News In-Depth

47-year-old only G20's fatality was caused by aggressive police officer

2009-04-09T12:16:00.000-07:00

The man who many believed was killed by a heart attack during the anti-G20 protests in London a few weeks ago turned out to be treated aggressively by the police. The Guardian has released a video where a London Metropolitan Police officer appears to have pushed - with a stick - the street-newspaper-seller on the back while he was not facing the police but walking calmly away from it.

According to the Guardian, Ian Tomlinson, who was happily married and had a son was discovered to not have been drunk when the attack occurred and although his death was diagnosed by official coroners to have died from a heart attack, both coroners and doctors (interviewed by the BBC News Channel) have speculated that Mr. Tomlinson's heart attack might have been caused by the push he received from the police officer shown on the video above.

The BBC News Channel reported that Mr. Tomlinson's death might have caused the protesters to increase their aggressive behavior. The BBC News Channel also reported how Mr. Tomlinson fell over minutes after he was attacked by the police. A G20 protester left a comment on News In-Depth Blog saying: "I was there and the police were swinging at anyone who came near regardless of gender, age or threat."

Although it is not possible to see Mr. Tomlinson's head hitting the ground when he is pushed by the police officer, it is very clear that such an aggressive push would have caused harm to a 47-year-old man like Mr. Tomlinson. To my point of view, that must have been the action that caused Mr. Tomlinson's death.

However, due to the fact that the video scooped by the Guardian shows one police officer pushing Mr. Tomlinson, it is unfair to blame the whole London Metropolitan Police for the action. I do believe though, that justice must be applied on the police officer guilty for this crime.

Guardian article used to write this story:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/09/g20-death-police-officer-suspended

Anti-G20-protest's only fatality was neither caused by police or protesters

2009-04-03T16:46:00.000-07:00

The 73-year-old man who died during the anti-G20 protest on Wednesday was discovered to have died not by an abuse from the London Metropolitan Police forces nor was he killed by manifestations carried out by the protesters at that particular moment, but rather by a heart-attack, it was reported by the London Lite today (Friday).

The anti-G20-protest's only fatality is believed to have happened when the man was going home from work and sadly happened to have a heart-attack during the protest. According to the London Lite, the man lived alone in a hostel due to a divorced that took most of his money and it is believed that the man did not take care of his diet and consumed large quantities of alcohol a day.

The London Lite reported that someone who knew the 73-year-old man described him as "a lovely bloke." There are still speculation of why people around the man did not help him when he fell on the floor during the time he was having the heart-attack.

It is very interesting to notice that the only newspaper that published details about the death of this lonely 73-year-old man who died during the G20 protest on Wednesday was such a low-quality newspaper like the London Lite - a free evening newspaper owned by the same family that owns the Daily Mail - and that none of the so-called quality newspapers or broadsheets such as the Guardian or the Times Online weren't interested in this type of story. I guess they thought they would not get any profits from it. After all, the newspaper business is all about money.

The London Lite's website:

http://www.thelondonlite.co.uk/

The Guardian's website:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/

The Times Online's website:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/

The Mail Online's website:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

Against-G20 protesters: One dead and many others injured while President Obama meets with the most powerful leaders of the world

2009-04-01T18:10:00.000-07:00

When a countless number of people gather together to protest against something as powerful as the G20, disasters happen. Such is the case of the anti-G20 protest that took place in London today (Wednesday), where one person was killed and many others have been injured. It has not yet been identified whether the fatality was caused by the police or by fellow protesters, but it is speculated that the police might have applied too much force on the victim.

So far, according to the Mail Online more than 30 people have been taken into custody, and although today's results were far from peaceful, the big day for protest is believed to take place at the same time in the same place tomorrow, at the exact same time the G20 summit - the event for which many have been waiting - will take place in London.

But what started out as a peaceful protest became a nightmare for the police when the protesters started to get out of control. As early as 13:00 the situation started to get more and more difficult as the adrenaline grew among the protesters and chaos among the city of London, the whole event was soon broadcasted by many national and international TV channels.

According to the BBC News channel - as it was broadcasted live-in-London - the protesters started to get more and more aggressive and took the opportunity of being pushed back by the police to start breaking windows of key economic buildings, including the RBS' main headquarters in London. Protesters started to climb the roofs of many building around.

It is believed that the protesters wanted to throw objects to the police, and that is the reason why the police decided to arrest some of them. It is also believed that the police might have applied too much force against the protesters. It was broadcasted by the BBC News Channel that the protester's purposes was to burn the headquarter building of the Royal Bank of Scotland.

Meanwhile thousands of people were protesting and being injured, the heavy weigh economic and political leaders of the world gathered together with Queen Elizabeth II and her husband Prince Philip - as it was broadcasted by the BBC News Channel - to discuss matters concerning the economic crisis and other serious and yet delicate issues.

Among the many leaders and political figures of the world only one president was able to have a private meeting with Her Majesty the Queen. U.S. President Barack Obama and her wife Michelle met with Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip on a private meeting before they went to meet the other leaders.

As strange and harsh as it might sound, the Against-G20 protesters are only wasting their time, and not because the leaders adopting the G20 summit lack of interest towards the economic crisis or climate changes, the reason why these so-called 'protests' are a big wast of time and money - the London Metropolitan Police has had to spend 7.2 Million on security operations - is because protesters will not change anything by protesting. On the contrary, they are only making the government loose money that could be used for more useful things.

Honestly, to me at least, these protesters are just trying to boycott the G20 summit - an attempt to make the world a better place - and whether protesters like it or not, the G20 is actually trying to solve the global economic crisis. Whether it will work or not is yet to be seen, but I assure the readers of this blog that trying to solve the global economic crisis by talking is better than protesting for nothing.

The BBC News Channel broadcasted a protester saying: "Our bank, our rules." My respond to that is that it isn't the way it works, and one thing is certain, protesting rarely works, and it certainly does not work when the protests are drawn by the wrong reasons.

In this case, sadly, one of the main reasons why people are protesting is because they can't take that bankers get paid so much, and that they get paid seven figure pensions. People seem to forget that not all bankers are like Sir Fred Goodwin and that some bankers do deserve that much money, due to the among of time and effort they apply to their work.

The pictures used for this article were taken from www.dailymail.co.uk

Mail Online articles used to write this story:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1166349/Protesters-storm-RBS-office-thousands-anti-capitalists-ransack-City-G20-riot.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1166490/When-Barack-met-Elizabeth-The-First-Families-Britain-America-meet-nice-cup-tea.html

G20's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G20_industrial_nations

G20's website:

http://www.g20.org/

London's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London

BBC News website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/

Royal Bank of Scotland's website:

http://www.rbs.co.uk/

Royal Bank of Scotland's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Bank_of_Scotland

Queen Elizabeth II's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom

Prince Philip' prifile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh

Barack Obama's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

London Metropolitan Police's website:

http://www.met.police.uk/

London Metropolitan Police's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Police_Service

UK's Home Secretary Jacqui Smith's husband (Richard Timney) causes porn scandal in the UK

2009-03-30T15:35:00.000-07:00

This morning more than five UK national newspapers reported what is believed by many, the biggest political scandal of the year. Jacqui Smith, UK's Home Secretary's husband Richard Timney who also works for the government as his wife's parliamentary aide was yesterday (Sunday) discovered to have added two pornographic films to his home internet connection, the BBC News website reported.

Mr. Timney has publicly apologised for the embarrassment he has caused his wife and has also declared that he had 'mistakenly' chosen those adult films and that neither him or any member of his family was willing to add any pornographic material to their TV or internet connection.

This scandal has caused lots of rumours both among PMs and in Downing Street. This scandal has drawn Miss. Smith to be under investigation by the UK parliamentarian authorities for misusage of her second home allowance.

This is a perfect example of how the media can cause damage to an important person. No one can escape from the media. If this story had never gotten to the newspapers, Miss. Smith would have never gone through this embarrassing moment. First of all, why does it mater that Jacqui Smith's husband rented two pornographic movies? After all he has declared that he did not rent them on purpose.

The answer is this, because the media, and special the tabloid press, injected in the mind of the readers that Jacqui Smith's husband uses tax payers' money to buy pornographic material, which is - in a way - out of proportion. Considering that part of the tax payers' money is dedicated for those who work for the government, such as Miss. Smith and her husband, once the money arrives to them, it no longer belongs to the tax payers' but it belongs to the proprietor. As long as the money isn't used for illegal purposes, they can use their money for whatever they want to spend it on.

I'm not saying that it is right to rent such dirty and tasteless movies. To be totally clear, the porn industry is a dirty business that only causes harm to our society by injecting shameful sex acts - that must be personal and not publicised - to youngsters and adults who simply are affected psychologically after using such materials. But I do believe that a free person, in a free society such as the one we live in, should be allowed to use such materials and it should be kept private. No one, not even the press should be allowed to publicise anything about someone's private life and activities.

I also believe that there are more important things to publish out there in the world, and newspapers are wasting their time and money on a story that is simply not of interest to anyone - at least it is not of interest to me and to many people I know - and that is simply not educative. Newspapers should be there to publish educative topics and to inform the public about the many important events that take place in the UK and the world. Why didn't those newspapers - the ones that dedicated their front pages to the Jacqui Smith scandal - dedicate their front pages to the war-on-drugs that is currently taking place in Mexico? Because these types of stories simply don't sell newspapers and scandals do.

Newspapers treat and develop these kinds of stories in such a way that people have no other choice but to look at them. Unfortunately, the times when we could find a good documentary on TV or a good exclusive in the newspapers, are simply falling apart and the media in general is everyday moving more and more towards scandals because they simple want to make money.

The picture used for this article was taken from www.timesonline.co.uk

BBC News article used to write this story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7970731.stm

Jacqui Smith's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqui_Smith

What is an PM? (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_of_Parliament

Downing Street's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street

Media's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_media

Newspaper's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper

Tabloid press' profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabloid

Definition of pornography (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography

Mexico's war-on-drugs profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War

Mexico's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico

G20 Protests are a wast of time and money

2009-03-28T16:57:00.000-07:00

An estimated number of up to 3,500,000 people protested against the G20 yesterday (Saturday) in the streets of London, in what is believed to be the biggest mass-manifestation in more than a year, the Guardian reported yesterday.

