Back to reality

81345181-1905040104+-+London+Regional+Summer+Championships+2019

Johanna Kaschke a judge at London Swimming Regional Champs

Just decided to air this blog again, after I had been hiding it for years because of the shame of losing this libel trial. But history is what it is and we just have to live with it. Apparently we are now being defined by our online history and seeing that employers now choose employees by their public profile, I can well now understand that it is absolutely hopeless for me to ever get a well paid job.

What has happened so far?

I am a pensior now and I volunteer a lot to keep busy. I volunteer with

  • my local community centre
  • my local Safer Neighbourhood team and Neighbourhood Watch
  • for British Swimming at competitions as a swimming judge/starter

I am not active in politics at all. It is just amazing how small local activities of a female to do with political parties or interest groups get blown out of all proportions. Does it have to do with power-sharing?

Just having watched Dragon’s Den this week, there is now an online business that offers to clean up people’s public internet profile for a yearly membership of £70, so that it is easier to get the well paid job.

I think I will pass on that and allow the people who so completely and utterly bullied me online to live with their own conscience.

In the meantime, after having left the Conservative Party and been politically abstinent for years, I tried to re-join the Labour Party but was refused membership by my local association apparently just a year after I applied, apparently when I posted a picture of  being at a Jewish synagoge durinng a multi-faith celebration of the yearly Holocaust commemoration, which also included Councillor Islam for Bethnal Green. I declined an inviation to appeal the refusal.

Somehow I have the feeling I just don’t fit into political parties and will give that a miss in future.

 

Advertisements

BBC correspondent Iain Watson calls benefit recipients scroungers

This how I have to interpret this article found on the BBC website. I quote the whole sentences as published together and it says: ”

The BBC’s political correspondent Iain Watson said: “Next week, Labour will vote against government proposals to cap the rise in most benefits to just 1%.

‘Tough and fair’

“So they’re keen not to be seen as ‘soft on scroungers’ and to show they have their own solution to bringing down the benefits bill.”

I think its rather strange that a BBC correspondent should call benefit recipients scroungers. After all it is the government’s policy to favour redundancies, which are made by companies to increase profit and reduce worker in their companies, the so-called efficiency sackings and redundancies. A company is always allowed to reduce a work force to satisfy shareholders and increase profits and the workers who lost their jobs are then called scroungers.

But, at 9:36 the BBC completely re-wrote the article and the parts quoted above are no longer on their site.

Privacy not cast in stone

I think it is quite interesting that an American judge ordered twitter to hand over tweeds from the Occupy movement. I quote from the BBC article here: “”If you post a tweet, just like if you scream it out the window, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy,” Judge Matthew Sciarrino wrote in his decision.”

I think what has to be understood also is the time in which something happened on the Internet or when any type of software was used to communicate something. Our understanding of communication constantly changes because we only just learn about the media used.

Years ago people did not know what impact the Internet could or would have. You could not possibly know that as soon as you put something on a computer or Internet server that others could see it and copy it. Today we know that.

I think there is a real danger that courts apply today’s knowledge on yesterday conscience. Yesterday we did not know what we know today and we cannot turn back time ever.

Anti-discrimination doesn’t benefit the poor

The rich and powerful always want to stay at the top of society regardless of what methods they have to use to stay there. Even if all rich persons today were to become disabled and disease stricken, they would never give their money away to somebody who is poor and clever. They would make all types of laws and rules that lets them keep their money and keep the poor poorer than themselves.

Only when the majority of a ruling elite in a society become so brain damaged that they cannot control their armies to defend them will a whole culture vanish rather than the diseased rich giving up power to a poor person beneath them. That is in principle what happened to the Roman Empire and that is the problem we encounter today again.

There are now so many laws in place and legal mechanisms that are only there to ensure that no rules can exist that could seriously threaten the powerful elite today that all we can do is sit back and wait.

I really do not know why some people keep on protesting so hard against this, that and the other and get themselves in danger because all this does, is help the rich cement their power.

There are now so many instances today where we see that rulings for examples in courts are completely besides the point but that no sensible outsider can even make suggestions to remedy the problem. For example the previous post shows how a German court ordered YouTube to instal filters, when that is a hilariously impossible suggestion to make and the simpler solution of charging a flat fee license fee never even crossed the judges minds, so it seems.

