We need nationalisation

Just listening to the Jeremy Corbyn speech announcing free broadband for everybody and a part-nationalisation of BT.

Of course it is – in my view – a national security measure. Unfortunately on a private basis the providers cannot afford nor finance the layout of fibre broadband to remote and hard to access areas.

Those areas are already exploited by criminal gangs who use them to import people for slavery and drugs.

Without the widespread broadband Britain is highly vulnerable as it is accessible through a lot of remote areas, which themselves are not secured.

So we do need a Labour Party because private finance is unable to raise the money to implement this new utility.

It will most likely attract a lot of investment into Britain if businesses can access that free fibre broadband anywhere in the country.

I have noticed the change in broadcasters attitude towards the ususal Tory arguments, which normally rubbish everything Labour but now they are more careful to allow this. Interviewers now ask the Conservatives, please tell us your policies, we know how much you dislike Labour policies.

Whilst through years of Tory government all of our nation’s administrative mechanisms have been based on private financy initiatives and even our pension schemes depend on private savings and company pension schemes now, the business world has finally realised that they are unable to cope on private ownership alone.

It will take a re-think but it is seriously necessary to re-nationalise certain industries for our national security.

Austerity and privatisation don’t match

It is more than stupid from this modern Conservative government to introduce more privatisation whilst at the same time driving us further into austerity. Only a well developing economy can support more and more privatisation but privatisation can never prosper under austerity because private firms rely on profits and if they do not make profits, they cannot deliver service.

The latest attempts to further dismantle pensions are a clear proof of this. Care for disabled and elderly people has clearly deteriorated in private homes. The alternative suggested by Duncan Smith and his pals is to dismantle pensions as we know them as well and have the very old looked after by the elderly. I feel sorry for the very old already.

Just imagine what type of patchy care a very old and frail person would receive if looked after by an elderly person who themselves have greater health-care needs.

It has been established for around 200 years in the western world, and we were promised by the governments, that if we pay our 1st class, 2nd class or so contributions then we get a pension from age 60 – 65. That was then slowly dismantled by starting to close the age gap between men and women and now there is a suggestion to get rid of pensions altogether by making old people volunteer for their pensions.

Has Great Britain become a rip-off society? Clearly it is a simple breach of contract to promise people a pension if they pay insurance contributions or stamps as they are also known by, in exchange for a pension when they then don’t get a pension.

I think pensioners would have a case asking for their money back if they get their pension cut off despite having paid their contributions over their lifetime and then get their pensions reduced or cut off for any reason other than not having paid enough contributions.

Unfortunately Iain Duncan Smith is the driving force behind that move, he is currently in charge of Works and Pensions and one of the few ministers that escapes a change in the recent cabinet re-shuffle.

Of course we see also that complaints about health services have soared since health care has been partly privatised, since the NHS has been slowly dismantled and we have seen whole health care trusts going deep into the red. What is the cause of our care problems is not only increasing old age, it is the privatisation of services, lets just be clear about that.

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.

Is advertising family friendly?

I was very impressed to read about the ‘Mothers Union’ and how it seeks to protect children that grow up in an ever increasing sexualized world, whereby children  are confronted by sexy advertising bill boards and similar material on and off the net. It’s almost part of our daily lives.

Commercial advertisements are made for those who can spent money and that are often the single workers who have got the cash to spare. Cash-strapped families are not so much a target for large scale ad campaigns. Children friendly advertising hits us each year before Christmas and its worst here in the UK than in other parts of Europe where ads for toys are not even allowed to that extent, that we see here regularly.

There are then the Christmas song choices and competitions and I must say that the lyrics of today’s pop songs are often very sexualized and make you think about one thing alone. That without any doubt, influences how children look at persons and personal relationships. I am personally bored by today’s trivial music, which leaves little to the imagination and find the half-naked stage shows unattractive.

Whilst parents in the past tried to avoid the talk about reproduction and sexual things completely, they now have no choice because its not only in music videos, music lyrics, street posters and on the Internet but also the schools give sexual awareness lessons.

One can make too much fuss and bring children’s minds around to thinking about this when otherwise they would not really be interested at all. The Bailey Child sexualisation review has asked for a review of porn control, which is very much needed. I understand that Internet service providers find it workable to put better Internet access controls for families, yet it is extremely easy for a child at present to register with Facebook for example because all a child has to do is put in a fictional date of birth and he presto the membership is accepted. So if that works for Facebook so easy, it will work for others equally easy.  Sites like Facebook are very user-friendly and families even welcome the site for easy communications with family and friends locally and across the globe.

