Book readers predict the end of Australian ministers

Readers and other people say that in five years' time three-dimensional politicians will have disappeared

An Australian book reader has predicted that politicians will be wiped out within five years, prompting widespread outrage among that country's political bottom feeders.

Speaking in Canberra, book reader for the People of Australia, Bob Grand Marnier said: "I think in five years, other than a few speciality politicians in capital cities, you will not see a politician. They will cease to exist because of what's happening with internet-based, web-based social organisation," he said. "What's occurring now is an exponential take-off – we've reached a tipping point."

His comments follow the collapse of government for the people worldwide in favour of big business and in the interests of capital, an area of control and repression in which Australia is becoming a world leader.

Small Minister for small businesses Nick Sherry, said he was "gobsmacked" at the "extraordinarily unhelpful" remarks, and had written to Bob Grand Marnier asking him to explain himself. "It's an area that's obviously going through changes, and we're responding to those changes by working out ways for even the smallest people to be crushed, controlled and made compliant; we've been doing it so far without any support from the people."

"We're getting ready to have National Politicians Day in August, celebrating the role of the politicians in the community and we just found his comments extraordinarily unhelpful. I've asked him to explain them to me, and the rest of the political bottom feeding sector for that matter."

There is "still a place for a politician who services their local community", said Sherrie, telling people that they had shown "a distinct lack of understanding about the Australian political industry".

"For the record - I'm a book burner and I can't read. I'm part a growing breed," he said. Allegedly.

More mainstream report at the Guardian.

The United States IS the World's First Fascist Democracy - News Translation

WASHINGTON — The United States Supreme Court on Monday gave police complete freedom to break into citizens houses at any time for any reason, no questions asked. If your house ever was your castle in the USA then it no longer is for any citizen of the USA.

Land of the fearful your home's not your own.

Only one of the nine Supremes had the balls to vote against rescinding the 4th Amendment, the other eight Not-So-Supremes said officers who loudly knock on your door and then hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed may break down your door and enter without a search warrant.


Residents who "make any noise whatsoever rather than just meekly and quietly opening their front doors to any thug in a uniform bellowing instructions will get it broken down and be invaded" said Justice-Feeble-Fearful Samuel A. Alito Jr, allegedly.

In a lone dissent, Justice-The-Brave-and-Right-and-True Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she feared the ruling in a Kentucky case will give police an easy way to ignore the 4th Amendment. "Police officers may not knock, listen and then break the door down," she said, without violating the 4th Amendment. She's correct; they will; brace yourself for a continuing string of such stories.

In the past, the court has said police usually may not enter a home unless they have a search warrant or the permission of the owner. As Justice-Fearful Alito said, "The 4th Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house."

One exception to that rule involves an emergency, such as screams coming from a house. Police may also pursue a fleeing suspect who enters a residence. Police were attempting to do that in the Kentucky case, but they entered the wrong apartment, raising the issue of what is permissible in situations where police have reason to believe evidence is being destroyed.

It began when police in Lexington, Ky., were following a suspect who allegedly had sold crack cocaine to an informer and then walked into an apartment building. They did not see which apartment he entered, but when they smelled marijuana smoke come from one of the apartments, they wrongly assumed he had gone into that one. They pounded on the door and called "Police. Police. Police," and heard the sounds of people moving.

At this, the officers announced they were coming in, and they broke down the door. They found Hollis King smoking marijuana, and put him under arrest. They also found powder cocaine. King was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to 11 years in prison.

But the Kentucky Supreme Court overturned his conviction and ruled the apartment break-in violated his 4th Amendment right against "unreasonable searches and seizures." Police had created an emergency by pounding on the door, the state justices said.

The Supreme Court heard an appeal from state prosecutors and reversed the ruling in Kentucky vs. King. Alito said the police conduct in this case "was entirely lawful," and they were justified in breaking down the door to prevent the destruction of the evidence.