According to the Guardian, the protest 'jobs, justice and climate' was organised by some of the most remarkable peace organizations in the UK, beginning with the socialist organization Put People First and the Rainbow Alliance, to charities such as Action Aid and the green organization Friends of Earth. All of these organizations and many other unionists managed to gather more than 35,000,000 people and are willing to to gather more people for the coming days.

The protests will take place in London for the rest of the weekend and through the next week, and will finish on thursday when all the members of the G20 will gather together in London. The London Metropolitan Police is expecting things to get dangerous and have invested up to £7.2 millions on security.

It is very ironic that such a group of people can gather together to supposedly protest against the corruption of the world, and to – as many people assumed – make the world a better place.

But isn't ‘making the world a better place’ what the G20 is trying to do? Or isn't ‘gathering a bunch of heavy-weigh international economists to solve problems such as Global Warming and Global Economic Crisis’ considered trying to save to world?

Considering that the London Metropolitan Police is spending £7.2 millions to prevent any misbehaving from the protesters, the only people misbehaving and making the world a worse place are those protesters who believe that they are making a difference while protesting against a good cause. If they are protesting against Global free-trade, then they will be ignoring the many millions of poor people that have been benefited because of global free-trade through the years.

I was invited by one of the members of the Socialist Movement of the university I attend to (London Metropolitan University) and I was told to 'please' come to protest against "theses stupid - stupid was not the word used, it was a much harder word - people who have ruined the world." Well, my response to that person was: "I got better things to do."

But now what I say to that person is that if she was referring to the bankers, well, they made a huge mistake, and now the economists that are part of the G20 are only trying to make things better and to improve the situation in the world. What is so wrong about that?

The picture used for this article was taken from www.guardian.co.uk

Guardian article used to write this story:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/28/g20-protest-police-rainbow-alliance

G20's Website:

http://www.g20.org/

G20's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G20_industrial_nations

Put People's Website:

http://www.putpeoplefirst.org.uk/

Rainbow Alliance's Website:

http://www.ralliance.org/

Action Aid's Website:

http://www.actionaid.org/

Friends of Earth's Website:

http://www.foe.co.uk/

London Metropolitan Police's Website:

http://www.met.police.uk/

London Metropolitan Police's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Police_Service

London Metropolitan University's Website:

http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/

Silvio Berlusconi: Italy's Right- and Left-wing parties merge to form Italy's political dream

2009-03-28T07:35:00.000-07:00

Yesterday a merge between two very different Italian political parties: the Left-Wing Italian opposition, Alleanza Nazionale, and the Right-Wing party, Forza Italia, were yesterday merged by the 73-year-old Italian PM and leader of Forza Italia, Silvio Berlusconi, the Times Online reported yesterday.

A merge that seemed like a far away dream for many, and an impossible dream for many others, became a reality when Italian PM, Silvio Berlusconi launched what is considered by him - as he has stated in the new party's website - the future of the people of Italy, the new democratic party il Polopo Della Liberta.

Many Italians were delighted by the merge and have considered it a big step in Italy's stressful and deadly political world. But many others are worried that Mr. Berlusconi will take advantage of the new party to take care of his own personal businesses, as he is accused of having done with his own party Forza Italia for many years. But some others believe that Mr. Berlusconi's Centre-Right-wing party, Forza Italia is only supported by one man - Mr. Berlusconi himself - and that once he is out of politics the left-wing power will take over again.

Silvio Berlusconi got to power for the first time in 1994 when he won the elections by winning more than 70% of the votes, thing that no Italian politician had done after the Second World War. Mr. Berlusconi is believed to have fulfilled a hole created by the one party that ruled Italians ever since the collapsed of the fascist regime as the end of the Second World War approached and the death of Benito Mussolini took place in Milan; the Centre-Right-wing party, la Democrazia Critiana (Christian Democracy), which collapsed because of corruption accusations and misbelief of the Italian people.

Mr. Berlusconi - the man that was discovered to be the second richest person in Italy last year - have been involved in corruption many times since he got to power. He attended to court sessions for more than two years when he was accused of sending money to Swiss bank accounts which presumably belonged to him. This happened before he conveniently launched a law powerful enough to dissolve court cases that had been considered by a Jury for more than one year.

In a country where there are more than six democratic political parties, and countless illegal political parties, this merge will calm down the thirst of political power for many Italian politicians. But, it won't be long before someone wants to take Mr. Berlusconi's position and that will then represent, the end of il Popolo Della Liberta. As it has happened before, the formation of this new political party will draw people - once Mr. Berlusconi is out of power - to be separated again, forming more than one political party, and this of course will leave Italy with a hole of uncertainty.

In Italy, the party you represent does not only define the political party you support, it defines your personal views as well as the people you interact with, and the difference between Italian Left-wing and Italian Right-wing is from heaven to earth. If I had to express my personal opinion, this merge will give Mr. Berlusconi the power he desires to take care of his personal businesses, and it will mean the decrease of the left-wing parties for a long time, until Mr. Berlusconi dies of leaves power, whatever comes first.

The Pictures used for this article were taken from www.timesonline.co.uk, www.smh.com.au

and www.dailymail.co.uk

Times Online article used to write this story:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5983437.ece

Sidney Morning Herald related article:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/berlusconis-communist-claims/2006/03/27/1143330959861.html

Alleanza Nazionale's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Alliance_(Italy)

Forza Italia's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forza_Italia

Silvio Berlusconi's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Berlusconi

Il Popolo Della Liberta Website:

http://www.forzaitalia.it/

Il Popolo Della Liberta's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_Freedom

Italy's profile (wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy

Benito Mussolini's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini

Democrazia Cristiana or Christian Democracy's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democracy_(Italy,_historical)

Gordon Brown: We'll take more budgets if necessary

2009-03-25T12:09:00.000-07:00

Gordon Brown spoke to the Wall Street Journal about the debts the UK treasury is facing and how his government - the Labour Party - is taking actions to decrease the amount of money that will need to be paid in the future.

Mr. Brown also answered to the accusations that the governor of the Bank of England Mervyn King made yesterday, the BBC News website has reported today.

Mr. Brown referred to the accusations made by Mr. King saying that he and his government would do whatever it takes to push the UK out of crisis and recession. Saying this, Mr. Brown made clear that he would take more budgets if necessary.

Mr. Brown is on a tour in the American continent, talking to top economic leaders trying to get to agreements to help the UK and the many American countries get out of the global crisis they are going through. Mr. Brown will visit other South American countries such as Chili and Brazil.

The BBC News website reported: "Mr. Brown, who dismissed claims that the UK's central Bank was at odds with him over a further stimulus package, said there was a 'determination' among world leaders to do 'whatever it takes to make sure we can restore the economy to growth'."

Yesterday the governor of the Bank of England Mervyn King said that the UK does not need to adopt many more budgets simply because it would harm the UK's economy. Mr. King made clear that the UK need not get in deeper debts. This accusation hit the British PM on a very delicate time due to the fact that Mr. Brown was at a European Union meeting at the time Mr. King spoke about this matter.

The Conservative Party have many times before stated that taking more budgets is not a solution to the economic crisis, but at the same time they have failed to express one. Yesterday they congratulated the governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, for the declarations he made to Gordon Brown yesterday.

The Mail Online reported today: "The Tories, who have repeatedly warned about the size of the national debt, called Mr. King's intervention a 'defining moment in the political argument on the recession'."

It is very brave to tell the leader of such a country like the UK what he (Mr. Brown) should and shouldn't do when you are not his position. But it is a totally different thing when you tell the leader of a country what he shouldn't do and at the same time you show him and his party the solution, and this is where Mr. King and the whole conservative party are failing.

The conservative party congratulated Mr. King when he said yesterday that the UK need not need more budgets because the country would dramatically go on deeper debts. Even the conservative party itself have declared the same thing many times before, but what do they have to say to solve the problem?

The UK is passing through a very difficult time and a very strong crisis and Mr. Brown knows that the UK needs another budget and believes that the UK will be able to get out of this crisis and pay back the debts once the situation gets better. There is no other way, the budget needs to be taken, and as long as the UK does not rely on budgets, the debt will not be that hard to pay back afterwards.

The pictures used for this article were taken from www.dailymail.co.uk

BBC News article taken to write this story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7962654.stm

Mail Online article used to write this story:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1164440/Brown-attacks-avarice-bankers-puts-big-spending-Budget-hold.html

Wall Street Journal related article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123797598592936463.html

Gordon Brown's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Brown

Mervyn King's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mervyn_King_(economist)

Bank of England's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_England

Bank of England website:

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/

Labour Party's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)

Conservative Party's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)

Barack Obama: Bush! Global Warming is all your fault!

2009-03-24T07:40:00.000-07:00

U.S. President Barack Obama has said recently on a statement in the White House that Global Warming is affecting general public health and will be a bigger threat in the future, the Guardian has reported today.

Mr. Obama has also expressed how some policies of the former U.S. president George W. Bush have increased the dioxide emissions in the U.S. making the working against Global Warming harder.

The White House and Mr. Obama's personnel in charged of the Global Warming issues have expressed their concern on the carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. and have declared that they are currently considering making new laws to release the carbon dioxide emissions. However, so far, some congress officials have already refused to accept the conditions.

The problem with Global Warming is that most people think that it is the fault of car-drivers and oil companies, and that the less cars we have in the streets and motor ways, the better it is for the environment, which is obviously not the real solution. Oil is a natural resource that on earth for a reason, and it should be used.

After all, the problem with Global Warming have been caused by a people who don't take small actions in their own lives. Sadly, most people don't realise that half the rubbish that pollute that world come from homes. Little actions such as recycling and moderating how much water and heating we waste, and the way we take care of our car's carbon dioxide, can be vital for the health of our planet.

Unfortunately, some companies have taken advantage of the facilities of transport and have polluted other weaker countries that have nothing to do with polluting the world. These companies have damaged other African countries by sending rubbish that be 'stored' in public place, as the Independent reported.

