Winckel

needless to say, islam and its acolytes don't look too impressive by comparison. I'd have thought you need to reach a pretty low ebb to look less civilised and less sensible than the religious folks we see in this country. - Winckel

I'm posting this as a warning to show the extremes freedom might lead us to. - Winckel

ahahah - Visconte Cobram

:-) - Winckel

we're all doing our best, should be getting there soon! ;) - grizabella

:-) - Stephan Planken

"VATICAN CITY—The Shroud of Turin, an ancient linen cloth believed to bear the image of Christ and considered by many clerics and devotees to be one of the holiest relics of the Christian faith, was inadvertently dyed a light shade of pink after being washed with a red T-shirt, sources reported Tuesday. The holy antiquity, thought by some to be the very garment Jesus Christ was buried in, was discovered in 1354. Though it has suffered oxidation and fire damage over the centuries, this is the first time that the shroud has been harmed in a laundry-related mishap - Winckel

I believe this is a sign. - Winckel

"He did it very well, did David Cameron. One of the dimensions of being prime minister at which he excels is crafting the right language and striking the appropriate tone on grave or shocking occasions or, in this case, responding on behalf of both government and country to a shockingly grave report. He delivered a model statement of penitence for what he correctly called "the double injustice" done to the victims of the Hillsborough stadium crush. It is always easier, mind, to say sorry for a disaster that was someone else's fault. The bigger test is what happens next. It is wrong to think of Hillsborough, and the disgusting conduct of some members of the South Yorkshire force, as a tragedy to be deeply regretted and then filed away as an event belonging to the distant past. It is true that stadium design has been massively improved and methods of crowd control have become more sophisticated. Football hooliganism, fear of which was a contributory factor, has largely disappeared from Britain. So a tragedy of that type is less likely to happen now. What cannot be said with so much confidence is that the police would never behave like that again. It would be a comfort to think that Hillsborough was an isolated example from long ago of officers attempting to conceal their own neglect and incompetence by lying about what had happened and smearing the victims of their mistakes. It would also be a false consolation. What happened at Hillsborough was not an isolated one-off, but a particularly horrific example from a pattern of policing scandals over many decades. The very long list includes multiple miscarriages of justice such as the false imprisonment of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four. The shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes and the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests are two more recent cases where the police made appalling errors and then tried to cover up their mistakes. Scotland Yard's failure to properly investigate the hacking scandal exposed alarming lacunae in the ethical and professional judgment of some of the most senior officers in the Met. Other officers face trials for corruptly selling information to newspapers. There are many dedicated men and women doing a job which can be highly demanding, often dangerous, and sometimes life-threatening, and they do it in a spirit of public service. But that cannot be said of the police as a collective. Hillsborough is a particularly grotesque illustration of a culture that to this day too often puts its own interests before those of the public it is paid to serve. Repeated scandal is what happens when you have a closed profession highly resistant to scrutiny or criticism whose default instinct is to protect its own. It is also the result of a failure of political will to pursue reform. The approach of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair was not to challenge police working practices or culture. For her, they were "one of us" and crucial allies in her epic battles with the trades unions. Mrs Thatcher responded to an earlier report about Hillsborough by telling her then home secretary, Douglas Hurd, to mute the government response to devastating evidence of police misconduct. For Tony Blair, being pro-police was a vital ingredient of being New Labour. He loaded them with many additional powers and generously increased budgets. To a reform-minded home secretary, Mr Blair once demanded: "Do we really want a fight with the police?" To see what he was frightened of, you only have to look at the trade union of their rank-and-file officers, the Police Federation. Visiting the Federation's annual conference is the scariest date in the home secretary's diary. Earlier in the year, they boorishly humiliated Theresa May when she tried to make her voice heard through the booing and heckling. She should not take that personally. They dealt out the same treatment to Labour home secretaries too. Millions of employees in the private sector have learnt that there is no longer such a thing as a "job for life" while millions in the public sector have been challenged to justify their existence. Working practices have been revolutionised; organisations radically restructured; pay and conditions dramatically changed. Teachers, nurses, ambulance drivers, doctors, local authority workers and firefighters have all felt bracing blasts of government-driven change. The big exception has been the police. There has been some progress, including a serious effort to purge racism since the Macpherson inquiry into the Stephen Lawrence case. But compared with everyone else, the police are the last unreformed public service. Because Labour prime ministers tend to become nervous of looking anti-police, it probably takes Conservative ministers to reform the forces of law and order. David Cameron and Theresa May made a bold start when they commissioned the first fundamental review of police pay and practices in 30 years by Tom Winsor, the former rail regulator. They have also demonstrated a seriousness of intent about implementing his recommendations by making him chief inspector of constabulary, an appointment which has provoked fierce outrage in the ranks. When he takes up the post this autumn, it will be the first time that the role has been performed by someone from outside the police since its creation in 1856. The government has also set great store by the novelty of elected police and crime commissioners, the most dramatic change in police governance ever. Making chief constables accountable to commissioners, so it is believed, will challenge the whole culture of policing. Forces will have someone independent constantly looking over their shoulders. One minister who is an enthusiast for commissioners says: "What would have happened in South Yorkshire in 1989 had there been an elected person in charge? Their whole purpose in life would have been to find out what the hell happened." I would certainly hope so, but there are problems with the commissioners even before a single one is in post. The quality of the candidates is patchy, ranging from people with the potential to be excellent invigilators to old party hacks. The number of people turning out to vote is going to be abysmal because, when the original timetable slipped, the government took a crazy decision to make these standalone elections in the inclement month of November rather than combine them with the county council elections next May. Most informed people I talk to, including those running the campaigns, reckon they will be lucky if turnout averages 15%. Commissioners elected on such a small vote may have legitimacy issues which will embolden the police to try to ignore them. An even more important question is whether the Winsor reforms can be pushed through against the ferocious hostility of many officers. They don't like his proposal to widen the pool of talent from which police leaders are drawn by allowing direct entry into the higher ranks, breaking the tradition that all officers must start out as a beat constable. Another resisted reform is that officers should be rewarded for their skills, performance and hours spent on the front line rather than the length of service. Were we talking about any other part of the public sector, ministers could just get on and implement these changes. They can't do this with the police because of the no-strike deal. So the fate of Mr Winsor's most crucial recommendations are being determined by a body called the police arbitration tribunal. On top of which, the minister most passionate about reform has just quit. Nick Herbert, who had a real zeal for the challenge, left the government in the recent reshuffle. He has been replaced by Damian Green, who was moved to the police brief from immigration, and must think that all the clichés about the frying pan and the fire apply. A few years back, Mr Green was the target of a ludicrously misconceived police operation when officers raided the MP's home and parliamentary offices. So Mr Green is probably not the sort to go soft on police reform. In the end, though, the outcome of this battle will most depend on the mettle of his seniors, the home secretary and the prime minister. The police never come quietly. As one former chief constable puts it, there is an "inbuilt conservatism" about the service which makes it "often risk-averse, process-dominated and defensive." It is a big thing for governments to take on the police, which is why ministers have so rarely done it. David Cameron demonstrated how accomplished he can be at making a pitch-perfect parliamentary statement with his eloquent apology for Hillsborough. Getting the police to accept and implement reform will require different leadership skills. This will be a test of how much steel there is in his spine." - Winckel

