Showing posts with label Guardian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Guardian. Show all posts

Friday, 26 December 2014

SECRETS OF PROVO CHILDREN




When I was young boy growing up in the west of Ireland, I would often hear the older people say, that the three curses of Ireland were, the English, drink and religion. I have experienced much in my lifetime. to confirm their analysis to be absolutely correct. My father used to drink a fair bit and from my earliest memories, I witnessed him come home regularly and batter my mother, before he would turn his attention to me. I made an oath to myself when I was sixteen, that one day, I would have a home of my own, that would be so much different. One of my brief moments of hope in our home, was, when one day he packed his suitcase and said he was going back to England. It was very brief, as he left, he looked at my brothers, sisters and myself, as I watched him change his mind. My heart dropped. and I subsequently lived through, years of what can be best descibed as a domestic war zone. 

He was also a blueshirt, who as a young teenager, attended their fascist rallies. I vowed again to myself at 17, that when I was 18 that I would accept no more beatings, at which time, I duly stood up to him, looked him squarely in the eye and told him, if he laid a hand on me, I would batter him, which I duly did, wherepon he went out and got the same slashhook, that I witnessed both of parents take to each other in the previous 18 years. I had also made my mind up at that stage to be a priest. That was before I found drink and Catholic sex, which changed my mind. On his deathbed, he apologized to me and admitted that, the Cause of the Irish Republic, was the correct one.

Well a few years went by and circumstances in Ireland, dictated that I took the same boat to England, that my father, decades previously had, preceding World War 2. One day as I walked up Kilburn Highroad in London, a young lady approached me from the Workers Revolutionary Party and essentially explained to me, that only International Socialism, had the solution to the World's problems, as opposed to national communism or capitalism. She explained to me the basics of dialectic materialism and so I joined. Around thsi time the Guildford 4 & the Birmingham 6 were framed for crimes, that put them away for the rest of their lives, for crimes they did not commit, as a warning to the irish community in England, to toe the British line. I was aware of this, just as I was aware of the slaughter of scores of innocent unarmed Civil Rights protesters in Derry and Belfast. I had contradictions with the WRP, ignoring these atrocities and left. Around about this time, two Irish Hunger Strikers from the west of Ireland died on Hunger Strikes in British gaols, which had a profound effect on me, being from the same part of Ireland.

I was also living in the same house, from which the Guilford 4 were taken, with some other non politcal Irish lads from the northern part of Ireland. One day a young woman of about 20, turned up. She seemed lost in the big City of London and without direction. With the best of non sexual motives, I tried to help her, get her bearings and took her to the Irish Club in Quex Road. After I introduced her to a few people. I then danced, drank and flirted, with some other Irish acquaintances, that I had known over time. When we returned to the house, the young woman took an overdose, and had to be rushed to the local Emergency Department, where she was punped out. 

After she was released, I could see she was distressed and I tried to be as good a friend as I could, without getting overly intimate. Over the following weeks. she told me, that she had been sent by the IRA to bomb London. I could see she was in no fit state for such activity and I was distressed myself, about what was the correct course of action. I decided myself, that I needed to contact some senior Republicans and volunteer to take her place, as being the only solution under the circumatances, as I knew her life depended on their being a reasonable solution. At this time, we became aware, that we were under 24 hour surveillance by British intelligence, which went on for what seemed like an eternity. 

Irish people in London at that time, aware of what happened to the Guilford 4 & Birmingham 6, were often paranoid, as we ourselves were becoming in this situation. Under these circumstances, it was decided the best I could do, was work with the United Troops Out Movement in London, along with the IRSP and Sinn Fein, to get the British out of Ireland. Our English conrades, mostly from the fringes of the Labour party, many of whom were colleagues of Ken Livingstone, who went on to be become Mayor of London, were an inspiration, with their tireless work for British witdrawal from Ireland. Many people still fail to realize, that more than 70% of the English population have Irish ancestry, with years of immigration from Ireland.

Nevertheless both my new Irish friend and I, became increasingly isolated in London. She slept at the foot of my bed for safety reasons many nights. One night after drinking, we slept together, which then became a habit, until we eventually we had sex. Like a lot of Catholic sex at that time, it was without contraceptives and when I awoke in the mornings, I became aware of the consequence. Besides, we had become very intimate, in many other respects, so we decided the correct thing to do, was to get married. My wife was a very principled woman but like me very passionate and quite volatile or perhaps I have this effect on people. 

She had at that time, many unresolved issues, as a result of growing up in the tinderbox of the sectarian scum state, in the northern part of Ireland. I also with hindsight, can see I had many issues myself, as a result of growing up in my own childhood home. At this time, our home was broken into on several occasions, by agents of the British State. On one occasion I returned home from work, to find my wife unconscious, after the house was ransacked by the British. On another occasion, I returned home to find our newborn child, alone in the house, screaming, after my wife was taken into custody for interrogation and our baby left in the house unattended all day. We decided as a result, to return to Ireland, which was probably the target of our harassment.

