Tag Archives: Lady Diana spencer

Two items

Yes, there are two items that are on the mind of may people. One is directly on the mind of many and as I stated in ‘Utter insanity’ on October 4th a lot of impact will be seen and the poor will get the brunt of that impact. As I see it, there is a lot that will be going wrong and even as the US Democrats are hiding behind the media slogans like ‘Biden: Republicans playing ‘Russian roulette’ with US economy over debt ceiling’, we better catch on quick. This issue is not now, it has been going on for over a decade, too much spending, no exit strategy and upping the debt every time and this has been going on since the Presidents George W Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump and President Joe Biden were in office. From 2001 the debt want from $6 trillion until now as it is $28 trillion. I will agree that President Biden got a really bad hand and he inherited the debt, but so did Obama and Trump. George W Bush had Afghanistan and Iraq in consequence to what happened in New York which was not on him, but ALL these presidents had the option to overhaul the Tax system and NONE of them did so, this pox is on BOTH the Republican and the Democrat houses. A budget that was there to enable big business and media but none acted over well over 20 years, so this is on more. In this Bill Clinton was the one who left the budget was in surplus so his inaction has a decent acceptable excuse. And now the Republicans say enough is enough, I cannot fault them for that. As I showed the Defence department wasted $30-$45 billion on TWO PROJECTS, two projects that does not meet the bare minimum but we go on paying those wasting the funds. Why is that? And the lack of adjusting Tax laws, not to tax the rich, but the setting of justly tax ALL. An optional setting that as offered to them in 1998, but they were eager to state that it was too hard. Now consider the Google Ads system that properly (and decently) charges the advertiser and not greedy grab the advertiser like the advertisement  agencies did for decades. So it was not that hard, was it?

And as we now see the need to ‘overhaul’ the Senate rules to end the amendment of the ‘filibuster’, a stage that has been there for a long time is now regarded by the Democrats as too hard to handle. I am not the voice for against that decision, yet consider that THEY TOO would not overhaul the tax system when it was in their administration, so is it fair? And in all this Wall Street is giving whatever ‘free’ advice the media is willing to listen to, they are so scared now. 

What was issue two?
It cones from a different corner. When the BBC gave us ‘Princess Haya: Dubai ruler had ex-wife’s phone hacked – UK court’ 8 hours ago (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-58814978) I saw “The High Court has found that the ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed Al Maktoum, interfered with British justice by ordering the hacking of the phone of his ex-wife, Princess Haya of Jordan. The phones of her solicitors, Baroness Fiona Shackleton QC and Nick Manners, were also targeted during their divorce custody case, according to the court”, it took a few second (approximately 7.1) and my mind raced. You see the media is a nice source to use given information against them. You see, The Verge gave us on July 23rd (at https://www.theverge.com/22589942/nso-group-pegasus-project-amnesty-investigation-journalists-activists-targeted) ‘NSO’s Pegasus spyware: here’s what we know. In that article we get “NSO Group’s CEO and co-founder Shalev Hulio broadly denied the allegations, claiming that the list of numbers had nothing to do with Pegasus or NSO. He argued that a list of phone numbers targeted by Pegasus (which NSO says it doesn’t keep, as it has “no insight” into what investigations are being carried out by its clients) would be much shorter”, It is the setting of “has “no insight” into what investigations are being carried out by its clients” against the setting that the BBC gives us which is “referred to the hacking as “serial breaches of (UK) domestic criminal law”, “in violation of fundamental common law and ECHR rights”, “interference with the process of this court and the mother’s access to justice” and “abuse of power” by a head of government”, we can agree with the point of view, but where is the evidence? The NSO stated that it does not keep any, so what is the source and the foundation of the evidence? The link the BBC gives us the judgment (at https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/al-maktoum-judgments/) yet there I see in the reference for the Hacking fact finding part:

i. The mobile phones of the mother, two of her solicitors (Baroness Shackleton and Nicholas Manners), her Personal Assistant and two members of her security staff have been the subject of unlawful surveillance during the course of the present proceedings and at a time of significant events in those proceedings.

ii. The surveillance has been carried out by using software licensed to the Emirate of Dubai or the UAE by the NSO Group.

iit. The surveillance has been carried out by servants or agents of the father, the Emirate of Dubai or the UAE.

iv. The software used for this surveillance included the capacity to track the target’s location, the reading of SMS and email messages and other messaging apps, listening to telephone calls and accessing the target’s contact lists, passwords, calendars and photographs. It would also allow recording of live activity and taking of screenshots and pictures.

Yet in all this, how was this evidence obtained? The findings rely on the setting stated by Baroness Hale, which is fair enough and she stated “In this country we do not require documentary proof. We rely heavily on oral evidence, especially from those who were present when the alleged events took place. Day after day, up and down the country, on issues large and small, judges are making up their minds whom to believe. They are guided by many things, including the inherent probabilities, any contemporaneous documentation or records, any circumstantial evidence tending to support one account rather than the other, and their overall impression of the characters and motivations of the witnesses.” Here I have a problem. Not the setting that Baroness Hale states, it applies for many cases and I would support this, yet in this technology the problem is that even those deep into this technology do not completely understand what they face. When we look at sources all over, we see a former intelligence officer from Germany who cannot state that Huawei is a danger, because their technology people do not comprehend it. We see source after source flaming the NSO group issues but they are flaming and even those sources are debated as it refers to sources from 2016, long before the Pegasus group had the software it deploys now. If we accept the words by Baroness Hale “We rely heavily on oral evidence, especially from those who were present when the alleged events took place” yet what happens when that witness the average normal person, how can that person give credibility to neural surgery? It is the same, a stage where the media relied on flaming and keeping people off balance, how can a person who does not comprehend technology be given the credibility that this court has? And should the court disregard the influence the media has, they merely need to see connected contributory manslaughter Martin Bashir was a part of, as I personally see it, his actions resulted in the path that led to the death of Lady Diana Spencer. 

In this I support “the court’s findings were based on evidence that was not disclosed to him, and that they were “made in a manner which was unfair””, I will take it one step further, if the submitted evidence is held to the cold light of day, its value will be debatable on a few levels. So when we consider “Dr William Marczak, who is based in California and is a senior research fellow at the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab, which researches digital surveillance. He told the court he had no doubt the phones were hacked using NSO’s Pegasus software. He also concluded “with high confidence” that the phones were hacked by a single operator in a nation state. He concluded with medium confidence that it was most unlikely to be any state other than the UAE.” In this we saw the CIA with their “with high confidence” and I wonder hat it is based on. I am not attacking Dr William Marczak, there is no reason to, but when you consider “with medium confidence that it was most unlikely to be any state other than the UAE”, so he is not completely certain, he is decently certain that someone did it, but there is no evidence (aka he cannot swear) that it was the UAE, feel free to read the settings and the statements, it could have been anyone, if the evidence holds up to scrutiny and that pert is also a part I am not certain of. You see when we see “A senior member of NSO’s management team called Mrs Blair from Israel on 5 August 2020 to inform her that “it had come to their attention that their software may have been misused to monitor the mobile phones of Baroness Shackleton and HRH Princess Haya” and we hold it up to the interview in The Verge on July 23rd with Shalev Hulio we see conflicts, conflicts of optional evidence by the same source, why is that?