as far as I can tell, corruption and thuggery are endemic in the police, with petty lawbreaking and bullying an everyday occurrence, underpinned by a sense of untouchability. - Winckel

"A furious Prince William wants those responsible for printing the topless pictures of his wife jailed, it has emerged. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge looked happy as they ventured into the Borneo jungle yesterday - just 24 hours after the controversial pictures of Kate were published in a French magazine. But despite their relaxed appearance, it has emerged the angry Prince is keen to pursue a criminal prosecution against those who snooped on his wife." - Winckel

These people jaunt around like celebrities (funded by UK taxpayers and often by freebies offered them by friends who enjoy their celebrity life), enjoy pride of place like celebrities at major events, employ large terms of personal staff, administrators and lawyers like celebrities and yet, notwithstanding this, when they are treated as such by paparazzi, they climb their selfrighteous horse and proclaim themselves furious and saddened? I couldn't have more distain for this pair of privileged kids. - Winckel

Had missed the topless picture event. So irrelevant. I'd like to see how they can achieve that considering these "people" are in another country. Probably he doesn't mean it. Probably it's all to feed the celebrity machine - all a nice deal they have with the publication in question. After all, topless is rather normal on beaches. - Iphigenie

Photos? Honestly I could not care less I am a lot more concerned about the Hillsborough cover up as it affects us all as we don't know how many times we are not told the truth. I don't think it is an isolated case. - M F

I used to sit in the balcony here working in the evenings as the sun set. Seemed awesome then, seems awesome now, I wonder though if I appreciated just how awesome. - Winckel

I think this is grossly offensive and insulting to the goddess leia and should be banned for this reason. I can hear the chants up and down highstreets across the western world - "death to those who insult leia!", "leia will dominate the world! and "buy the boxed set, get cinema extras too!" - Winckel

