The German propaganda hole

This BBC story epitomizes in my view what is wrong with publishing these days but it quite clearly also shows the elaborate concealment of neo nazi activity in Germany in that Germany is helped by some major English publishers to do so.

Apparently the Germans are over-interested in keeping the nostalgia about the Baader-Meinhof group alive and do anything to give everything radical the RAF slant. Yet as these pictures show there is now a considerable silent right-wing opposition that is extremely well organised by the looks of it. It takes some consent to be able to pull a mass demo on the spot, with people who are in respectable jobs, coming out all masked up for a quick demo.

But seeing that the new neo nazis get the same training routine as the former Baader-Meinhof terrorists did and my previously voiced suspicions that not all is what it seems, I think we are dealing with a huge public concealment of facts and that Germany, helped by publishers like Der Spiegel and the British free press, is sitting on a Nazi time-bomb that is probably going to go off in a space of 10 years, or at the latest when the European dream collapses.

The article says that “Human rights groups say more than 180 people have been killed in right-wing attacks in Germany over the last 20 years.

Neo-Nazis have murdered more people in post-war Germany than any other single group, including Islamists and the far left. But this is not yet reflected in official data.

Could it be that Germany’s sensitivity to its history has made it want to play down modern-day right wing extremism?”

And when I then read that “Weapons training is carried out in secret. In the Arab world, for example, with freedom movements there. The right-wing scene sees itself as a freedom movement.”and think of the fact that the Baader-Meinhof terrorists started off their careers by taking training in the Arab world I wonder whether the concealment of actual intent is almost perfect for the German propaganda machine.

And of course the article is about a group of Nazi killers and it asks ”

It turns out intelligence agencies had had the group under surveillance for years, and even found a bomb-making factory in their garage back in 1998.

So why were the trio not stopped earlier? Why were they allowed to disappear and then stay underground? And why was it that security services blamed the murders on the Turkish mafia at the time? A right-wing motive was never investigated.”

Of course there we have it, the right-wing native connection is always swept under the carpet and some illusive left-wing terror connections created to give it all a bad left-wing stint.

But then in my own case before the High court for over 3 years I exactly used those arguments when I asked, how does the Honourable Mr Justice Eady actually make out his judgement by saying that I must have been accused of left-wing affiliations when there is not one shred of proof for that whatsoever? That is just showing that even top judges make public assumptions to talk away any suspicions of right-wing activities and that is what we are having to digest, that there is no real attempt to deal with facts.

I personally was never involved in any right-wing or left-wing activities in any event but what my case really shows is that the mainstream press uses tactics to tint events to suit a publicity campaign to protect certain political movements that they want to protect and to blame something that doesn’t really exist but that is in the best interest to use in order to protect something that is brewing underneath it all.

Mr Justice Eady used his position to say that something must have been happening over 35 years ago and that he knows what happened in the minds of German authorities then and that he has the right to do so and he has been backed up by the Court of Appeal in saying that Mr Justice Eady can determine what German police thought in 1975 when that went against existing paperwork in the case.

So there we have it, a publicity machinery that blames everything on the left and the right-wing movement actually brews up under the surface to face us with totalitarian actions like the shooting of Labour youth in Norway by Breivik.

I also said it in a previous blog that I do not belief that the latest attempts to show that Baader-Meinhof were funded by the East German government are actually true but that this is just an attempt to conceal that Baader-Meinhof all along where just used to put a left-wing stint over the new terrorism in the nation.

I had put plenty of material before the high court to show that the laws then were not proof of political affiliations but that the state at the time could just about arrest anybody on the flick of a finger without much evidence needed. But that arrests had nothing to do with any type of political or religious affiliations but were just intelligence gathering exercises.  I had put plenty of evidence before the court to show that the names involved were never ever connected to any Baader-Meinhof group and still the court found it more important to protect Der Spiegel and affiliated British publishers rather than get to the bottom of the facts on the matter.

Of course then the case was defended because some thought it is more important to defend the right to spread lies under the mantle of freedom of expression. I did in fact proof to the court that non of the names involved where ever connected to the Baader-Meinhhof gang but that didn’t impress the court who still fiddled the case to allow the Big British win and the press to connect anything to Baader-Meinhof to stop people thinking in different places.