These are the two Items that were bugging me to some extent and as my mind is racing towards another TV series stage (it will be the third my mind designs) I wonder what the eager bored mind is able to contemplate. So as we wonder what drove the judgement (no negativity implied), I see too many strings going from one place to another and they might be just in my mind (the place between ones ears) but too much evidence does not make sense, in both stages offered and the media took centre stage to both, and the media is the weakest link of credibility, that has been personally proven a few times over.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics, Science

The flavour of a dictionary

Let’s take a look at the stage. The Intercept (at https://theintercept.com/2021/08/01/saudi-arabia-twitter-harassment-jamal-khashoggi/) gives us “Before he was murdered by Saudi Arabia, Jamal Khashoggi faced online harassment from influencers and bots”. I have an issue with this. In the first, Jamal Khashoggi is merely missing. If someone states that it is likely that something bad and terminal happened to him I will not disagree. The problem is that there is no evidence, none at all that there is ANY evidence proving that Saudi Arabia did this. That UN essay writer gave a report that is riddles with ‘it is highly likely’, but in common law it does not hold water. In addition, the UN and the Washington Post did everything to flame as many newspapers as possible to repeat whatever they were giving. As I se it ad as the law sees it, a person is innocent until proven guilty. We can argue in equal quantities that the guilt of Saudi Arabia cannot be proven, yet in opposition, the innocence of Saudi Arabia cannot be proven either. I accept that, yes a person is innocent until proven guilty and if guilt cannot be proven then that person is innocent. I agree, and I disagree. I have been around long enough that the absence of guilt does not mean that this person is innocent. The law does that, I have a few more grey levels, so I do not. Yet I am still moved by evidence and the lack of it as well as the sources are not properly investigated, not by the United Nations, not by the Washington Post and optionally ignored by the CIA. 

The intercept also gives us “A short video clip posted to YouTube and Twitter this March characterised him as a mortal enemy of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The narrator, Hussain al-Ghawi, alleged Golberg’s “entire work aims at smearing Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE” — the United Arab Emirates — “by publishing fake analytics banning patriotic accounts and foreign sympathisers.”” The article gives us the view of Geoff Goldberg, he makes note of al-Ghawi, a self-proclaimed Saudi journalist. I accept that, the YouTube video could be seen as evidence, that is after a forensic data specialist digs into this. Yet there is another side here, it is given to us by Sarah Leah Whitson, the executive director of Democracy for the Arab World. She gives us “The Biden administration should ask itself what it is going to do to protect Americans from these attacks, as long as the Saudis feel that they have this uncritical U.S. backing, they’re going to continue to believe that they have a license to attack their critics in whichever way that they like. These coordinated attacks against people they dislike that begin online have already proven that they can be deadly in the real world.” She is not wrong, yet in opposition, the issues is also, When will the media be held accountable for innuendo and vague references that have for the most no direct imprint on actual and factual reality. 

You see, that same media will not give us “In response to the coup d’état and reckless endangerment of live by citizen Donald Trump, we are now made aware that two more casualties with a deadly end were added to the list of numbers. Two more Washington, D.C., police officers died after defending the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot by Trump supporters, bringing the grim tally of such deaths to four. This is merely one of the larger numbers, numbers that are given to us with the added GOP lawmaker who downplayed the Capitol riot as ‘a normal tourist visit’ doubled-down on the remark after police testified about the violence they faced”, is it true, is it false or is it a nuance of events? It seems that the western press is all about the innuendo on outside USA events, but not on internal ones. Why is that? I am not stating that Saudi Arabia is innocent, I am not stating that Saudi Arabia is guilty, the evidence is not there either way. The fact that this happened in a country with one of the most incarcerated journalists in the world, with sources that are massively unreliable, all whilst the full tapes of events were never handed to the people who forensically established evidence on the validity of the tapes as well as the establishment of WHO was on the tapes. Sources relied on mere minutes that are debatable in a few ways, all whilst these same sources avoided mentioning Martin Bashir as the man seen to be guilty of reckless endangerment of the life of Lady Diana Spencer, optionally complicit in the manslaughter of Lady Diana Spencer. Yet they were happy to assist in mentioning of ‘faked documents’ and as they avoided the mention of ‘forged bank statements’ they optionally kept out of the reach of the Crown Prosecution Services, how good is that? But they will continue slapping others on innuendo, optionally absent of evidence.

It is the flavour of a dictionary. Don’t say he has a nightmare, mention that he is now the owner of a female night horse. The dictionary is one, the flavour is given by adding triviality to the facts, or by hiding the absence of it. It seems to me that the media is forgetting that part, which also gives us ‘Sky News Australia banned from YouTube for seven days over Covid misinformation’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/aug/01/sky-news-australia-banned-from-youtube-for-seven-days-over-covid-misinformation) and the message here is that if we can no longer tell the difference between the spreaders of fake news, misleading news and news information, how can anyone expect the media to be held higher regard than a drug pusher on a schoolyard? 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

From horse to course

Yes, there is a horse, it is not Mr. Ed, there is no kind conversation. This one has wings, and there are a few versions, including the off-spring of Lord Poseidon. Whether we believe Hesiod or not, it does not matter. Pegasus became a part of our oldest mythological stories. Yet today, Pegasus is something else, a figment from the imaginations of the NSO group and it was made real. It has been out for some time and last week we got the media and their overemotional response that it had a connection to 50,000 people, with 0.36% of these people journalists.

So what gives?
It is important to look at a few sources. The first is the BBC (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-57922543) who gives us ‘Princess Latifa and Princess Haya numbers ‘among leaks’’, perhaps yes, perhaps no, who cares? We do get “The discovery of the princesses’ phone numbers on the list – and those of some acquaintances – has raised questions about whether they could have been the possible target of a government client of the group.” And here the questions start and the BBC is not asking them. Just like it is steering clear of alleged man-slaughterer Martin Bashir. So when we see ‘could have been the possible target of a government client of the group’ could is here the operative word. You see, no one is doubting that list, no one has given us a clear rundown of the names, a dashboard if you like, with the option to drill per nation and per class of person. This could all be a ruse of anti-Israeli groups, optionally the ruse of a competitor. And when we see “NSO has denied any wrongdoing. It says the software is intended for use against criminals and terrorists, and is made available only to military, law enforcement and intelligence agencies with good human rights records”, so which government leaked the list and how did THAT government leak what is implied to be a complete list? Then we get to the option that the leak came from within the NSO Group, which might be the most ludicrous thought, but I tend to look at all angles, so it is an angle that is most unlikely, but the chance is not zero. The article is all about Princess Latifa, not much about the NSO Group, it is an emotional lamentation to steer clear of massive screw ups like Jimmy Savile, Lord McAlpine, Sir Cliff Richard, and Lady Diana Spencer. As some say, the credibility of the BBC has never been lower. 