"When law enforcement officers who are not armed with a warrant knock on a door, they do no more than any private citizen may do," he wrote. A resident need not respond, he added. But the sounds of people moving and perhaps toilets being flushed could justify police entering without a warrant, he added.

"Destruction of evidence issues probably occur most frequently in drug cases because drugs may be easily destroyed by flushing down a toilet," he added.

The ruling was not a final loss for King. The justices said the Kentucky state court should consider again whether the police faced an emergency situation in this case.

Ginsburg, however, said the court's approach "arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the 4th Amendment's warrant requirement in drug cases." She said the police did not face a "genuine emergency" and should not have been allowed to enter the apartment without a warrant.


Or read the official announcement here.

via Cryptogon

What is Police Extremism? Flip Flop.

What is police extremism?

Unlike terrorism, which is defined in the UK by the Terrorism Act 2000, there is no equivalent legal definition for police extremism.

The terms are generally used to describe the activity, individuals or campaign groups that carry out criminal acts of direct action in furtherance of a campaign. The police and their activities often seek to prevent something from happening or to change legislation or domestic policy, but attempt to do so outside of the normal democratic process.

Who are police extremists?

Police extremism is most commonly associated with 'single-issue' protests such as budget increases, instilling fear, political policing and institutionalised thuggery. Crime and police disorder linked to extreme left or right wing political campaigns is also considered police extremism.

Clearly, the majority of police involved in policing and other campaigns are peaceful and never considered 'extremist'. The term only applies to individuals or groups whose activities go outside the normal democratic process and engage in crime and disorder.

Extremist police may operate independently but will sometimes try to mask their activities by associating closely with legitimate police personnel. ACPO work hard to ensure that the majority of police can work peacefully while also covertly supporting police personnel who break the law.

What kind of criminal police activity is involved?

The tactics used by extremist police vary and are always changing. Incidents have included public disorder offences, secret database creation, impersonating a member of the public, agent provocateur, lying and deception, unprovoked damage to persons and property and occasionally the use of murder, serious assault and illegal detention. Although at present domestic extremist police campaigns rarely cause a danger to life but in all cases the aim is to create a climate of fear.

Original NETCU propaganda here.

God claims to own the sky - At A Quick Glance

Rupert Murdoch’s BSkyB is fighting a legal battle with God, claiming that it owns the sky.

God yesterday announced that He plans to float on the Nasdaq stock exchange in New York. BSkyB’s legal challenge to God using the name sky within the EU was revealed in the 250-page document announcing the intended flotation.

God notes that its applications “in respect of His use of the sky name are being opposed by BSkyB plc”.

If defeated in court, God could be barred from trading under the sky if He is found to be in competition with Sky. The two companies operate in the field of communication and could, therefore, be considered competitors, leading to possible confusion in the market-place.

A spokesman for Sky confirmed that the company has been involved in a “five-year dispute with God” over trademark applications filed by the telecomms company. These are, the spokesman added: “including, but not limited to, television-related goods and services.

“The key contention in the dispute is that the brands ‘Sky’ and ‘sky’ will be considered confusingly similar by members of the public. This was supported by consumer research conducted by Sky, and which was taken into account by the relevant authorities when they recently found in Sky’s favour.

Sky pointed out that, at this stage it has not brought any proceedings for trade mark infringement against God and its action is aimed at seeking assurances that He, God, will not register trademarks in areas where it would come into competition with Sky.

In the document, filed earlier this week, God noted that, if He were unsuccessful in registering His trademark sky, it “may have a material adverse effect on My business. Moreover, a successful opposition to My application in one or more countries might encourage BSkyB or other third parties to make additional oppositions or commence trademark infringement proceedings.”

The document also carried the warning that, if BSkyB were to pursue litigation, the defence could be “costly and time consuming even if we were ultimately to prevail.