This picture was taken from www.guardian.co.uk

Guadian article used to write this story:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/24/global-warming-public-health-america

Independent article used to write this story:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/dumped-in-africa-britain8217s-toxic-waste-1624869.html

Barack Obama's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

Global Warming (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Carbon dioxide emissions (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

Recycling (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling

White House profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House

White House website:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/

Gordon Brown strikes against terrorism

2009-03-22T15:45:00.000-07:00

On an article written by British PM Gordon Brown, and published by the Guardian today, Mr. Brown has stated the actions he and his government - the Labour party - will and and are currently taking to stop terrorism.

One of the actions considered and taken by Mr. Brown, and the topic that was most emphasized throughout his article, was the improvement and the development that has been done to the policing organizations in Britain. Mr. Brown mentioned that it has been invested numerous amounts of money of £1 billion to £3.5 billions on security equipment and personal in the UK borders as well as UK cities and key buildings, which means that now important cities are well-protected against all kinds of attacks, including chemical and nuclear attacks.

Mr. Brown also alerted people of any possible terror attacks and warned all the citizens to be alert and to not support people who are motivated by hatred and wrong-religious reasons. Mr. Brown said (the Guardian reported today): "Al-Qaida terrorist remain intent on inflicting mass casualties without warning, including through suicide bombings. They are motivated by a violent extremist ideology based on a false reading of religion and exploit modern travel and communications to spread through loose and dangerous global networks."

Mr. Brown also stated that he is giving his support to other countries around the world that have already been fighting terrorism for a while, and that have currently increased their support towards countries - such as the UK - that are willing to fight terrorism. Mr. Brown made clear that Britain will fight along those organizations and countries to stop terrorism from being a threat to the UK and the world.

Mr. Brown has made clear that he is not 'joking' when he says that he has taken actions nationally and internationally to stop terrorism. Very rarely we see politicians committed to the promises and taking such actions to stop such delicate matters.

In fact, Mr. Brown has been very clear on the actions that he has taken, and the actions that he is willing to take, and he is determent to stop Britain from being threatened in their own land. Personally, I give my support to Mr. Brown, and I congratulate him for the efforts he has made to keep Britain a saver place.

I wonder what David Cameron has to say about this matter! Is he going to criticize Mr. Brown for taking such actions - as Mr. Cameron usually criticizes Mr. Brown, even when Mr. Brown takes actions and good decisions? And if he is, what excuse is he going to come up with?

The picture used for this article was taken from www.telegraph.co.uk

Guardian article used to write this story:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/22/gordon-brown-terrorism

Gordon Brown's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Brown

Al-Qaida's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

Israeli Army kills civilians. Mistake?

2009-03-20T13:37:00.000-07:00

The Independent has scooped today that Israeli troops were indeed allowed to shoot and kill civilians during the 22-day invasion to Gaza. It has also been scooped by the Independent that a Military commander expressed his views on palestinian lives saying that Palestinian lives were (according to the Independent) "very, very less important than the lives of our soldiers."

One soldier said that he was ordered to shoot at an elderly woman who was only 100 metres away from the soldiers. Another soldier revealed how the lives of a mother and her children were taken by a sniper.

The Independent also reported: "A aquad leader said: At the beginning the directive was to enter a house with an armoured vehicle, to break the door down, to start shooting inside and - I call it murder - to shoot at everyone we identify. In the beginning I asked myself how could this make sense? Higher-ups said it is permissible because everyone left in the city (Gaza city) is culpable because they didn't run away."

The Times Online reported that an official investigation has been started by international authorities because Israel might have broken human right laws while the military operation in Gaza was taking place earlier this year.

Israel made a mistake. And what country in the history of the world does not make mistakes when it comes to war? From the British to the Americans, they have all made worse mistakes and in many cases, the world has said nothing. Many people believe that so far, Israel only invaded Gaza City to kill innocent civilians, when there has only been proved that one commander ordered to kill a group of people.

Don't get me wrong, the action of killing the civilians was wrong and those in charge of the brutal operation must be punished, but not those who carried out the operation because they were simply following orders.

But if I had to express my personal view I would say that if the Palestinians had been in the same position as the Israelis, they would have done the same or worse. At least the Israelis do not rape women like many African terror groups do.

Unfortunately, people tend to forget that the Middle East is a complicating and very different place from the West. Most of the innocent civilians' deaths in the operation were taken by Israeli army soldiers because Hamas was hiding behind them. Plus, most of the children's deaths were caused because Hamas used them as soldiers or human shelters, just as it (Hamas) did to many other innocent lives, including women.

I'm not justifying anyone, but when you live under rocket fires for more than eight years, and you just get tired of political talking and appeals and all the paper work, once you invade the country from where the rockets come from, you do not think who and what you are killing and you just want to take revenge. I'm not saying it's right, no, it is wrong, but that is what happens.

If Hamas really cared about its people - as they claimed - why didn't they then give up their weapons and their rocket instruments? Why didn't they take the opportunity to cease fire once and for all? No, instead they started to fire rockets to south Israel.

If Gaza is in this situation is because of themselves and because of Hamas, and I am afraid - and very much sorry for the lives that are yet to be taken by the Israeli soldiers and the lives that have already been taken - this situation will not cease and will always continue until Hamas does not get to an agreement with the Israeli government.

The pictures used for this article were taken from www.timesonline.co.uk and www.independent.co.uk

Independent article used to write this story:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israels-dirty-secrets-in-gaza-1649527.html

Times Online article used to write this story:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5939611.ece

Gaza's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip

Deranged pervert Josef Fritzl gets life sentence

2009-03-19T13:01:00.000-07:00

73-year-old Josef Fritzl of Austria is sentenced to life in prison where he would get psychological help. The Guardian reported today.

According to the Guardian, Fritzl enslaved his own daughter since the age of 18, for 24 years, during which he abused her and forced her to have seven children, one of which, a twin, died during labour for not having the medical care necessary to give birth. Fritzl is believed to have gotten rid of the baby-body by burning and burring it afterwards.

Fritzl was discovered more than nine months ago when one of his prisoners run away from the cellar where they were being held captive. A police officer found the prisoner and then ran to investigate where this person had come from and found the horrific crime scene.

Since the detention of Fritzl, he has declared that he did not realise who much harm he had done to his own daughter and that he was completely sorry for his actions.

The guardian has reported today: "I regret from the bottom of my heart what I have done to my family. Unfortunately, I cannot make amends for it. I can only try to look for possibilities to try to limit the damage that's been done, he (Fritzl) said." But this did not stop the judge from giving him the maximum sentence available in Austria.

The Sun reported today: "He (Fritzl) told a hushed court: It was only yesterday I realised for the first time how cruel I was to Elisabeth. I never realised it was such a bad situation."

Today, the world has seen justice. A man who enslaved his own daughter for such a long time will get what he deserves as he spends the rest of his miserable life in prison.

Honestly, I didn't believe in death penalty, but today I have charged my mind. I believe that such a cold-hearted person does not deserve to live the life that he has taken from someone such as his own daughter and the children he forced her to have with him for as long as 24 years.

However, I am very glad with the sentence and, besides the fact that I don't agree with Fritzl being under psychological care, because I don't believe he needs any - I just believe that he found pleasure in forcing someone to do the things he wanted, just because he could - I am very pleased with the fact that him too, will soon not be able to see sunlight again. Just like he forced his daughter not to see sunlight for 24 years.

The pictures used for this article were taken from: http://www.thesun.co.uk/ and http://www.expressen.se/

Guardian article used to write this story:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/19/josef-fritzl-jailed-for-life

Sun article used to write this story:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2328061.ece

Josef Fritzl case profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritzl_case

More tuition fees for UK students

2009-03-18T15:08:00.000-07:00

In an official survey studied and revealed by the BBC yesterday, it has been concluded that most English and Welsh universities want to increase the amount of money paid for tuition fees by UK Students from £3,500 to at least £5,000.

According to the BBC News Website, some of the vice-chancellors of some of the top universities in the UK would like to see tuition fees rise for the sake of their universities.

These vice-chancellors believe that rising tuition fees up to £5,000 and in some cases, depending on the academic course, £7,000, would help universities a lot in times of economic crisis.

The BBC reported: "The BBC survey, gathering the views of 53 universities vice-chancellors, showed a wide range of expectations of the scale of any increase - from £4,000 to £20,000 per year."

This is without a doubt a way for the cheesy, greeny, give-more-money-vice-chancellors of all those 53 universities to make more money.

How dare they say that universities need more money because they are going through difficult times? When specially now that there is an economic crisis, more and more both youngsters and mature would-be-university-students are desperately applying to university courses.

If there is anyone who needs money to go to university, those are the students who are dedicating their time and who are already in debt and who will have to pay a deep debt of up to £25,000 by the time their higher education is over. Those people are the UK students.

Those vice-chancellors do not need more money, and in fact, they do not deserve more money, because all they want to do with that money is invest it on unnecessary things.

Such is the case of one of London's biggest universities; London Metropolitan University; where the chancellor lied when it came to reporting to the government how many students the university had and now the university has to pay back a fine of more than £15 million.

I am a journalism student at London Met, and I - like many other students - can assure many people that just by looking at the quality of some of the equipment and the buildings that belong London Met, I can say that most of that money must have ended up in the wrong pockets.

If not, then why doesn’t London Met’s chancellor want to explain the government what he’s done with the money? And what does London Met’s chancellor want to do now to ‘solve the problem?’ He wants to get rid of almost 40% of the university’s lecturers.

For the sake of those students who are the future of this nation, and who will end up in debt for shaping their own future at university, and for doing something that benefits the future of the UK, let us please not allow these greeny vice-chancellors benefit from us, the students, and get our money because they simply want and can.

The picture used for this article was taken from www.bbc.co.uk/news

BBC News article used to write this story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7946912.stm

Find out more information about the London Metropolitan University debt here:

http://socialismrightnow.blogspot.com/

David Cameron: 'no more TV license fee for the BBC'

2009-03-17T07:29:00.000-07:00

The leader of the opposition - the right-wing Conservative party - David Cameron, has declared yesterday that he would freeze the BBC-TV license fee for a year to set a good and strong example to the British people in these times of economic crisis, the Independent reported yesterday.