The second article is also from the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-57922664) less than a day ago gives us ‘Pegasus spyware seller: Blame our customers, not us, for hacking’. Here we are given “Investigations have begun as the list, of 50,000 phone numbers, contained a small number of hacked phones”, silly me for thinking that when we see ‘Investigations have begun’, we also get ‘a small number of hacked phones’, as such there is a much larger stage, and the BBC gives us “Pegasus infects iPhones and Android devices, allowing operators to extract messages, photos and emails, record calls and secretly activate microphones and cameras”, so if there are only a small number of hacked phones, how does that part matter? And when we get “a consortium of news organisations, led by French media outlet Forbidden Stories, has published dozens of stories based around the list, including allegations French President Emmanuel Macron’s number was on it and may have been targeted.” We get the real deal, a consortium of news organisations, led by Forbidden Stories hide behind ‘allegations’ and ‘may have been targeted’. Is anyone catching on? The media want to create emotional waves, yet does not want to be held accountable for their actions. The stakeholders are key here. A ‘consortium’ implies shareholders and stakeholders. It implies also that their issue is not that the NSO Group might do something outside of governments, it might show that the media does a lot more to anger the audience it desperately needs. 

And then the media does one more jab towards a currently missing journalist no one cares about with “including those close to murdered Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi”, this is the emotional stage handed to us. It is “67 agreed to give Forbidden Stories their phones for forensic analysis. And this research, by Amnesty International Security Labs, reportedly found evidence of potential targeting by Pegasus on 37 of those”, so out of 50,000 we see that 67 are investigated and potentially we see 37 are targets, but there is no evidence that the NSO Group did this, these 37 might have been targets of the NSA or even the DGSE. 

And at this point there is one interesting flaw. If it was me, the first think I did was set up a dashboard that allows us to see where these 50,000 names are part of, where they are and how they were hacked. They have had a week and the stretch of media that gives us emotion after emotion is a much larger stage of stakeholders that need a negative view to be pushed onto the NSO Group. I admit that my view is equally speculative, but is it a wrong view? 

Finally there is the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/jul/22/israel-examine-spyware-export-rules-should-be-tightened-nso-group-pegasus) where we see ‘Israel to examine whether spyware export rules should be tightened’. Here we are treated to “An Israeli commission reviewing allegations that NSO Group’s Pegasus spyware was misused by its customers to target journalists and human rights activists will examine whether rules on Israel’s export of cyber weapons such as Pegasus should be tightened”, I can accept that view, but that also means that governments are largely to blame for this mess, if the list is real that is. There is every chance that this was a ruse to make the NSO Group less large, less of a challenge to a competitor and this is exactly what stakeholders tend to do, and using the media as their bitch is not out of the question.

My view is reinforced by “NSO has said Macron was not a “target” of any of its customers, meaning the company denies he was selected for surveillance using its spyware, saying in multiple statements that it requires its government clients to use its powerful spying tools only for legitimate investigations into terrorism or crime”, so as Macron was never a target, the BBC articles are less than accurate and that leaves the media open to all kinds of attacks. Yes, I will admit that it is a he said she said setting (she being the media), but that also means and implies that the NSO Group is not out of the woods at present. And let’s be honest, who needs a tool like this to keep track of the Dalai Lama? The man is out there in nowhere land and when he is travelling we see 50-150 reporters surrounding him, all ways to keep track, no NSO Group required.

As we see the horse Pegasus go on a course towards the government destinations, I see less of an issue with the NSO Group and a hell of a lot more with the Stakeholders who do not have the ideas, the innovations, but they really like the money attached to it. Do you still think I am on the wrong horse track?

There is always the time will tell part, but consider that if the media has not released a dashboard of these 50,000 numbers, I believe that my case is rather clear, I would personally consider that list is nothing more than the fabrication of a stakeholder who needs the revenue that the NSO Group currently has.

1 Comment

Filed under Media, Military, Science

If it bleeds, it leads

Yes, one of the famous sayings from the entertainment media regarding the media and the news media. We can find all kinds of response regarding the media, yet at present we see an overly cool head when it comes to the matters involving Martin Bashir. We saw the media blow out of proportions when it came to news regarding Lady Diana Spencer, even more when she became the wife of the prince of Wales, it continued as they divorced and continued as she became close to Dodi Fayed. The people still believe that paparazzi’s were directly responsible for her death, as such I still believe that it is my civic duty to mutilate any paparazzi if I ever get the chance. The paparazzi and the media have never been held to account, the media wants its images, its pound of flesh to get revenue through circulation, yet when it comes to their own (like Martin Bashir) the bare minimum of exposure is required. Yet, that might soon change. As we are told by the Texas News Today (at https://texasnewstoday.com/martin-bashir-misled-and-duped-michael-jackson-during-2003-interview-former-lawyer-claims/314833/): ‘Martin Bashir ‘misled’ and ‘duped’ Michael Jackson during 2003 interview, former lawyer claims’, we see “The attorney, Brian Oxman, claimed in an exclusive interview with DailyMail.com that while Bashir was ‘not evil’, his ‘careless actions’ were fuelled by ambition and began a fatal downward spiral for the star”, if this is proven we get 3.5 million plus 47 million fans.