Putting the responsibility in parents’ hands is not so easy because being on the Internet is very much an individual activity, each person is alone with the computer terminal they are sitting on. Putting on strict controls on adult content often results in not being able to see many web pages, which hinders Internet research.

Maybe it would be possible to put an inbuilt control into each new sold machine, that at the time of starting it up, the responsible adult has to enter the children that are likely to use the machine and that all activities requiring a certain age have to be approved by the adult in charge of the machine, this must include e-mail verification of memberships such as Facebook.

Yet the key to all remote and electronic communications is the proof of whom you are actually talking to and that is especially important for children. I think face to face contact is the most important point on computer communications and if a child can see the other persons they speak to it removes a lot of the uncertainty and misuse of the system. The best system to use in my view is the MSN / Windows live messenger, whereby people can actually see each other whilst they communicate over the Internet. Most laptops have inbuilt cameras these days. Often abuse takes place by adults pretending to be children and they coax children to meet them just to reveal their real age, that is not possible if children can actually see whom they talk to at the initial stage.

The voice of families is often not properly taken into account when advertising strategies are decided and therefore I welcome this call to include children’s and families’ needs into commercial policy considerations.

Throughout my experience with community work I realised that families never come to meetings and  I assume it is the same in commerce, it is that single people have  more time to meet and make policies that then affect families. It is this method that is responsible for commercial strategies running away with themselves. Families, parents need to be better consulted in many aspects of today’s commercial, artistic and public campaigns.

There is no value to Internet anonymity

There are not only the Twitter users but also many bloggers who prefer not to disclose to the general public who is behind their postings and I think that should change. Many posts have no proper informal value and only serve to spread unease. Bullying campaigns are led from nameless blogs and social networks.

If anybody wishes to make a point, they should do so, saying who they are, so they can give that point a weight. Any comments made anywhere, which are not underwritten by a proper person are without any value and just a wast of time. Nobody can take them serious and nobody can take any action over them. Yet if there are too many rumours spread, people get discredited in the popular opinion regardless how baseless the rumours are.

Often anonymous rumour machines make the work of the police and other public bodies much more difficult because for example security services have so much more to do to find out whom they are dealing with or whom they can ignore.

If anybody has a proper grievance, that has to be properly complained about or no authority needs to even take notice of it. So what is the point of these naonymous bloggers, tweeters? I think that can only be answered by those who get satisfaction of publishing from the safety of anonymity.

Maybe the act of anonymous publishing in itself has a name in the archives of mental health specialists.

In business anybody wanting to trade online must make their identify clearly known on their website but individuals get the freedom of total anonymity. So it is quite possible that a person has respectatility but they then put on the cloak of the bully and start writing rubbish about others. Mind you not only bloggers seem to lead double lives these days. I cannot support the argument of the Twitter blogger who fears his account deetails stop others from airing their grievances via his account.

Cameron’s vision for East End tech hub hailed by academics – News – East London Advertiser

Cameron’s vision for East End tech hub hailed by academics – News – East London Advertiser.

I am as usual years ahead of developments because I started my high-tech business in 1999, years ahead of today’s developments. It can only be welcomed by local residents that plans are in place to make something of the East End of London. Away go the criminal undertones when thinking about East London, in come the aspirations and good ideas, well done David Cameron.

How is your self-esteem?

All Facebook users have been told by “the Mail online” that they are narcissist and have low self-esteem. That is frankly speaking a very nihilistic manner in which to dispose of a worldwide social club that meets online.

Why only restrict the analysis to Facebook, there are many similar online social networking sites, which all work on the same principles. Facebook was just used mainly by the Conservatives and could be singled out by political opposition to deliver a fatal analysis.

If we want to analyse all remote social networking as being performed by persons of low self-esteem and narcissist, then we condemn modern technology and should then also include TV into the equation.  TV and films produce a transformation of the personal self onto a self-made platform seeking acknowledgment by the remote public.

Yet social networking sites like Facebook probably are easily dismissed as negative because they do not make money in a pay-as-you-use style. That is perhaps the only valid reason I can use to explain this running down of Facebook users.