According to the Independent, Mr. Cameron also declared that the BBC is one of the most important British institutions and that it has been for years.

Mr. Cameron has accused many Labour leaders for the plans made to increase the BBC-TV license fee from £139.50 to £142.50.

This is, without a doubt, a very interesting and rare move for a Tory leader to make in times of economic crisis. First of all, the BBC is the best broadcasting network in the world and it needs the license fee to survive.

Taking into consideration that the BBC does not broadcast commercial ads and that the only income it has at the moment is the license fee, it needs the money collected by the license fee payers to keep broadcasting those interesting high-quality documentaries and programmes.

However strange it might sound, in times of economic crisis and economic recession the best thing to do in order to help the country's economy is to spend money. Money that at same time must stay in Britain.

Reducing or freezing the license fee, even for a year, does not help the economy at all. On the contrary, it will make things harder for the BBC and most of the very-well-made, high-quality programmes that the BBC makes, will decline in quality.

It is also fair to mention that the the license fee does not only go to the BBC-TV programmes, but it supports all the BBC-radios across the country, the fantastic BBC website, and everything that has to do with the BBC in the UK.

The picture used for this article used taken from http://www.guardian.co.uk/

Independent article used to write this story:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-would-freeze-bbc-fee-1646289.html

David Cameron's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cameron

The BBC's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC

The BBC website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/

BBC-TV Licence fee:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/

Gordon Brown: 'cheap alcohol is killing us'

2009-03-16T04:32:00.000-07:00

British PM Gordon Brown declared his views towards the new price of alcohol in the UK, the BBC News website has reported today.

In a press conference held yesterday Mr Brown expressed that he will not interfere with the new law that has been considered by the Chief Medical Officer for England, Sir Liam Donaldson, who wants to increase the price of alcohol by 50p per every unit of alcohol.

This new law would make a regular bottle of wine of a minimum price of £3.00 a £4.50 bottle of wine. According to the BBC News website, England, unlike other European countries that have decreased the amount of alcohol consumed in a year, has increased it by 40%.

Although Mr. Brown has no intentions to stop the price of alcohol from being risen, he did show some concern about the ‘moderate’ drinkers. The BBC News website reported today: “He (Mr. Brown) said: I think these strong actions in public health are always controversial.”

BBC Radio 4 has broadcasted today that Mr. Brown does not think it is fair to penalize those who do not drink too much, for the fault of those who drink more.

The purpose of increasing the price of every alcohol unit sold in England is to stop heavy drinkers from becoming more addicted to alcohol. According to the BBC News website “the NHS bill for alcohol abuse is an estimated £2.7bn a year”

It is not a secret to anyone that many English people have drinking problems, and that every year more and more under-aged teenagers are starting to drink heavier types of alcohol more frequently.

Plus, after having seen that the measures towards smoking in public places taken more than two years ago worked - because it has been proved that since the law of non-smoking in public places made many people stop smoking - the government is now trying to apply the same strategy on alcohol laws.

Which – if you look at it this way – is a good thing, because in times of economic crisis and recession, it is better not to spend money on unnecessary things such as alcohol.

Instead of spending money on alcohol, we could spend that money on more useful things such as food, mortgage or invest it on saving. Plus, it is a fact that this new alcohol regulation will stop many people from getting violent in the streets every time they drink.

I agree with what the government is trying to do, and I believe it is one of the most reasonable ideas they have had in a long time.

The picture used for this article was taken from: http://www.virginmedia.com/ and http://www.timesonline.co.uk/

BBC News article used to write this story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7945357.stm

Independent related article:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/pm-rejects-minimum-alcohol-price-idea-1646077.html

Times Online related article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5916887.ece

Gordon Brown's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Brown

Osama Bin Landen talks again but he wouldn't show up

2009-03-14T15:37:00.000-07:00

Osama Bin Laden, the most wanted criminal of all times released a voice recorded document today where he accuses muslim countries for not taking action against Israel when it was needed - during the latest attacks on Gaza - the Daily Telegraph has reported today.

Bin Laden reveals that he considers the muslim countries that are not taking actions against Israel as "hypocrites" and calls upon the muslims of the world to take action against Israel for what they have done to Gaza.

In the last two months Bin Laden has released 2 voice recorded documents, and before this, the last video recorded by him was released more than two years ago. To me, there is something that isn't right.

First of all, Israel was just trying to finish with Hamas - a terrorist group that uses children was human shelter, and oppresses its own people. Unfortunately, because of the 'humanitarian's actions' Israel had to stop their operations and now Hamas can easily get ready to stricken again.

Bin Landen is well-known for releasing videos where he - around gun machines and other heavy arsenal - shows his face and reads his speech. After a while of not doing this, he suddenly releases two voice recorded documents one after the other in two months. What is stopping me from thinking that this terrorist is dead and that someone is trying to take his place secretly?

Osama Bin Laden is just the biggest coward the world has ever seen. If he was really a hero - as some people do consider him - why doesn't he show his face, instead of hiding behind other people's suicide actions?

The world criticizes the American government for having troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but at the same time they seem to forget that there is a war out there against terrorists who hate everything and everyone, people who think the world would be better of without the western world.

The picture used for this article was taken from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

Daily Telegraph article used to write this story:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/qatar/4991580/Osama-bin-Laden-attacks-crooked-Arab-leaders.html

Osama Bin Laden's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

Evo Morales eats coca leaf in the UN - has he gone mad?

2009-03-12T16:23:00.000-07:00

Bolivia's president Evo Morales took a coca leaf out of his pocket and ate it in front of many other important political figures in the UN today, the Independent reported today.

Mr. Morales made a statement saying that coca leafs are not drugs and that they don't do any harm to the human bodies.

He claims that coca leafs can be used as medicine, as the native Bolivians have been using them for decades.

The Independent reported today: "President Morales, a former peasant coca farmer, brandished the leaf during an impassioned speech, saying: This is coca leaf, this is not cocaine, this is part and parcel of a culture."

President Morales of Bolivia is in a long-term campaign to legalize coca leaf importation to the US and Europe.

His scope is to show the world that with the right treatment, the medical power of coca leafs can be used to cure some light and fatal illnesses.

However, the reality is more complex than what it seems. Why hasn't Mr. Morales been given the opportunity to export coca leafs if the scope of this action is to make medicines that, at the end of the day, will be used to help human lives?

Because unfortunately, if anyone were given the opportunity to export coca leafs there will always be a group of people who will always find their way to use the leaf for other purposes (drug making and drug dealing).

I believe that the US, Britain and Europe have already got too many drug problems and making one 'drug' legal will not do any good to us.

The picture used for this article was taken from http://vivirlatino.com/

Independent article used to write this story:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/this-is-a-coca-leaf-not-cocaine-insists-morales-1643098.html

Evo Morales' profile (Wikipedia):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales

Bolivia's Profile (Wikipedia):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivia

Madoff apologises but still goes to prison

2009-03-12T10:15:00.000-07:00

Bernard Madoff revealed that he was "sorry" for all the damage he made when he stole one of the largest quantities of money in the history of the Wall Street, the Independent reported today.

According to the Independent, the 70-year-old businessman - Bernard Madoff - is believed to have stolen as much as $65 billion in what is believed by the American authorities a long-term operation.

The Independent reported today: "His (Madoff's) investors included hedge funds, banks, Jewish charities, the wealthy, and small individual investors in North and South America and Europe."

Mr. Madoff could face up to 150 years in prison for the 11 charges he is accused of. Mr. Madoff pleaded guilty today after saying he was sorry.

This is history in the making. I believe that this case is one of the most remarkable cases of our times because of the economic situations we're passing through, and the fact that someone who stole such an amount of money is going to prison is a total inspiration for those who still don't believe in justice.

No other businessman with Madoff's records had been officially charged in a court of law before.

I believe that even if we apologise for the "mistakes" we make - which in this case, no mistakes were made because the whole operation was well-planned - we still have to pay the consequences of our actions. For this businessman, the consequences are 150 years in prison.

The picture was for this article was taken from www.bbc.co.uk/news

Independent article used to write this story:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/madoff-admits-blockbuster-fraud-1643525.html

Bernard Madoff's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff

Does the tabloid press need limits? Is it too abusive? Do the tabloid press offer what the public wants, or what the public needs?

2009-03-10T13:37:00.000-07:00

Gerry McCann; father of the missing girl Madeline McCann; faced MPs today and accused the media 'specially the press' of miss-leading general information about Madeline's case.

Mr. McCann also accused the press of focusing their articles too much on the private lives of those close to Madeline - specially Mr and Mrs McCann - instead of giving the public information about the missing girl, the BBC News Website and BBC News Channel have reported today.

Mr. McCann described some of the actions of the press as not helpful at all.

The BBC News Website reported: "Mr McCann told the MPs: Although elements of the media coverage have undoubtedly been helpful in the ongoing search for Madeline, out family have been the focus of some of the most sensationalist, untruthful, irresponsible and damaging reporting in the history of the press."

Madeline McCann disappeared while on holiday with her parents in Praia da Luz, Portugal, on night of the 3rd of May 2007 while her parents went for dinner and left her (Madeline) in the hotel alone.

The investigation against her parents - Madeline's parents were accused of murdering Madeline by the Portuguese police - was closed just before Mr and Mrs McCann headed to their home in Leicestershire, England in September 2007.

However Mr. McCann wasn't the only one to give accusations against the press. Max Mosley, another victim of the destructive articles of the tabloid press referred to the stories that the press wrote about him as (the BBC News Channel reported) if you went to your home and found your front door opened and your things stolen. Only worse because you can get your things back but your "dignity" can never be recovered.

Mr. Mosley; the leader of the FIA (Federation Internationale de L'Automobile) was secretly filmed by the News of the World (British Sunday Newspaper) having - what was called by the press - a Nazi orgy with five prostitutes who were all wearing Nazi uniforms while Mr. Mosley wore a concentration camp prisoner's uniform. The tabloid press accused Mr. Mosley of being a nazi because of the whole orgy scene.

