It's my 10 year anniversary on Tumblr 🥳
One Nice Bug Per Day
No title available
Today's Document

No title available
No title available
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH

blake kathryn

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
Mike Driver
RMH

Janaina Medeiros

JBB: An Artblog!
🪼
No title available
almost home

祝日 / Permanent Vacation
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
Jules of Nature

Origami Around
DEAR READER
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Algeria
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Netherlands

seen from United Kingdom
seen from Canada
seen from Belgium
seen from Australia
seen from United States

seen from Spain

seen from Australia

seen from Singapore

seen from Canada
seen from Philippines

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from Australia
@crazyrandomposts
It's my 10 year anniversary on Tumblr 🥳
We will remember them
With proud thanksgiving, a mother for her children, England mourns for her dead across the sea. Flesh of her flesh they were, spirit of her spirit, Fallen in the cause of the free. Solemn the drums thrill; Death august and royal Sings sorrow up into immortal spheres, There is music in the midst of desolation And a glory that shines upon our tears. They went with songs to the battle, they were young, Straight of limb, true of eye, steady and aglow. They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted; They fell with their faces to the foe. They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them. They mingle not with their laughing comrades again; They sit no more at familiar tables of home; They have no lot in our labour of the day-time; They sleep beyond England’s foam. But where our desires are and our hopes profound, Felt as a well-spring that is hidden from sight, To the innermost heart of their own land they are known As the stars are known to the Night; As the stars that shall be bright when we are dust, Moving in marches upon the heavenly plain; As the stars that are starry in the time of our darkness, To the end, to the end, they remain.
We will remember them
Is Sarah Paulson Related to Joan Hackett or are they just look-a-likes?
Paedo Papers? Sexism? Moral high ground?
https://twitter.com/SamFoxCom
https://twitter.com/Linsey_Dawn
https://twitter.com/thetracilords
Have newspapers like The Sun historically been guilty of publishing photos of a minor? Have they been guilty of encouraging paedophillia? The age of lawful consent in the UK is 16 BUT the age for sharing naked/topless intimate photos is 18. There was a countdown to models like Sam Fox and Lindsay Dawn McKenzie in bikinis or short T-shirts, but on their 16th birthdays both posed topless in the paper. (At the time it was lawful for the press to publish these images)
Some papers have countdowns of famous women, basically saying its ok to perv (lust) after them now, now they are a certain age, they’ve had previous countdowns to Charlotte Church, The Olsen twins, Emma Watson amongst others.
Its one thing to see topless sunbathers at a beach, its another to publish the same images. Sam Fox and Linsey Dawn McKenzie WANTED to do the page 3 modelling is no reason the papers should have published the images. Many years ago the USA porn industry was almost crippled because they unknowingly used a minor. an actress who used forged documents to obtain official forms of id, including passport, her name was Traci Lords (still acting, not porn), what saved the porn industry at that time was the fact that they did carry out official checks to verify who she was and her age, she gave them a government issued passport. All copies of videos made that featured her as a minor had to be destroyed.
The Daily/Sunday sport held a coundown from Linsey Dawn McKenzies 15th birthday until she reached her 16th
Sam Fox, Linsey Dawn McKenzie and Traci Lords did this of there own free choice, they wasn’t force into the industry but would they have started so early if they could change? Sam Fox had a succesful singing career, now a spokeswoman on animal welfare. https://twitter.com/SamFoxCom Linsey Dawn McKenzie is still working in the adult industy, has her own website,https://twitter.com/Linsey_Dawn Traci Lords made a couple of adult films when she finally became of legal age, now works in movies.https://twitter.com/thetracilords
Laughing…
Some band names translate into English better than others...
We can’t imagine why Los Wankos never broke the UK
Here is one of their biggest hits, ‘Los Cerrazones’ (the narrow-mindedness):
We’ve clearly been missing out.
Strange to think that Les Tosseurs became such a big success (after a name change) to quote Clive Anderson (1997 BBC1) “to me you will always be tossers” Who was this successful band??? The Bee Gees
The other day I was trying to remember Ross Kemps name, I couldn't think of it nor Steve McFadden, I googled Mitchell Brothers, now I've some questions.
Do the writers of Eastenders watch porn?
Sharon Mitchell starred in the 1970's classic "Barbara Broadcast"
The Mitchell Brothers, Artie was an alcoholic that also used cocaine, he was shot by his brother Jim.
The Mitchell Brothers made award winning porn in the 1970's "Behind the green door"
Reblog every time
Amazing