We saw the rich inventing cigarette smoking and getting themselves and the poor smoking to death until it gotten so bad, that they eventually had to concede that it was a bad idea after all. Then we had some brain boxes decide that it was much better to stop individual farming in favour of urbanisation. The poor Greeks are currently the ones who get the same treatment that German farmers got in the 50s and 60s. They are told that because of economic pressures small farms become uneconomical and that they should stop farming.

The problem just is that whilst things happen nobody can really afford to speak up and protest because we have to keep our jobs and homes and income but usually all problems only come out decades later or even centuries later when suddenly somebody concludes the sensible thing, that was not admitted at the time.

If all the richest persons in the world were also the most cleverest and the most healthiest then you could bet your last Dollar that the laws we have today would be completely different. We would see a repression of the chronically sick, a discrimination against slow learners. But because there are now more and more rich people with health and learning problems, that is the only reason why society adopts a more tolerant approach to disabilities and illness. Yet the more the upper classes degenerate the more will the whole of society become weaker and slowly disintegrate into unmanageable chaos.

Could we not find a way to allow those who have the abilities and natural vigour to also get more responsibility over those who just wither away with their Dollars in their pockets.

I often ask myself why did the Bible often speak about people reaching much higher ages than today and I thought that it is possible that some rich persons gotten jealous of those with long-life genes within them that they killed them all and that is why our lives are shorter today.

Sometimes we hear about the odd person with extraordinary talents, who are not charlatans but genuinely have other features to their whole personas than the average person has.  It is not a matter of only giving those who have the perfectly healthy bodies all the best attention but it is a matter of not getting into a situation where we over-emphasize either being too set on all healthy and fit against being too understanding for degenerative conditions to the point that slow learning can sometimes set the mood in whole schools so that children with talents have to suffer and cannot learn properly any longer.

We should re-balance the equation and give schools extra money for children with disabilities as well as for children with abilities so that schools stop being tempted to fill their classes with disabilities just to get more money coming in, as they otherwise would. Equally why do only parents with disabled children get extra money but parents with able children don’t? Why do only youths that committed a crime get work placements and why do those who are decent and don’t commit crimes don’t get any jobs? All these things happen because the repressive mechanisms that are in place today, want to dishevel society so that only those with problems can be kept under stricter control and those without problems cannot get into a position where they could challenge the authority of those in high places.

E-publishing

YouTube has been found to be responsible for the copyright of music despite the E-commerce regulations and the German court decided that an Internet publisher should install filters to prevent the posting of copyright material but that is in my view a very laborious an unworkable concept. There are only 2 possibilities, its either only allowing approve material or charging U-Tube a universal license per month, quarter, annum, which is much more practicable and workable.

Asking a large company like YouTube to pay for each clip played, would be similar to charging a pub for each piece of music they play to their customers but such companies pay a universal license fee instead.

Galloway did it again

He won on a 65% turnout, a man with a mission and with his own unique brand of political agenda. I don’t think it had anything to do with Big Brother at all. Voters are not so shallow as to vote for appearances on Big Brother. I doubt they even watch Big Brother as much as some might lead us to believe. I think Galloway just wins on his ‘we are family’ type of politics.  The BBC reports the statistics here.

How ridiculous the stance of the major parties is can easily be described by the comment of the Conservative candidate who thinks that Galloway crushed Labour, when he lost a higher stake with 22.78 % of the votes whilst Labour only lost 20.36 % of their votes.

That just shows Galloway could not win in a high business environment like the Isle of Dogs but he can win where there is the rural type of area with many immigrants from Asia.Of course those immigrants cannot be expected to support a war that sees their relatives far away ending up in coffins.

Here in Tower Hamlets former Respect members have integrated with Labour to build a United Front led by Independent Lutfur Rahman, a type of quietly content coalition of brothers and sisters who are ideologically homeless but know what they want.

Though big efforts are made to get anybody who is somebody in little clean up operations. One councillor was ousted by prosecuting over illegal sub-letting of a flat and fiddling expenses for example.