It also brought up that Mosley's father was involved in nazi movements during the Second World War.

It is not a secret that the tabloid press would do anything against anyone just to get a story that sells newspapers. Tabloids such as the Sun, the Daily Star, the Daily Mirror and many others do not worry about the damaging the private lives of those who the tabloids target.

I as a journalism student and as a blogger disagree with the tabloid press because it does not educate nor does it inform the public of the important issues they're supposed to know. All the tabloid press does is provide the public with poisonous stories that only damage the private lives of many important people and celebrities.

I believe private lives - even the private lives of celebrities - should never be shown to the public and that the authorities should make harder rules for those newspapers that focused their pages to disrespect people.

And although both the McCann family and Mr. Mosley were given apologies and a large amount of money in compensation by those newspapers that exploded their images, no amount of money nor apologies can take back the embarrassing situations that these press-victims went through.

The picture of Madeline McCann was taken from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ and the picture of Max Mosley was taken from http://www.topnews.in/

BBC News article used to write this story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7935156.stm

Guardian related article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/10/madeleine-mccann-father-press-regulation

Madeline McCann's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann

Madeline McCann's disappearance facts by the BBC News Website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7548108.stm

Max Mosley's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Mosley

Northern Ireland attack - the IRA is back

2009-03-08T12:53:00.000-07:00

Two British soldiers were yesterday night (Saturday night) shot dead in a British military base in Northern Ireland. The more-than-one-decade term of peace was all the sudden interrupted when (according to Sky News TV Channel) three men took advantage of a pizza delivery and shot with automatic guns four soldiers as they approached the door to pick up the pizzas. The names of the soldiers have not yet been publicized.

The soldiers were not the only people to get hurt by the attack. According to the Guardian, two other military men and two pizza delivery guys were badly injured. Among the pizza delivery guys was a 32-year-old Polish citizen, who worked as a pizza delivery guy. He was badly hurt and was last night in a critical condition. According to authorities, the mercenaries were well-armed and prepared to commit a massacre.

According to the Guardian, the motive for this attack was the accusations that the new police service's chief of Northern Ireland, Sir Hugh Orde directed to the Republican party of Northern Ireland. The Guardian reported today: "Sir Hugh Orde said: there was a growing threat of violence from dissident republicans. A huge police manhunt is now under way."

This attack was not believed to be an act of the IRA until a phone call made by an anonymous caller - claiming to be an IRA soldier - to the Sunday Tribune newspaper's offices in Dublin declared that the total responsibility belongs to the IRA. The call was made by a unidentified person who used code language - such as the code language that the original IRA used.

The Guardian also reported: "A journalist at the Dublin-based Sunday Tribune's office in Belfast said that the newspaper took a call claiming responsibility for the attack by the Real IRA's Antrim brigade."

There is no doubt that this is the a terrorist attack, and taking into consideration all that happened in Northern Ireland during the 80s - as many in the streets believe - this could be the beginning of a serious of attacks from a new and stronger IRA. However, why would the IRA come back after more than a decade of peace? And what are they after now?

I believe with no doubt that this could be a start of a new era of battles against a new IRA, but I also believe that the government and the British people are more prepared to fight against a new IRA.

It must be taken into consideration that the IRA has weakened after more than 10 years of not being active and I believe that this attack is an alert from a minor group of people who want to start something that has been over for more than a decade.

The picture used for this article was taken from www.bbc.co.uk/news

Guardian article used to write this story:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/08/northern-ireland-soldiers-killed-antrim

Northern Ireland profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland

Northern Ireland related articles (Guardian):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/northernireland

IRA profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army

Ingrid Betancourt is considered by fellow American hostages as 'worse than FARC guards'

2009-03-07T04:10:00.000-08:00

Ingrid Betancourt: one of the most famous hostages of our days, and a former Colombian politician who was held captive for six years by the terrorist group FARC (the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) was described by fellow hostages as 'worse than FARC guards' the Daily Telegraph reported.

This was described in a 457-page chronicle written by three of the 11 American hostages. Miss. Betancourt was held hostage along with 11 American citizens - who are believed to be CIA members - for six years. Miss. Betancourt was kidnaped not long before Colombia's presidency elections in 2002.

It is believed that the real reason why Miss. Betancourt was kidnaped is because she was one of the very few Colombian politicians to have a very strong agenda against the FARC. Many south American newspapers have speculated that some members of the government were behind the kidnap.

The Daily Telegraph reported: "I (one of the American hostages) watched her try to take over the camp with an arrogance that was out of control. Some of the guards treated us better than she did."

The Daily Telegraph has also interview Dr. Keron Fletcher; a British psychiatrist who has worked for more than a decade with hostages held by Lebanon extremists. He said that it is very rare for fellow hostages of Miss. Betancourt to describe her as such a terrible person. He also said that in these types of situations fellow hostages tend to develop a long-term friendship, specially when you share your live of a hostage with other people for six years.

The Daily Telegraph also reported: "People who live through such trauma tend to keep quiet about problems that they had with each other and do their best to support each other".

Why would someone who spent six years of his life with someone as educated as Ingrid Betancourt show a part of Miss. Bentancourt's life as a hostage that no one has ever shown before? I honestly believe that the people who wrote the 457-page chronicle only wants to clear their names of something that they must have done during their time of captivity.

Ingrid Betancourt is believed to have been writing her memories of the terrible and dramatic six-year-long kidnap and has mentioned that she would like (the memories) to be published and available for the public. When the two books come out, we will all be able to see the two different parts of the same story.

The pictures used for this article were taken from http://www.guardian.co.uk/ and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

Telegraph article used for this story:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4840695/Ingrid-Betancourt-was-worse-than-guards-claims-a-fellow-hostage.html

FARC's profile (Wikipedia):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Armed_Forces_of_Colombia

Ingrid Betancourt's profile (Wikipedia):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%8Dngrid_Betancourt

Swiss-assisted-suicide-clinic: the solution for many, but is it right?

2009-03-06T09:36:00.000-08:00

A British elderly couple have committed suicide in the famous assisted-suicide-clinic in Zurich, Switzerland, the Independent has reported today.

According to the Independent, 80-year-old Peter Duff, and 70-year-old Penelope Duff; Peter's wife, are believed to be the first British couple to commit suicide in the Swiss Clinic. They were also believed to have been suffering of cancer since 1992.

However this is not the first time a British citizen commits suicide in the Swiss assisted suicide clinic; according to the BBC News Channel about 100 British citizens have already committed suicide in the famous clinic, including a paralysed Rugby player.

When I read this news in the Metro, as I was on my way to the class room, I was chocked and pretty soon amazed by the terrible news. I just can't believe that someone can just end his very own life and still take the life of the person who is closest to you and who has loved you for so long.

I do not agree with the fact that people are considering suicide as an option to end long-term-painful illness. I have never been through a painful illness myself, but I have been very close to someone who suffered from a terrible illness, and I am sure that if that person had thought of committing suicide, I would have not been what I am now and nor would I have achieved half the stuff I have achieved now.

The thing with suicide is that when you commit it, you are not only finishing the greatest gift you've ever been given - your life - but you're also affecting and damaging the lives of those who are closest to you and the lives of those who love you as well.

Independent article used to write this story:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/british-couple-die-in-suicide-pact-at-swiss-euthanasia-clinic-1638632.html

Sudan's terror leader Omar al-Bashir must go to jail

2009-03-04T06:54:00.000-08:00

The International Criminal Court (ICC) of the Hague, the Netherlands has sent an arrest warrant to the Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir, the BBC News Website has reported today.

Mr. al-Bashir is accused by the ICC of multiple charges such as abuse of power, murder, extermination, rape, torture, transferring and stealing the properties of large numbers of Sudanese civilians, and some others. Sundan is one of the poorest countries in Africa.

According to the BBC the warrant will be taken to action in July this year. Mr. al-Bashir has denied all the charges he's been accused of.

To be fair, this is not the first time that we see a crazy African dictator in power exterminating everyone who opposes their regime and abusing the power given by their very own people and sometimes the support of the west.

I shall remember the people who read this blog that while we're too busy reading the latest article about Jade Goody's illness, there are thousands of men and women that are dying of hunger, thousands of women being raped and many thousands of children being taken by force to contribute to the Sudanese terror army, the same army that attacks many aids helper.

The BBC News Website reported today: "The UN estimates about 300,000 people have died and millions been displaced in six years of conflict in Darfur." And to the ICC, I congratulate you all for the work you're all doing to imprison this terror dictator.

The image used for this article was taken from www.bbc.co.uk/news

BBC News article used to write this story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7923102.stm

BBC News related article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7887007.stm

Omar al-bashir's profile (Wikipedia):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_al-Bashir

Darfur's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur

War in Darfur (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict

Sudan's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudan

Obama to back off 'missile defence shield' in Eastern Europe

2009-03-03T06:22:00.002-08:00

American president Barack Obama wants to 'abandon' plans to open a defence shield in Eastern Europe, under the condition that Russia has to help America protect the west - and Israel - against any possible attack from Iran, the Times Online has reported today.

Mr. Obama's desire to make Russia help the West - and Israel - if any missiles are fired from Iran was expressed in a letter - written by the very same Abama - hard-handed to Russia's president Dmitri Medvedev a month ago.

The letter was scoped in an article by the New York Times, the (London) Times Online has reported today.

The letter stated that plans considered by former US president George W Bush to open defence shields in Poland and the Czech Republic were no longer considered necessary by president Obama if Russia were to fight Iran in case any missile was fired from Iranian territory.

However, (I believe) it is not a secret that Russia has no intentions of helping America 'protect' the west, nor would Russia want to protect Israel if nuclear missiles are fired from Iran.

A prove of this is that since the 'hard-handed' letter was sent to Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, no diplomatic talk about this serious matter has been held yet.