"The United States is the world’s undisputed king of culture. No country’s film industry can rival Hollywood; no nation’s musical artists sell more records worldwide than America’s. Boasting such a diverse, pulsating, frequently vulgar and often blasphemous entertainment industry, not everyone — including many Americans — is going to be pleased with what they see and hear coming out of the United States. Films ranging from Martin Scorcese’s The Last Temptation of Christ (which depicted the lustful fantasies of the Christian savior) to Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ (which depicted Jesus’ crucifixion as essentially Jewish-orchestrated) have outraged Christians and Jews, respectively. The latest Broadway smash hit, The Book of Mormon, mercilessly ridicules the foundation myths of America’s newest and fastest-growing major faith. In none of the controversies surrounding these productions, however, did the producers fear for their lives, nor did US government officials feel it incumbent upon themselves to apologise to the world’s Christians, Jews or Mormons for the renderings of artists. This straightforward policy of respecting the autonomy of the cultural sphere was amended earlier this week, however, when a branch of the United States government officially apologised to the world’s Muslims over a film for which the word “obscure” is too generous. On 11 September, 12:11 PM Cairo time, the Embassy of the United States to Egypt released the following statement: The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others. The “misguided individuals” in question were the producers of the now-infamous YouTube flick, The Innocence of Muslims, a crude, low-budget film which portrays the Prophet Muhammad in a none too pleasant light. Much about The Innocence of Muslims remains a mystery; its now-debunked origin story, that of an “Israeli Jew” filmmaker who “financed [it] with the help of more than 100 Jewish donors,” had all the makings of anti-Semitic disinformation campaign. Several hours after this statement was released on the Embassy’s website, about 2000 Salafist protestors gathered outside the US Embassy, breached the compound’s walls, took down the American flag, and replaced it with the a black banner inscribed with the Islamic profession of faith: “There is no God but God and Muhammad is his prophet.” When, in the aftermath of this outrage, some American conservative bloggers began criticizing the Embassy’s statement as an apology for a specific exercise — however crude — of the constitutionally-protected right to free speech, the Cairo Embassy’s Twitter account defiantly released the following: Shortly after 10:00 P.M. that evening, the campaign of Mitt Romney, Republican presidential nominee, released the following statement: I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks. This riposte was embargoed until midnight, 11 September being a day that American politicians exempt from their usual partisan sniping. Yet, shortly after releasing the statement to the media, the Romney campaign lifted the embargo. Heightening the controversy was the revelation that Islamist militants had attacked the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya (it would not be confirmed until early next morning that the Ambassador, Chris Stevens, had been killed). Suddenly, an issue not normally considered American presidential campaign material — freedom of speech — had become a political football. Since then, the liberal chattering classes, as well as ostensibly unbiased news reporters, have universally condemned Romney for “politicising” a national tragedy (just watch this press conference Wednesday morning in which reporter after reporter asks the Republican candidate, incredulously, how he could deign to stoop so low). The main line of attack against Romney is essentially a defense of the US Embassy’s original statement, which, in the words of Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank, “came out before the attacks, was issued by career diplomats in Cairo without clearance from Washington, and was disavowed by the White House.” This line was echoed in a New York Times news story, which reported that “The embassy’s statement was released in an effort to head off the violence, not after the attacks, as Mr. Romney’s statement implied.” “But the fact is that the ‘apology’ to our ‘attackers’ was issued before the attack!” pronounced Michael Tomasky of The Daily Beast. Josh Marshall, proprietor of the popular Talking Points Memo blog, declared that the two-sentence statement from the Romney campaign was reason enough to disqualify the former Massachusetts Governor from the presidency. “Romney, or folks writing in his name at his campaign, claimed that the administration’s first response to the attacks was to issue a press release condemning the anti-Islam film which had helped trigger the attack,” Marshall wrote. “In fact, according to all available press reports and the account of the State Department, the press release in question came from the US Embassy in Egypt and preceded the attacks” (emphasis original). The New York Times, America’s left-wing pundits, and the rest of those who have criticized the Romney campaign are missing the point, which is that it is no more  appropriate to apologise for the First Amendment before a raging mob attacks an American embassy than it is to apologise for the First Amendment after such an attack occurs. The embassy’s pre-emptive apology – and that’s exactly what it was – shows just how useless it is to apologise for the most basic principle of the Enlightenment. Someone who would ransack an embassy and kill American diplomats over a movie he saw on the internet is not likely to be persuaded by a mere statement assuaging his “hurt religious feelings.” The Obama administration did indeed repudiate the Embassy’s statement – which has since been removed from its website – and some sources have anonymously claimed that the release was the work of a freelancing, public diplomacy officer who acted without express approval from Washington. This, the administration’s supporters claim, absolves the president of blame for a statement they nonetheless defend on its merits. Regardless, the buck stops with the President of the United States; if a US Embassy releases a statement, one must assume it is something the President stands behind. Revoking the statement while failing to discipline or fire the individual behind it sends mixed signals. Moreover, in remarks at the White House condemning the murder of Ambassador Stevens, the President appeared to reiterate the Cairo Embassy’s statement, announcing that “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others,” in effect passing a value judgment on a certain instance of expression while failing to explicitly defend the principle of free expression itself. Like the fury over the Muhammad cartoons in 2005 — which were published months before opportunistic imams whipped up an international (and deadly) controversy — clips from The Innocence of Muslims were put on YouTube in July this year. It was not until 9 September, however, that the Grand Mufti of Egypt declared that, “The attack on religious sanctities does not fall under this freedom,” the freedom in question being freedom of speech. Pointedly, the asinine US Embassy statement, while directly condemning shadowy American filmmakers, made no mention of the Egyptian Grand Mufti or other religious fanatics who had condemned the film and whipped people into such hysteria. We are now treated to the strange spectacle of Western progressives aligning with Islamic religious reactionaries, both arguing that freedom of speech can go too far (of course, it is only speech that offends Muslims which comes under progressive suspicion; the same liberals who insist that the tender sensitivities of Muslims be respected have no problem with speech that maligns religious Christians and Jews). Those arguing that the YouTube clips that allegedly “incited” this mess should be banned – like the Guardian’s Andrew Brown – would do well to pause and consider the implications of what they are arguing. Does Brown think that Mitt Romney, a practicing Mormon, would be justified in demanding that the New York City authorities shut down The Book of Mormon? I am frequently outraged by what I read on the website of Brown’s newspaper (as one wag put it to me; “With Comment is Free, you get what you pay for”); would I be justified in expressing that anger through violence towards various and sundry Guardian writers? Meanwhile, one can turn on the television or open a newspaper in any Muslim country and be sure to find grossly anti-Semitic material that is just as, if not more, offensive than anything contained in The Innocence of Muslims’ puerile script. Do American and British Jews then trek to the Libyan or Egyptian embassies in Washington and London, scale the fence, plant an Israeli flag on the roof, slaughter the ambassadors therein, and drag their remains through the street? At least since the Rushdie affair, rioting and murdering over “insults” to religion has been a phenomenon almost exclusive to Muslims. It is strange, then, that those who insist the West must show more respect for Islamic civilization are precisely the same people who treat its adherents like children." - Winckel