But politics always uses the same tricks to get rid of opposition, when the goal is just to stay in power rather than make good arguments politically. Galloway gained an astonishing 52.83%. I do not know what his arguments were, as I did not follow the election but here in Tower Hamlets he called for more immigration,which ultimately led to his downfall, as even the most passionate people have to see the geographical restrictions a small area like Tower Hamlets has in terms of population.

Of course the anti-war propaganda always sits well when it gets proven more and more each day how little the troops can actually achieve. The repeated cries for more democracy in primitive countries fall on deaf ears as nobody can really afford it. We can’t even afford it ourselves here any longer.

Whilst the Conservatives here were in alliance with the Tax Payer’s Alliance to stop the waste they turn out to be a big wasting party, and yesterday the alliance turned sour when the Tax Payers Alliance published on Facebook yesterday how Andrew Lansley ran up a ££109,017 bill on tea and coffee in the space of 3 months. That is the real price of politics that countries like Iraq and Afghanistan or even African nations and other impoverished nations can never afford to make politics with the people.  Strangely enough today I can’t find that article on the Tax Payers’ Alliance website any longer but only the Mail on line article.

Yet I belief Galloway’s popularity is only spot on where he won and unique to his area and will never find a broad appeal in Britain because we cannot support that level of immigration that Galloway needs to stay popular throughout. I think this is going to be Galloway’s last stand and after him the Respect Party will be truly buried and done and dusted.

Zynga sets free from Facebook

I have many friends on Facebook who are only my friends because I happen to play the same games as they do. I have very much reduced the games I play because they are very time consuming. Having heard that Facebook gets a one third of every sale Zynga makes it does make sense that they develop their own gaming website as lots of people just play.

I just wonder whether a lot of people enjoy the dual role Facebook plays that they know their friends and loved ones are around when they play.

But on the other hand many not playing the games have to block the games notifications to get some peace without the games. The mixing with the Zynga games makes it hard to keep personal friends and personal messages close to those who are actually interested in them.

Many children register with Facebook because they want to play cute games like PetVille and I do hope that the new Zynga site will make better parental controls on the registrations of under age children possible.

Censorship on freedom of information

A juror was stopped from using openly available information when she sat on a jury. I think it practically involves censorship of media use because all the lady did was look up a name on the internet. It is a censorship that a juror now cannot look up the name of the defendant on the Internet whilst the jury listened to the case just because the jury are not allowed to know about the previous Defendant’s conduct, previous convictions.

There it is quite clear that the law is behind the reality of today’s technology. That law was made when we did not have openly available information for anybody and it now shows that today’s legal proceedings have left the real world and still live somewhere in the last century.

It is frightening that a Juror should not be allowed to use the Internet to look up a person’s name. Just imagine they deal with a name in a trial, a name that is quite common and at the same time want to look up about another person with a similar or same name and all that information comes up. Then the whole jury will be discharged.

It is just not practicable what is expected of people in justice today because it is just too old-fashioned.

Just look at all the paperwork that trials these days generate. Crates and Crates of paper,thousands of pages in multiple bundles. That is so completely unnecessary and environmentally unfriendly. All those documents could be computerised and projected from laptops onto screens. Only essential original documents should be kept in the true form for inspection.

The law should be changed in any case so that jurors will get to know the whole history of a defendant prior to deliberations because it is totally unfair that it is kept secret what a person’s previous conduct was. It is just as if a person is stripped of their history and looked at as if the past had not happened. That is just not how it happens in real life. Everywhere you look, you have to present your whole history, nobody anywhere these days is just judged as if their past  did not exist.

ISP cannot be forced to filter content

I am astounded that people even asked an ISP to filter content because I think it is technically impossible. The only way this could be done if broad sections of the Internet are censored. The way it works is that Internet publishers run completely independent services and that the ISP has not gotten access to their web content and no right to mingle in it. Each Internet publisher can however upload to their own server filter software and most scripts these days come with an option to filter out certain words or phrases. That is up or down to each individual webmaster and not the ISP.

It is inconceivable how any court initially could find that a local rights holder could force ISP to filter out content. It is against the E-Commerce directive and all commercial principles as well. I can only assume that the judge in Belgium did not understand how the Internet works. But it is nothing new that local judges have not gotten a clue how to approach the issue generally.  This BBC article explains the history of the case.