We lived for a while in a mobile home and I got work locally but I could not ignore the realities of what was happeing in the part of the Ireland, where my wife came from. All of her family were also there. During this time, I drank heavily and although working, I was a poor husband, which affected my wife and she became increasingly volatile/ While trying to restrain her, I may have slapped her a few times when drunk, I honestly cannot recall, which reminds me of a true story in Ireland, of a man waking up in a police cell in the morning, asking why he was detained. Not receiving an answer, he asked to see his wife, whereupon he was told she was dead. When he asked what happened to her, he was told you murdered her. 

The remorse of the re-occurrring nightmare of my own childhood home tortured me and I drank even more. We decided after many arguments and scuffles, which I would still maintain,  I was trying to restrain her. I was nevertheless very aware the effect, this might have on our first child, and the only solace I seemed to find, was in alcohol, which was still working to a degree in this respect. I arrived in Newry, British Occupied Ireland on the day Lord Mountbatten and his entourage were blown out of the water, not too far from where, both Micheal Gaughan and Frank Stagg, the two Hunger Strikers in England, were born and buried. It was also the same day, that something like 20 British soldiers were blown up, just outside the town, where I had just arrived. I have written posts previously, on what transpired subsequently, from my own experience in that part of Ireland.

There is an article in todays Irish papers, that instigated me writing this piece, which is published below from the Guardian. I above all people, cannot write about the rights and wrongs of it all, other than be aware drink was involved, and certainly cannot make any judgement whatsoever, there but for the stardust, go I. After careful consideration, I have publicshed this article, to reinforce my belief, that to have any genuine peace in Ireland, and to move away from reactionary politics in Ireland, caused by the British presence, into some form of a progressive agenda, a transparent Truth & Reconciliation forum of substance, mentored by someonr of international substance, like Archbishop Tutu is established immediately, rather than waiting for all of the victims & participants to die. 

The British State is built on a foundation of their Act's of Secrecy, while the Provos & their associates, instigate the censorship of the likes of this blog from being posted on any Facebook group. There are too many dark secrets among their insincere leadership, that are making Ireland just as sick as it's many secrets and only the truth can make us free. They have just signed up to yet another so called agreement, which if you examine it carefully, is just an agreement to disagree, and kick it all down the road, until everyone involved is dead. 

My wife and I proceeded to have five children together in that part of Ireland. They today like others of their generation, carry the legacy of the lies, that murdered more than 6 million of my ancestors. It just doesn't go away you know, not until the truth sees the light of day and there is some form of reconciliation. It was many, many years later, I learned, that a self confessed agent of the British Crown, working within the IRA, who was responsible for my ex-wife's visit to London, something they and their numerous other agents, have worked very hard to conceal. I guarantee you, she was not the only one, indeed it is still happening today. So if you want to make a start, to make a stand on this isuue, perhaps you might post this to your Facebook groups, from which I am currently prevented, from sharing by Provo & British agents. Sinead O'Connor while joning a party that is no longer republican, is correct in her call, for all of the old guard to stand down, the difficulty is replacing them with a younger generation of people, who have Ireland and its people's interests at heart, starting with truth & reconciliation not careerism.



A prominent Irish republican who escaped from Brixton prison after being put behind bars for killing a Garda detective has been arrested for allegedly stabbing his wife on Christmas Eve.
Pearse McAuley, who was convicted of killing Garda detective Jerry McCabe in 1996, is in custody after his wife was stabbed repeatedly at their home in the Republic on Wednesday.
McAuley is being questioned about the attack on his wife Pauline, a former Sinn Féin councillor, at their house in County Cavan. The mother of two was rushed to hospital and underwent emergency surgery for a punctured lung, after she was stabbed a number of times during the knife attack at the couple’s Kilnaleck home.
McAuley escaped from Brixton prison in London in July 1991 along with fellow IRA man Nessan Quinlivan. Originally from Strabane in Northern Ireland, McAuley had been awaiting trial on conspiracy to murder and explosives charges in Britain when the IRA staged the breakout.
Five years later, McAuley was part of an IRA unit that attempted to carry out a robbery in Adare in County Limerick. During the botched heist, the gang shot dead Garda detective Jerry McCabe and severely wounded his colleague Ben O’Sullivan.
Sinn Féin tried to portray the robbery and fatal shooting as the acts of apolitical criminals and later blamed rival republican group, the Irish National Liberation Army.
The coverup created widspread anger among the Garda Siochána’s rank and file over what many believed was a bogus story motivated by protecting the peace process.
It emerged that McAuley and four other members of the IRA’s Munster brigade had been responsible. Although murder charges against them were dropped, McAuley was later convicted of manslaughter.
Sinn Féin continued to argue for McAuley and three other IRA members connected to the McCabe killing to be released. When McAuley was eventually freed from jail in 2009, he was met at the prison by Sinn Féin Dail deputy and convicted gunrunner Martin Ferris.