Baby it's cold outside
A better, more positive Tumblr
Since its founding in 2007, Tumblr has always been a place for wide open, creative self-expression at the heart of community and culture. To borrow from our founder David Karp, we’re proud to have inspired a generation of artists, writers, creators, curators, and crusaders to redefine our culture and to help empower individuality.
Over the past several months, and inspired by our storied past, we’ve given serious thought to who we want to be to our community moving forward and have been hard at work laying the foundation for a better Tumblr. We’ve realized that in order to continue to fulfill our promise and place in culture, especially as it evolves, we must change. Some of that change began with fostering more constructive dialogue among our community members. Today, we’re taking another step by no longer allowing adult content, including explicit sexual content and nudity (with some exceptions).
Let’s first be unequivocal about something that should not be confused with today’s policy change: posting anything that is harmful to minors, including child pornography, is abhorrent and has no place in our community. We’ve always had and always will have a zero tolerance policy for this type of content. To this end, we continuously invest in the enforcement of this policy, including industry-standard machine monitoring, a growing team of human moderators, and user tools that make it easy to report abuse. We also closely partner with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the Internet Watch Foundation, two invaluable organizations at the forefront of protecting our children from abuse, and through these partnerships we report violations of this policy to law enforcement authorities. We can never prevent all bad actors from attempting to abuse our platform, but we make it our highest priority to keep the community as safe as possible.
So what is changing?
Posts that contain adult content will no longer be allowed on Tumblr, and we’ve updated our Community Guidelines to reflect this policy change. We recognize Tumblr is also a place to speak freely about topics like art, sex positivity, your relationships, your sexuality, and your personal journey. We want to make sure that we continue to foster this type of diversity of expression in the community, so our new policy strives to strike a balance.
Why are we doing this?
It is our continued, humble aspiration that Tumblr be a safe place for creative expression, self-discovery, and a deep sense of community. As Tumblr continues to grow and evolve, and our understanding of our impact on our world becomes clearer, we have a responsibility to consider that impact across different age groups, demographics, cultures, and mindsets. We spent considerable time weighing the pros and cons of expression in the community that includes adult content. In doing so, it became clear that without this content we have the opportunity to create a place where more people feel comfortable expressing themselves.
Bottom line: There are no shortage of sites on the internet that feature adult content. We will leave it to them and focus our efforts on creating the most welcoming environment possible for our community.
So what’s next?
Starting December 17, 2018, we will begin enforcing this new policy. Community members with content that is no longer permitted on Tumblr will get a heads up from us in advance and steps they can take to appeal or preserve their content outside the community if they so choose. All changes won’t happen overnight as something of this complexity takes time.
Another thing, filtering this type of content versus say, a political protest with nudity or the statue of David, is not simple at scale. We’re relying on automated tools to identify adult content and humans to help train and keep our systems in check. We know there will be mistakes, but we’ve done our best to create and enforce a policy that acknowledges the breadth of expression we see in the community.
Most importantly, we’re going to be as transparent as possible with you about the decisions we’re making and resources available to you, including more detailed information, product enhancements, and more content moderators to interface directly with the community and content.
Like you, we love Tumblr and what it’s come to mean for millions of people around the world. Our actions are out of love and hope for our community. We won’t always get this right, especially in the beginning, but we are determined to make your experience a positive one.
Jeff D’Onofrio CEO
RIP Tumblr
How much revenue will be lost by getting rid of adult blogs, it seems most users enjoy adult content.
If only there was a way for parents to stop their children looking up adult content ..... WAIT A MINUTE ..... Parental filters could work IF parents learned how to use them. Our content is already marked as adult/NSFW.
To misquote The Specials song Ghost Town, "This site is going to be a ghost site, pages are being shut down, the people are being ignored"
People of Tumblr, we’re throwing up the Bat Signal.
Though this Administration has vowed today to sign an executive order that would end the separation of families at the border stemming from its “zero tolerance” policy, we must continue to apply pressure and do our part. Families should have never been separated in the first place.