Miscarriage of justice in the Laurence case

I belief that the case of Stephen Laurence ended in a gigantic miscarriage of justice.  Due to media hype and the involvement of prominent human rights campaigners and the bad conscience of the British on their human rights record on the treatment of the blacks, the media decided to belief a lie and condemn a group of white crooks to take the blame for the Laurence murder. Just as in my own case, the frenzy of a group of people has mislead and distorted the truth.

It is plainly before all of us what happened from watching the BBC Panorama play. There is is plain to see that Duwayne asked Stephen to run around for a substantive period of time after the stabbing, he admitted it on the BBC.

It is not the action of a caring friend to asked a stabbed mate to run around. He should have called the police immediately and an ambulance and that could have saved Stephen.  Please also read my previous posts.

I have e-mailed the Court of Appeal and the police with the details of my concerns.

A balanced decision against libraries

I am just picking up this story because I have a long history of book involvement on a professional basis and learned the profession of bookseller after leaving business college and books always were my great big love.

What also draws me to this story is the rhetoric used in the judgement in an application against library closures in Brent by campaigners who challenged the council’s decision to close a substantive number of libraries in the borough.

It seems to me that this was plainly a politically desirable solution sealed by a high-court judgement to please some spending plan. Yet stopping communications networks for the sake of a spending plan usually indicates public steering of opinion making channels. In short it promotes a propaganda machinery in this case the Internet.

Of course people rely less on hard copy reading these days. We see the Kobo and the Kindle praise people’s money out of their pocket for e-book reading. Yet this type of reading relies on electricity and an electronic and wireless communications network that is not able to function if one of the components doesn’t work, but with books they always can be read, they are just bulky.

The campaign against the library closures stated after the judgment:

They said: “The Court of Appeal appears to accept that there is a risk of indirect discrimination against significant numbers of people in Brent resulting from its plans to impose devastating cuts on local library services. “But it has excused the council from properly taking that risk into account before deciding to make those cuts.”

“Start Quote

Closing half of our libraries has had a devastating effect on the most vulnerable members of our community”

Margaret BaileySOS Brent Libraries

What is also apparent that people get driven to use the Internet, which itself does not prepare a pre-screened reading environment. In a library you only get certain material that is morally and ethically approved but on the Internet you get a forest of information and it is up to the reader to select what they want to read, making it much easier for the very open minded to stray off into undesirable directions. The responsibility of reading choice is no longer in the hands of the librarian but left to the individual alone.

Generally I find the closure of the reference libraries the most disturbing, they even closed in my area and some books like Gatley on Libel and Slander I cannot even obtain at all in my region.

There is generally a very disturbing trend on an international level to reduce communications networks with the closure of libraries come the reduction in Post Offices in the US.

Of course that in itself would be much more worrying if there wasn’t an alternative communications network like the Internet, but then if the Internet breaks down the local communities will be much more dependent on local leaders and direct personal decision makers who can exploit their status easier.

A rather disturbing outlook on that motto is the film from Kevin Kostner called the Postman. Apparently it signalled the start of World War II when Hitler closed down postal van depots to use the vehicles for the war effort. So that had a budgeting concern as reason just as today’s decisions in respect of libraries and post office closures have budgeting reasons.

Incidentally we see international frictions rising everywhere. Even here in Europe, the currently polite stance of Germany to deal with the UK’s refusal to join the European group more closely can change any minute, as Merkel has already hinted on a possible war that could follow Europe’s failure to pull together.

The Olympics always hold off international tension but can also lead to a build-up of national pride when countries lose out on the medals and political jealousy takes over from the sporting losses.

The library case was supported by a substantive number of public celebrities who hope to have the Supreme Court take it up.  One important argument to use is I think the fact that electronic communications network can break down and then there is nothing but a void and people are deprived of reading and getting a rounded picture of opinion. It then becomes easier to implement propaganda machines that stirs people’s minds into certain directions, which is probably what is intended with this plan to cut down on library spaces.

Of course every locality is itself the most important and people just have to follow their leaders when it comes to the crunch, I just think what this application against Brent council indicates is that the people are not too confident in their leaders at the present.