Just for avoidance of doubt, I'm not in favour of beheading those who insult islam. I think we should give them chocolate (and Oreos). I extend this to those that insult christianity and the jedi order, but might draw the line at insulting zeus whom I'm told is really big on accurate lightning strikes. - Winckel

"Erdogan condemns a film for provoking Muslims but also slams others for using the movie as an excuse to commit violence. “I want to remind the Muslims of the world one more time. The film was a serious provocation. Those who are resorting to violence should know that this is a provocation of Muslims and we reject it,” Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in a speech at a conference in the Ukrainian Black Sea resort of Yalta. Erdogan’s comments came after the anti-Islamic movie “Innocence of Muslims” sparked global protests and outrage in the Muslim world. “Legal and peaceful protest by Muslims is a useful and correct thing. But a protest cannot envisage any kind of violence or terrorism,” he said. “Insulting the Prophet cannot be justified as freedom of expression,” said Erdogan, adding that leaders should take necessary measures against those actions which cause provocation within society. “It cannot be a reason for innocent people to be attacked or harmed,” he said. “This is justified by nothing and, above all, not by Islam. No one can, in the name of Islam, carry out actions of the kind that happened in Libya with the attack on the U.S. mission [in Benghazi].” He said attackers who conduct violent protests in the name of Islam damage Muslims most and added that those who conduct terrorist actions in the name of Islam should be condemned in the strongest terms. Erdogan said he believed that it was not possible for US President Barack Obama to approve of the film and added that the extremists who prepared the movie should be punished. Later on, Erdogan met with the prime minister of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Anatoliy Mogilyov. “We are observing that extreme rightist moves and racism target Muslims, this time Europe-wide; we are worried that it will escalate in Europe,” Erdogan said. Erdogan also spoke about his views on global values and racism and said people should continue living in “multifariousness and unity” and stated that in order to achieve this, discrimination based on culture, religion and ethnicity should be rejected." - Winckel

A comment such as this shows the huge damage the religious have done to us over the years. In terms reminiscent of Orwellian doublespeak, apparently free speech is OK as long as you don't use it to criticise religion (which the religious may find offensive). So pointing out that religion - as far as we know and as far as we can test and infer - is completely made up and the product of men's (certainly not women's in most cases) minds, might be offensive and therefore prohibited. - Winckel

"A BRITISH Muslim faces jail for claiming soldiers should “die and go to hell” following a horror attack on British troops in Afghanistan. Azhar Ahmed, 20, published his online rant on Facebook less than 48 hours after six Army soldiers were killed by an insurgent roadside bomb while on patrol. Amid the public grief over the biggest single British loss of life since the war began in 2001, Ahmed, of Dewsbury, West Yorks, wrote on his Facebook page: “People gassin about the deaths of soldiers. What about the innocent families who have been brutally killed, the women who have been raped, the children who have been sliced up? “Your enemies were the Taliban not innocent, harmless families. All soldiers should die and go to hell, the lowlife ******* scum. Gotta problem with that, go cry at your soldier’s grave and wish him hell because that’s where he is going.” Ahmed was found guilty of sending a grossly offensive message following a day-long trial at Kirklees Magistrates Court yesterday. Your remarks were, derogatory, disrespectful and inflammatory. It was grossly offensive District Judge Jane Goodwin He will be sentenced on October 9 and was warned he faces jail. The court heard that his comment was seen by Ashleigh Craig, who recently lost two friends in Afghanistan, and she contacted police. In her statement to the court, she said: “It really upset me. Soldiers have died for his freedom.” The court was told Ahmed – who claimed in a bizarre boast on Facebook to have “studied” at Guantanamo Bay where the US holds alleged terrorists – had a picture of a dead Afghan family on his site with the comment: “This is why soldiers should burn in hell”. Another post simply exclaimed “Islam shall dominate the world”. SEARCH UK NEWS for: Ahmed told the court he accepted his comments were upsetting but claimed he was merely providing a political viewpoint. “I wasn’t just referring to British soldiers. I’m non-violent – I meant every soldier or anyone involved in violence, but I shouldn’t have said it anyway,” he added. District Judge Jane Goodwin’s guilty verdict was met by claps from Right-wing groups in the public gallery. She told Ahmed: “Your remarks were, derogatory, disrespectful and inflammatory. It was grossly offensive.”" - Winckel

District Judge Jane Goodwin ought to be ashamed of herself for this ruling. The problem here is surely not this stupid hothead guy making inappropriate comments. As for the original complainant, who doesn't apparently see the Orwellian irony in telling us the soldiers died for this guys freedom, only for the guy to go to jail for exercising the freedom in question, I am flabberghasted at what passes for justice and equity these days. - Winckel