Here are five ways that you can help:
1. Call your Senator and let them know that immigration reform is still needed. Call the Senate switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask for your Senator’s office.
2. Donate to organizations that are providing support to immigrant families being held in detention centers all over the country:
The Florence Immigration Project - The Florence Project is providing free legal and social services to migrants being detained in Arizona.
The Texas Civil Rights Project - Lawyers in Texas have banned together to fight for “equality and justice in and out of the courts.”
ACLU of Texas Border Rights Center
RAICES Bond Fund - This fund provides money to release parents from detention centers so they can look for their kids.
CARA Family Detention Pro Bono Project - CARA provides legal representation for families in detention centers.
KIND - Kids In Need of Defense (KIND) provides legal representation for unaccompanied minors in detention centers. They’ve also provided other ways for you to help oppose family separation here.
CARA Pro Bono Project - Help alleviate the cost of housing for volunteer lawyers, as well as sending coloring books to those children in detention centers.
Refugee Caravan - Donate what you can to help detained immigrants make phone calls to their families and lawyers.
3. Contact the Immigration Justice Campaign if you, or someone you know, are fluent in Spanish and can assists lawyers at the border over the phone as an interpreter.
4. Contact Northwest Immigrant Rights Project and volunteer your services as a Spanish-speaking interpreter or as a lawyer for those parents who have been sent to the state of Washington without their children.
5. If you’re a lawyer, law student, paralegal or Spanish-speaking interpreter, contact the Dilley Pro Bono Project for a week-long shift as a volunteer in Texas.
Let’s do what we can to right this wrong because children and families should never have to suffer these kinds of irreparable trauma.
#NOTOWAR
Salisbury Poisoning.
Following the Salisbury attack the UK Government was quick to blame Russia, Jeremy Corbyn wanted to wait until there was absolute proof one way or the other before laying the blame, the UK started to deport diplomats, soon after other Countries followed suit and also expelled some Russian diplomats.
Porter Down, thoroughly tested the chemcals used in Salisbury, they stated very clearly that there was no proof the poison came from Russia, meanwhile the Foreign Secretary Borris Johnson is on tv lying, saying that the experts found conclusive evidence that it was Russia, samples were handed to Organisation for the Prohibition of the Chemical Weapons (OPCW). OPCW agreed with the Porter Down findings, that there was no proof Russia was responsible. https://www.rt.com/news/424149-skripal-poisoning-bz-lavrov/
Chemical attacks in Syria.
Again very quick to blame Russia despite lack of evidence, there is however evidence that both the UK and USA have supplied chemicals to Syria. https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Syria-US-and-UK-Illegally-Supplied-Chemical-Weapons-to-Proxies-20170818-0006.html
Invading Syria
Syria is a Soverign State, Russia is also a Soverign State and is there at their request, we (UK, USA and France) have invaded 2 Soverign States without the backing of the United Nations Security Council, our actions are illegal and could be seen as an act of War, Russia would be defending itself if they respond.
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/424173-syria-un-strike-invade/
<h1>Fact Check: does the UK government need parliament's approval for military intervention in Syria?</h1>
<span><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/andrew-blick-143195">Andrew Blick</a>, <em><a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/kings-college-london-1196">King's College London</a></em></span>
<blockquote> <p>I think if she did ask for a vote then she would win it but I don’t think she needs to ask for it, no … Legally the crown perogative allows the government to take military action without parliament … The idea that parliament has to vote is a new one. Politically it may make sense but she doesn’t need to have it.</p> </blockquote>
<p><strong>Tom Tugendhat, Conservative MP and chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, when asked if the prime minister, Theresa May, would need approval from parliament for military intervention in Syria, on <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09y6zfp#play">BBC Radio 4</a> on April 12.</strong> </p>
<p>The UK government is planning to participate in military action against the Assad regime in Syria. Not only is this policy itself a source of controversy. So is the basis on which it might be undertaken. Reportedly, prime minister Theresa May is contemplating acting without first seeking the express approval of parliament.</p>
