The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread [2]

[Pettytyrant101]

Shady goings on look likely to bring down the UK Defence Secretary Liam FOx. For those who don't know Mr Fox has a friend called Mr Werrity. Heres the background from the BBC;

'The defence secretary has been under pressure after it emerged that his friend, the lobbyist Mr Werritty, was present on 18 overseas trips and met the defence secretary at the MoD 22 times since May 2010.
He also carried business cards describing himself as an adviser to Mr Fox.'

PM David Camerson has staunchly backed his man saying it was above board even though it clearly breaches the ministerial code MP's are all suppposed to adhere to.
But things have gone from bad to worse with the latest news today;

'A wealthy backer of Liam Fox has told the BBC he and several others raised funds to pay for Adam Werritty to act as the defence secretary's adviser.
The donor - who wants to remain anonymous - told BBC political editor Nick Robinson that the group shared Mr Fox's ideological leanings.
The BBC's Nick Robinson says the wealthy backers who paid Mr Werritty an annual retainer did so because they saw him as someone who, unlike civil servants, could be relied on to champion support for Eurosceptic, pro-American and pro-Israeli policies.'

I can't see how Fox can survive that. The code not only says there must be no conflicts of interest but goes as far as to say that even the appearence that there might be is enough for a minister to have to go.

[odo banks]

Surely a Minister's slight lack of honesty and integrity should not be held against him! Who will run your country, Mr Tyrant, if that becomes a reason for dismissal?

[Pettytyrant101]

Well the Fox has been hounded. The Defence Secretary has today resigned. And not much choice really as more evidence has been coming out that his 'best friend' Mr Wherrity was being paid substantial amounts of money by a private consortium of wealthy backers with strong idealogical and political aims ( largely pro-US and pro-Israel ones).
How far this goes we still don't know as the official enquiry doesn't report until next week but clearly you cannot have the Defence Minister being advised by an unaccountable group of backers with an agenda. The real questions here is how long has this been going on, what decisions did Mr Wherrity influence if any (and I assume his backers weren't just paying him to go on holidays round the world with the Fox) and why was it allowed to go on for so long when it is such a blatant and clear breach of the rules?
So much for Cameron claiming his government would be 'transparent'.

[Orwell]

Politicians never surprise you in the end, they never change.... they only ever fool us on false hope for awhile... we all so much want the world to be a better place...

[Pseudo-Kafria]

I never cease to be impressed by your down-to-earth incisive wisdom, Orwell. So simple, yet so wise, and never a trait of ego to be seen. Wonderful man. A God among men, really. And so humble...

[Pettytyrant101]

Worrying report on the BBC about child abuse in the US.

'Over the past 10 years, more than 20,000 American children are believed to have been killed in their own homes by family members. That is nearly four times the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The child maltreatment death rate in the US is triple Canada's and 11 times that of Italy. Millions of children are reported as abused and neglected every year.'

The BBC goes on to site possible reasons for this;

'...teen pregnancy, high-school dropout, violent crime, imprisonment, and poverty - factors associated with abuse and neglect - are generally much higher in the US.
Further, other rich nations have social policies that provide child care, universal health insurance, pre-school, parental leave and visiting nurses to virtually all in need.
In the US, when children are born into young families not prepared to receive them, local social safety nets may be frayed, or non-existent. As a result, they are unable to compensate for the household stress the child must endure.'

So lucky Capital Hill has done uch a good job of seeing off all those commie leftie policies then!

[Pettytyrant101]

Bye, bye Gaddaffi. Who would want to be a dictator? Yeah its all gold taps and private jets for a bit but it always seems to end with large crowds dragging your not quite dead body through the streets behind a truck. And I could not help but notice that the sort of ecstatic crowds, flag waving and the like this 'revolution' has produced is remarkably similar to all the flag waving when they put Gaddaffi in power to start with. Just a thought.

