when the opposition leader tries to correct
some barely-logical guilt-by-association insults,
he's seen as the bad guy because opposition
leaders are well-known "imprisoners" of
law-abiding people for no good reason. Actually,
you idiots, that's what the government does.
and it censors news stories (more on that in
the next stories) and lies to the public
regularly about its own statistics.

But, no! Ed is a danger to free speech in this
democratic country. H-uuuuh!
So, this story morphed into a Leveson roast.
And a commie-witch hunt.

Ed should have done what we used to do
in my home town. Just prove in no uncertain
terms that the DM are a bunch of assholes,
as if they can't do it on their own.

the inside story to this story's real story is
that we are ignoring the exploits of one
ignorant father and another ignorant mother.
David Cameron's father stashed millions
in overseas tax havens with the express
purpose of robbing the country his son now
runs of its proper tax money. Yet, we don't
talk about that ignorant father.
We also don't talk about Lord Rothermere,
an ignorant motherf5^&ker who has so
many offshore shells that he's vying for
recognition from the Guinness Book of Blarney.
Who hates Britain? Everybody who undermines
the country. That could well include the
ConDems, but that's another story.

Ed stands next to Telegraph editors
and says:

checkit: Telegraph
An ominous threat to shackle our free press
How a newspaper runs its affairs in a free country is none of Ed Miliband's business
By Telegraph View
9:13PM BST 04 Oct 2013
There are few more preposterous sights in politics than the Left in high moral dudgeon. Now, once again, there comes from the Labour Party and its cheerleaders at The Guardian and the BBC the same unmistakeable whiff of phoney rectitude that has hung like a miasma over our national discourse for decades. No one described it better than George Orwell, when he wrote witheringly of the “self-righteousness of the Left-wing intelligentsia”.
Today, that same self-righteous intelligentsia is in full-throated pursuit of the Daily Mail, which stands accused of exhibiting all the British-hating characteristics that it purported to identify in the late Ralph Miliband, the father of the Labour Party’s leader. This hue and cry is led by Alastair Campbell, now the self-appointed defender of truth and honesty. Of course, the Left’s beef with the Daily Mail goes back to the publication of the Zinoviev letter in 1924, which probably cost Labour the election that year. It is also using the hacking scandal as a means to seek revenge for its misplaced belief that newspapers brought about Labour’s defeat in 1992.
[1924's election, which Ralph had nothing to do with, is a long way to go to insult a dead man-Cos67]
There is, in other words, a more pernicious agenda at play here than the settling of old scores. Ed Miliband alluded to it yesterday when he suggested that Lord Rothermere, the Mail’s proprietor, should take “a long, hard look” at the “culture and practices” of his titles. How a newspaper runs its affairs in a free country is none of the Labour leader’s business. Moreover, Mr Miliband also said last week’s article about his father “had crossed a line”. But which line is that; and who is to decide what it is?
The context for this is extremely important, not least to the continuation of a free press in this country. Next week, discussions will resume – in the wake of the Leveson Report – over the establishment of a new self-regulatory body for the newspaper industry to replace the Press Complaints Commission. Many politicians do not want this to be left to the Press, and are anxious instead to bring newspapers under some form of statutory control. They maintain that this would not interfere with the right of the media to print what they wish; but it is clear to see, in the light of Mr Miliband’s comments, how easily it could.

It is understandable that the Labour leader should feel his late father has been traduced, and to want to defend him. But to say that, in offering a critique of his Marxist outlook, the Daily Mail “overstepped the mark” is an ominous remark from a man who wants to be prime minister. It suggests, at the very least, an ambivalence towards the concept of free speech.
The suggestion that Ralph Miliband “hated” Britain is naturally one with which his son disagrees [but not Ralph, the dead man-Cos67]; but it is an opinion that the newspaper – or anyone else for that matter – is entitled to have. In fact, as Charles Moore observes on the page opposite, it is perfectly legitimate to criticise Miliband senior, in view of the British Left’s inglorious record in opposing the menace of Communism during the Cold War. Is it seriously being suggested that we should only pick from an approved menu of acceptable views – which will, inevitably, be those that the progressive Left regards as palatable?
This brouhaha has blown up at a particularly crucial moment in the post-Leveson debate over the future of press regulation. The newspaper industry has drawn up plans for what would be the toughest regulatory structure in the world; but the politicians object because it is self-policed, as it should be in a free country. Mr Miliband, his party and many other MPs want a system that gives them a say – a rope they can tug when newspapers, as the Labour leader put it, overstep the mark.
Yet the very implication that permission should be required before voicing an opinion, even if it does offend, is so inimical to the idea of a free society that it is hard to believe it could be contemplated by a British Parliament, 300 years after newspaper licensing was abolished. We recognise Mr Miliband’s filial sincerity in defending his father’s memory; but it should not be used to undermine one of this country’s most precious liberties. If the Left wants a moral cause worth fighting for, then let us hear it defending, unequivocally, the freedom of the press.