The Times Online reported: "News of the offer, which the Kremlin officially denied this morning, emerged as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton prepares for her first meeting with Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister, on Friday in Geneva. A senior US official told (the Times): It's almost saying to them, put up or shut up. It's not that the Russians get to say, We'll try and therefore you have to suspend. It says the threat has to go away."

The Times Online also reported: "(Mr. Lavrov) added: Any Russian-US cooperation on missile defence should be based on joint analysis, calculation and study of different missile threats."

The pictures used for this article were taken from www.timesonline.co.uk and www.wikipedia.org

Times Online article used to write this story:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5838160.ece

Barack Obama's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Lavrov

Dmitri Medvedev's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Medvedev

Gordon Brown on globalisation

2009-03-02T02:46:00.000-08:00

In a recent article that British PM has written on the Times Online, Mr. Brown has unveiled that he believes in globalisation as the way to improve the economic crisis for which the world – and specially countries like Britain, America and the rest of Europe – are going trough.

Gordon Brown believes that the strings that allied America and Britain together – the strings of truth and freedom – will help these two great nations escape from the economic crisis they’re going through at the moment.

He also mentioned a list of actions that he’s planning to take along with the American president Barack Obama:

"First, universal action to prevent the crisis spreading, to stimulate the global economy and to help reduce the severity and length of the global recession."

"Second, action to kick-start lending so that families and businesses can borrow again."

"Third, all countries renouncing protectionism, with a transparent mechanism to monitor commitments."

"Fourth, reform of international regulation to close regulatory gaps so shadow banking systems have nowhere to hide."

"Fifth, reform of our international financial institutions and the creation of an international early warning system. And last, coordinated international action to build tomorrow today – putting the world economy on an economically, environmentally and socially sustainable path towards future growth and recovery."

I believe in what Mr. Brown says and I support him. However, the only thing that I don’t understand – and I believe this is the point where Mr. Brown is failing – is how he plans to make the moves towards a more globalised society.

The main error politicians have made for ages is the fact that they say: oh! we will do this, this and that! But they never say how they plan to do, and what will be taken in consideration while doing it.

The picture used for this article was taken from http://www.wikipedia.org/

Times Online article used to write this story:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5821821.ece

Gordon Brown's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Brown

David Cameron's 6-year-old son dies

2009-02-25T08:00:00.000-08:00

The British opposition leader David Cameron's six-year-old son has died this morning at St Mary's Hospital, located in Paddington, London, the BBC News Website has reported today.

Cameron's six-year-old son Ivan Cameron, suffered of cerebral palsy and epilepsy.

Many people have sent their condolences to Mr. Cameron. Among them was the British PM - Gordon Brown - who have said (the BBC News Channel has reported today): " I know that in an all too brief life, he (Ivan) brought joy to all those around him and I know also for all the days of his life, he was surrounded by his family's love."

I agree with Mr. Brown's statement when he said that nobody has to go through such a tragic event. Mr. Brown himself knows what it feels like to loose a child. In 2006 Mr. Brown's daughter - Jennifer Jane - died 10 days after she was born in 2002.

I sincerely send my condolences to Mr. Cameron and his family. This is a very sad time for the Cameron family and shows everyone - even such a strong politician like David Cameron - has to deal with personal issues and family problems.

The picture used for this article was taken from www.bbc.co.uk/news

BBC News article used to write this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7909562.stm

David Cameron's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cameron

Is Rupert Murdoch - sky's owner - a racist?

2009-02-25T06:24:00.000-08:00

Rupert Murdoch, the world's biggest media baron, has apologised yesterday for the cartoon published in one of his newspapers - the New York Post - last week, the BBC News Website reported today.

The Cartoon - scooped by the Guardian - shows a chimpanzee shot to dead by two - white - police officers, while one of them says: 'they'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.'

Some people from the African-American communities in the US have reacted angrily declaring that the New York Post promotes racism in America. They've declared that the shot-chimpanzee reflects the image the white Americans had of the African-Americans during times of slavery.

I seriously believe that Mr. Murdoch is not a racist, and I don't say this because I like him -because I don't, I believe he uses his media power to obtain what he wants, which is an abuse o media power.

It is not a secret for those involved in the media industry that Rupert Murdoch would do everything, and would become friends with anyone just to expand his media empire and to increase his influences worldwide.

In this case, it only took him to ordered his New York Post cartoonist to draw a racist cartoon to be in the spotlight once again.

The images used for this article were taken from www.bbc.co.uk/news and www.guardian.co.uk

BBC News article used to write this story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7908324.stm

Guardian article used to write this story:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/18/new-york-post-cartoon-race

New York Post website:

http://www.nypost.com/

New York Post profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post

Rupert Murdoch's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch

Former Telegraph Editor to move to the Evening Standard in an attempt to improve the newspaper

2009-02-20T06:42:00.000-08:00

Former editor of the Sunday Telegraph Sara Sands will become the Evening Standard's deputy editor and will begin this Sunday, the Media Guardian has reported today.

Sara Sands has been offered the position of Deputy Editor in the London Evening Standard by the new owner of the newspaper Alexander Lebedev and the newspaper's new editor-in-chief Geordie Greig.

The Guardian reported today: "Sara is one of the most dynamic and motivating editors with a track record of creating lively, must-read journalism," said Greig. Deputy editor Andrew Bordiss remains in this role."

London's most notorious newspaper - the Evening Standard - was bought by Alexander Lebedev from the Daily Mail and General Trust last month. Mr. Lebedev already owns the Moscow based newspaper Novaya Gazeta.

This move has been made by the new Standard owner in an attempt to improve the quality of the paper and to regain the readers that it has lost over the years.

It is not a secret that while the Standard was in the hands of the Daily Mail the Standard's number of readers started to decrease and one believes that is the real reason why the newspaper was sold, because the Daily Mail was no longer earning the profits they used to from that newspaper.

The Evening Standard has for a long time been believed to be the voice of London and many believed that if it were ever to belonged to a foreigner, it would have lost its theme and its readers totally.

But the reality is that Mr. Lebedev has ink in his veins and he knows what London needs during this era of tabloid journalism. It is fair to say that Mr. Lebedev owns a broadsheet newspaper in a country - Russia - that has been polluted with tabloid newspapers.

I don't believe that Mr. Lebedev is trying to maximize the profit of the Standard because if he did, the newspaper would be a tabloid by now. I believe that the only thing Mr. Lebedev is trying to do to it is improve the theme of the newspaper for the better. That is why he's made so many changes to the newspaper already.

The pictures used for this article were taken from:

www.guardian.co.uk/media/pressandpublishing

Guardian article used to write this story:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/feb/20/sarah-sands-london-evening-standard

Sara Sand's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Sands

Alexander Lebedev's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Lebedev

Evening Standard's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evening_Standard

Novaya Gazeta's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novaya_Gazeta

Anna Politkovskaya - the Russian anit-government journalist killed in 2006 - case doesn't seem to be going anywhere!

2009-02-19T06:59:00.000-08:00

Four people have been accused for the murder of the anti-government journalist Anna Politkovskaya of the Moscow based newspaper the Novaya Gazeta, the Guardian has reported today.

According to the Guardian, the four men accused for the murder of Anna Politkovskaya are believed to be two Chechen brothers named Dzhabrail and Ibragim Makhmudov, A former Moscow policeman - who has been accused of corruption before by the Russian authorities but has never been prosecuted - Sergi Khadzhikurbanov and a lieutenant colonel of the Russian FSB Spy Agency, Pavel Ryaguzov.

The tragic death of Anna Politkovskaya occurred while the famous journalist was coming back to her Moscow flat from a day of shopping at about 16:00 on 7 oct 2006. She's believed to have left her bags upstairs and took the lift downstairs where - as the lift doors oppened - she was surprised by a then unidentified murderer and was shot in the chest and the head. The murderer left the pistol in the crime scene.

During the investigation some crucial pieces of evidence such as a mobile phone SIM card, some computer discs and some photos disappeared, the Guardian has reported today.

This is obviously one of the most scandalous cases in modern Russian History, and it is very clear that this murder has nothing to do with the fact that Ms. Politkovskaya owned some money to non-reliable sources as some Russian newspapers have reported. This is clearly the act of an angry politician who wanted to get rid of Anna Politkovskaya before she accuse - with proves on her hands, as she used to do - the government of any wrong doing.

All the people involved in this murder are or have been involved in the Russian government, which can only lead us to the conclusion that only someone in the government could have given the orders to kill the famous reporter.

It is not a secret that most of the corrupt Russian politicians feared Mr. Politkovskaya because she unveiled some of the most polemic Russian crimes made by the Russian Government.

She often accused Putin of many criminal acts made made by government people during the time he was in power. It is not a secret that Mr. Putin - Russia's former president - hated everything that had to do with Anna Politkovskaya and the newspaper she wrote for, the Navaya Gazeta.

Will this case ever be solved? I believe the killers will be imprisoned, but the real mastermind responsible for Anna Politkovskaya's death will never be identified.

The pictures used for this article were taken from http://www.guardian.co.uk/

Guardian article used to write this story:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/feb/19/anna-politkovskaya-verdict

Related Guardian article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/feb/19/politkovskaya-trial-background-kremlin

Anna Politkovskaya's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Politkovskaya

FaceBook now has the right to do whatever they want to do with our data - Does it really matter though?

2009-02-18T16:11:00.000-08:00

FaceBook, one of the most famous websites in the world - with "175 million users worldwide" according to the Guardian - have earned the right to hold all the pictures and personal data that their users upload on the famous and controversial website.

And even if the users later removed their information and pictures from the website, facebook would be able to hold copies of your pictures and personal information.

This has been the big story of many newspapers worldwide. It just seems that people are suddenly very concerned about their personal data and the pictures that they willingly upload on facebook. But why?

One answer would have something to do with the fact that facebook is one of those websites that people can't live if they don't go on at least once a day. Don't get me wrong, I like facebook. It's a very useful communicative tool that has brought everyone together and has made the world a smaller place. However, at the same time, it's one of those websites that would do everything to suck your money up from your pockets. But how?