[Orwell]

Death Penalty deserved? Yes, if what we've been told is true about him. Monster! ... And if you live by the sword then why not die by it? Yes, why not? But it's always a ghastly business...

I have a sudden urge to read a quality biography of his life. Is there any? If so, is there a reasobably up-to-date one?

[Pettytyrant101]

Aliens. Here. In a jungle. Well so says todays Sun newspaper. Judge for yourself.

[Pettytyrant101]

Sugar Daddy Parties. Apprently they are some US thing that are becoming popular here.
At these parties, and I quote this from the BBC news page (although not sure it really counts a snews but whatever);

'..any couples who get together usually come to what is formally called "an arrangement".
Often that will be as simple as the man buying expensive gifts for his partner or paying her a certain amount of money each time they meet.
Many women there say they have a price that they're not willing to negotiate below.
Often it's as high as $500 (£313) per date.'
"I'm looking to find a boyfriend who's willing to help me out with what I'm doing right now," she says. "Like a regular boyfriend but richer.
"I'm studying at the moment and college is expensive. It works well for me if I start dating a guy who I know can take care of me financially so I no longer have to worry."

Now I feel I may need some help here from the female members of the forum because according to these women this is empowerment and not, as it seems to me, prostituion by another name. And surely what these women are saying is "I need a rich man to take care of me and I am willing to have sex with him to get it." Is this feminism? Is it empowering? I need help here 'cause I am getting very lost tryng to understand what 'female empowerment' etc is these days.

It all seemed so much easier when all women wanted was the vote and the right to pee standing up (or whatever else it was!)

[Amarië]

I'll let Lisa explain.

[Pettytyrant101]

That does seem to sum it up!

[Pettytyrant101]

Actually now i've thought about it I still have a problem- this empowerment viewpoint excludes the male perspective. From a male point of view these are purchased women, payment for a service, dressed up however you like its unlikely a male mind would see it any other way. So surely for a women to put herself in a position where she is essentially goods cannot be empowerment?

[Amarië]

Ah, but who cares what the men think as long as you yourself feel empowered? I think the way they see it, they choose to do this and are as much using their sugar daddy as he is using them.

Personally I don't really feel that this is true feminism (whatever that is), and I feel they hide behind this magical word "empowering" because if it is empowering, then you can't argue against it without being against feminism and the right for women to choose what is best for them. To me feminism is more about wold wide equal rights and fair treatment and women be counted as... people. And not so much about sugar daddies, cougars and cubs.

[Pettytyrant101]

Thats much how I see it myself Amarie. Why would women want to be like men anyway? I can understand why women would want the same rights, the same legal standing, the same recognition, ad the same opportunities. But to just ape the worst of male behaviour doesn't seem a very worthy goal.
Although I do find women tend to have a 'we want to be equal but only when it suits us' attitude.

[Amarië]

I think that no matter how pure the intentions are, there will always be people who will abuse and take advantage of rights and privileges other have fought for. At least in that the genders are equal.

[Orwell]

Freedom to make your own choices would seem to be empowering in any circumstances, no matter what you prudish people think. The whole idea of freedom is founded on having a right to do whatever you want to do; hopefully with the caveat that it hurts no one else. Surely "feminism" has an innate aspect of "mind your own business" attached to it. I'm thinking, of course, of freedom as a democratic principle. You know, not as an autocratic one as you two puritanical type people of The Morality Party seem to think. Here to be of assistance.

[Ally]

I think they both play their part well and that makes the relationship rewarding for both parties. A sugar daddy knows the hot little number on his arm isn't there because of his winning personality. Though there are people who have always done whatever is needed to make it in life, actors sleeping with directors, secreatries with their bosses to get ahead, women sleeping with rockstars for all the benefits- fabolous vacation, cars and seeing the world on someone else money. Schools are expensive, so are the living expenses and loans. Do whatever you want to do, to quote Orwell verbatim.