Friday, 12 September 2014

SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE Why No Vote is Criminal




news, #indyref, scotland, scottish independence, snp, uk politics, Guardian, 

SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE GUARDIAN LINK

Opinion polls From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Potential for inaccuracy[edit]

Polls based on samples of populations are subject to sampling error which reflects the effects of chance and uncertainty in the sampling process. The uncertainty is often expressed as a margin of error. The margin of error is usually defined as the radius of a confidence interval for a particular statistic from a survey. One example is the percent of people who prefer product A versus product B. When a single, global margin of error is reported for a survey, it refers to the maximum margin of error for all reported percentages using the full sample from the survey. If the statistic is a percentage, this maximum margin of error can be calculated as the radius of the confidence interval for a reported percentage of 50%. Others suggest that a poll with a random sample of 1,000 people has margin of sampling error of 3% for the estimated percentage of the whole population.
A 3% margin of error means that if the same procedure is used a large number of times, 95% of the time the true population average will be within the 95% confidence interval of the sample estimate plus or minus 3%. The margin of error can be reduced by using a larger sample, however if a pollster wishes to reduce the margin of error to 1% they would need a sample of around 10,000 people.[6] In practice, pollsters need to balance the cost of a large sample against the reduction in sampling error and a sample size of around 500–1,000 is a typical compromise for political polls. (Note that to get complete responses it may be necessary to include thousands of additional participators.)[7]
Another way to reduce the margin of error is to rely on poll averages. This makes the assumption that the procedure is similar enough between many different polls and uses the sample size of each poll to create a polling average.[8] An example of a polling average can be found here: 2008 Presidential Election polling average. Another source of error stems from faulty demographic models by pollsters who weigh their samples by particular variables such as party identification in an election. For example, if you assume that the breakdown of the US population by party identification has not changed since the previous presidential election, you may underestimate a victory or a defeat of a particular party candidate that saw a surge or decline in its party registration relative to the previous presidential election cycle.
Over time, a number of theories and mechanisms have been offered to explain erroneous polling results. Some of these reflect errors on the part of the pollsters; many of them are statistical in nature. Others blame the respondents for not giving candid answers (e.g., theBradley effect, the Shy Tory Factor); these can be more controversial.

Nonresponse bias[edit]

Since some people do not answer calls from strangers, or refuse to answer the poll, poll samples may not be representative samples from a population due to a non-response bias. Because of this selection bias, the characteristics of those who agree to be interviewed may be markedly different from those who decline. That is, the actual sample is a biased version of the universe the pollster wants to analyze. In these cases, bias introduces new errors, one way or the other, that are in addition to errors caused by sample size. Error due to bias does not become smaller with larger sample sizes, because taking a larger sample size simply repeats the same mistake on a larger scale. If the people who refuse to answer, or are never reached, have the same characteristics as the people who do answer, then the final results should be unbiased. If the people who do not answer have different opinions then there is bias in the results. In terms of election polls, studies suggest that bias effects are small, but each polling firm has its own techniques for adjusting weights to minimize selection bias.[9]

Response bias[edit]

Survey results may be affected by response bias, where the answers given by respondents do not reflect their true beliefs. This may be deliberately engineered by unscrupulous pollsters in order to generate a certain result or please their clients, but more often is a result of the detailed wording or ordering of questions (see below). Respondents may deliberately try to manipulate the outcome of a poll by e.g. advocating a more extreme position than they actually hold in order to boost their side of the argument or give rapid and ill-considered answers in order to hasten the end of their questioning. Respondents may also feel under social pressure not to give an unpopular answer. For example, respondents might be unwilling to admit to unpopular attitudes like racism or sexism, and thus polls might not reflect the true incidence of these attitudes in the population. In American political parlance, this phenomenon is often referred to as the Bradley effect. If the results of surveys are widely publicized this effect may be magnified - a phenomenon commonly referred to as the spiral of silence.

Wording of questions[edit]

It is well established that the wording of the questions, the order in which they are asked and the number and form of alternative answers offered can influence results of polls. For instance, the public is more likely to indicate support for a person who is described by the operator as one of the "leading candidates". This support itself overrides subtle bias for one candidate, as does lumping some candidates in an "other" category or vice versa. Thus comparisons between polls often boil down to the wording of the question. On some issues, question wording can result in quite pronounced differences between surveys.[10][11][12]This can also, however, be a result of legitimately conflicted feelings or evolving attitudes, rather than a poorly constructed survey.[13]
A common technique to control for this bias is to rotate the order in which questions are asked. Many pollsters also split-sample. This involves having two different versions of a question, with each version presented to half the respondents.
The most effective controls, used by attitude researchers, are:
  • asking enough questions to allow all aspects of an issue to be covered and to control effects due to the form of the question (such as positive or negative wording), the adequacy of the number being established quantitatively with psychometric measures such as reliability coefficients, and
  • analyzing the results with psychometric techniques which synthesize the answers into a few reliable scores and detect ineffective questions.
These controls are not widely used in the polling industry.[why?]