For me personally, and I think for many others, it is just a useful way to communicate, e.g. via the messaging system, to share meeting information, via the groups system.  In my estimation the vast majority of users actually want to play the games on Facebook and those have become profitable for the inventors and are seen as a socially valuable tool to enhance communication between people.

The whole question of social schizophrenia is however a very interesting topic and I have a personal interest in it, therefore that research is quite interesting to me, yet the motives and tendency to vilify Facebook users as mentally obscure is a bit of a cheek. Remote communications are a sign of our times, available because of our communications technology and a result of spare time available because we in fact have disposed of our direct local, economic and social involvement on a vast international scale especially in the developed nations.

I generally agree that using any type of remote technology as entertainment lowers your grades, achievements, but that equallly applies to TV, lots of music etc.

A surprising outcome

My appeal against the decision of Mr Justice Stadlen against the Kaschke v Hilton [2010] EWHC 690 (QB), decision was declared as totally without merit. Well that might be good as the court at least gives my case some credit. So the Court of Appeal has refused to re-consider the decision in the Light of Striking out the claim either in terms of publication or merit of the claim itself in terms of value.

I just had those news from Mr Dougans who got it from the Court of Appeal so he says, though the official website results do not show it yet. 10:35.

Even though I made the decision mainly over the costs order against me that followed, it is good in terms of that the Court of Appeal doesn’t feel that the decision could have included a strike out, as it was intended by Justice Eady when he gave permission to appeal to Mr Hilton.

At the worst case scenario the Court of Appeal could have heard the Appeal and allowing counter appeals and deciding that Mr Justice Stadlen should have dismissed the case there and then. But another possibility is that the court declares the application for permission to appeal the Hilton ruling as totally without merit because the case had been struck out by now. Another fine way to get around another determination of the Regulation 19 issue. I doubt there is someone in that court that would know how to do it properly. They are just trying to avoid the issue, lol.

Even if I win this case I will write to Strasbourg for an opinion on the merits of the analysis with regards to the E-Commerce Regulations, as I am interested in that subject.

Unfortunately I feel very much discriminated against in the court, compared to the former Defendants I was always asked to proof treble strong what I tried to achieve whilst the court always held in favour of the Defendants from the start. I felt very much excluded and forced into the outsider position, in which I still am. You can see if you read the judgments, they are favourable to the Defendants, they promise them victory and they discriminate against Freedom of Association issues. I wondered why Justice Stadlen mentioned my Respect membership as if it was the last party I belonged to and he makes it look like he uses that as reason to justify the bloggers publications about me. He wrote I am a member of the Respect Party when I became a member of the Conservatives on 11.9.2007. I think this was done with intent to make the judgment more convincing and condemning.

Yet that can only come from someone who is prohibited in discriminating against people for certain associations.

I personally have an interest and do research in political development and have done so for a while. I have started to write a book on the subject as well but had no time to come anywhere near completion.

I think any trained lawyer can see the mistakes in the judgments, the parts and quotes that have been used out of context to decide in the favour of the former Defendants. But not even the best arguments will help if the court is decidedly against me. Mr Justice Eady started it off basing his judgment on pure assumptions and case law like Godfrey v Demon, for witness statements being struck out if the publication cannot be proven, Stern v Piper for the repetition rule have all been ignored to concoct some rulings that are entirely bizarre.  I can see the threat in all judgments that strike out are based on an assumption of left-wing activities and try to justify the allegations, but that is strictly speaking against the rules of the European Court of Human Rights.

A lot of the case-law in the latest Stadlen judgment has been taken out of context. The court tries to misconstrue quotes from other authorities and in particular Burstein, Lord Denning made some very good remarks about admissibility of character evidence but it was all dependant on justification and or properly before a jury. Whereby properly before a jury actually means before a jury and not assuming it is before a jury and deciding what that assumed jury might decide.

I think it is too easy for a court to say, you are not going to get much damages, as that is a purely relative and subjective impression.  This rule can be used on anyone the court doesn’t like or wants to push out in favour of a Defendant. This rule is open to abuse.

I can only continue to persevere because that is what the European court rules expect me to do.  I think I suffer a considerable miscarriage of justice.  I run against a wall of consented ignorance and condemnation towards me and wonder whether it is partly because of my German origin.