<p>From a legal perspective, May is on firm ground. The authority to deploy the armed forces is derived from a set of powers known as the <a href="http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN03861">royal prerogative</a>. Once exercised personally by monarchs, much of the prerogative has now in practice come under the control of ministers, and in particular the prime minister. The prerogative is not generally subject to direct parliamentary control. There is no obligation, under law, for a government to obtain the express consent of parliament for military action. For instance, the UK entered World War II in 1939 without specific parliamentary authorisation in advance.</p>
<p>However, parliament has always played an important role in overseeing government engagement in military conflict. Ministers remain answerable for all their actions, regardless of the particular authority under which they are exercised. The Commons is responsible for providing the government with the money it requires for its activities, including armed conflict. In the extreme, MPs can remove a government if it is behaving in a way they disapprove of.</p>
<p>Moreover, many observers and participants in the political process take the view that a constitutional convention – that is, a political rule lacking direct legal force – has now developed in the area of armed combat. They believe that, if it is practical to do so, a government should secure the express approval of the House of Commons before commencing hostile military operations.</p>
<p>As the quote suggests, this development is relatively new. Its earliest origins lie in Tony Blair’s decision to twice seek <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/mar/18/iraq.iraq6">express consent</a> from the Commons for his policy in advance of the invasion of Iraq of 2003. An important milestone came in August 2013 when the government asked the Commons to approve a motion that referred to the principle of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783">military action against Syria</a>, but was defeated. The prime minister of the day, David Cameron, responded by stating that he accepted the will of parliament on this matter and would not pursue such a policy.</p>
<p>However, as is sometimes the case where conventions are concerned, how it should apply in any precise circumstance can be difficult to establish with certainty and in a way that commands wide agreement. In March 2011, the UK government held a debate and vote in parliament over operations in Libya, but only after they had commenced. The government initiated no debate or vote over its deployments in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/29/uk-troops-sent-mali-confirms">Mali</a> in January 2013. Some parliamentarians and campaigners argue in favour of a war powers act they hope would clarify the position and place a legal obligation upon government to involve parliament. But it has not yet come about.</p>
<p>Ultimately, then, the decision May faces over whether to go to parliament before acting is of a political nature. But if a sufficient number of parliamentarians take the view that May is flagrantly violating convention regarding their rights to consultation, this political decision could have damaging political consequences.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>In strict legal terms, the statement is correct. The only likely negative consequences for taking military action in Syria without first seeking express approval from the Commons would be political in nature. Yet, under the UK system, an action may be lawful but at the same time unconstitutional, that is to say in violation of a convention. Arguably, a convention exists in this area. However, as the statement correctly argues, it is “new”, with its earliest origins lying in 2003. It remains loosely defined and open to interpretation, though nonetheless of immense significance to the conduct of parliamentary government.</p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p><strong>Aidan Hehir, Reader in International Relations, University of Westminster</strong></p>
<p>The fact check is correct that the UK government does not require parliamentary approval prior to the initiation of airstrikes. Nonetheless, to proceed without parliamentary approval would be a break with the convention established in 2003. Acting without consulting parliament would thus technically be legally sound, though politically highly contentious. </p>
<p>Such a move would, however, be indicative of the government’s very fragile majority in parliament and their own lack of faith in their capacity to secure parliamentary approval. In this respect, acting without the assent of parliament is illustrative of both the government’s inherent weakness, and the lack of consensus within parliament and among the general public around the need to launch airstrikes. </p>
<p>It must also be remembered that while initiating airstrikes without parliamentary approval may well be legal under UK law, in the absence of Security Council authorisation, airstrikes against Syria would be <a href="http://opiniojuris.org/2018/04/12/the-coming-attack-on-syria-will-be-unlawful/">a flagrant violation of international law</a>, which supersedes domestic arrangements. An attack against Syrian and Russian forces would enable both states to invoke their inherent right to self defence – as set out in <a href="http://legal.un.org/repertory/art51.shtml">Article 51 of the UN Charter</a> – which could lead them to legally strike back against those whose launched the airstrikes.</p>