Coverage bias[edit]

Another source of error is the use of samples that are not representative of the population as a consequence of the methodology used, as was the experience of the Literary Digestin 1936. For example, telephone sampling has a built-in error because in many times and places, those with telephones have generally been richer than those without.
In some places many people have only mobile telephones. Because pollsters cannot call mobile phones (it is unlawful in the United States to make unsolicited calls to phones where the phone's owner may be charged simply for taking a call), these individuals are typically excluded from polling samples. There is concern that, if the subset of the population without cell phones differs markedly from the rest of the population, these differences can skew the results of the poll. Polling organizations have developed many weighting techniques to help overcome these deficiencies, with varying degrees of success. Studies of mobile phone users by the Pew Research Center in the US, in 2007, concluded that "cell-only respondents are different from landline respondents in important ways, (but) they were neither numerous enough nor different enough on the questions we examined to produce a significant change in overall general population survey estimates when included with the landline samples and weighted according to US Census parameters on basic demographic characteristics."[14]
This issue was first identified in 2004,[15] but came to prominence only during the 2008 US presidential election.[16] In previous elections, the proportion of the general population using cell phones was small, but as this proportion has increased, there is concern that polling only landlines is no longer representative of the general population. In 2003, only 2.9% of households were wireless (cellphones only), compared to 12.8% in 2006.[17] This results in "coverage error". Many polling organisations select their sample by dialling random telephone numbers; however, in 2008, there was a clear tendency for polls which included mobile phones in their samples to show a much larger lead for Obama, than polls that did not.[18][19]
The potential sources of bias are:[20]
  1. Some households use cellphones only and have no landline. This tends to include minorities and younger voters; and occurs more frequently in metropolitan areas. Men are more likely to be cellphone-only compared to women.
  2. Some people may not be contactable by landline from Monday to Friday and may be contactable only by cellphone.
  3. Some people use their landlines only to access the Internet, and answer calls only to their cellphones.
Some polling companies have attempted to get around that problem by including a "cellphone supplement". There are a number of problems with including cellphones in a telephone poll:
  1. It is difficult to get co-operation from cellphone users, because in many parts of the US, users are charged for both outgoing and incoming calls. That means that pollsters have had to offer financial compensation to gain co-operation.
  2. US federal law prohibits the use of automated dialling devices to call cellphones (Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991). Numbers therefore have to be dialled by hand, which is more time-consuming and expensive for pollsters.
An oft-quoted example of opinion polls succumbing to errors occurred during the UK General Election of 1992. Despite the polling organizations using different methodologies, virtually all the polls taken before the vote, and to a lesser extent, exit polls taken on voting day, showed a lead for the opposition Labour party, but the actual vote gave a clear victory to the ruling Conservative party.
In their deliberations after this embarrassment the pollsters advanced several ideas to account for their errors, including:
Late swing 
Voters who changed their minds shortly before voting tended to favour the Conservatives, so the error was not as great as it first appeared.
Nonresponse bias 
Conservative voters were less likely to participate in surveys than in the past and were thus under-represented.
The Shy Tory Factor 
The Conservatives had suffered a sustained period of unpopularity as a result of economic difficulties and a series of minor scandals, leading to a spiral of silence in which some Conservative supporters were reluctant to disclose their sincere intentions to pollsters.
The relative importance of these factors was, and remains, a matter of controversy, but since then the polling organizations have adjusted their methodologies and have achieved more accurate results in subsequent election campaigns.[citation needed]

Failures[edit]

A widely publicized failure of opinion polling to date in the United States was the prediction that Thomas Dewey would defeat Harry S. Truman in the 1948 US presidential election. Major polling organizations, including Gallup and Roper, indicated a landslide victory for Dewey.
In the United Kingdom, most polls failed to predict the Conservative election victories of1970 and 1992, and Labour's victory in 1974. However, their figures at other elections have been generally accurate.

Influence[edit]

Effect on voters[edit]