"anger that saw US, British and German embassies in Khartoum attacked by rioters swept across the Muslim world on Friday, with violent scenes playing out on streets from north Africa to south-east Asia. Protests, mostly aimed at US embassies and galvanised by the emergence of a crude anti-Islam video made in California, were reported in Iraq, Iran, Bahrain, Afghanistan, Yemen, Egypt, Jerusalem and the West Bank, Kashmir, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Nigerian city of Jos. In Tunis, crowds of rioters throwing stones clashed with police outside the US embassy, who responded with teargas. Several dozen protesters briefly stormed the embassy compound, tearing down the American flag and raising a banner bearing the Muslim profession of faith, the Associated Press reported. Reports said at least two demonstrators had been killed. A fire could be seen within the embassy compound, and the American school in Tunis was also reported to be ablaze. Some of the worst violence of the day was in the Sudanese capital, where protesters targeted the German embassy first, storming through the outer wall and setting fire to buildings and a car near the gates before they were pushed back by police firing teargas. German diplomats fled to the British embassy next door, which became the next target of the mob. The US embassy in Khartoum, which appears to have been the next target, announced that protesters had been expelled from its compound. The embassy attacks in Sudan marked the first time anti-US protests over the film had mutated into a broader anti-western revolt. In Cairo, where the current wave of unrest began on Tuesday, clashes between demonstrators and police erupted in the city for a fourth straight day, with one person left dead. Defying an appeal from president Mohamed Morsi to protect embassies, the crowds had gathered in Tahrir Square after Friday prayers where they tore up a US flag. When they tried to move towards the embassy, they were blocked by police, who fired tear gas. Transfer cases are carried into a hangar at joint base Andrewsmarking the return to the United States of the remains of the four Americans killed this week in Benghazi, Libya Photograph: Molly Riley/Corbis As the riots continued to spread, the bodies of four state department officials killed in the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, including the ambassador to Libya, were returned to US soil. They were met by Barack Obama who said their deaths must cause even the most hopeful to question a fundamental American belief in leaving the world a better place. Speaking next to the flag-draped coffins of the ambassador, Chris Stevens, and the three other victims at Andrews air force base in Maryland, the president praised each of the men in turn while again vowing to "bring to justice the ones who took them from us" and to "stand fast" against the continuing attacks on US embassies as anti-American protests spread across the Middle East. "They didn't simply embrace the American ideal, they lived it. They embodied it. The courage, the hope and, yes, the idealism. That fundamental American belief that we can leave this world a little better than before," said Obama, who was accompanied by secretary of state Hillary Clinton and other senior members of the administration. "I know that this awful loss, the terrible images of recent days, the pictures we're seeing again today, have caused some to question this work. And there is no doubt that these are difficult days. In moments such as this, so much anger and violence, even the most hopeful among us must wonder." But, the president said, there were also Libyans who took to the streets with homemade signs repudiating the killings. Two US destroyers have been deployed to the Libyan coast and a 50-strong unit of marines trained in counter-terrorist operations have arrived in country. US drones over Benghazi were targeted by anti-aircraft fire by the extremist groups in the area who are believed to have led Tuesday's storming of the consulate. As a result, the city's airport was temporarily closed. As Washington scrambled to protect its far-flung diplomats, marines were also reported to have arrived to bolster security at the embassy in the Yemeni capital, Sana'a, which has also been the target of rioters. It was unclear how much the violence was spontaneous and to what extent it had been orchestrated. The film involved was apparently made last year by a Coptic Christian living in Los Angeles, using actors who have said they had no idea they were making an anti-Islam film. The offensive language about the prophet Muhammad was dubbed in later. A 14-minute clip of the film appeared on YouTube in July but only began to generate widespread anger this week, when it was promoted by radical Islamophobic Christians in the US and then broadcast in Egypt by Islamic activists. The secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, denounced the film as "disgusting and reprehensible". US officials have said they believe outrage over the film may have been used by an extremist Libyan group, Ansar al-Sharia, as cover and a diversion for an assault on the Benghazi consulate that had been long planned for the 11th anniversary of the 11 September attacks. The president of the Libyan assembly, Yousef al-Megariaf, agreed. During a visit to Benghazi, he described the storming of the consulate as "pre-planned to hit at the core of the relationship between Libya and the United States"." - Winckel

Maybe mohammed and his acolytes need a thicker skin? I'm struck by the correlation between stupidity and conservative countries with strong religious ethos. - Winckel

My thoughts exactly! Though clearly the extremists look for any excuse for "outrage". - Son of Groucho

The video is here, courtesy of the National Secular Society (http://www.youtube.com/watch...) - it's a laughably bad piece of tosh - although a cute donkey :-) - Winckel

"Acer and Alibaba's cloud computing unit had planned to launch the Acer CloudMobile A800 smartphone, using Alibaba's mobile operating system, Aliyun, in Shanghai on Thursday afternoon. But when journalists showed up for the event they were not allowed to enter the venue and an Alibaba Cloud Computing official said the launch had been canceled due to internal reasons. Later, Alibaba's unit released a statement saying Acer had faced pressure from Google and pulled out of the launch event. "Our partner received notification from Google that if the new product launch with Aliyun went ahead, Google would terminate Android product cooperation and related technical authorization with Acer," Alibaba Cloud Computing said in a statement. A Tokyo-based Google spokesman declined comment, while Acer's Shanghai-based spokeswoman Elaine Cao declined comment. China is set to become the world's largest smartphone market in 2012 with Google's Android mobile operating system having the dominant share of the market." - Winckel

One fo the reasons I like the Open Handset Alliance and Google Android as much as I do is because they're so open and because they eschew grubby commercialism in pursuit of laudable moral goals. - Winckel