What happens in Internet hosting is that a web master rents out some space from an ISP and uses variations of Internet space on their server or the web master can hire a completely independent rack, that runs on its own accord and merely sits in the ISP premises usually.

Web pages run on scripts written in various languages, like Perl, and those scripts, if they are run via browser software, have options to filter for key words. Those filter functions can be used by anybody, that may be eBay or any smaller web site. If they do not use it, then they chose not to use it. Any web master can tip in any words or phrases they want to block a user from using. If a user then wants to start a page, using a certain title or word or phrase or make a comment on a forum for instance, or start an auction page with a title that is not allowed, then the server will block this request but only if the individual web master asked it to do so. That can never be run centrally by the ISP but is down to the web master to do.

There are other options, e.g. a web master gets an e-mail each time a user starts a new interactive page or other activity on the site and then can edit or refuse the entry.

But the fact that it took the EU court 7 years to sort this out, shows that judges in general have problems getting to grip with this issue.

During my own case before Queen’s Bench I noticed that the judge Mr Justice Stadlen never gotten to grip with the matter in hand and took ages to wrongly interpret insufficient facts. The applicant, Mr Hilton did not provide all the evidence required to sort the issue out and the judgement is really wonky.  I do not squabble with the overall outcome on the issue but the reasons how the judge came to the conclusion is wrong, Master Rose was correct but neither the Master nor the judge mentioned that Mr Hilton was actually never a web master but a user of the service. Unfortunately the EU court refused my latest application within record time, suspiciously quickly I may add, when it normally takes years now to get an application assessed. It was just a one-judge politically convenient decision. I don’t think the UK could digest a loss in Europe against a single women, a German immigrant at that, without even as much as a lawyer. The criminal comments on Mr Gray’s blog about the still existing Word War II mentality proof it.

Sadly now the European Court of Human Rights doesn’t care about the law itself any longer but only accept cases that are correctly filed. If the case is not correctly filed and the applicant would win on the merits, the EU court will simply dismiss the application. But the incorrectly filed excuse is readily used to spare a country embarrassment if the EU so desires.

Irresponsible reporting

It was at the heart of my own  claim at the high Court for defamation that some publishers made comments with a very radical element that appealed to the terrorist sentiment of readers. Unfortunately at the High Court today there is a culture of insensitivity settling in, that ignores the effect publications have on people’s sentiment.

The effect publications had on the people could be seen in the aftermath of the Mark Duggan shooting that led to a week of rioting across the UK. The Police made a public statement today as to a complaint they made to the Press Complaints Commission that an article about the Mark Duggan incident in that The Guardian reported Duggan did not have a gun. The Police describes the reporting as crossly irresponsible. We could see the very direct effect the situation had on a considerable amount of people.

It is a fact that irresponsible reporting can appeal to people’s sentiment and contribute to violent behaviour or wanting to plan criminal acts. This has been fully acknowledged by the Government White Paper of Louise Casey titled “Engaging Communities in Fighting Crime, which contains a large section on the press reporting being responsible for a distortion of effects on people’s perception of crime. The reporting of crime has become more full of fantasy since the 70s.

Yet the High Court insists on applying Freedom of Expression without properly considering the effect this has on crime, which is wholly irresponsible. The judges, which have claimed influential power in the High Court today, allow almost anything including swearing at the police now. See previous blog.

It is very important to get facts right in crime reporting and not to stipulate on people’s fancy of violence, which can have devastating effects and lead to more crime. That without any doubt sells papers but also reduces our quality of life.

Of course the Guardian then changed their story to say that no forensic evidence was found that Duggan was holding a gun in contrast to previously reporting that he did not hold a gun. It is quite possible that someone can hold a gun without this being traceable forensically.

Unfortunately in my own case the High Court upheld the publishers rights to publish whatever they wanted on receipt of doctored evidence, that was accepted because I was denied a lawyer. But it has become more than clear that the High Court now supports all types of irresponsible reporting; if not presented by highly paid lawyers the complainants do not stand a chance to win there and the court itself does not care.

This culture of ignorance is largely responsible for so many things gone wrong and still going wrong in publishing today.

I must admit, I was taken by that Guardian article as well as others and believed it at the time simply because it came from The Guardian.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 52,687 hits