Well over 50 million fans out for blood, for the blood of Martin Bashir and this time the media will not abide, they are scared that they are optionally a future target. So as the Guardian gives us “Just three weeks after the devastating Dyson report into Bashir’s use of fake documents to secure an interview with Princess Diana in 1995, the BBC’s internal investigation cleared the corporation and its existing executives of any wrongdoing when it rehired him to report on religion some 20 years later”, the Guardian seemingly goes out of its way to not investigate the Michael Jackson interview, and now we see “Bashir’s interview with Jackson was aired in the explosive 2003 documentary Living with Michael Jackson on British channel ITV. The documentary was credited with sparking a child sex abuse prosecution against the star, in which Bashir testified. Jackson was acquitted of all charges in 2005”, and the media is largely reporting as little as possible as I see it. Even now, the Guardian is all about being as timid as possible, we get to see “BBC did not get to bottom of Martin Bashir’s lies, Hall tells MPs”, yet the rest is all about “Of course, it depends what allegations you mean. But the report from Lord Hall, which has already been discussed, went to the board of management and the board of governors and it was on the basis of those reports that an understanding was reached”, yet the foul stench that accompanied Martin Bashir is avoided as much as possible, even now when we see from a few sources “Martin Bashir: ‘No evidence’ journalist was rehired by BBC in cover-up over Princess Diana interview, review finds”, yet the smallest sentiment is ignored: ‘Why was he rehired at all?’, with the abundance of decent journalists out there seeking a job, they rehired the one with a report against him, a damning one that was thrown to the bottom of any available pile. And the media is apparently not asking the questions, or at least not loud enough. So when we now consider “Oxman is now calling for an investigation by ITV, similar to a recent inquiry into Bashir’s landmark BBC interview with Princess Diana in which she candidly admitted to cheating on Prince Charles, prompting a scandal and royal family crisis. The inquiry, run by UK lawmaker Lord Dyson at a cost of $2million to the corporation, found Bashir fabricated bank statements and lied to convince Diana to talk”, should something be found, than it is more than the end of Martin Bashir, it will damage both ITV and the BBC further. If 40,000 complaints was enough to remove Piers Morgan from a show, what do you think 50,000,000 complaints gets us all? And at that point the media will find it in its heart (and their wallets) to burn a media man at the stake, revenues are to be considered (as I personally see it). It is such a shame that when it comes to ethics and evidence the media is willing to take a page from ‘unnamed sources’ a little too often. And when the people reconsider that part 2 of the Leveson inquiry would be about “the extent of unlawful or improper conduct within News International, other media organisations or other organisations. It will also consider the extent to which any relevant police force investigated allegations relating to News International, and whether the police received corrupt payments or were otherwise complicit in misconduct”, we need to consider the small part called ‘other media organisations’. And even as the Tories scrapped it, they might no longer have that option, the setting we currently see regarding Martin Bashir could sway the people in demanding part 2 and that is what the media fears. The accusations by Brian Oxman are of a very different nature and it might fuel a few additional parts in this debate. It might be the one part the BBC (and ITV) never banked on and that is the one flaw the people will get to see a lot more than the media bargained for. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

Mining Rites

We all have these moments that we think we know, we are certain to know what we face, yet the truth is we do not. It happens to us all, you, me and those around us. This is not a new thing, this has been happening for the better part of 30 years. Most Americans ignore it and hide behind the ‘Fake it till you make it’ slogan, whilst they jump left, right and backwards to give the imaginative view that they know what they are doing. The setting is merely hilarious when we look at the events knowing that they do not know anything at all. That is the moment you can watch the train wreck move forwards whilst you relax and watch the collateral damage unfold. Weirdly enough it is not unlike Super 8 (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL_6gA_BVtA, from 04:00), one scene that sets the stage for the entire movie. I think it is the greatest train wreck ever produced and we are viewing what happens, knowing what happens, yet until the end, the actual reason why we faced it in the first place remains a question mark.

This all shows the stage that we have faced in the last 10 years in IT, as well as what the car makers face now in the stage of ‘Stricken car makers stall at the crossroads of a radical future‘. It is not merely the stage of cars, there is (what I personally would call) some case of delusion that people are actually waiting for 27 models. I agree that there are some who feel that way, but the bulk of people are clueless of what makes a good car, they merely want a car that looks really nice (and is safe, and is regarded as cool). Yes, most of us all want the Jaguar XF or the Maserati Gran Turismo, but it is not financially feasible. So some go the route of the Japanese model, some seek American and some go in another direction (there are so many), and still we see the fight by offering dozens of models, most will never ever be the great model we were all seeking. It does open doors and at times we do see a niche, like the Abarth, a modernised Fiat 500 (personal opinion) and for functional reasons it is a great choice to get quickly in the city and find a place to park, which is still the number one villain in the life of a car.

But it is not about cars, the jump will make sense a little later. You see last week we saw the escalations of some Saudi Teenager and the news was all over it, The Washington Post gives us the new life of escaped ‘Rahaf Mohammed’, with ‘For teen who fled Saudi Arabia, a new life in Canada starts with a new name‘, oh it is all over the news on how evil Saudi Arabia has lost a victim to freedom. We see the news with papers in nearly every country giving light to the plight of this poor young lady. She escaped! So, when the dust settles and we realise that she got on a plane to somewhere else, whilst I was not able to afford a plane ride until I was close to 23, in a place where I was never in danger, when you realise that and you also realise that the news is steering clear of Yemen, where we learned in the last week that “Houthi rebel and Yemeni government representatives did not meet face-to-face in the port city of Hodeidah over the past week“, and that the simplest part where we are notified of: “Since MASAM was launched in June, 2018, a total of 26,609 mines planted by the Iranian-backed Houthi militias in the territories, schools, and homes across Yemen were removed“, in addition sources inform us of: “the project – launched with an initial budget of $40 million with an aim to achieve a landmine-free Yemen – still has to tackle a total of 600,000 mines planted in liberated areas by the Houthi militias. This includes 130,000 internationally banned sea mines, 40,000 mines in Marib and 16,000 mines on the island of Mayon alone“. This is what we get from Dr. Abdullah Al-Rabeeah, the Supervisor General of KS Relief. So as we are seemingly all about bashing Saudi Arabia through misrepresentation, we seem to also bash people, without actual evidence mind you, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia regarding the events surrounding Jamal Khashoggi, even as no evidence has been presented to the people. The media has been hiding behind ‘seemingly‘, ‘inside sources told us‘ and ‘according to the latest information‘, the bulk of the matter does not hold up to scrutiny in any court of law, our laws mind you!

The media whoring like second hand car salesman (and sales woman) all voicing the news according to populist belief. It seems that the world is now afraid of Saudi Arabia. Not because of their might, or military options, but because in the first, Saudi Arabia is making moves to technological advances that is leaving the United Stated behind, and as US players are hiding behind fake 5G options (AT&T) as Forbes gives us: ‘CES 2019: AT&T CEO Hypes ‘Fake’ 5G Evolution Network Causing Confusion Among Consumers‘ (at https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2019/01/15/ces-2019-att-ceo-hypes-fake-5g-evolution-network-creating-confusion-among-consumers), where we are treated to more and more deception, Even as the article gives us “To make matters worse, AT&T is currently in the process of deploying two real 5G networks, branded “5G” and “5G+”, the latter being faster than 5G. Confused? Wait, there’s more. A little known regional wireless carrier, Redzone Wireless launched over a year ago “5Gx” (no, it’s not 5G, just branding like AT&T), a fixed wireless service in Maine” at the end, we need to realise that some parties are done for, stupidity got them there and that is where we see a different setting in Saudi Arabia (as well as the UAE). We see that the auctions of true 5G are in place, the market is growing and now we see that true 5G, not the AT&T or the Redzone version are set to technologically boom the stage in the Middle East, the nations that the Western European nations have been looking down on for generations, is now equaling and surpassing that so called free western world. This also is the fear of Iran, who seemingly has a deal with the western world to not be mentioned, to be given a clear pass, the entire landmine debacle and how the western media is avoiding covering it is clear evidence of that. Consider that Yemen is roughly the same size as Germany, when we are told that there are still ‘600,000 mines to tackle‘, when we see that, every newspaper in the world would be all over it, but no, it is Yemen, no one actually cares, especially now that Lady Diana Spencer is dead. The media cannot get a nice image of that, can they?

