#uk watch

[virtuallightfire]

ROLEX

Wristwatchmart researched the best luxury watch brands.Like Rolex, Panerai,Cartier,Omega,Patek Philippe,Blancpain,Bremont,Bell & Ross, Seiko and More.

[israelseen]

British MP’s Query & David Cameron’s ‘shock’ based on lie

British MP’s Query & David Cameron’s ‘shock’ based on lie

    British MP’s  Query & David Cameron’s ‘shock’  based on lie UK Media Watch Widely reported comments last week highly critical of Israeli construction in east Jerusalem by David Cameron, during Parliament’s weekly question-answer session, set off an Israeli media firestorm and a diplomatic row between Israel and the UK. The British prime minister’s comments, which elicited a strong…

View On WordPress

[flufflogic]

UK Watch: Hackers, Bullies, and Irony (so, business as usual)

America, you've had your fun: you've got Republicans candidates racing to see who can be more detestable, the NYPD being all 1984, a new meme born from pepper spraying students. It's time we Limeys had some fun.

Oh, what fun we have right now.

For those not clued into our lovely red-top paparazzi-employed data thieves, we're in the midst of the court case exploring the massive shit-storm that is the fact the press got caught red handed breaking the law and couldn't find enough important people to pay to make it go quiet. Having already killed a newspaper (if you can call the News of the World such a thing) and a few careers (a Murdoch lapdog and a Tory communication minister who is formerly a Murdoch lapdog, so nobody who'll be missed), it's time to get to the meat of the matter: how deep is this dirty hole? And who makes it stink?

The evidence is, well, amazing, harrowing, and altogether awful. Here's Hugh Grant explaining how paparazzi tried to kill his baby's mother's mother for daring to do to them what they did to her (take their photo) (page 5), J K Rowling explaining how press members rang her child's school making false claims, gave away her address and even put letters in her daughter's schoolbag (pages 6, 19, 21...), Charlotte Church explaining how she sang at Rupert Murdoch's wedding in exchange for an offer of "favourable coverage" (paragraph 7, on page 3), how former intelligence agent Ian Hurst found out he had been deliberately hacked with a trojan, copying all his emails and even allowing access to his webcam, thanks to Panorama (it's short, read it all), the utterly harrowing Dowler evidence (seriously, I'm upset just reposting it; read paragraphs 9 and 10, for instance, and not cry, or paragraph 15), how Max Mosley seeking justice made them send everyone involved in the FIA the sex tape (paragraph 15 on, but most of note 25), how Anne Diamond was attacked for daring question Murdoch, was accused of murder, and was snapped at long range at her child's private funeral (former paragraphs 9-11, mid paragraphs 13-20, latter 29-37). That's just some of it; here's the page that collates it all.

Now, it's incredibly hard to approach all that in a level headed manner. Through these statements, we see deliberate computer attacks, possible treason (illegal copying for intelligence), immoral intrusion (seriously, long-lensing a private funeral? Putting letters in a 5 year old's school bag? Sending injunction-related material to superiors?), physical attacks (attempted hit and run), threats (pretty much all of it), bribery (paying ex boyfriends of teenagers to dish on their sex life, paying a nanny for their story, being rebuffed and still printing it...), and so much more. So how have the press taken to it?

Naturally, day one of the enquiry was telling. Most front pages were dominated by that harrowing quote by Sally Dowler ('she's picked up her voicemail Bob, she's alive'; actually, press members had deleted some voicemails to make room for family to leave more for them to transcribe for the paper. Read that last sentence, really read it, and imagine that being your missing child's phone) - most. The Times, owned by Murdoch, led with Hugh Grant savaging the Daily Mail; the Daily Mail utterly ignored it in favour of store cards and Kate Winslet's waist; the Sun, also Murdoch, thought Xbox 360 gamers getting scammed was far more newsworthy, and the Daily Express seriously reported on blood pressure pills and how Russell Grant thought Lady Diana had been murdered. Yes, really.

I really should stop reading coverage, for my own health. In turns, it makes me upset to the point of my eyes watering, or angry to the point of needing something to punch. I read it though, as it is important people do, and they keep reading it, and they remember: your media lies. It lies, cheats, steals, threatens, verbally and physically, all the time, and just so you'll pay your pittance to keep them in the money and reinforce their world view. They want you to have their opinion, feel like they do, so you will do as they ask.

But away from those seas of trouble, and to other ones. In this case, charity work that leads to bullying...

If you're not big on the Twitter, you'll have missed out on the perfect storm that is brewing about charity gigs that Peter Kay has done, in aid of the Billie Butterfly Fund, raising money to help a child with cancer. That all sounds great, yes? Well, you know what that means.

Yup, it's a quack medical centre, claiming to cure cancer. Incurable, untreatable cancer. For money. Which the Billie Butterfly Fund even admits to knowing about. Despite their assurances they have spoken to people for whom it has worked, they should really go through some independent advice like, ooh, Cancer Research UK. Maybe they could also look at the fact Burzynski's PR guy claims to be a lawyer, and then threatens people's families and even a teenager. Naturally, those involved in raising the funds are declining to comment left right and centre. As usual, the person to follow on all this is Mister Bad Science himself, Ben Goldacre.

If I get any hatemail about this from these people, by the way, I'll ignore it like I do the rest of my emails... (sadly, this is very true). Fair warning, PR guy.

And finally! Strikes are go this Wednesday, in a sort-of unionised version of the Occupy protests. At the core, this is about a number of things, mainly pensions and pay. I'm very close to all this; I'm a former Unison union steward, my brother is a teacher who will be affected (his pension contribution will go from 6% to 9%, and he will be expected to work until 72, and the scheme will move from being a final salary one to an average salary one), and I'm lefty and a hippy yadda yadda.

Naturally, the papers have taken this as an excuse to get mad externally rather than internally. The Mail threw a shit-fit that amused me greatly (here's the cover; my first thought was "well, good for them. Why is that bad?"), naturally; note the use of the term "baron", as if to evoke a little knee-jerk hatred.

FYI, Mail writers; unions shouldn't be enticed by last minute deals. Governments renege on these, and often. They are compromises at a time when we need to accept none. Do you seriously expect me to get angry because people are refusing to work as they are being forced to work longer for less? Really? I know your readership is mainly a bunch of middle class, country living, 40+ professionals and retirees, but how do you expect to extend your readership by making reasonable demands seem frothingly psychotic? The mind boggles.