Facebook is believed to have wanted to sell personal data to private companies that make their living from selling stuff in the internet, which would eventually allowed these companies to know what your interests are and then make it easier for them to target you and sell you the stuff that you like and that they want you to buy. Now, you might think, well, how's this a bad thing?

To be quit honest it doesn't sound like a bad thing, but when you think of all the chunk stuff that's gonna be sent to you, taking into consideration that it might all be extremely unnecessary but at the same time you'd buy simply because you like it, the issue becomes a problem. Because trust me, there's is certain stuff out there that people love and even if they don't have enough money to eat for a week, they'd do the impossible to get they little thing that fulfils their eyes.

Now what does that have to do the our pictures and personal data? Some might believe that it has something to do with the famous war-on-terror, and it might be true, but the real deal is that if a boss of yours of someone who would like to know something personal about you, would just pay a huge amount of money to facebook only to know what you said to your partner three years ago before you broke up with him/her, or what you said about someone who works with you, or just to see the pictures of the time when during prome party back at the end of high school got completely drunk and ruined the party.

And why would someone be interested in that? Well, let's say that you're looking for a job and your would-be boss needs some personal information about you - info that you obviously wouldn't tell him/her during a job interview - he/she can just simple contact the big facebook enterprise and ask them about your personal life. Now to me that's scary.

That's right people, you should fear facebook because it isn't only taking time from you but it's also going to become your BIG BRO...

The picture used for this article was taken from www.guardian.co.uk

Guardian article used to write this story:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/feb/18/facebook-u-turn-on-privacy-changes

Facebook profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook

FaceBook website:

www.facebook.com

Venezuelans go to Vote Once Again Today for the 15th Time in 10 Years - Since President Hugo Chavez has Gotten to Power

2009-02-15T08:42:00.000-08:00

Tens of thousands of Venezuelans will go to vote today as the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, once again tries to legalise unlimited-presidency-terms through a new referendum.

Currently a president's terms in Venezuela lasts seven years, due to the changes that Mr. Chavez made to the constitution a few months after he got to power in 1999. This is the third time Mr. Chavez tries to change the electoral terms.

Mr. Chavez is a very controversial president. He's recently celebrated his 10-years in power and has made that date a national holiday. He's also made many changes in the constitution and regional laws in his now 10-year-long-term.

Mr. Chavez still has a remaining time of four years in power, but is very confident and persistent that this time he will win.

But what happens in Venezuela is more complex than it looks like. The president extraordinarily popular among the poor communities due to the increase of help-care and education Mr. Chavez has provided them with.

On the other hand, business people and higher classes have stopped supporting the president because of the way he's been using private and public business in Venezuela for his own purposes. Venezuela's biggest oil company would be an example.

Mr. Chavez fired more than 20,000 oil workers (from highly-paid engineers to minimum-wage workers, all qualifies to do their jobs) of the then third biggest and most influential oil company in the world, Venezuelan PDVSA for protesting in what was the country's biggest strike in history. This happened in 2002 and since then PDVSA has declined from the third biggest oil company in the world to the fifth due to the unqualified personnel the Mr. Chavez has hired.

Another industry that isn't very supportive towards President Chavez is the media. President Chavez has since gotten to power 10 years ago closed the most popular and oldest Venezuelan TV station RCTV, and at least three newspapers because of their anti-government policies.

President Hugo Chavez is with no doubt a very polemic person. He's called former US president George W Bush by many names, including a "devil" while a speech in the UN back in 2007.

But what makes this controversial South American president - loved by many and hated by many others - so different from other presidents? Mr. Chavez has created a anti-America "socialist-revolution" among many countries in South American and the world.

The fact that Mr. Chavez has created a link between countries such as Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia, Cuba and other countries around the world like Iran, and Soudi Arabia - all of which do not totally agree with American-foreign policies - make President Chavez a legend, because no other president in the world has managed to go against a US president with such confidence before.

But according to many Mr. Chavez's intentions are not honest. Mr. Chavez has expelled many embassies in Caracas (the capital of Venezuela). Among them is the American embassy and the latest Israeli embassy, which according to Venezuelan officials was expelled because Mr. Chavez disliked the way the government of Israel attacked the Gaza Strip a few weeks ago.

Mr. Chavez has a change to win. Many of Mr. Chavez's supporters believe in him and will vote for him just to keep obtaining the loans that Mr. Chavez has provided them with. But many others like university students, the opposition media and thousands of mid-class workers no longer believe in the president.

Images taken from www.bbc.co.uk/news

Guardian Related article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/15/chavez-venezuela-poll

BBC News related article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7891010.stm

New York Times related article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/world/americas/16web-venezuela.html?_r=2&hp

Chavez's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Chávez

Venezuela's profile:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuela

BRITAIN'S YOUNGEST TEENAGE-FATHER!

2009-02-13T11:18:00.000-08:00

Alfie Patten - 13, is the newest British teenager to have a baby. The now youngest British Teenager conceived his child last year with his 15-year-old girlfriend - now partner and mother of his baby, Chantelle Steadman.

The couple will be economically helped by their parents, the Sun has reported in an exclusive today.

13-year-old father Alfie Patten told the Sun today that he wants to be a good father, and that he doesn't know how much nappies cost. Mr. Patten told the Sun today "My dad sometimes gives me £10."

The couple decided to not have an abortion when the 15-year-old teenager Chantelle Steadman was found pregnant.

This is with no doubt one of the most shocking stories in the newspapers, and I believe it will stay in the spot light for a while. The reason? Here we see two teenagers, one 13-year-old boy that looks like an eight-year-old, and a 15-year-old girl who looks like a 20-year-old, both having a baby together. It obviously shows that there is something wrong with our society, and with the way parents and schools teach children. But what might it be?

Some experts believe it might be the way parents are educating children about sex. An expert on sex education interviewed by the BBC News channel mentioned today that the sex-educational-system in Britain is failing because children are being told that they have to be protected (wear a condom) while having sex, rather than telling them that relationships don't always have to involve sex, specially at such a young age.

However, this story has not only concerned parents, even the opposition leader - David Cameron has said to the BBC News Channel that it is worrying seeing two children having children, and that they should not be living this experience now.

So what can be done to stop children from having children? I agree with the fact that instead of telling children that they need to wear a condom before they have sex, parents must tell them that sex is something serious and that it should not be done until they (children) are totally ready for it, meaning having the right age.

A good way of doing this would be by showing them all the responsibilities that they take when they have a child.

The images used for this article were taken from www.thesun.co.uk

Sun article used to write this story:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2233878.ece

Foxy Knoxy's lawyer might need psychological help after accusations made by American & Italian press, BCC has reported

2009-02-12T16:09:00.000-08:00

Foxy Knoxy has been in the spot-light once again as it has been reported by the BBC News Website yesterday that Knox's lawyer, Giuliano Mignini, has been accused by an American newspaper of trying to clean his reputation by using Know's case.

The Italian press has as well criticised Mr. Mignini for supporting the non-famous American (Knox) and has also accused him of needing a psychologist in other occasions.

The BBC reported yesterday - "The report event quoted unnamed supporters as alleging that Mignini is 'using the high-profile Amanda Knox case to improve his dicey reputation as further his career'."

Mr Mignini's told the press yesterday - "I am quite a healthy man. I don't go to the doctor much and I have never visited a psychologist" The BBC has reported.

Mr. Mignini is also believed to be preparing himself to take action against those newspapers who have accused him of having a mental illness and of other charges such as corruption inside Knox case.

What makes Foxy Knoxy case such an extraordinary piece of journalism in the American, Italian and British press is the fact that this is a crime case that has nothing to do with Italians, it is a total foreign crime that took place in a foreign country.

Knox is believed to be guilty by both the Italian and American press because of the personality of Ms. Know, rather than by the proves collected for this case.

I remember talking to my Italian friends about this case when I lived in Italy, and I remember them saying: Oh, I think she's guilty! When I asked them why, most of them would replied: I just don't like her.

Knox has been the target of British press as well. Such is the case of the Daily Mail, newspaper that has published an article (some time ago) showing possible (not accurate) reasons why Ms. Knox is (apparently, according to the Daily Mail) guilty of Kercher's murder.

The article has pictures of Ms. Knox doing naughty things like standing in front of a Dutch Coffee Shop. Ironically the picture was posted in FaceBook by the very own Knox. The Daily Mail claimed that Knox who a comment on the picture saying "weed" meaning marijuana.

So what is Knox smoked some weed? Does that make her guilty? Last time I checked my dictionary the definition of justice said that a person is only guilty of something just is a court-of-law declares so.

I guess we just have to wait until the Italian Authorities to decide whether Knox is guilty or not, and as long as Knox is not declared as guilty, she will remain innocent, no matter if she's smoked marijuana. That doesn't make her guilty of murder.

The images used for this article where taken from www.bbc.co.uk/news

BBC News article used to write this story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7883286.stm

Foxy Knoxy's trial details (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher

Anti-Islam Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders ban from entering the UK

2009-02-11T15:23:00.000-08:00

Dutch parliamentarian and anti-islam film maker Geert Wilders has been ban by British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith from entering the UK today Feb 12, 2009. The reason for such an extreme decision is believed to have been taken because Mr. Wilders wanted to broadcast his anti-islam film in the House of Lords, and this obviously would have upset the UK muslim population and others who oppose Mr. Wilders' vision on foreign affairs. The Times Online reported.

The Daily Telegraph reported yesterday: It carried on that Miss Smith was "satisfied that your statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in your film Fitna and elsewhere, would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK".

It's a reality that Mr. Wilders isn't welcome in many places. In his own native country, the Netherlands, where there's a population of one million muslims (in a country where the population is only 16 million people) Mr. Wilders isn't liked by many. I remember talking to my Dutch friends when I lived in Holland, and most of them weren't happy with the position that Mr. Wilders takes, and even believed that Mr. Wilders is a bad image for the country.

It is fair to highlight that Mr. Wilders live under 24-hour security, and he keeps his security wherever he goes, even outside Europe.

I believe that it would be a mistake to let Mr. Wilders enter the UK not because of his views on Islam, but because he wants to involve the UK in his anti-islam mission by broadcasting his anti-islam movie Fitna in the House of Lords.