so now see the ‘plight’ of a Saudi Teenager versus the plight of King Salman Humanitarian Aid and Relief Centre, via the services of Doctor Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Rabeeah who is truly trying to make life in Yemen better by trying to remove another 600,000 mines, after they had already removed thousands of mines, making Yemen at least safe to walk in, mines planted by Iranian supported Houthi’s. Because the clear message is not that the Houthi forces planted the mines, the fact that they never had the resources or funds to get them in the first place, the Iranians were part of that entire mess, but the media is not asking those questions either, how is that acceptable? Has the world gone Anti-Saudi Arabia? What right do we have to be Anti-Saudi? So far they are proving to be more innovative, better prepared and more eager to be the main player in a technological world that is now based on deception and marketing in America. How should we accept a sliding scale of value of this size and nature? And should you doubt my news (always an option) then please Google ‘King Salman Humanitarian Aid and Relief Centre’ and see how many western publications have given any notion of the trucks filled with relief goods for the people of Yemen, aid to Jordanian refugee centres and heating fuel and gas cylinders for cooking distributed to ten thousand refugees, as well as 2100 tonnes of food for displaced Nigerian refugees. It seems to me that the western world as well as the Christian world is lagging in many places, on many levels, all this whilst the transgressors are not held to any account. So when was the last time that you considered the death of Jamal Khashoggi in a nation where that nation leads the world list in jailed journalists in the first place and let’s not forget that this is the nation that jailed Pelin Ünker for well over a year for looking into the Panama Papers, she was found guilty of ‘defamation and insult’ for writing about companies owned by former PM. Is that it? Were the allegations true, were the Panama Papers correct? Was Tax evasion proven, or was it merely illuminated tax avoidance?

We seem to give a clear path to the wrong people, the wrong ideals (like Tax Avoidance) and we see to be painting the wrong parties all whilst the western world is desperate to make a deal with Iran, a deal that could optionally be proven to be the worst investment in the history of the world soon thereafter.

A place that is making future history by building a city 32 times the size of New York, a feat never attempted before in history. So how do we react? Do we cheer these people for trying the impossible? No, we try to burn whatever relations Saudi Arabia has, so that it could never ever surpass the achievements of America, a place in lockdown over a bloody wall between America and Mexico, give me a break please!

Yet the EU still tries to keep some EU ties with Turkey, the EU still wants some nuclear deal with Iran, two bad ideas in a place where the evidence is showing us that these two are never to be trusted, that these two are all about breaking deals, and in all this the EU also slams Saudi Arabia every chance it gets whilst keeping Iran and Houthi connection under illuminated, just like they keep silent on Iranian and Hezbollah connections, Perhaps you have heard about Hezbollah, the terrorist organisation. So why keep that out of the news whenever they can? In that Rahaf Mohammed al-Qunun, a teenager who apparently still had the money to fly to Sydney Australia via Bangkok. Yes that news did reach the press in every newspaper. I do not judge Rahaf for her actions, I merely show you all that the media is using whatever they can to fill the space of media so that they can misrepresent the world for the needs of the large corporate needs, like bad second hand car salesman, they are voicing merely what they think that we want to hear and the actual news? That is a fairy tale for those who seemingly do not matter.

Also consider the final part of Ernest Moniz, who in October 2018 was quoted with: “Former U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said on Wednesday he has suspended his role on the board of Saudi Arabia’s planned mega city NEOM until more is known about the journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who disappeared on Oct. 2 after visiting a Saudi consulate in Turkey“, an action that seemingly made sense at the time, whilst a mere three days ago we see: “Ali Akbar Salehi, head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization on Sunday highlighted his country had started taking initial measures to develop a 20%-enriched fuel for use in nuclear reactors, Tansim reported“, Ernest Moniz is happy to be part of a mining community like Iran who provided the 600,000+ mines that Saudi Arabia is trying to clear is evidence of that. Now also consider that ‘all HEU can be used to make nuclear weapons‘, and the threshold between LEU (Low enriched) and weapons grade starts at 20%, so in this we see a (what I would personally regard) as a hypocrite like Ernest Moniz (my personal view on the matter) who is willing to stand in Iran stating (in posture and theory) that there is no danger with 20% enriched Uranium, making him the new Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who in 1933 came back from a meeting with Adolf Hitler stating: ‘Peace for our time‘, do you remember how that ended?

We are focussing on fictive dangers and the real ones are at all of our doors, we need to consider the actions that we allow our politicians to make in our names, in an age of unemployment, in an age of technological impasse, we are listening to greed inclines car salesman who have no clue, merely the knowledge that they need their bonus, their bonus shares and personal profit and we all forget that there are real dangers and real people like Doctor Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Rabeeah trying to deal with those dangers, but the media won’t allow us to find out those truths to a larger degree.

You tell me who is right, you merely have to properly Google these searches and they are out in the open for anyone curious enough to learn more.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military, Politics, Science

Hunting for a fee

It has been a mere week since we saw the message from some ‘experts’ on the daughter of David Beckham. What I would call a beyond acceptable choice on the media and its non-stop pursuit of what we consider to be values. It does so whilst doing whatever it can to get ratings, to grow circulation. A tsunami of what we call ‘the Glossy invasion‘.

Yesterday we saw (at http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/14/opinions/arbiter-royal-photos/index.html), with the title ‘Can UK royals win battle against paparazzi?‘ In my view there will be no battle, as we see the quote “While aides were quick to praise the British media for not printing illicit photos, they issued their strongest warning yet to those who choose to forgo decent editorial practices” as well as “Many would argue that all children, not just those who are royal, should be allowed to play free from the prying eye of a photographer intent on financial gain, sequestered in the boot of his car and equipped with a long lens“. It comes with the final mention “how do you mandate a global press“. Which in my view is very easy, you wage war, plain and simple!

For the larger extent the media has shown themselves to be little more than the mere equivalent of a prostitute with the moral compass that is significantly worse than that of a crack dealer.

But is this the extent of it? Are we overreacting? Let’s face it, pictures are taken every day, we photograph celebrities every day (when we can), but to what extent will we ignore a person’s right to privacy? Many like me, we will bump into the odd celebrity at times, hoping to get a picture or a selfie, many will oblige, take the time and effort.  Yet not all are in that mindset, especially when they feel unready to face the scrutiny of the lens. Some will try this at red carpet events when the stars are all ready to be photographed. So those moments are often easy moments to get the star we would like to snap for that Kodak moment. The Paparazzi is another matter entirely. They have always been in the news and when it comes to Royal families, these people tend to go completely overboard. I still personally feel that Lady Diana Spencer was murdered by the paparazzi. Now we see that her grandchildren are increasingly in danger by perhaps even those very same paparazzi.