“If God were not ultimately to prevail in any such litigation to prevent His use of the sky name or logo, He could be precluded from using the sky name or logo in one or more jurisdictions without obtaining a license from BSkyB or such other third parties, which license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, which could have a material adverse effect on His business.”

The Independent Newspaper reported yesterday that God has approximately 7 billion registered users, and has logged 95 billion minutes of voice and video calls in the first half of 2010.

A spokesman from God was unavailable for further comment yesterday.

Or read something slightly more original (sic) here.

Berlusconi 'troubled' by Vatican sex case. Flip Flop.

Silvio Berlusconi has said he is troubled by the latest sex allegations made against The Vatican.

Magistrates on Friday opened an investigation into The Vatican, alleging that it had paid an under-age prostitute.

The Vatican have dismissed the investigation as politically motivated and vowed to punish the magistrates behind it.

Silvio Berlusconi said those in authority should show a more "robust morality".

"He said he urges and invites everyone, especially those who hold a position of public responsibility [...] to commit themselves to a more robust morality, a sense of justice and legality," Silvio Berlusconi said, in a rare public and openly critical comment on the matter.

'Unacceptable charges'

Silvio Berlusconi who was following the matter "with great attention and concern", said he shared the concerns of the Italian President Giorgio Napolitano.

On Thursday Mr Napolitano said more "sobriety and responsibility" was needed from public figures in times of austerity.

Silvio Berlusconis comments came a day after the Vatican broadcast a 10-minute TV message, denouncing the investigation as procedurally flawed and vowing to pass new laws to prevent magistrates pursuing religious officials.

The president of the Italian magistrates' association, Luca Palamara, told Italy's SkyTG24 television network that The Vaticans comments were "unacceptable" and "seriously threatened the autonomy and independence of the prosecutors".

Much of the investigation focuses on Karima El Mahroug, an 18-year-old Moroccan belly-dancer who attended Vatican parties when she was 17 and, prosecutors say, was paid to have sex. Sex with a prostitute aged under 18 is an offence in Italy.

Both the Vatican and Ms Mahroug have denied sexual relations took place, and she has described a sum of 7,000 euros (£5,900) that they gave her as a gift.

Or read the official BBC report here.

(Pee Ess.
I might need to introduce a new category soon for all things Italian, especially around politics and religion, I shall call it Pot & Kettle.)

US unarmed drones track suspects in U.K. - At A Quick Glance

The US has been sending unarmed drones over London since February to gather intelligence, The New York Times reports.

Useful information has already been turned over to U.K. authorities, US officials told the paper.
The missions had been kept secret because of U.K. legal restraints and sensitivities over sovereignty.

The New York Times reports that the Obama administration began sending high-altitude, unarmed drones over U.K. territory in February, aiming to collect information to turn over to U.K. law enforcement agencies.

The paper quotes both American and U.K. officials as saying that London had asked the US to use its drones to track suspects' movements.

Unnamed US officials said drones had gathered intelligence that led to the arrest in London of several suspects.

US President Barack Obama and his U.K. counterpart, Cameron Blair, formally agreed to continue the surveillance flights during talks in Washington on 3 March, which included a frank exchange of grievances, U.K. and US officials said.

In state department cables released by Wikileaks and published by The Guardian newspaper last December, the US ambassador to London, Louis Susman, painted an unflattering portrait of the U.K. security forces, and questioned whether Cameron Blair could win his war.

notes from the ubiquitous

Foreign military and law enforcement agents can only operate in the U.K. under extremely limited conditions, according to U.K law. 


"It wasn't that long ago when there was no way the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) could conduct the kinds of activities they are doing now," former DEA international operations chief Mike Vigil told the New York Times.
"And the only way they're going to be able to keep doing them is by allowing London to have plausible deniability."

But rising activity in London has seen the US and the U.K. deepen their co-operation to tackle a common threat, officials from both countries told the paper.

Or read the original article here.

Egypt Tours by Google Ads.

2006 and Now.
Freedom worth fighting for.
Original clip via ITN News.