It must be said that the UK has one of the highest muslim population in Europe, and it would not be fair to oppose to something that's totally legal. After all, we live in a free country where we all have the right to believe in whatever we want to believe as long as we don't endanger other people.

Plus, not letting a member of the EU (even if that person is an EU parliamentarian) enter another EU country is totally legal, as long as the decision is taken by the right minister for the right purposes.

The image used for this article was taken from www.timesonline.co.uk

Times Online article used to write this story:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5710559.ece

Telegraph article used to write this story:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/4592536/Jacqui-Smiths-ban-on-anti-Muslim-Dutch-MP-triggers-diplomatic-row-with-Holland.html

Geert Wilders profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders

Why is the tabloid press so obsessed with Prince Harry?

2009-02-11T10:25:00.000-08:00

Prince Harry has once again been caught making a racial joke, the Daily Mirror has reported today in their Website today.

This time He is believed to have said "You don't sound like a black chap" to Stephen K Amos, during a comedy show celebration for Prince Charles' 60th birthday last Nov.

It's fair to say that this isn't the first time Prince Harry is caught making racial jokes.

Some weeks ago the Sun released a video of Prince Harry calling one of his army mates "little paki friend" and some years ago Prince Harry was caught dressed as a nazi in a night club in London. Now, do all of these comments Prince Harry make, make him a racist? I don't think so, and here's why.

Neither Mr. Amos nor Prince Harry's army friend felt insulted by his comments. Had they felt insulted by Prince Harry, they would have complained about His comments.

Ironically for the tabloid press, Prince Harry's Asian army friend is believed to have said that in the army they all call each other by nicknames, and that he did not feel insulted by Prince Harry. Nor did Mr Amos who just laughed at the joke and kept on having a good time.

So why is the tabloid press accusing Prince Harry of being a racist? I believe this is just the perfect example of how tabloids twist our words for their purposes to make profits that only benefit themselves. They do it every time, and I believe that more than half the stuff we read in the tabloids isn't true.

The image used for this article was taken from www.mirror.co.uk

Mirror article used to write this story:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2009/02/11/prince-harry-sparks-new-racism-row-remarks-to-black-comedian-stephen-k-amos-115875-21113497/

Prince Harry's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Henry_of_Wales

Australia PM defines the responsible for the bush fires as Mass Murderers-Arsonists

2009-02-10T13:39:00.000-08:00

In the last five days Australian authorities have estimated a death rate of almost 230 people. It is believed that many other bodies are still to be identified, but because of the severe burns their identities will never be found. According to the Guardian 5,000 homes were devastated and according to the Daily Mail the temperature in the affected areas of Melbourne the temperature rose up to 50C. As many as 7000 are now homeless. This event is with no doubt one of the bloodiest fires in the history of Australia.

But why are the Australian authorities saying that the bush fires are caused by men? Australia has a long history of bush fires. Every summer fires take control of the bushes and many loose their homes. Animals and civilization are constantly being affected by bush fires as the summer temperature rises each year. But why are these fires so much dangerous than the last ones?

One theory that the Australian Authorities might not want to take into consideration is the fact that global warming is affecting even the Australian countryside, and since this year the temperature rate has been estimated as one of the highest in the history of Australia, one can assume that these fires were caused by a rise of temperature. The higher the temperature the more devastating the fires might be.

I'm not saying that the Australian PM went too far by saying that the bush fires were caused by mass murderers, what I'm saying is that as far as the authorities don't have enough prove to incriminate anyone, it shouldn't be declared publicly. And even if the fires were caused by men, are they completely sure that it was not an accident?

We'll just have to wait until the investigations being led by the Australian police are over to determine whether the fires were caused by mass murderers or by normal people by accident. And until they don't have the key proves, they can't incriminate anyone. It is also fair to say that after a fire it is very hard to find key proves.

The images used for this article were taken from www.timesonline.co.uk and www.dailymail.co.uk

Daily Mail article used to write this story:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-113860--police-arsonists.html

Times Online article used to write this story:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article5699130.ece

Guardian article used to write this story:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/09/australia-bushfire-inquiry-murder-charges

This post was created with the technical assistance of Warwick Gazard who has my thanks for his help.

Jeremy Clarkson for PM! Wait, why?

2009-02-09T15:44:00.000-08:00

Jeremy Clarkson is one of the most famous TV presenters in Britain. His TV programme Top Gear has brought him both fame and wealth and through it he’s managed to capture the hearts of many with his charisma and his politically incorrect comments. But for some reason, his jokes and comments have made people believe in him, up to a point when there’s even a facebook request to make him PM, and both the Times and the Sun, newspapers that he works for, have written an article about it. What is it about Jeremy Clarkson that drags us to like him so much, that we even dare to support him as the next British PM?

One of the most notable aspects of Jeremy is the fact that he is a very honest person. He doesn’t think twice when it comes to open his mouth and comment on something, not even if it is to crisis Australians, Americans or to call Gordon Brown “a one-eye idiot”. The more critical Clarkson becomes, the more people seem to like him!

Perhaps the fact that he’s so honest is what makes him so different from other politicians. Maybe, we’re just sick and tired of the lies and promises that politicians keep forgetting and breaking, and just maybe, Jeremy shows himself as someone different, as a change, as someone who although doesn’t always have right ideas, knows what people want and gives it to them.

After all, all of his articles and TV programmes are made to provide British people with what they want. Plus, change seems to be in the air and Jeremy Clarkson could just be the British way of showing change to a people who seek for a solution. Just as the US brought a different person to office to make a change, Jeremy Clarkson could be that change for Britain.

But if he were ever to seriously run for office, would he have everything it takes to make a good PM? Would he ever be able to deal with a global economic crisis, climate changes, crimes in the streets, etc. Or would he just get rid of all the London buses and make people drive only racing cars, go on holidays whenever he wants, cut the drinking-age and cut the driving-age as he has mentioned in his Times and Sun Manifesto? To me, Jeremy Clarkson has to take things more seriously if he really wants to take such a big political position. However, if he did, we’d have one of the funniest and most dedicated PM Britain could ever have.

Times Online article used to write this story:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3137533.ece

The Sun: Clarkson's manifesto:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/columnists/clarkson/article679680.ece

Times Online: Clarkson's manifesto:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/jeremy_clarkson/article3127320.ece

Jeremy Clarkson's profile (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Clarkson

Jeremy Clarkson's website:

http://www.jeremyclarkson.co.uk/

Snow?! Really?!

2009-02-06T09:41:00.000-08:00

In the last five days, snow in London has been the theme of conversation for many people, and the theme of almost every national and local newspaper in Britain. From tabloids to broadsheets, they've all said something about it, but what is it that they're all missing? Are they saying all there is to say about the snow?

When it comes to snow, different newspapers have different prospectives, points of view, and they focus on different things. Such is the case of the Guardian, a left-wing newspaper that directed their articles to the educational effects of the snow on children. The Financial Times, focused on the huge economic impact that the closure of businesses in London due to the weather conditions had on Britain's economy in times of recession and the Sun, being the UK's biggest tabloid and having most of the UK newspaper readers, focused on the fun stuff that the snow brought to the citizens of London. Other newspapers such as the Daily Mail... Well, let's just say that they always manage to focus on the most negative prospective of every event.

The Guardian's Tuesday edition states that London lost almost two billion pounds in business and that it would take some time until the city could go back to normal. The same Guardian's Wednesday edition was dedicated to the snow's effects on education, stating that more than 8,000 schools were partially closed and how this government's decision could affect children. The Guardian believes that by leaving children at home when the situations around them become a little harder, we're telling them to hide, lay back and relax when things become more difficult. Personally speaking, I don't wonder why people love to make every excuse not to go back to work during very minor situations.

Ironically and taking into consideration that the Sun is one of the most sensational newspapers in Britain, to my point of view, it was the most honest newspapers of all. The Sun showed in their Tuesday front page two pictures, one of people waiting in line under the falling snow for a train that had no signals of showing up any time soon, and another picture of people playing and having fun in the snow. On top of these two united pictures was a very simple but funny headline that said - "The Good" written on top of the picture with the people having fun and "The Bad" written on top of the picture of the people waiting in line for a train under the snow.

All of these newspapers did a good job on reporting the event as it happened and showing how some people were affected by the snow. The Guardian reported that: "In Yorkshire four teenagers were injured in a sledging accident at a country park. Two of them are believed to be badly when their makeshift sledge carried through two fences."

However, none of these newspapers focused their articles or even mentioned anything about how to improve and equipped those cities that were affected by the snow with machinery personnel and the equipment necessary to prevent 8,000 schools from closing and London's financial structure from loosing almost two billion pounds when it snows back again.

This week's snow storm isn't something that just happened because mother earth just felt like snowing today, or because it is something that happens every once in a while. We live in times of climate changes and it has been scientifically proved that in times of global warming, after the earth has gotten very hot, it tries to cool itself by minimizing the temperature, and this could sometimes cause a glacial era.

I'm not saying that London is going to freeze and that we're all going to die because of the cold weather, what I'm saying is that what we experienced this week was just a warning of what can happen later on, in a not-far-away future. I'm extremely confident that we were just lucky to only experienced one day of snow. What would have happened if it had snowed for a whole week? How many schools would have been closed and for how long? How much money would have London lost in this time of recession? Would all this have done any good to Britain now that we're passing through a global economic crisis? I don't think so.

Of course we can't prevent the snow from falling, and sometimes it is very hard to predict when it is exactly going to fall again, but what we can do is prepare ourselves, and prepare our cities so that we don't have to suffer that much when this kinds of climate changes happen again.

And this is what journalists should have said, and what newspapers should have focused on: The government should make an investment to provide the city of London, and all of those cities affected by the snow with machinery and personnel to prevent further economic losses and schools from closing.

The images used for this article were taken from www.dailymail.co.uk and www.thesun.co.uk

Sun article used to write this story:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2198672.ece

Daily Mail article used to write this story:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1132144/its-going-week-Worst-snow-18-years-brings-britain-slithering-halt--cost-economy-3bn.html