"The first person has been fined under France's new anti-piracy law. Alain Prevost was fined 150 euros (£121) for pirating two Rihanna tracks even though his wife admitted she downloaded the songs. The fine was levied on the 40-year-old because he paid for the web link over which the songs were downloaded. The French government agency policing downloading in the country is preparing cases against 14 other people it suspects of pirating movies and music. France operates a "three strikes" law which means suspected pirates get three warnings about their activity. If they ignore the warnings their net connection gets cut off and they can face further court action. Prevost, of Belfort, in eastern France, was convicted because he admitted in court that the Rihanna songs had been downloaded by his wife via the ISP account he paid for. In his court testimony, Prevost, described as a local artisan by French media, said he was "incapable of downloading anything". The case has been complicated by two other factors, reported French tech news site PC Inpact. First, Prevost terminated his web account after he received the first two warnings from the French agency, known as Hadopi, that seeks out pirates in France. Secondly, he is divorcing his wife. Court plea Prevost wrote to Hadopi telling it to contact his wife about the downloads. However, it replied via email messages he could no longer receive. For unwittingly ignoring Hadopi's messages, Prevost received a summons to visit his local police station where he wrote a statement repeating his claim that he did not download the songs. The police asked him to have the songs removed from his PC by a local firm and he took documentary evidence of this to court when he received a summons from Hadopi. Prevost told PC Inpact that he went to court without a lawyer to represent him, believing that his honesty and co-operation would count in his favour. For breaking the three strikes law, Prevost could have faced a fine of up to 1,500 euros (£1,200) and had his web connection cut off for a month. After making his statement in court, the 300 euro (£240) fine the prosecution sought was halved. Marie-Francoise Marais, head of Hadopi, speaking to local French newspaper Le Pays, said the agency "was mainly a mission of education, not repression"." - Winckel

it's a great law - the RIAA can be very pleased with themselves. The French public and their elected leaders? Less so. - Winckel

I agree, not so sure that the influence by the US industry is such a great thing. - Stephan Planken

"government has begun holding seminars aiming to help teachers and parents spot signs of homosexuality in children, underscoring a rise in religious conservatism in the country. So far, the Teachers Foundation of Malaysia has organised 10 seminars across the country. Attendance at the last event on Wednesday reached 1,500 people, a spokesman for the organisation said. "It is a multi-religious and multicultural [event], after all, all religions are basically against that type of behaviour," said the official. The federal government said in March that it is working to curb the "problem" of homosexuality, especially among Muslims who make up over 60% of Malaysia's population of 29 million people. According to a handout issued at a recent seminar, signs of homosexuality in boys may include preferences for tight, light-coloured clothes and large handbags, local media reported. For girls, the details were less clear. Girls with lesbian tendencies have no affection for men and like to hang out and sleep in the company of women, the reports said. Malaysia frowns on oral and gay sex, describing them as against the order of nature. Under civil law, 'offenders', both male and female, can be jailed for up to 20 years, caned or fined. Actual prosecutions are rare, although former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim has twice been tried for sodomy, in cases he called political conspiracies. He spent six years in jail, but the courts have since cleared him on appeal or dropped charges for lack of evidence. Official intolerance of gay people has been on the rise. Last year, despite widespread criticism, the east coast state of Terengganu set up a camp for "effeminate" boys to show them how to become men. The latest seminar for the teachers and parents was run by deputy education minister Puad Zarkashi, his office confirmed. Zarkashi wasn't immediately available for comment but national news agency Bernama quoted him as saying that being able to identify the signs will help contain the spread of the unhealthy lifestyle among the young, especially students. "Youths are easily influenced by websites and blogs relating to LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] groups," he was quoted as saying. "This can also spread among their friends. We are worried that this happens during schooling time."" - Winckel

The challenge is that progress has come with some scary side effects, dismantling social networks and disempowering many people around the world. It was easy to ignore that in "the west" for a long time but the financial crisis has even brought it home here. So people look for a way to counter, and in some places self organisation and networks happen, and in other places a conservative-religion return happens, promising to rewind the clock. We can of course go all superior on them but we had our own episodes like that several times in recent history and we're not immune to it now. We can be bemused, but we cannot quite deny that some of the symptoms they denounce - disconnection from nature and each other, sterility of work life, powerlessness - are spot on. Their explanations (its all caused by immoral behaviours) and recipes for improvement must be fought against every step of the way, though! - Iphigenie

I'm not sure I have much sympathy for that view. Progress has on the whole been vastly, by which I mean - vastly - positive. If you think working in Asda is disempowering, compare being an english peasant 200 years ago or a chinese peasant today. - Winckel