But what a reliance on electronic communications also indicates is that individuals are expected to lay out the money to purchase the expensive equipment needed to participate in it. Any electronic equipment is initially expensive and that expensive is impossible to find by someone on the bread line, by people who have hardly enough to buy their foods on a daily basis and by people who find it difficult to even find the bus fare to get to a library further away. People will become more dependant on what they hear and rumours, which is always dangerous. Source

government stalls subsidy on localised solar electricity

I thought it was an excellent idea to stimulate house owners to install solar panels on their roofs and allow them to sell on the extra electricity created for a profit. The principle is the best solution for a planet that suffers from severe energy problems and has problems generating naturally produced and healthy energy. Instead the government wants to bank our future on more nuclear reactors. There are many natural energy producers around the country, who produce energy in a variety of ways. That may be from waste, water generators, wind turbines, etc. All the surplus energy can be sold to energy companies who in turn sell on the energy to consumers who subscribe to green energy schemes or larger companies who sell it on as part of their general energy supply.

People are paid to generate their own electricity with solar panels and that seems an ideal solution to make people bear the cost of installation.

Apparently Friends of the Earth argue that the government stops subsidising an industry that is beneficial for the environment and creates jobs. It also helps create energy independence. I suppose it is this aspect that governments dislike in general, that people can live locally without needing a centralised mechanism to keep going.

The argument is that renewable energy has created 39.000 jobs and with the cutting of the subsidies Britain has fallen from 3rd to 13th place in the world’s renewable producer rankings.  I said it many times already that it was the most disappointing thing for me about this government that they abandon renewable energy production and instead want to revert to nuclear energy. We are told it is not so dangerous and risks are low. We have seen what an earth quake did in Japan. With the Iran nuclear program we are constantly reminded how dangerous nuclear energy is, yet here in our own country, the government is suddenly very keen on it.

I think what we need is transparency who financially supports our governing parties and if necessary put an end to political corruption, which arises out of the fact that political parties rely on sponsorships from commercial companies. There comes a point when profits and production methods are only partly important because the environment does not care about any of it. Of course for some companies large centralised operations are profitable and it is easier to account with large scale supply mechanisms, but that is not always a good solution to pressing environmental problems.

The Euro Superstate was endorsed by Cameron

It is our very own Conservative Prime Minister who wanted a bigger and better Europe. It is not just a secret plan between Germany and France as the Express tries to make us belief. Cameron has widely supported a more functional Europe and all political and judicial decisions that were made lately are geared to support that plan. I just have no confidence in any of our political leaders who are all not really telling us what is actually going on. I do not belief hat a bigger and more federal Europe can bring a solution to the current economic crisis.

Cameron always pretended to be fiercely against European supremacy to catch up all the votes of the Anti-Europe lobby. But when he refused the referendum he actually argued for a bigger European state, with more powers in which the UK has more say but less to surrender.  That is just another dream that our current political leader tries to sell  us. The UK will soon be a County territory of Europe, with local decision making powers that are no more or less than what local councils here in the UK have.

I do not think that this will sort out the economy at all. It will probably be even more expensive to employ useless political leaders who just talk empty trash a lot of the time. European Supremacy is the main reason for all those wars between European countries that happened during the last 1000 years. Since we no longer have Monarchies in individual states, it will be very easy to put on the EU cap on all European nations.

It is totally apparent that even in European law the high court does not want to upset the European balance and especially not when it comes to the established publication machinery. With the exception of Murdoch, who is a family run business and family run is currently being negatively portrait in the Federal Republic of Europe. Murdoch was compared to the Mafia in the most recent question and answer session, which is frankly outlandish. The good publishers like the BBC, Der Spiegel and other similar publishers are all corporations with little family power in them.

The current trend in the UK to give business to private corporations to run public services whether its publishing or health will lead to further breaches of common law when the companies start to collect data that helps them keep costs down or stimulate sales. It is simply what any government agency does but private business is not allowed to do. That is where the privately run principle fails because business will never have the same powers as the state.

A new iron curtain?

I suppose the title of my most previous post “A bad political strategy” could also head this one, which is about the Russian, Iranian and world political relationship.

Russia now refuses sanctions against Iran over the Iranian development of nuclear energy. The UN, in line with western expectations accuses Iran of wanting to develop nuclear weapons. It all sounds like the run up to the next invasion of some eastern country by western and UN led forces.

Iran say they have a right to develop peaceful nuclear energy but the West of course accuses them of wanting to make nuclear weapons. We had arguments of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it led to the Iraq invasion and enquiries ever since. Iran has long been a thorn in the eyes of the western politicians, as it will not bow to pressure and is outspoken in opposition to all western policies. Israel has already vowed to invade Iran and attack them to destroy the nuclear power plants they have built or are about to build.