By providing information about voting intentions, opinion polls can sometimes influence the behavior of electors, and in his book The Broken CompassPeter Hitchens asserts that opinion polls are actually a device for influencing public opinion.[21] The various theories about how this happens can be split into two groups: bandwagon/underdog effects, and strategic ("tactical") voting.
bandwagon effect occurs when the poll prompts voters to back the candidate shown to be winning in the poll. The idea that voters are susceptible to such effects is old, stemming at least from 1884; William Safire reported that the term was first used in a political cartoon in the magazine Puck in that year.[22] It has also remained persistent in spite of a lack of empirical corroboration until the late 20th century. George Gallup spent much effort in vain trying to discredit this theory in his time by presenting empirical research. A recent meta-study of scientific research on this topic indicates that from the 1980s onward the Bandwagon effect is found more often by researchers.[23]
The opposite of the bandwagon effect is the underdog effect. It is often mentioned in the media. This occurs when people vote, out of sympathy, for the party perceived to be "losing" the elections. There is less empirical evidence for the existence of this effect than there is for the existence of the bandwagon effect.[23]
The second category of theories on how polls directly affect voting is called strategic ortactical voting. This theory is based on the idea that voters view the act of voting as a means of selecting a government. Thus they will sometimes not choose the candidate they prefer on ground of ideology or sympathy, but another, less-preferred, candidate from strategic considerations. An example can be found in the United Kingdom general election, 1997. As he was then a Cabinet Minister, Michael Portillo's constituency of Enfield Southgate was believed to be a safe seat but opinion polls showed the Labour candidateStephen Twigg steadily gaining support, which may have prompted undecided voters or supporters of other parties to support Twigg in order to remove Portillo. Another example is the boomerang effect where the likely supporters of the candidate shown to be winning feel that chances are slim and that their vote is not required, thus allowing another candidate to win.
In addition, Mark Pickup in Cameron Anderson and Laura Stephenson's "Voting Behaviour in Canada" outlines three additional "behavioural" responses that voters may exhibit when faced with polling data.
The first is known as a "cue taking" effect which holds that poll data is used as a "proxy" for information about the candidates or parties. Cue taking is "based on the psychological phenomenon of using heuristics to simplify a complex decision" (243).[24]
The second, first described by Petty and Cacioppo (1996) is known as "cognitive response" theory. This theory asserts that a voter's response to a poll may not line with their initial conception of the electoral reality. In response, the voter is likely to generate a "mental list" in which they create reasons for a party's loss or gain in the polls. This can reinforce or change their opinion of the candidate and thus affect voting behaviour.
Third, the final possibility is a "behavioural response" which is similar to a cognitive response. The only salient difference is that a voter will go and seek new information to form their "mental list," thus becoming more informed of the election. This may then affect voting behaviour.
These effects indicate how opinion polls can directly affect political choices of the electorate. But directly or indirectly, other effects can be surveyed and analyzed on all political parties. The form of media framing and party ideology shifts must also be taken under consideration. Opinion polling in some instances is a measure of cognitive bias, which is variably considered and handled appropriately in its various applications.

Effect on politicians[edit]

Starting in the 1980s, tracking polls and related technologies began having a notable impact on U.S. political leaders.[25] According to Douglas Bailey, a Republican who had helped run Gerald Ford's 1976 presidential campaign, "It's no longer necessary for a political candidate to guess what an audience thinks. He can [find out] with a nightly tracking poll. So it's no longer likely that political leaders are going to lead. Instead, they're going to follow."[25]

Regulation[edit]

Some jurisdictions over the world restrict the publication of the results of opinion polls, especially during the period around an election, in order to prevent the possibly erroneous results from affecting voters' decisions. For instance, in Canada, it is prohibited to publish the results of opinion surveys that would identify specific political parties or candidates in the final three days before a poll closes.[26]
However, most western democratic nations don't support the entire prohibition of the publication of pre-election opinion polls; most of them have no regulation and some only prohibit it in the final days or hours until the relevant poll closes.[27] A survey by Canada's Royal Commission on Electoral Reform reported that the prohibition period of publication of the survey results largely differed in different countries. Out of the 20 countries examined, 3 prohibit the publication during the entire period of campaigns, while others prohibit it for a shorter term such as the polling period or the final 48 hours before a poll closes.[26] In India, Election commission has prohibited it before 48 hours. Recently, a there was some echo regarding complete ban on opinion polls whereas some political parties supported and opposed it. Even many civil society organizations and activists were divided on this issue. Famous activist and Psephologist Yogendra Yadav argued its importance, on the other hand, another article was written by Ravi Nitesh, founder of Mission Bhartiyam regarding itsdisadvantages and loopholes.

Friday, 1 August 2014

HEARTLESS HUMANITY ISRAEL GAZA





“We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.” - David Ben-Gurion, a.k.a. David Grün (1886-1973), Israeli Prime Minister,"Father of the Nation"

News
World news
Gaza   Guardian

Gaza crisis: UN and US announce ceasefire - as it happened

All agree to ‘unconditional humanitarian ceasefire’
Truce to last ‘72 hours unless extended’
Hamas spokesman says group will observe ceasefire
Delegations to resume meetings in Cairo
Read the ceasefire statement
Read the latest blog summary
Share707
Share1
Email

Haroon Siddique in London and Tom McCarthy in New York

theguardian.com, Thursday 31 July 2014 23.54 BST
Jump to comments (3603)


UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon says nothing is more shameful than attacking sleeping children



11.45pm BST
Summary

In a joint statement issued late Thursday, the UN and US announced that “all parties” had agreed to a 72-hour ceasefire in Gaza and Israel to begin Friday morning at 8am local time (1am ET).
Diplomats were to convene “right away” in Cairo to try to reach an agreement to end hostilities.
Israeli ground forces were to stay in place in Gaza during the ceasefire window.
The ceasefire announcement came at the end of another day of violence in Gaza, with 79 Palestinians killed in Israeli strikes, according to the health ministry. 1,443 Gazans have died in the 23-day conflict, the ministry said.
Two Israelis were injured in rocket fire on Kiryat Gat. At least 90 rockets were fired at Israel Thursday, with 17 intercepted by Iron Dome, the IDF said.

