27th April 2013.
While filming a routine stop and search of her boyfriend on the London Underground, Gemma suddenly found herself detained, handcuffed and threatened with arrest.
Act of Terror tells the story of her fight to bring the police to justice and prevent this happening to anyone else, ever again.
It is easy to forget about the 2005 Terrorism Act and its damaging effect on civil liberties and human rights. Act Of Terror puts the spotlight back on this murky law, and demands that we keep vigilant in the face of ever increasing state power.
|Phil Donahue was fired from MSNBC for espousing anti-war views before the start of the conflict in March 2003.|
I am not sure exactly when the death of television news took place. The descent was gradual—a slide into the tawdry, the trivial and the inane, into the charade on cable news channels such as Fox and MSNBC in which hosts hold up corporate political puppets to laud or ridicule, and treat celebrity foibles as legitimate news. But if I had to pick a date when commercial television decided amassing corporate money and providing entertainment were its central mission, when it consciously chose to become a carnival act, it would probably be Feb. 25, 2003, when MSNBC took Phil Donahue off the air because of his opposition to the calls for war in Iraq.
Donahue and Bill Moyers, the last honest men on national television, were the only two major TV news personalities who presented the viewpoints of those of us who challenged the rush to war in Iraq. General Electric and Microsoft—MSNBC’s founders and defense contractors that went on to make tremendous profits from the war—were not about to tolerate a dissenting voice. Donahue was fired, and at PBS Moyers was subjected to tremendous pressure. An internal MSNBC memo leaked to the press stated that Donahue was hurting the image of the network. He would be a “difficult public face for NBC in a time of war,” the memo read. Donahue never returned to the airwaves.
The celebrity trolls who currently reign on commercial television, who bill themselves as liberal or conservative, read from the same corporate script. They spin the same court gossip. They ignore what the corporate state wants ignored. They champion what the corporate state wants championed. They do not challenge or acknowledge the structures of corporate power. Their role is to funnel viewer energy back into our dead political system—to make us believe that Democrats or Republicans are not corporate pawns. The cable shows, whose hyperbolic hosts work to make us afraid of self-identified liberals or self-identified conservatives, are part of a rigged political system, one in which it is impossible to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, General Electric or ExxonMobil. These corporations, in return for the fear-based propaganda, pay the lavish salaries of celebrity news people, usually in the millions of dollars. They make their shows profitable. And when there is war these news personalities assume their “patriotic” roles as cheerleaders, as Chris Matthews—who makes an estimated $5 million a year—did, along with the other MSNBC and Fox hosts.
It does not matter that these celebrities and their guests, usually retired generals or government officials, got the war terribly wrong. Just as it does not matter that Francis Fukuyama and Thomas Friedman were wrong on the wonders of unfettered corporate capitalism and globalization. What mattered then and what matters now is likability—known in television and advertising as the Q score—not honesty and truth. Television news celebrities are in the business of sales, not journalism. They peddle the ideology of the corporate state. And too many of us are buying.
March 16th 2013. Find Short Article and Video Here:-
By Ian Henshall February 27th 2013. Find Article Here:-
Campaigner and film maker Tony Rooke claimed a moral victory today after a UK court gave him a conditional discharge even though he has refused to pay his BBC license fee. Over 100 supporters from as far away as Denmark and Norway cheered in front of the court house as independent media people conducted interviews and photographed the crowd. Court officials had booked their largest room for the case but were at a loss to find that well over 50 people could not be fitted in.
Tony said: “I am taken a back and hugely grateful for all the support.” He is asking for at least one person to take up the campaign by refusing to pay or taking other legal action (see below).
Rooke argued that the BBC’s coverage of the 9/11 terror attacks in New York has been so distorted that it amounts to giving aid and comfort to the unidentified terrorists who demolished three World Trade Centre buildings in 2001. Two hijacked planes were flown into the famous Twin Towers and a third tower WTC7 collapsed later in the day. The attacks were used as the pretext for a decade of wars and the introduction of police state measures across the NATO countries. Vast personal fortunes were made by White House and CIA officials who failed to thwart 9/11.
The official 9/11 story was promulgated by the US media within minutes of the first collision, based on anonymous sources in the Bush White House. Despite a mass of new evidence coming to light in the intervening years the story has never changed and holds that the destruction was entirely caused by a band of Muslim fanatics, they succeeded without any help, and were organised by the notorious Osama Bin Laden who it is admitted was once a CIA agent. A man described as Osama Bin Laden was captured, assassinated and deposited in the ocean by US forces in Pakistan two years ago.
Sceptics say that the collapse of WTC7 must have been the result of something more than limited fires and damage from the Twin Towers, hit by the two hijacked planes. Argument has revolved around the speed of the collapse. In the BBC Conspiracy Files series, which endorsed every aspect of the official 9/11 story, it was stated that the building did not collapse at free fall speed, but later US officials were forced by video evidence to admit that it did just that.
A large group of over 1500 architects and engineers known as AE911 say that free fall collapse implies that the building had all its supports removed at the same instant which can only happen with a controlled demolition. Tony Rooke’s legal argument is that in failing to correct their free fall misinformation and many other misstatements of fact, the BBC are a party to covering up the terrorists who organised the controlled demolition of WTC7.