So is this real danger or alleged danger?

This is a question that is more than just a mere legality, history has shown that extremists will take any chance to propel their own agenda at the expense of anyone else. Which means that for these extremists, the children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge would be regarded as legitimate targets and as such the paparazzi could be intended or not aiding said extremists. In my personal view the quote “London’s Metropolitan Police soon after released a statement saying protection officers had to make split-second decisions, and photographers using covert tactics ran the risk of being mistaken for someone intent on doing harm” (source ABC at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-15/royals-increasingly-dangerous-tactics-photograph-prince-george/6699632) is something to ponder. In my view (again a personal one) shooting one of these paparazzi’s ‘accidently’ might not be the worst idea, it seems that when these individuals realise that whatever they do comes at a cost of life, their moral compass tends to reset towards what keeps them alive.

Yet this is only the introduction to an article that graced the Independent on Saturday (at http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/prince-george-and-the-paparazzi-deferring-to-the-long-arm-of-buckingham-palace-10457349.html). Here we see the quote in the subtitle: ‘the former boss of Hacked Off, a critic of press intrusion, says this time the royals are expecting too much protection‘. Is that so?

Consider this quote: “along with the carefully posed images of George holding his baby sister, Princess Charlotte. The “bad” photos, to be clear, might look cute but they’re not, since they were taken by unauthorised photographers. These pictures are so bad, in fact, that the police have warned anyone taking them that they risk being shot. Has everyone taken leave of their senses?

I am not sure whether they have!

You see, I personally have the skill to take someone’s head of at three times the distance of what my large lens can do (the 200mm I could afford), so when a paparazzi holding a shoulder mount for their camera, could at 300-600 meters easily be mistaken for a rifle, the Leupold VX-3L 6.5-20x56mm is the size of a Canon lens, so I feel quite outspoken that the police has not taken leave of their senses!

Yet my view in all this is not even that side, it is not the ‘morality’ of the paparazzi, even though they rank up there with ice pushers on a schoolyard. This is not about them trying to get the shots of an adult, this is about children, royalty or not! That part does not matter. Just as another article that saw us in defense of David Beckham’s little princess, is setting us off in equal measure here.

This is not merely about a child with a dummy. This is about what was behind that. Let me re-iterate that. Several sources state “The comfort from sucking on a pacifier provide security and comfort can reduce the amount of stress a baby experiences“. I am not stating that I know why the Beckham’s were in that article, the entire dummy (read pacifier) could be about his little girl not feeling well, yet I feel certain that the paparazzi are leaving their own mark of stress with these children. We all have a direct need to keep children safe, those who cause a child to be in distress can find themselves suddenly surrounded by people wanting to do those transgressors harm and on our scale in general, a paparazzi does not really score that high and after what happened to the grandmother of Prince George and Princess Charlotte we see even less reasons to go soft on those paparazzi.

In my view, the courts seem to have gone overboard to protect the media in the past. When we look at Von Hannover v Germany [2004], we saw that even though an injunction was granted, we see that ‘allowances’ are made for public figures. We tend to get the following “a public figure does not necessarily enjoy the same respect for their private life as others, as matters of public concern might justify the publication of information about that person that might otherwise interfere with the right to privacy“, yet in this light, clear consideration must be given to children, especially those under 17 to be regarded out of bounds. If we can accept that Harper Seven Beckham is showing possible signs of stress, stress that could very well be brought through unbalanced and unwanted exposure to the media and strangers, the law will require additional tightening, especially in regards to the right of privacy and additional optional prosecution to those invading that privacy.

In the case of the very long lens that case is much harder to make as the perpetrator is nowhere near the victim, yet in that same case, in the case of Prince George and Princess Charlotte, the possible interpreted danger to their lives by the people assigned to protect these royal members, to them the option arrives that any threat to the royal family must be met with deadly determination if need be.

As such, responding to the allegations in the independent, no one took leave of their senses. Some took leave of common sense for money and that tends to come with a consequence. Yet the article in the Independent is quite good, it asks valid questions. When we see “People are allowed to take pictures in a public place as long as their behaviour doesn’t amount to stalking, in which case it could have been dealt with under the Protection from Harassment Act“, this is a valid point. But in this case there are two additional elements. The paparazzi could easily be mistaken for a Predatory stalkers, an individual spying on a victim in order to prepare and plan an attack, which led me to the extremist link. A side that the writer of the article should have mentioned more prominently. In addition, this is not against adults, this is against children, a group that deserve additional layers of protection, no matter how public a figure their parent is, or both of them are. A situation that applies to both the Duke and duchess of Cambridge as well as the Beckham’s. The Independent does raise parts again when they state “The couple may fear a terrorist attack, but that’s a reason for reviewing overall security, including the wisdom of allowing George to play in a public park“, which again is a fair enough statement. Yet in equal measure is that until that fear is reasonable, having children to be a child everywhere is a given right to the child and as such we, not the child will have to make allowances, including an extended right to privacy and security. A side Niraj Tanna seemed to ignore for what is likely to be founded on income, not any greater good.

So does Joan Smith, former executive director of ‘Hacked Off’ have a case here? She brings it well enough, but in my view, elements are missing. No matter whose children they are, children are entitled to extensive layers of protection, especially against paparazzi and outside (read non family based pressures). Even if these hunters take their respectable distance, the pictures will haunt them forever, they will become the object of extreme obsession to some, which tends to go wrong at some point.

In light of consenting to photography, the ‘non-consenting child’ seems to be the factor that many seem to ignore. Media law is due a massive update on a global scale, we have catered to what people regard as ‘freedom of the press’ for far too long, a press that seems to take a wide berth around PriceWaterhouse Coopers and Tesco issues (the PwC side of it), or the SFO matters connected to all this. Now, we can understand that that issue is not something that is of interest for the Glossy magazines, but the media is for the most not some little magazine. They are conglomerates. Companies like Bauer Media and VNU can invoke pressures that can paralyse governments. They control dozens of magazines that can change public opinion in a heartbeat. They only way to deal with this is to adapt laws that give added protection to media exploitation of children, whether they come from public figures or not. In addition it is interesting to raise the case of Paparazzo Richard Fedyck from April this year. The quote “The Vancouver celebrity photographer faces charges of assault with a weapon, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and criminal harassment. He made his first court appearance after arriving hours in advance in a bid to avoid cameras and media” gives us the clear view that the paparazzi tends to be camera shy. It is equally hilarious that we get “his defence lawyer Jonathan Waddington immediately asked for a ban on publication of the court proceedings”. Irony is such a lovely dish at times (at http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/paparazzo-in-ryan-reynolds-hit-and-run-case-makes-court-appearance-1.3053082). So it seems that privacy is treasured by paparazzi when they are the focal point of issues.

It is high time that some legal media matters change as soon as possible, especially where it concerns children.

