
Gary Corseri - Activist Post
...MORE HERE...
...providing your daily prescription of a cry and two laughs...
The high court has ruled that the Metropolitan police broke the law in the way they "kettled" protesters at the G20 demonstrations in 2009.
In a landmark judgment on Thursday, high court judges found for protesters who had claimed police treated them unfairly. It also criticised the use of force by officers.
In the case, the court heard that officers used punches to the face, slaps and shields against demonstrators who police chiefs accept had nothing to do with violence. The judgment does not strike down the police tactic of kettling or mass detention, but it will be seen as a rebuff to the Met.
The judgment places limits on the use of kettling. It says: "The police may only take such preventive action as a last resort catering for situations about to descend into violence."
The case concerned the G20 protests in London on 1 April 2009, during which Ian Tomlinson, a bystander, died after being struck by an officer. Police in charge of the protest ordered a Climate Camp to be kettled and then cleared, but officers were left to decide how much force they should use.
Video shot on the day showed demonstrators trying to avoid being beaten by raising their hands in the air and chanting "this is not a riot" at police clad in helmets and riot gear. Officers on the videos are seen to strike demonstrators, who cannot be seen to be engaged in violence.
There were several demonstrations in the area that day, but the court case deals with a Climate Camp in Bishopsgate. A police chief accepts it was peaceful but decided it should be contained to avoid potentially violent people joining it.
In the judgment, the high court said that a police operation to push back Climate Camp protesters just after 7pm was "not necessary or proportionate".
The judgment continues: "There never was a reasonable apprehension of imminent breaches of the peace at the Climate Camp.
...MORE HERE...
Uploaded by Livefreerevolution on 9 Apr 2011
Video credit: stefbot
Learning to 'Live Free' comes from experience and personal growth ... Lets break our conditioning!
http://www.livefreerevolution.com/
http://livefreerevolution.blogspot.com/
But judgement, accountability and legality were lacking and the council's attitude was as unreal as a dream - costs spiralled from 42m to 62M in 2.5 years. The plan was to pay multi-national nuclear Big Business a fortune to destroy Penzance's beautiful seafront, and saddle taxpayers with a 25 year debt, added to their council tax. A splendid passenger/freighter would run virtually empty in winter, but still have to pay its own vast fuel bill.
To advance such an unfeasible, undemocratic and unlawful plan, in times of austerity, would seem, at best, perverse.
Democratic polls, taken at public consultations, as well public meetings and polls in local press have established that local people were united against the plan - excepting a clique of'interested parties'. A firm sense of solidarity and common purpose united Penzance like never before, with much humour at the expense of our silly local political 'masters'.
On Thursday, the grown-ups in central government finally told Cornwall Council to grow up and get real.
Relief swept the better part of Penzance when it was announced that our seafront and public purse were not to be butchered against our will by the despised 'Option A' and other, eminently sensible plans could finally be discussed and initiated. There was also some regret that irresponsible media, local government and our Chamber of Commerce had sadly swayed the minds of a certain proportion of folks who perhaps had not weighed the evidence fully. For a good news story, the media has gone to extraordinary lengths of distortion and paving the way for Big Capital to ride into town on a bulldozer.
The Route Partnership came into being, consisting of the nuclear construction giants Halcrow and Birse; together with the Duchy of Cornwall and the various limbs of local government. A bizzarely unnaccountable blend of officialdom and GLOBAL BIG BUSINESS. 'Thatcherism in Action'.
If the islanders were happy with their end of the plan, would they, as fellow Democrats, deny us Penzance folk the right to approve the plans for OUR end of the bargain?
Personally, I find terms like 'Battle of Battery Rocks' offensive. This is media 'stirring the pot' to sell papers - in what way does the press promote unity and genuine debate with an attitude such as this?
The Friends of Penzance Harbour was spontaneously founded in 2008 by a core group of deeply concerned locals and immediately recieved strong support from the community. This was particularly evident at the public 'consultation' exhibition in October 2008, where people were not amused at the vulgar, exhorbitant and unneccesary plans they were shown.
The plan was to bury a small beach, rock-pools and sea-bed in thousands of tons of concrete - this for freight sheds and a lorry turning circle. The historic listed peir was to be breached and the war-memorial overshadowed by a toilet block. The proposed terminal building was a kitch hutch with all the character of a portaloo. It would also have obscured promenaders views of Mounts Bay - thus diminishing the towns worth and attraction to tourists and locals alike.
Various cheaper and vastly less intrusive schemes have been offered as alternatives, but the Council was strangely fixated on 'Option A' and would give serious speculation to nothing else. It all looked very much like a 'done deal'. 'Evidence' of a 15 per cent increase on goods in the Scillies resulting from the alternative plan is a downright lie. Ironically, it was the sheer bloated expense of the scheme itself that led to its governmental rejection...
Any disharmony percieved to exist between the little islands and the big island can be squarely laid at the door of the capitalist press lobbying for their elitist pals in big business. Though many Scilly islanders have excessive wealth, the working class there presumably have some concept of how media corporations and multinationals attempt to control peoples perceptions and beliefs, so as to dominate their economic life.
What the Western Morning News calls 'suspected quibbling', the rest of us call adhering to such procedures as The Penwith Local Plan, the Aarhus Convention, and, more to the point, the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
Then in December 2009 the scheme was soundly thrown out by the 'Strategic Planning Committee' in a legal and Democratic vote.