There were mixed warnings late Thursday from the IDF for journalists to evacuate at least three hotels in Gaza.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the shelling of a UN school Wednesday was “totally indefensible” and said “It does not appear there is a lot of doubt about whose artillery was involved in this incident.”
The UN said 236,374 displaced Gazans were housed in 86 shelters, with an average shelter population of 2,750.


Under Int Hum Law, Israel the Occupying Power bears primary responsibility 4 protecting Palestinian civilians & ensuring basic needs r met— Chris Gunness (@ChrisGunness) July 31, 2014

Updated at 11.54pm BST


11.28pm BST


There’s a possibility US secretary of state John Kerry may join the Cairo talks, Guardian Washington correspondent Paul Lewis reports:


Senior US diplomats are also traveling to Cairo to facilitate peace talks. Western diplo tells me "a possibility" that Kerry will join them.— Paul Lewis (@PaulLewis) July 31, 2014

ABC News’ Jon Williams is tweeting a statement by Kerry in India. During the ceasefire, Kerry says, “neither side will advance beyond current location.... As soon as the ceasefire under way, Egypt will issue invitation to come to Cairo right away to engage in negotiations.”


Kerry: This is not a time of congratulations and joy… but time to focus on the road ahead… a respite.. opportunity to find solution #Gaza— Jon Williams (@WilliamsJon) July 31, 2014

Updated at 11.46pm BST


11.17pm BST


A key line from the ceasefire statement: “During this time the forces on the ground will remain in place.”

A take by Washington Post correspondent William Booth:


Israeli forces will "remain in place" during ceasefire, assume that means tunnel destruction will continue, but likely finish soon.— William Booth (@BoothWilliam) July 31, 2014

Updated at 11.19pm BST


11.11pm BST


US officials attending talks in Cairo include:


US Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns & Mideast envoy Frank Lowenstein expected in Cairo for Egypt-mediated#Gaza talks after CF starts.— Matt Lee (@APDiploWriter) July 31, 2014


11.05pm BST


Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri told Reuters the group would abide by a three-day mutual ceasefire with Israel to begin early on Friday:


“Acknowledging a call by the United Nations and in consideration of the situation of our people, resistance factions agreed to a 72-hour humanitarian and mutual calm that begins at 8 a.m (0500 GMT) on Friday as long as the other side abides by it,” Hamas spokesman Abu Zuhri said.

“All the Palestinian factions are united behind the issue in this regard,” Abu Zuhri said.


11.01pm BST


Journalist Bel Trew, often based in Cairo, is in Gaza, and reportsconfusing, conflicting evacuation orders:


Musical chairs tonight-IDF called to say evacuate to Roots hotel,Roots apparently told to go ours,some journos went 2 Shifaa Hospital #Gaza— Bel Trew - بل ترو (@Beltrew) July 31, 2014

update:


Idf has told journalists in three #Gaza city port area hotels to evacuate ahead of strikes— jesse rosenfeld (@jrosyfield) July 31, 2014

Updated at 11.15pm BST


10.58pm BST


From a doctor in Gaza:


A humanitarian ceasefire is to start 8 in the morning and extend for 72 hours. I hope Israel doesn't compensate with a massacre tonight.— Belal - Gaza (@Belalmd12) July 31, 2014


10.50pm BST


A video of Ban Ki-moon spokesman Stéphane Dujarric announcing a ceasefire for Friday morning is here.


10.46pm BST


The ceasefire statement was released in New Delhi, where secretary of state John Kerry is now meeting with Indian officials, AP reports.

Updated at 11.42pm BST


10.40pm BST
Ceasefire announced



Spokesman to readout joint statement by #UNSG Ban Ki-moon & @JohnKerry on #Humanitarian Ceasefire Announcement #Gaza http://t.co/lZWaQN9DcA— UN Spokesperson (@UN_Spokesperson) July 31, 2014

Here is the joint statement from the UN and the US government:


Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and United States Secretary of State John Kerry announce that the United Nations Representative in Jerusalem, Special Coordinator Robert Serry, has received assurances that all parties have agreed to an unconditional humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza.

This humanitarian ceasefire will commence at 8 am local time on Friday, August 1, 2014. It will last for a period of 72 hours unless extended.

During this time the forces on the ground will remain in place.

We urge all parties to act with restraint until this humanitarian ceasefire begins, and to fully abide by their commitments during the ceasefire.