The Russian – Iranian allegiance makes this very interesting though in a dangerous sense.

Britain is at its best to seriously annoy the Russians though, which again draws a big international line across our world geography. Russian oligarch has won case against Russia in the case of murder allegations. Now has an active court case before the High Court, in particular Justice Eady, claiming billions from the owner of an English football club who happens to be Russian. So the Russians do not mind being part of our western world. Anybody really loves their footsie. The West however wants to see more submission to us in the political sense as well as the football club alone.

If Eady J now lets the Russian defector win against the Russian football club owner, there will be some serious thinking to do what can be done with the political headache that is about to become a giant migraine. Of course I said it before and say it again, the courts and in particular civil law is not the method to make politics but this is what is emerging. Judges make politics these days and it not only jeopardises the functionality of justice, it also can cause a war. Think about it. If Russian sides with Iran and the West attacks Iran and Russia is on their side, we have a big dangerous scenario.

Student protest is a farce

Reading this little sentence from Universities Minister David Willetts, which says: “Most new students will not pay upfront, there will be more financial support for those from poorer families and everyone will make lower loan repayments than they do now once they are in well paid jobs.” “Students, like other citizens, have the right to participate in peaceful protest.”

So I do not understand what these student protests are all about because there is no rational argument that these protests are about the tuition fees because if fees are not to be paid in advance and the repayments are lower, so why do students protest? The only people who are probably worst off, initially are the very rich ones and nobody poor should have reason to support them.  I think that whatever this new government has implemented has not properly been marketed and some individuals exploit that fact to mislead others to find a reason for a protest. 

Please consider the facts and stay at home if you do not really want to protest, dont’ let yourself be drawn into a protest that is not really yours.

It is quite obvious that the police’s first and foremost job is to keep essential order and if the protest gets out of hand they are allowed to use rubber bullets. We already have the tents around St. Paul’s and now we get the students, some of which already occupied some campuses.

I am starting to think whether our current university elite is actually all that clever because if they were they would not participate in that protest and I am also starting to think whether university education is selective enough. I do know that among young people communication works not around what people read but what they tell each other and social networking makes a huge chunk of that communication.

I know all those dreadful strings of nonsense that is constantly spread on Facebook for example when it comes to Facebook Fees and people ask each other to copy and paste it onto their walls. A lot just do it without thinking whether what they spread is actually a fact or not, they do it just because somebody asked them to do it.

Ironically next week the Lord Mayor’s parade also will use the St. Paul’s route to get to the High Court. That will be a ridiculous ceremony when the Lord Mayor has to make his speech among tents of protesting demonstrators.

But as we do have a justice system, that is not ideal and as I have experienced it myself, cannot deliver justice effectively we will see a fair amount of discontent going on because people simply cannot cope with irrational leadership. Yet I could not blame the government for the student protests but think those protests originate elsewhere and fees are just a reason to have a protest. People are quite sensitive to illogical behaviour and since justice is used as a political weapon instead of just what it is supposed to be the current system that should hold itself up, is crumbling away with widespread protests. We have judges sitting in the highest court who disrespect justice and that is the route of the problems I think.

I think that the policy makers should look at the source of the discontent and put justice right before they consider getting any peace for the government.

But just for those still unsatisfied with the student loans on offer here is the student loan calculator from the BBC website. Looking at the fact that a GP now earns around £100.000 per year, where is the problem?

Justice Eady, the truth is still waiting

I have now suffered several, in my view botched judgements that I had to endure simply because in civil law I am not entitled to legal representation. The case involves an originally British publisher, Der Spiegel and an employee of a Spiegel subsidiary, Lloyds List, which now bought into Der Spiegel. Mr Osler is extremely left-wing and supports all sorts of left-wing groups from Anarchists to Communists. He works in Lloyds list especially on the pirate issue, e.g. Somalis hijacking British ships. Of course several British women have become victims of Somali terrorist activity recently.

Justice Eady found for Der Spiegel, found for Mr Osler and found for all the other defendants involved in the UK left-wing Labour movement. They were spurred on by a member of the Conservative Party who volunteered, without being forced to in any way, to defend Mr Osler, whose defence then benefitted the other attached defendants. British law was so pleased with the performance of Mr Dougans that he became Assistant Solicitor of the Year, that is how the British reward those who work in the best interst of their country. Mr Hilton of course was supported by the big and rich Gay Support Network as he is an admitted and known Homosexual. But still all the Britishness and Gayness doesn’t allow a court to find wrongly on the evidence.