 

2 Comments

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

That what is ignored!

I feel a little on edge at present. You see, there are certain things that are just not done. The entire case that is set against Prince Andrew is such an event. I dealt with several issues in my blog called ‘As we judge morality‘ a little over two weeks ago.

Yet as some of these ‘claims’ are set in print again and again, especially the Daily Mail and the Telegraph, should we consider prosecuting Paul Michael Dacre (Daily Mail) and Ian MacGregor (the Telegraph) for libel?

Here is my reasoning, as I went through the Defamation Act 2013:

In section 4 (Publication on matter of public interest), we see in subsection 1:
It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that
(a) the statement complained of was, or formed part of, a statement on a matter of public interest; and
(b) the defendant reasonably believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest.

So far so good, we can all agree that published statements of members of the Royal family are indeed public interest. However, is it at (b) where we see ‘reasonably believed‘, as I stated in the previous article ‘As we judge morality‘, I came to serious doubts to some regard of these events as I looked into the PDF of what I believe to be the original affidavit from the Palm beach Police Department. In that regard, none of the papers had picked up the pace and the fact that it took me less than 10 minutes to find then Detective Joe Recarey. None of the papers seem to be clued in at all. Even the Guardian, who remained devoid of innuendo (at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/23/prince-andrew-lawyers-sex-questions-court), did work on this story and as such Alan Rushbridger, as editor of the Guardian should consider the choices he made, especially the choice he did made by not doing them (which is his prerogative of course).

Now I get back to the previously mentioned section 4. Is it that far a jump that to use the defence regarding ‘publication on matter of public interest‘ that the journalistic party has a responsibility to decently investigate the claims it is printing? So now we get to the Joe Racarey part, by NOT properly investigating the claims, can we now get to the part that these negations nullify the defence in section 4 that the press might seem to rely on? This now means that there is a possible case of libel that the press could have to answer to? That negation is found in the part ‘reasonably believed‘, as there was no proper investigation, there can be no reasonable belief as I see it. So now, the press would need to rely on the defences as seen in sections 2 and 3.

Section 2 is about ‘substantially true’, most important is subsection 3, where we see ‘If one or more of the imputations is not shown to be substantially true, the defence under this section does not fail if, having regard to the imputations which are shown to be substantially true, the imputations which are not shown to be substantially true do not seriously harm the claimant’s reputation

So, the defence holds, but only if those that were not substantially true did not harm the claimant’s reputation. I reckon that the accusation in itself is already showing to be damaging beyond belief, which takes care of section 2 and section 3 is about ‘honest opinion’, this is not an opinion piece, this is about an allegation that will be considered a serious crime if proven correctly. So as I personally see it, there is no defence left for defamation should such charges be brought against certain tabloids.

Let’s look at the following quotes: ““I had sex with him three times, including one orgy,” Roberts claims in her affidavit” from the Guardian. Now this is pure reporting, I still believe that in the light of a few articles, the Guardian should have gone a lot further digging before getting on the ‘gossip’ gravy train (even though we clearly accept that reporting is not regarded as gossip), the reasoning of the person making the claim needs to be above a certain level, that part is still not proven. My issue is not with the Guardian in this case, although showing support for the Royal family by digging a little better would not have been the worst idea.

With the Daily Mail it is a different kind of fish. We get a photo with quote “‘On chummy terms’: The Duke of York takes a stroll with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein in New York” (at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597308/The-bombshell-court-document-claims-Prince-Andrew-knew-billionaire-friends-abuse-age-girls.html), yet they are adamant of not mentioning when the photo was taken. You see, an actual journalist would mention when it was taken, not imply all with an added picture. In their defence, they also wrote “There is, however, no suggestion that the Duke was involved in any form of sexual exploitation” in that same article. The quote “Miss Roberts alleges she and the royal had sex when she was aged around 17, still a minor under US law in some states” (at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2921490/Prince-Andrew-appears-public-Davos-time-emerged-called-swear-oath-innocent-sex-claims.html) gives us more. Yes, it is ‘alleges’, yet not unlike the Guardian they could have done their homework a little better before adding the articles as they had been added. It is my personal view (so feel free to consider that choice, not to just add articles as is, especially when the allegations involve members of the Royal family. I am not stating not to print them; I am stating that a high(er) level of investigative quality would have gone a long way towards giving the audience the quality article that they are entitled to.

The Telegraph has not faltered in remaining massively below expectations either. “It was his ongoing friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, an American financier, that saw him forced to step down as the UK’s trade envoy in 2011” (at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/11364822/Judith-Woods-Prince-Andrew-was-pitch-perfect-for-a-change.html). Whenever there is any mention we see the following by-line ‘Prince Andrew Duke of York’s reputation has already been tainted by his association with the disgraced American financier‘, with each time EXACTLY the same photograph in several papers, all devoid of the mention WHEN that photograph was taken. How tabloids are willing to misinform you for the mere need of circulation!

So what should be done?

Well, I am all about the freedom of the press, but not when it comes to non-accountability. Here is also the problem; the press is in this case as they report on events, not accountable and there would be no case, but in my view, should there be a case? Let us not forget that the circumstances as given in more than one regard. Not that this was reported on, but that the press did not take extra efforts to investigate what could have been investigated. The earlier mentioned detective is only one of several options. When a royal is on some trip, his calendar tends to be filled and usual in company of others. There is no denying he had met Virginia Roberts, but were they ever actually in private areas? Now, the yes and no of that is of course what one person or what the other person states, my issue has a few other directions.

The first part is seen in the Daily Mail (at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2896075/Prince-Andrew-flies-skiing-holiday-tell-Queen-s-innocent-underage-sex-allegations-does-immunity-deal-government.html), you see the quote “But today Mr Roberts retracted his claim. In a statement sent to MailOnline, he said: ‘I want to clear up that many years ago Virginia stated to me she was to meet the Queen’s son Prince Andrew and not the Queen herself. I’m sorry for any misunderstanding.’” Can anyone explain to me how a father (or mother for that matter) would allow their child to travel unaccompanied? No matter if that person would have been her Majesty the Queen herself, you do not let your child travel alone! If someone was there in any position as chaperone, then there should be a record of this. In addition, so much travel as a minor, on what passport? Where an on what dates did this person pass through customs with a passport?

Last there is the following statement “Epstein, a long-term friend of Andrew, was jailed for 13 months in 2008 for soliciting girls for under-age prostitution. The pair remained friends and were seen together in 2011 after Epstein’s release”. You see, this is stated in more than one form in several places, but was Epstein a long-term friend? Most of us want to be friendly with billionaires, but that does not make such a connection one of friends. When searching through boatload of pages, that part has not been illuminated for one iota (I admit that I might have missed it), but the fact that no one is clearly telling us about that ‘so-called’ friendship is decently worrying. Then we get the ‘seen together in 2011’, there could be several valid reasons. Yes, it is not ideal, but let us not forget the fact that Epstein remains a billionaire! We can speculate all we want, but why did they meet? Was this ever clearly reported on? Was Prince Andrew asked? Epstein has been investing in many philanthropically flavoured endeavours, so the chance that Epstein meets with people of fame and/or royalty is a lot more likely.  Should this make us uneasy? Absolutely, but can it be avoided? Not sure! By the way, they do not look too chummy in the photograph!