This ceasefire is critical to giving innocent civilians a much-needed reprieve from violence. During this period, civilians in Gaza will receive urgently needed humanitarian relief, and the opportunity to carry out vital functions, including burying the dead, taking care of the injured, and restocking food supplies. Overdue repairs on essential water and energy infrastructure could also continue during this period.

Israeli and Palestinian delegations will immediately be going to Cairo for negotiations with the Government of Egypt, at the invitation of Egypt, aimed at reaching a durable ceasefire. The parties will be able to raise all issues of concern in these negotiations.

We thank key regional stakeholders for their vital support of this process, and count on a continued collaborative international effort to assist Egypt and the parties reach a durable ceasefire as soon as possible.


Information Clearing House

US Complicit In Gaza Slaughter
Supplies Israel With Bombs Amid Gaza Blitz

By Al Jazeera and Agencies

Pentagon says Israel allowed to tap local US arms stockpile in past week to resupply it with grenades and mortar rounds.
Continue
Video Documents the Killing of Journalist Ramy Ryan by Israeli/US Missiles

Warning: Graphic Video

A graphic video showing the killing of journalist Ramy Ryan in Gaza and an attack on an ambulance and rescue workers, by Israeli air strikes. 
Continue
Israel Lobby Galvanises Support for Gaza War

By Mitchell Plitnick

Israel’s enemies are our enemies. As long as I’m Speaker, this will be our cause.” John Boehner. 
Continue
The Blood of Palestine is on the Hands of the Bribe-Takers

Video
The blood of the thousands of Palestinians who have been killed by the so-called Israel Defence Forces, stains the hands of each and every politician who has taken any kind of bribe to bolster his or her election-campaign coffers. 
Continue
"A Slaughter of Innocents"
Henry Siegman, Leading Voice of U.S. Jewry, on Gaza

Video and Transcript

"The Zionist dream is based on the repeated slaughter of innocents on a scale that we’re watching these days on television, that is really a profound, profound crisis" 
Continue
Who's Profiting from Israel's Offensive in Gaza?: 

Video 

Israel continues to reject Hamas's offer of a ten-year ceasefire because it would undermine Israeli arms sales, which reached $7 billion in 2012. 
Continue
An Israeli Terrorist Is The Same As A Syrian One
By Robert Fisk

Is the British Government taking as close an interest in those who have been fighting in Israeli uniform in Gaza in the past couple of weeks. 
Continue
So, What Did The Muslims Do For The Jews?

By David J Wasserstein

Had Islam not come along, Jewry in the west would have declined to disappearance and Jewry in the east would have become just another oriental cult. 
Continue
Vladimir Putin on US Sanctions and Ukraine 
Video – English Subs

Vladimir Putin on US Sanctions and Ukraine, right after his return from the South America Trip
Continue
Are You Ready For Nuclear War?

By David North and Alex Lantier

Anyone who believes that a nuclear war is impossible because modern governments, unlike those that were in power in 1914, would not risk catastrophe, is deluding himself. 
Continue
Postcard from the End of America: Tri-Cities

By Linh Dinh

Since most Americans won’t bend over and sweat bullets under a hellish sun for such chump change, 78% of our crop workers are foreign-born, with over half of them illegal immigrants. 
Continue
Peter Schiff and Doug Casey on the REAL State of the Economy

By Doug Casey
Actually the US government is like a predator stalking us on the African plains.
Continue
Gaza: 130 were killed and 400 injured on Wednesday: The total death toll had surpassed 1,360 and 7,677 injured. The bodies of 20 Palestinians were recovered from the rubble of destroyed buildings in the northern Gaza Strip on Wednesday evening.
UN Chief: Israeli attack on Gaza school 'unjustifiable': UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon condemned an Israeli strike on a Gaza school that killed 16 people as "unjustifiable" Wednesday, calling for those responsible to be held to account.
UNRWA spokesman breaks down on air: Video - “The rights of Palestinians, even their children, are wholesale denied, and it’s appalling,” Gunness pauses, clears his throat, says “my pleasure,” and proceeds to sob uncontrollably as the camera darts away.
U.S. resupplies Israel with munitions for attack on the people of Gaza : Separately, U.S. lawmakers were working in Congress to provide millions of dollars in additional funding for Israel's "Iron Dome" missile shield.
Lord Haw Haw - Video: Mark Regev, deciphered: The video was created by Alex Nunns, who subtitled a BBC interview with Israeli spokesperson Mark Regev.
Israeli military calls up 16,000 more reserve soldiers: Hagel reiterates support for Israel's right to defend itself; U.S. agrees to Israeli request for ammunition
Bravo! Bolivia declares Israel a terrorist state:Bolivia on Wednesday renounced a visa exemption agreement with Israel in protest over its offensive in Gaza, and declared it a terrorist state.