[Pettytyrant101]

Thats an idealists view Orwell. In the real world humans are animals with advanced social developments. The man pays women in some form for mating purposes is one of the oldest things in human creation. This seems to me to be a continuation of that practice and history has shown us under such circumstances it rarely benefits the women in the long term igf men accept or come to view women as available commodities, nor I think can it be good for her self esteem and self worth, even if she deludes herself in the first place that it is her 'right' to market herself in such a fashion.
It's not an argument about morality but for fighting instinctive sexual roles which bind and hamper freedoms.

Ally- but at what cost to the self?- never underestimate the fragility of what you think of as you. The mind is a delicate construct easily damaged.

[Ally]

Obviously the type of women who do this have no moral objections, or the need for cash is so great that they feel this is the only avenue they can go down. Who would I be to say that's wrong? Everyone's different! (Except me...mwhahaha, reference reference...) Obviously the proper gold diggers have no qualms whatsoever, and that mentality is probably ingrained in them so it seems unlikely that one day they'll wake up and have an emotional breakdown!

The whole thing reminds me of the those wags at those parties, chasing after those footballing lads in clubs and outside hotels. Ofc, I don't see how it can truly be a healthy relationship once you commoditize a key element like affection to simply money. But anyway these relationships are mostly flings, rich men with superly-attractive young women, both adults, both know what they're doing and what they are to one another. Morals aside, I don't see how it can truly be a healthy relationship once you commoditize a key element like affection, but then again I have questionable morals.

Maybe if I was in a similar situation I'd be disgusted with myself, though it seems unlikely (however it would be legal ) that any rich man would want me. Ah well. But I'm a middle-class Welsh liberal (or maybe working class- still not sure on this issue). Obviously it's an issue which is much too complicated for someone like myself, though I would add that at the moment I'm am against prostitution as it increases the drama and the likelihood of being raped and/or murdered and as I also believe in fighting instinctive sexual roles which bind and hamper freedoms plus anything Orwell says on the matter.

[Orwell]

Thats an idealists view Orwell.

That! And then all the rest of your post is pure idealistic claptrap! You moralistic idealistic prude!!!!

Women can do whatever they want with their minds or their bodies. Petty, I find your your paternalism quite stunning at times, I must say!

Ally, prostitution is the oldest profession - male and female. It may not be to your taste (or to that namby-pamby Petty's), but when we speak of Freedom, and respecting an individual's right to do what they want in life, surely you would approve of these young women. As to them being dumb, the reality is (not the "Ideality" Mr Petty Kilt-too-tight!) these women are probably highly intelligent, like concubines and mistresses of old. Dumber girls may be stuck with the lowest (and most dangerous) forms of prostitution. (You know, I can't believe how much of a prude Petty is - and how idealistically doctrinaire - maybe he's really just GB returned, but in different clothing - perhaps a kilt??)(Poor GB - hope he comes back one day! )

Oh btw Ally, "love" is transitory but "sex" is forever! Here to assist!

[Pettytyrant101]

Yes women can do what they like with their bodies but that does not mean to say actions or courses of action which have a much higher chance of risk should be encouraged or endorsed under a false banner of feminism or equality- there can be nothing equal about viewing another person as a commodity, either way round. It also plays straight into the mindset of many men who will happily view a women as a purchasable good.

[Orwell]

Yes women can do what they like with their bodies but that does not mean to say actions or courses of action which have a much higher chance of risk should be encouraged or endorsed under a false banner of feminism or equality- there can be nothing equal about viewing another person as a commodity, either way round. It also plays straight into the mindset of many men who will happily view a women as a purchasable good.

Maybe there's more than sex to it, Petty? Even if not, haven't we had enough of your prudery and ideological mindset?

[Pettytyrant101]

I don't consider just sex, selling yourself out emotionally is no less a risk route.

"haven't we had enough of your prudery and ideological mindset?"