"a crisis is brewing at the top of English policing after another chief constable was suspended on suspicion of serious misconduct. Stuart Hyde, the temporary chief of the Cumbria force, was suspended after the police authority examined what it said were allegations that may indicate a breach in standards of professional behaviour. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has been called in by the force and is making an "immediate and detailed" assessment of the allegations. Hyde's suspension brings the number of the country's most senior officers who have faced or are facing disciplinary action or investigation by the police watchdog to nine. It is unprecedented for so many senior serving officers to be the focus of investigations at the same time. The Cumbria force called in Bernard Lawson, deputy chief constable of Merseyside, to take over the force on Friday, after Hyde's suspension was announced. Ray Cole, Cumbria police authority chairman, would not reveal the details of the allegations against Hyde. Hyde said: "I was devastated when I was told last night about the allegations. I will await the full details and I will co-operate fully with any investigation. This has had a profound effect on me and my family and I want to clear my name as soon as possible." Lawson attempted to reassure the public that they would be policed properly during a "difficult" period. "The constabulary is fortunate to have police officers and staff who are committed to serving local communities and dedicated to making a difference to the quality of people's lives," he said. It is understood the allegations against Hyde are not of a financial or sexual nature. He is the lead on e-crime prevention for the Association of Chief Police Officers and one of the few senior police officers active on Twitter. In a fortnight the chief constable of Cleveland, Sean Price, will face a closed disciplinary hearing into 11 allegations of gross misconduct. He faces claims he used "undue influence" during the appointment of the daughter of Dave McLuckie, the former police authority chairman, to a civilian post within the force. Price – who is suspended from his post – is also the subject of a criminal investigation. His deputy, Derek Bonnard, faces a disciplinary hearing for eight counts of alleged gross misconduct. Both were arrested last year as part of the investigation led by the IPCC. The allegations against them include claims of the misuse of public funds and corporate credit cards. Both men deny wrongdoing and have made claims for wrongful arrest. The police watchdog is also investigating four senior officers from three separate forces over allegations of misconduct and possible criminal offences during a major investigation. Adrian Lee, chief constable of Northamptonshire, and his deputy Suzette Davenport; Jane Sawyers, assistant chief constable with the Staffordshire force; and Marcus Beale, assistant chief constable with the West Midlands, are all under criminal investigation. On behalf of the IPCC, Mick Creedon, Derbyshire chief constable, is examining claims that the officers withheld material and evidence from a murder trial. The four police chiefs have not been suspended from duty or arrested. Their forces have said the investigation does not imply any wrongdoing. Last May Grahame Maxwell, former chief constable of North Yorkshire, who admitted gross misconduct for helping a relative get a job during a police recruitment campaign, left the force with a £250,000 "golden goodbye". Maxwell, 51, escaped the sack and was given a final written warning after a secret disciplinary hearing. But when the police authority refused to renew his contract it triggered a clause entitling him to £247,636 in compensation. His deputy Adam Briggs – who was also accused of helping a relative get a job during the same recruitment campaign – was disciplined and had a charge of misconduct upheld against him. He has since retired from the force." - Winckel

Files detailing police cover ups over the Hillsborough disaster were given to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) 14 years ago, it has been claimed. Alun Jones QC led a private prosecution for manslaughter against senior police officers who were in charge when 96 Liverpool fans died in April 1989. Mr Jones said the CPS needed to explain why it did "absolutely nothing". A report published on Wednesday laid bare a police cover-up which attempted to shift the blame on to the victims. Writing in the Independent newspaper, Mr Jones said the Hillsborough Family Support Group launched the private prosecution of Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield and his deputy Bernard Murray because of the Director of Public Prosecutions's (DPP) failure to act. Mr Jones wrote in the newspaper: "We furnished the DPP, and Attorney General, with an analysis demonstrating the gravity of the conspiracy, but also proving that critical evidence of non-police witnesses had been withheld from the DPP and coroner in 1990. "We showed how the tampering exercise was organised. I was clear that crimes of perverting the course of justice had been committed, but not by whom, and it was beyond the power of the families to investigate." The prosecution failed in 2000. A Crown Prosecution Service spokesman told the paper: "The Crown Prosecution Service was approached in 1998 by both parties to the private prosecution and asked to take it over. Sir Norman Bettison: "Welcomes" IPCC inquiry "At the time we concluded we would not intervene and the private prosecution went ahead. "We provided documentation to the Hillsborough Independent Panel about the reasons behind this decision in 1998 and the panel has made no criticism of the CPS or the DPP over this." Flags half-mast Meanwhile, a complaint against a senior police officer involved in the disaster, Sir Norman Bettison, has been referred to the police watchdog. The decision to refer a complaint involving West Yorkshire Chief Constable Sir Norman to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) was taken at a meeting on Saturday of the police authority's special committee. Chairman of the special Committee Richard Baldwin said: "It is important the facts are fully established and evidence considered from other sources before any further decisions are taken. "The IPCC, as an independent body with a statutory duty to uphold the police complaints system, is best placed to conduct such investigations." Sir Norman, who was with South Yorkshire police at the time of Hillsborough, said he welcomed the step and added: "It is time this moved into a more formal and legal inquiry, where it can be considered, analysed and fully assessed." On Friday he apologised for any upset caused by his statement Liverpool fans' behaviour made policing at the Hillsborough tragedy "harder than it needed to be". He said his role was never to "besmirch" the fans and said the Reds' supporters were in no way to blame for the disaster. Flags at Sunderland's Stadium of Light will fly at half-mast later as a mark of respect to those who died at Hillsborough. The home side take on Liverpool in the club's first match since the findings of the Hillsborough panel were released. Both teams are expected to wear black armbands and there has also been a call for a minute's applause six minutes into the game. - Winckel

Let me guess, not very hard? - M F

Another new Windows version? - Stephan Planken

will set the bar even higher :-) - Winckel

tickled tum. also kisses :-) - Winckel

you ever been to the RAF museum? - Halil

at Hendon? Never been in, just driven past it, have heard it's good, you like it? - Winckel