<hr> <p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/95003/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <em> <strong> Read more: <a href="http://theconversation.com/syria-could-a-new-foreign-military-intervention-be-illegal-94838">Syria: could a new foreign military intervention be illegal?</a> </strong> </em> </p> <hr>
<p><span><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/andrew-blick-143195">Andrew Blick</a>, Lecturer in Politics and Contemporary History, <em><a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/kings-college-london-1196">King's College London</a></em></span></p>
<p>This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/fact-check-does-the-uk-government-need-parliaments-approval-for-military-intervention-in-syria-95003">original article</a>.</p>
Sky News are blatently pro Tory, always negative about Corbyn and Labour The BBC has proven that they are just a mouthpiece of the Tory Party, spreading Tory propaganda, lying about Corbyn by photoshopping his image to look like he backs Russia, and comparing the support of Corbyn is on par with the extreme hate in America from Trump supporters,
strangely, no mention of the money TORIES has received from Russia £826,100 ($1,167,724 approx) in donations since Theresa May became Prime Minister in July 2016, buying access to high ranking cabinet members.
But what about other media, who owns the Newspapers?
The following papers are all pro-Tory
Rupert Murdoch, Billionaire, (allegedly) Tax avoiding, US resident. The Sun, The Sun on Sunday, The Times, Sunday Times.
Lord Rothermere, a Billionaire, lives in France non-domiciled, (allegedly) doesn’t pay tax Metro, The Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday.
Richard Desmond, Billionaire, (allegedly) tax avoider Daily Star, Daily Star Sunday
Trinity Mirror (new owners) Daily Express, Sunday Express.
David and Fredrick Barclay, live on a private Island near Sark, (allegedly) Tax avoiders Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph
Nikkei Financial Times
Alexander and Evgeny Lebedev, a Billionaire, Alexander is Russian ex KGB lives in Russia, London Evening Standard
Just for some balance, Labour Trinity Mirror PLC Mirror Sunday Mirror People Daily Record Sunday Mail
Anything But Tory
Alexander and Evgeny Lebedev, a Billionaire, Alexander is Russian ex KGB lives in Russia. The Independent I Independent on Sunday
At the last election supported Liberal-Democrats
Scott Trust Ltd The Guardian The Observer
Trinity Mirror (new owners), Previous Owner Northern & Shell Daily Express, Sunday Express. Northern & Shell owner/founder Richard Desmond donated money to UKIP in December 2014 for 2015 general election £300,000 and in April 2015 he donated a further £1,000,000
70 horrible questions ... Fuck it
01: Do you have a good relationship with your parents? 02: Who did you last say “I love you” to? 03: Do you regret anything? 04: Are you insecure? 05: What is your relationship status? 06: How do you want to die? 07: What did you last eat? 08: Played any sports? 09: Do you bite your nails? 10: When was your last physical fight? 11: Do you like someone? 12: Have you ever stayed up 48 hours? 13: Do you hate anyone at the moment? 14: Do you miss someone? 15: Have any pets? 16: How exactly are you feeling at the moment? 17: Ever made out in the bathroom? 18: Are you scared of spiders? 19: Would you go back in time if you were given the chance? 20: Where was the last place you snogged someone? 21: What are your plans for this weekend? 22: Do you want to have kids? How many? 23: Do you have piercings? How many? 24: What is/are/were your best subject(s)? 25: Do you miss anyone from your past? 26: What are you craving right now? 27: Have you ever broken someone’s heart? 28: Have you ever been cheated on? 29: Have you made a boyfriend/girlfriend cry? 30: What’s irritating you right now? 31: Does somebody love you? 32: What is your favourite color? 33: Do you have trust issues? 34: Who/what was your last dream about? 35: Who was the last person you cried in front of? 36: Do you give out second chances too easily? 37: Is it easier to forgive or forget? 38: Is this year the best year of your life? 39: How old were you when you had your first kiss? 40: Have you ever walked outside completely naked? 51: Favourite food? 52: Do you believe everything happens for a reason? 53: What is the last thing you did before you went to bed last night? 54: Is cheating ever okay? 55: Are you mean? 56: How many people have you fist fought? 57: Do you believe in true love? 58: Favourite weather? 59: Do you like the snow? 60: Do you wanna get married? 61: Is it cute when a boy/girl calls you baby? 62: What makes you happy? 63: Would you change your name? 64: Would it be hard to kiss the last person you kissed? 65: Your best friend of the opposite sex likes you, what do you do? 66: Do you have a friend of the opposite sex who you can act your complete self around? 67: Who was the last person of the opposite sex you talked to? 68: Who’s the last person you had a deep conversation with? 69: Do you believe in soulmates? 70: Is there anyone you would die for?