So, yes I am a German immigrant, now in possession of a British passport and I dared to attack the former Axel Springer empire over one of their publications. Of course one needs to know that Springer was implanted on Germany after World War II to dismantle the Hitler propaganda machine.

Why was I picked on by Springer? It is not known.  Tthe reason why I was arrested can be seen from these documents here, which are from the German Prosecutor from the 70s and 80s. There are 3 documents, all of which are translated. It is more than clear from the documents that I was arrested in line with an investigation against a Wilhelm Boenninger whom I do not know and who, according to my research, is never named in connection with any Baader-Meinhof activities anywhere on the net. There are a vast number of Internet pages, which list known BM or RAF associates. That name is not there, neither is mine. I never met a man called Wilhelm Boenninger and assume it is a case of mistaken identity. See letter from 12 March 1980, Ref 8 Js 500/75. I then was compensated for false arrest and the false imprisonment suffered See letter from 16 March 1978, ref 4StR Es 158/77. Also enclosed and then I received a letter from the German authorities certifying that I was never, not even remotely under suspicion of RAF association. See the underlined word on the bottom of page 1, letter dated 10 April 1980 Ref 1BJs 93/77.

Yet Mr Justice Eady felt fit to belief the palaver of Mr Osler, who argued that all arrests in the 70s in Germany must have to do with the Baader-Meinhof Group. The British publication machinery, including the BBC spread rumours that in Germany up to 35% of the population were in active support of the Baader-Meinhof group, which is a statistic that is very hard to belief. It is false and mere rubbish. You must imagine that if 35% of the population were in support of something then every 3rd or 4th person you would meet in the street would be involved into a criminal gang and actively supporting them. That is practically unthinkable and cannot be supported in any rational argument.  Apparently there is no broadly conducted survey that could support such a statistic, a survey that would have been conducted in Germany itself, asking ordinary German citizens and not just the demonstrating student minority that is so readily portrait on UK websites.

It simply pleases the British mentality to think that the Germans were broadly in support of Baader-Meinhof but that is the reason for Justice Eady’s judgment against me. The fact is that not anywhere in any official paperwork available from 1975 – 1980, not anywhere is there any mention of any political orientation. There is no way that anybody could come along and reasonably argue that any arrest that took place in Germany in the 70s, must have taken place because of Baader-Meinhof activities. Especially also not as at that time Germany did not know a Terrorism clause within Criminal law. A terrorism clause was added in late 1976. It was Der Spiegel that couched my arrest in an article about Baader-Meinhof and Eady J cleared Der Spiegel of publication  in the UK  during my case against Der Spiegel when later he accepted doctored evidence from Osler that it had been published. This is an obvious miscarriage of justice.

Osler seems to be the babe of the court. He works for Lloyds List the subsidiary of Der Spiegel and in particular mostly on the Somali Pirate issues. Several women were kidnapped by Somali pirates recently. Judith Tebbutt, a disabled women, was snatched, her wheelchair left behind, her husband murdered.

The Paragraph 129 as it was in use then was so wide, that anybody would be arrested within it, including Travellers, religious sects like the The Church of Scientology and all would be accused of potentially wanting to throw over the German state and be potential terrorists, there was no actual proof needed for such an accusation. That was the climate under which arrests took place in Germany in 1975. It would be unthinkable today that this could happen with the Human Rights Act in place. It was plain and simply state persecution that allowed the imprisonment of indiscriminate amounts of people so that the state could weed out undesirables and collect information from people. Thousands fell victim to this.

There is no way, that I was ever assumed to be in touch with the RAF or Baader-Meinhof, there is no proof that the state even sought it was possible. The letters proof it, one even says, that I was never, not even remotely under such suspicion.

Not only did Eady J support the dismissal of my case because he thought it was an abuse of process because the difference between a compensated criminal arrest and compensated Baader-Meinhof arrest is too small, he actively supported in his judgement the notion that my arrest must have been for left-wing activities, for which there is no proof available at all. Not in any letter from the German authorities is this actually supported. I protested about this rigorously during the draft-judgement state but Justice Eady knows that without that left-wing element, his judgement cannot stand, and so he put it in just to make it work.