I love red rose. It makes me think a passionate love. - @Renchin@

A detainee at Guantánamo was found dead in his cell on Saturday, according to camp officials. He is the ninth person to die at the camp since it was opened more than ten years ago. As former Gitmo guard Brandon Neely pointed out Monday, more detainees have died at the camp (nine) than have been convicted of wrongdoing by its military commissions (six). This is the fourth detainee who has died at the camp since Obama's inauguration. Although the detainee's identity has not been disclosed, a camp spokesman acknowledged that he "had not been charged and had not been designated for prosecution". In other words, he has been kept by the US government in a cage for many years without any opportunity to contest the accusations against him, and had no hope of leaving the camp except by death. Indeed, dying in due process-free captivity now appears to be the only way for many of these detainees to leave. The last person to leave the camp via death was a 48-year-old Afghan citizen, Awal Gul, who died in February 2011 of an apparent heart attack. Gul, the father of 18 children, was accused by the US of being a Taliban commander – a charge he vehemently denied because, as his lawyer put it, "he was disgusted by the Taliban's growing penchant for corruption and abuse." But the due process-free indefinite detention policy still in place at the camp meant that those conflicting claims were never resolved, and he died after more than nine years in captivity – thousands of miles from his family, in the middle of a foreign ocean – despite never having been convicted of anything. In the hierarchy of evil, consigning someone who has been convicted of nothing to a cage year after year after year, until they die, is high up on the list. And in that regard, this latest episode demonstrates not only the ongoing travesty of the US's war on terror policies, but also the dishonesty of the attempt to exonerate Obama for those policies. What has always made Guantánamo such an assault on basic notions of justice, and what still makes it so, is not its physical location in the Carribean sea. Its defining evil is its system of indefinite detention: that human beings are imprisoned indefinitely, sometimes for life, without the obligation to prove they are guilty of anything. Notwithstanding the authoritarian eagerness on the part of many to blissfully assume that people in Gitmo must be guilty terrorists because the US government says so, punishing people without trials or charges is as tyrannical as it gets, and it continues in full. To the extent they ever address any of this at all any more, Obama defenders love to point out that he tried to fulfill his promise to "close Gitmo", but was thwarted by congressional opposition from both parties. That claim is true as far as it goes, but it does not go very far at all. That's because Obama's plan was not so much to "close Gitmo" as it was simply to relocate it a few thousand miles north onto US soil, with its system of indefinite detention – which makes the camp so odious – fully preserved. That is why civil liberties groups such as the ACLU harshly denounced Obama's plan as "Gitmo North". As the ACLU explained, long before Congress obstructed what Obama wanted to do, "the administration plans to continue its predecessor's policy of indefinite detention without charge or trial for some detainees, with only a change of location." Indeed, as I documented several months ago, the system of indefinite detention from the start has been central to Obama's plan for these detainees. Put another way, even if Congress had given Obama everything he wanted, the system that means that death is the only way out for many detainees would have been fully preserved. The excuse-making for Obama – "oh, he tried to close the camp but Congress would not let him" – is simply a deceitful tactic Democrats have concocted to justify their total silence about a grave injustice they once pretended to find so appalling and their raucous swooning for a president who supports it. There is, however, one one significant difference in this regard between Bush's and Obama's policies. Whereas Bush preferred to detain people without due process or judicial review, Obama simply kills them. Bush's former NSA and CIA director, General Michael Hayden, spoke this week at the University of Michigan and, as he (yet again) heaped praise on Obama for continuing the crux of the Bush/Cheney approach to terrorism, he made this precise point, as reported by Wired [my emphasis]: "President Barack Obama has closely followed the policy of his predecessor, President George W Bush, when it comes to tactics used in the 'war on terror' – from rendition, targeted killings, state secrets, Guantánamo Bay to domestic spying, according to Michael Hayden, Bush's former director of the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency. "'But let me repeat my hypothesis: Despite the frequent drama at the political level, America and Americans have found a comfortable center line in what it is they want their government to do and what it is they accept their government doing. It is that practical consensus that has fostered such powerful continuity between two vastly different presidents, George W Bush and Barack Obama, when it comes, when it comes to this conflict,' Hayden said Friday while speaking at the University of Michigan … "'And so, we've seen all of these continuities between two very different human beings, President Bush and President Obama. We are at war, targeted killings have continued; in fact, if you look at the statistics, targeted killings have increased under Obama.' "He said that was the case because, in one differing path between the two presidents, Obama in 2009 closed CIA 'black sites' and ratcheted down on torturing detainees. But instead of capturing so-called 'enemy combatants', President Obama kills them instead, Hayden said. "'We have made it so politically dangerous and so legally difficult that we don't capture anyone anymore,' Hayden said. 'We take another option, we kill them. Now. I don't morally oppose that'". Of all the pretzels of hypocrisy Democratic partisans have twisted themselves into, in order to defend their leader, this has to be the most extraordinary. They spent years screaming bloody murder because Bush and Cheney merely wanted to eavesdrop on and detain people, including Americans, without any judicial review: a shredding of our constitution, an assault on our values, a blight on our nation, they bellowed. During the Bush years, I echoed those same sentiments. Yet now, when their own party's leader seizes the power to target people (including their own fellow citizens), with no judicial review, not for mere eavesdropping or detention, but for assassination, they have nothing to say – except to express their approval and even admiration for his "toughness". Identically, that Obama sought to continue the wretched system of indefinite detention that causes people like this latest detainee to spend his entire life in a prison camp with no charges could not be less of an issue to them and, therefore, continues with little opposition. - Winckel

Not Democrats', Americans'. Happy 11/9 boys. - Winckel

:-) - Winckel