However, going back over the previous part, there is actually in the Daily Mail (at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2905218/Prince-Andrew-admits-s-foolish-friendship-paedophile-billionaire-Jeffrey-Epstein.html), the following “The Duke had previously said he had made an ‘error of judgement’ when he was snapped strolling through New York’s Central Park in 2011 with Epstein following his release from jail”, yet there is no mention why they met (still it is not a good situation to be in), also there was “expressing his regret for the ill-advised friendship”, which gives us enough that the previous statement is seemingly all correct. Still the issue remains, as I see it, that the papers should have done a lot more by giving clarity to the events.

Yet when we look at CNN (at http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/05/europe/prince-andrew-sex-abuse-allegations/), we see that the CNN article has a massive amount of information regarding the accusations and how Alan Dershowitz responded to them. The fact that we get the quote: “Dershowitz offered to waive the statute of limitations and “any immunity.”” Gives added light to the case. If this is proven, not only could her claim be regarded as useless, valueless and foundation less. There would be in addition severe consequences for her legal team. Alan Dershowitz has decided to counter claim those events by having the attorneys for Virginia Roberts to be removed from the role of attorneys. If that is maintained we get the new part, how to deal with the press.

Now we get to the part that has been an issue all along. You see, the press have gotten away with way too much for a long time. As such, if the clear evidence is set against Virginia Roberts, it will be our turn!

You see, I still have an issue with the press to a certain extent, they have played too many games and they still regard them as captains of the fate of others for the ever growing need of more revenue. When proven that the Duke of York was indeed innocent we can change the future, we can finally hold the press to values. It is my belief that once the Duke is proven to be innocent, the people in the UK will possibly unite for a referendum DEMANDING that the full Leveson report is implemented. No space for journalists crying like little bitches on how the freedom of the press is such a valued commodity. As I see it, they threw away the concept quality reporting some time ago. With the Leveson report fully implemented, the press will have no option but to actually create quality journalism, or be held accountable for 8 figure penalties for every transgression made. It will be a brand new day! I wonder if Hugh Grant considered this (perhaps he did) and it could be a new round for that what was ‘hacked off’.

I believe that the people have had enough of a certain journalistically based approach to what is true, good and ethical. The people to a larger extent still have not forgiven the loss of Lady Diana Spencer due to paparazzi (some still consider her to have been murdered through the acts of paparazzi). If these hurtful events against Prince Andrew turn out to be false, I feel certain that enough people can be rallied to force a referendum on implementing the full Leveson report. Let us not forget the headline ‘MH370 suicide mission’, whilst no evidence was ever recovered proving that headline. In the end Epstein might face additional scrutiny, whether they proceed whilst successfully avoiding a situation of double jeopardy remains an issue. Yet, in all this, Virginia Roberts will have as new problem, if Alan Dershowitz can actually bring evidence to make his case, the life of Virginia Roberts will end, because being a victim is one thing, failing prove it and then having to live through evidence proving the opposite is true, will give additional worry to the press in several forms.

This might blow over for some, but for the press this case could soon be the stuff of nightmares, it could have been avoided by properly digging deeper into the story, which is what a journalist was supposed to do to begin with.

 

2 Comments

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Milking a global event again

Sky News reported during the night a new ‘revelation’ involving the death of the late Princess Diana. If we consider the clinical part, then it makes every bit of sense that the police do not throw information away at a moment’s notice. Yet, here I think the time has now come to take a critical look at certain events.

What pushed these events to come forward now? It is time that certain individuals are held accountable for acts they undertake and the time has come to hold certain choices accountable for prosecution.

I would even go as far as to make this now a mandatory actionable situation for both MI-5 and MI-6, taking this beyond the scope of normal parties like the Metropolitan police (or their special units) and those involved in operation Paget.

The article at http://news.sky.com/story/1129902/dianas-death-police-passed-new-information states “It was passed to the police by the former parents-in-law of a former soldier, according to Sky sources.” Operation Paget had taken 3 years and costed 3 million pounds. Personally, I think that the 3 million pounds are not the issue, the fact that in those days, the press was so happy to get every nut job with a new conspiracy theory their 15 minutes in the spotlights to fuel more and more publications. I believe that family and friends of Miss Diana Spencer have suffered for far too long and as such I hope that the following happens.

If the information is strong enough, then the parties involved MUST be prosecuted for perverting the course of Justice.

The elements are:

  •      does an act (a positive act or series of acts is required; mere inaction is insufficient)
  •      which has a tendency to pervert and
  •      which is intended to pervert the course of public justice.

For the UK the precedence is Murray (1982) 75 Cr. App. R. 58

The allegation gives weight that a member of the British military was involved in the killing of a former member of the Royal family, which means that the accusation alone brings shame to members of the military forces and even a wider group of other parties.

Do these in-laws realise that if proven intentionally brought wrongly that their act holds a possible life sentence in prison?

considering the case Cotter [2002] 2 Cr. App. R. 762, where at [10] was stated “How could the jury infer, in particular, that what the defendants embarked upon was likely to lead to any sort of criminal proceedings or investigation which would have a tendency to pervert and bring about an injustice?

I believe that there should be in addition the investigation whether the press had ANY involvement in this. The simple truth is that this is no longer about ‘freedom of the press‘, this could now become an issue regarding ‘conspiring with another to pervert the course of justice‘, if any member of the press would be found involved then this becomes an entirely new deck of cards to deal with.

There are others who would have a case if the information is proven to be fabricated.

There are the family members of Sir David Rolland Spedding who passed away in 2001. Sir David was running MI6 at that time and in view of the importance of the deceased, MI6 would have had to have investigated this for the reason that if the event was not an accident, then it stood to reason that there could have been a danger to the Royal family.

The three year investigation through Operation Paget led by Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington as well as a truckload of members of Scotland Yard, all working hard to find out what had happened. Even though I reckon that they wasted months and months disproving hundreds of fabricated stories that fuelled the press. The fact that this is happening again should be unacceptable to anyone connected to the United Kingdom in any way.

All these persons could have a case of defamation under the UK Defamation act 1996.

If the information is genuine then it must be investigated, if proven that the allegations were false, there must be a prosecution. I personally belief that the CPS has no option to ignore this, consider that under common law ‘perverting the course of Justice’ has the attached label of a maximum life in prison means that this is a crime as seriously regarded as murder. This circus has gone on long enough and in the end it is important that a clear message is given.
The message is “Enough is enough!

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media