Justice Eady decided to please Der Spiegel, to please the left-wing Lloyds List employee. Why? Probably its a racist and sexist motivated judgement, that might also have religious grounds. What the British have established to be an anti Hitler propaganda tool, has turned into a pro-British propaganda tool and bends facts to please the British instead. Mr Osler later posted on Mr Gray’s blog, that I was defeated just like the Germans in World War II and the police promptly allocated a crime number for that posting but refrains to prosecute because the fine they could achieve would not exceed £50.

Of course I think sexism plays a big role. I am a single women, not associated with the typically important English male or even female (that if I was a Lesbian, which I am not). Many nasty posts have been produced during the course of the court case, mainly from men with revolting comments, that even one female high court judge remarked upon and then Mr Osler dropped his claim for costs. Unfortunately distasteful sexual comments were all over the Internet on this case.

Unfortunately for me, the whole justice system in Europe is now so impenetrable, that the single judges in the European Court of Human Rights also just tick off applications by unrepresented applicants as not being admissible, like they do in 95% of the cases. They cherry pick cases to hear and mine was not there.

The truth on my cases is still outstanding and I feel I am a victim of a miscarriage of justice.  It is my opinion and I have Freedom of Expression.

One recent reader comments that the court must have been listening to the case for so long to cash in on the payments from the state, which covered the costs for my applications because they need the money. That does not please the British Tax Payer.

I still belief and think I am correct in doing so, that there is a considerable difference in a general arrest and an arrest with specific suspicions of supporting and sympathising with a mayor terrorist group, who solely work from an illegal underground network. That is what the posts implied. Even in Germany the authorities did put such specific accusations in their arrest warrants, but not in mine, which was jointly with one other person, who also never was associated with known terrorists. I am glad to have been cleared of BM involvement, even with the British judgements, yet I was still made to loose the cases.

I shall add links to this shortly and further docs to download as proof

Minister’s power reduced to desk duties

In yet another very strange ruling, strange because it doubts the powers a minister actually has, the High Court has refused leave to appeal in the Sharon Shoesmith case.This was the most reported case in the social services sphere for decades and touches on the important principle, namely if a minister can sack a public worker outright.

Mrs Shoesmith’s sacking by Haringey Council and Mr Balls was tainted by unfairness  ruled the High Court. In response Mr Balls expressed his surprise and concern because he thinks children could be at risk if a minister’s power is stripped of the power to sack civil services or local authority staff outright.

“This judgment creates a serious and worrying constitutional ambiguity which now requires urgent action from the government to resolve,” said Mr Balls.* And again we have this conflict between the judges and the state, both of which wrestle for the power to run the country and make the ultimate decisions. It is for the government to govern or is it for the courts to tell the government how to govern. Fact is that the courts have more power than the government.

I think in the perception of the population, this ruling is very unpopular, without trying to be populist. The whole nation thinks that the head of a department is to blame when innocent children’s lives are at risk from bad management. This case has a long case history that was debated and examined and it seems that even if Mrs Shoesmith had put her case, she still would have been dismissed from her post. But it seems the court did not take that very important fact into consideration enough.

At the point of her sacking the case was sufficiently known in the public sphere to determine that the head of service was somehow to blame.

Mr Balls further said: “Ministers need to be able to exercise their legal duties and make judgements in the public interest… That is what I did – and I am concerned that this judgment will make it harder for ministers to do so in future.” *

I think this is one of the few rare cases where government and judges are at a real odds with each other when otherwise they play the same hand of cards but this case involving the death of a toddler gripped the nation of child lovers.

Haringey council expressed bitter disappointment with the ruling and even the Department of Education expressed regret over the Supreme Court decision. That is an absolute rarity that 1 former minister and 2 government departments unanimously criticise the highest court in the land.

*Quote from BBC website.

News: Joshua Rozenberg Interviews Mr Justice Eady

News: Joshua Rozenberg Interviews Mr Justice Eady.

It is worth blogging this just to highlight the discrepancies of reporting in the Sunday Times and what the well-known Inforrms blog makes of the content of the interview.

There is the reflection on Article 8 to both privacy and libel as a recent development. However the privacy of sexual activity is again the focus point of an interview that points out the dialogue between public interest and personal habits.

Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries

Blog Stats

  • 52,762 hits