The relief of Penzance was shortlived however. The Council 'politically cleansed' the Planning Committee! They re-shuffled it and repopulated it with 'tame' councillors. To make it harder for us to attend, the planning meeting was held in Truro - I'm barely skimming the surface here when it comes to listing abuses of the Democratic process. To make matters worse, the belicose Councillor Hicks, Head of Transport, saw fit to liken Penzance folks to nazis, scum-bags, incapable of rational debate, etc. etc. he even made it into Private Eye, twice (though admittedly once was for a police authority expenses thing). He was the 'mastermind' who wasted 45,000 pounds plus expenses of OUR money on the ludicrous 'scoping of Falmouth' as an alternative ferry port!!!
Around this time the True Fiends of Penzance took no bribes whatsoever, but propagated 'Option A' like it was going out of style... Their main platform seemed to be based on the discredited 'trickle-down' economic model. They seemed unaware that even the labour for the scheme was not going to be local, let alone the profit-sharing, which was going to the nuclear Big Boys Halcrow and Birse.
No government would support a blundering mastodon of a scheme that bloated from 42 to 62 million in a couple of years - they have more sense, even in times of economic boom. The fact that we as a nation swapped one corrupt government for another is neither here nor there. Those who do not like 'the cuts' should perhaps get organized against them.
Whilst hacking back survival services to the most vulnerable, Cornwall Council was prepared to borrow another 5 million - at high risk, but Westminster still pointed out the extreme folly inherent in 'Option A' - just as the sensible People of PZ had been doing for some time! As for 'reducing the price tag by 26 million' this is simply hogwash - look at the governments own figures!
It was in a frenzy of wrath that Councillor Hicks attacked central government for spoiling his uber-plan - perhaps Graeme should stop insulting everyone in sight and quietly admit that his plan was simply wrong and has been rejected by both Penzance and Westminster because most of us can plainly see that - 'Option A' was just plain wrong. Hicks did everything he could do, to override democratic accountability and bulldoze his plan through, but he forgot to reckon with the will of the general public.
The powers that be hate it when People Power actually works...
http://savetheholyheadland.blogspot.com/2011/04/hicks-resign-petition.html
Guys: What do you feel when you look at a photo of an attractive woman? Excited? Intrigued?
How about warlike?
Such a response may seem strange or even offensive. But newly published research suggests it is far from uncommon — and it may help explain the deep psychological roots of warfare.
With yet another war in full swing, we once again face the fundamental question of why groups of humans settle their differences through organized violence. A wide range of motivations have been offered over the years: In a 2002 book, Chris Hedges compellingly argued that war is both an addiction and a way of engaging in the sort of heroic struggle that gives our lives meaning.
Evolutionary psychologists, on the other hand, see war as an extension of mating-related male aggression. They argue men compete for status and resources in an attempt to attract women and produce offspring, thereby passing on their genes to another generation. This competition takes many forms, including violent aggression against other males — an impulse frowned upon by modern society but one that can be channeled into acceptability when one joins the military.
It’s an interesting and well-thought-out theory, but there’s not a lot of direct evidence to back it up. That’s what makes “The Face That Launched a Thousand Ships,” a paper just published in the journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, so intriguing.
A team of Hong Kong-based researchers led by psychologist Lei Chang of Chinese University conducted four experiments that suggest a link between the motivation to mate and a man’s interest in, or support for, war.
The first featured 111 students (60 men) at a college in China. Each was shown 20 full-body color photographs of members of the opposite sex. Half viewed images of people who had been rated attractive; the other half saw pictures of people classified as unattractive.
Afterward, “participants responded to 39 questions about having wars or trade conflicts with three foreign countries that have had hostile relationships with China in recent history,” the researchers write. Twenty-one of the questions “tapped the willingness to go to war with the hostile country,” they noted, while 18 addressed “peaceful solutions to trade conflicts.”
The results duplicated those of a pilot study: Male participants answering the war-related questions “showed more militant attitudes” if they had viewed the photos of attractive women. This effect was absent in answers to the trade-related questions, nor was it found among women for either set of questions.
In another experiment, 23 young heterosexual males viewed one of two sets of 16 photos. One featured images of Chinese national flags; the other focused on female legs. They then performed a computer test to see how quickly they could respond to common, two-character Chinese words. Half of the words related to war, while the others related to farms.
If they were motivated by nationalism or patriotism, the young men would have presumably responded to the war words more rapidly after having viewed the flag. But in fact, the researchers write, they “responded faster to war words when primed by female legs.”
...MORE HERE...
Uploaded by TEDtalksDirector on 6 Apr 2011
http://www.ted.com Much of the TV, video, film and sport we watch is sponsored by a brand, a product, a corporation. But ... why? With humor and persistence, filmmaker Morgan Spurlock dives into the hidden but influential world of brand marketing, on his quest to make a completely sponsored film about sponsorship. And yes, this talk was sponsored too. By whom and for how much? He'll tell you.
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the sponsored talk of their lives in 18 minutes. Featured speakers have included Al Gore's sponsored talk for Carbon Tax, Philippe Starck on design, Jill Bolte Taylor on observing her own stroke, Nicholas Negroponte on One Laptop per Child, Jane Goodall on chimpanzees, Bill Gates on eugenics, Pattie Maes on the "Sixth Sense" wearable tech, and "Lost" producer JJ Abrams on the allure of mystery. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and BIG sponsors, TEDTalks cover these topics as well as science, business, development and the arts. Closed captions and translated subtitles in a variety of languages are now available on TED.com, at http://www.ted.com/translate.