Tuesday, 15 July 2014

UK's NEW SURVEILLANCE BILL 'It defies belief': SNOWDEN



'It defies belief': Snowden condemns UK’s new surveillance bill


Edward Snowden.(AFP Photo / NBC)
Edward Snowden.(AFP Photo / NBC)
During an exclusive interview in Moscow with the Guardian, the whistleblower suggested it was highly unusual for a state to process legislation so hastily other than at a time of acutely endangered national security.
"I mean we don't have bombs falling. We don't have U-boats in the harbour”, he emphasised. Yet suddenly this legislation has become an absolute priority. "It defies belief", he stated.
Snowden found the duress with which the UK government processed the Data Retention and Investigation Powers Bill to be remarkable, comparing it to the Bush administration’s introduction of the Protect America Act in 2007. The Protect America Act was issued after the New York Times exposed a“warrantless wire-tapping programme” that was both illegal and“unconstitutional”, he said.
The UK government claims Britain’s emergency bill will preserve UK law enforcement and intelligence agencies’ access to data that is vital for “protecting national security and preventing serious crime.” According to Snowden, the case the US administration built to justify the Protection of America Act is notably similar.
"I mean the NSA could have written this draft…They passed it under the same sort of emergency justification. They said we would be at risk. They said companies will no longer cooperate with us."
Whitehall’s rhetoric of UK intelligence services’ diminished investigative powers in a climate of potential terror threats is certainly reminiscent of the Bush administration’s claims in 2007. As Snowden notes, both governments cited intelligence services’ waning assistance from internet and telecom companies in a climate of looming terrorist threats as requiring swift and decisive action.
View of the National Security Agency (NSA) in the Washington.(AFP Photo / Paul J. Richards)
View of the National Security Agency (NSA) in the Washington.(AFP Photo / Paul J. Richards)

And like Britain's emergency surveillance legislation, this US' Protection of America Act 2007 was enacted in the absence of fair and open public debate, .
Snowden’s observations reflect the concerns of myriad UK civil liberties groups who are acutely skeptical about coalition claims the legislation is temporary and will not adversely compromise the privacy rights of Britons.
In an effort to secure cross-party backing from Labour and the Liberal Democrats, Prime Minister David Cameron vowed the legislation would not entail an extension of the state’s surveillance powers. But according to the Guardian, internal Home Office documents appear to indicate that that British authorities’ surveillance powers will be expanded.
During his recent interview – a rare occurrence since he secured asylum in Russia almost a year ago - Snowden commented that Britain’s emergency legislation marked “a significant change” in Britain’s surveillance landscape. He also questioned why the UK government were pushing it through shortly after a European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling confirmed existing surveillance measures were overly intrusive.
"If these surveillance authorities are so interested, so invasive, the courts are actually saying they violate fundamental rights, do we really want to authorize them on a new, increased and more intrusive scale without any public debate?”
Reflecting on a year-long government silence following his exposure of the depth and scale of NSA-GCHQ oversight, Snowden stated that Britain’s new surveillance legislation effectively “looks like it was written by the National Security Agency”.
The UK government has justified the new legislation on the grounds of feared terrorist activities emanating from an alleged member of Al-Qaida in Yemen linked to fundamentalist Islamist groups in Iraq and Syria.
The Tories deny this bill raises privacy concerns, stating it does not necessitate public debate. Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats have demonstrated hesitance in contributing to public debate on the matter, perhaps fearful of repercussions they might endure were a terrorist attack to occur.
Despite having expert knowledge of surveillance and the agencies that sustain it, Snowden’s comments are unlikely to phase many UK parliamentarians. While his revelations sparked inquiries waged by two separate parliamentary committees, the privacy rights advocate is yet to garner vocal support among UK MPs.
Campaigners, opposed to the UK’s new surveillance bill, argue it contains unprecedented power for Britain to demand foreign companies comply with warrants for interception. It also increases the government’s leverage to acquire sensitive communications data, they insist.

Comments (68)


L 14.07.2014 19:19

When you r8pe your subjects for hundreds of years, you get a little bored, so you then r8pe the children! then you get caught and you get worried that the legality of your many actions will soon be brought to light, thus legalise what we can before its lock down!!!
Not that any of that matters as the sheeple are so far gone that the power elite can do what ever they want whenever they want for as long as they want without any real reprise from the masses, as they just don't care, or pretend if they see nothing then they say nothing then there is no problem! Sick!

Nigel Howard 14.07.2014 19:13

The UK and US have lost their edge internationally. All they can bank on is the advantage of eavesdropping on everyone else's online activities and phone calls. This and only this, gives them an advantage in today's rapidly changing global marketplace. This illegal, 'omniscient' power, makes them like God, when in fact all they're doing is spying on their own citizens and spying on the economic activity of their competitors. Insider trading and an entire host of other organized crime is their forte and M.O. They can't possibly compete with a level playing field.

The game's fixed. 

The outcome is never in doubt.