The BBC has also failed to publicise the finding of Richard Clarke, head of counter terrorism at the White House in 2001. Two years ago Clarke made a bombshell announcement: in the weeks before 9/11 a secret “decision” must have been taken at the CIA to over rule FBI officers who wanted to arrest some of the people who according to the official story went on to commit the attacks. Clarke says that if this decision had not been made the 9/11 attacks would not have happened. Before Clarke went public the BBC programme makers were adamant this was a “conspiracy theory”. Afterwards they failed to give it any prominence and failed to reinterview any of the officials who, if Clarke is right, must have lied to them.
Back in Horsham Magistrates Court campaigners have been planning future tactics. Tony Rook’s victory, helped by lawyer Mahtab Aziz, implies that the BBC has a case to answer, but expert witnesses including Danish associate professor Niels Harrit were not called due to legal technicalities. However the District Judge would have read their statements before the hearing and taken them into account.
Conditional discharges are often used in political cases to indicate that the accused, though technically guilty, occupies the moral high ground. In addition the case provides a yardstick that can be raised by future campaigners. On the other hand because he has not been convicted, Tony cannot appeal and force the courts to scrutinise the highly questionable activities of the BBC as a conduit for CIA propaganda.
It’s now essential for Tony’s campaign that at least one person should take up the baton, refuse to pay their licence fee and appeal any conviction. Anyone interested should contact him at firstname.lastname@example.org
Televisions have never looked better – and they’ve never sounded worse. That’s the verdict from a growing number of aficionados and increasingly from the public too. Little wonder more and more users are choosing to upgrade the sound quality of their TVs with extra kit.
Chief among the complaints has been that dialogue is increasingly hard to hear; such criticism may often be put down to deafness, but in fact it’s sometimes also due to the way TVs process sound. Speakers using simple left and right channels neglect the fact that speech in films is easier to hear if its given a separate, third channel of its own. As TVs with straightforward stereo combine the dialogue with the rest of the sound, its clarity is lost.
And as TVs are now marketed on their ultra-slim designs, with their miniature profiles as much a part of their supposed appeals as the quality of the picture, the problem has been exacerbated. So the space for speakers, previously hidden in enormous cabinets, has shrunk to almost nothing. Some mobile phones are now thicker than TVs, and the quality of sound has suffered.
That’s why the market for “soundbars” – slimline arrays of speakers that fit beneath TVs – has grown by 60 per cent in a year, compared to three per cent for the overall “home theatre” market. That’s in large part due to consumers rejecting the complexity of hi-fi set ups that require several remote controls and a complex spider’s web of cables to link them all together.
This week, audio brand Sonos joined Bose in offering a soundbar aimed at the increasing number of people who realise that their expensive new televisions may offer HD pictures, but don’t offer matching sound quality.
The Sonos Playbar will sell for £599 and goes on sale on 5 March; Bose’s equivalent comes with a subwoofer and costs £1,300. Both, however, seek to address a market that is clearly already spending a substantial amount on TV equipment. The Sonos model can be connected to the company’s own subwoofer and a pair of additional speakers to create a full “surround-sound” option. Perhaps most crucially, they also connect to internet radio and a user’s music collection, meaning that in theory a user could improve the sound quality in their living room while also rendering the hifi redundant. It’s a neat solution.
By Colin Marshall January 24th 2013. Find Article and 13min Video Here:-
S.G. Collins doesn’t trust the United States government. They “lie all the time, about all kinds of things,” he insists, “and if they haven’t lied to you today, maybe they haven’t had coffee yet.” Like some of those who express a similar distrust, he claims he has no way to verify that NASA landed on the moon in 1969. But unlike most of that subset, he doesn’t think the government could have pulled off a convincing hoax about it. In other words, America “did have the technical ability, not to mention the requisite madness, to send three guys to the moon and back. They did not have the technology to fake it on video.” Calmly, methodically, with a deadpan wit, Collins uses the thirteen minutes of Moon Hoax Not to explain exactly why, as improbable as the real moon landing sounds, a fake moon landing would have been downright impossible.
“The later you were born,” Collins says, “the more all-powerful movie magic seems.” Hollywood could now fake dozens of moon landings every day, but they didn’t always have that ability. Marshaling knowledge accrued over thirty years as a photographer, he addresses each of the points that moon-landing conspiracy theorists commonly cite as visual evidence of the supposed fraud. He also brings to bear facts from the history of video technology, such as 1969′s complete lack of the high-speed video cameras, needed to shoot the sort of slow motion necessary to create the illusion of low gravity. And what if they’d shot the entire Apollo 11 telecast on film instead? Collins also knows, and names, exactly the problems even the most ambitious, technologically advanced charlatans would have encountered, even—as in moon-landing hoax mockumentary Dark Side of the Moon—with Stanley Kubrick on their side.
Millions expected to suffer from interference.
Thousands of British homes will have to be reconnected to the television network – at a cost of up to £10,000 a time – after it emerged that interference from the new 4th-generation mobile phone network would wipe out their TV signals.
More than two million households near new base stations will suffer problems ranging from distortion to complete blackouts when the networks begin to share the spectrum currently used by digital terrestrial television (DTT) in the middle of next year.
Ministers will be forced to spend £180m on re-establishing television services to those homes closest to the base stations. The communications minister Ed Vaizey has confirmed that the 500 worst-affected households will receive up to £10,000 each from a special fund put together to deal with widespread 4G interference expected in the coming years.
Critics including MPs, broadcasters and unions have warned that families who rely on Freeview will find themselves victims of the lucrative auction of 4G licences within months.