I wasn't aware I was offering either. Sparking debates is what the BBST is for, isn't it?

[Eldorion]

Anyone hear about Scott Olsen yet? He's a U.S. veteran who did two tours in Iraq before leaving the military and becoming a member of Veterans for Peace. He was at the Occupy Oakland protest this past Teusday when he was hit in the head by what was apparently a tear gas canister or a fragment of one. Police also threw something that may have been more tear gas or a flash-bang into the crowd trying to help Olsen after he had been lying on the ground for more than 30 seconds, unresponsive and bleeding from his head. He was taken to a hospital which said he had a fractured skull and brain swelling, though he's now listed as stable.

The Guardian

Oakland's independent police review body will examine the clashes between riot officers and protesters that left an Iraq war veteran in a critical condition as Occupy protestors prepare to rally at the same spot for a third night of protests.

Police battled protesters following an Occupy Oakland march to demonstrate against the closing of two occupations in the city in the early hours of Tuesday morning. More than 100 people have been arrested in Oakland since police cleared a camp in Frank Ogawa plaza.

Scott Olsen, 24, suffered a fractured skull and brain swelling after he was allegedly hit in the head by a police projectile during the clashes on Tuesday. A spokesperson for Highland hospital in east Oakland confirmed he was critically ill after being admitted on Tuesday night.

A source at the Oakland citizen's police review board said it had not yet received a formal complaint, but would be "looking into" the circumstances surrounding Olsen's injuries. The board will decide whether to launch an official investigation over the next couple of days.

Jay Finneburgh, an activist photographer who was at the protest, published pictures of Olsen lying bloodied on the ground, while video footage appeared to show police throwing a 'flash bang' explosive close to fellow protesters trying to provide aid.

"[Olsen] stood behind me," Finneburgh told the Guardian. "I looked to my left and he hit the ground, and he hit it hard.

"A woman went to look down at him, and he was bleeding from the head. She started screaming," he said.

Video footage posted to YouTube shows Olsen lying motionless in front of a police line after apparently having been hit. A group of up to 10 protesters gather around him, but a police officer can be seen throwing a device close to the group which then explodes with a bright flash and loud bang, scattering the protesters. The video then cuts to footage of protesters carrying Olsen away as he bleeds from the head.

Olsen was taken to Highland hospital by protesters. Adele Carpenter, who knows Olsen through his involvement with anti-war groups, said she arrived at the hospital at 11pm on Tuesday night.

Carpenter said she was told by a doctor at the hospital that Olsen had a skull fracture and was in a "serious but stable" condition. She said he had been sedated and was unconscious.

"I'm just absolutely devastated that someone who did two tours of Iraq and came home safely is now lying in a US hospital because of the domestic police force," Carpenter told the Guardian.

Olsen, originally from Wisconsin, had only moved to Oakland in July, and met Carpenter through his membership of Veterans for Peace and Iraq Veterans Against the War.

Keith Shannon, who shares an apartment with Olsen and served with him in Iraq, said a neurosurgeon was due to assess him on Tuesday to determine whether he required surgery.

"It's really hard," Shannon said. "I really wish I had gone out with him instead of staying home last night."

Shannon, who is also 24, said he had seen the video footage showing Olsen lying on the floor as a police officer throws an explosive device near him.

"It's terrible to go over to Iraq twice and come back injured, and then get injured by the police that are supposed to be protecting us," he said.

He said Olsen had served two tours of Iraq, in 2006 and 2007. Olsen was in 3rd Battalion, 4th Marines with Shannon before leaving the military in 2010.

Olsen moved to the San Francisco area in July and works for Opswat, a software company, living with Shannon in Daly City, just south of San Francisco.

Shannon said Olsen was hit in the head by a tear gas canister or smoke canister shot by a police officer. He said Olsen had a curved gash on his forehead.

Veterans for Peace said Olsen was "struck by a police projectile fired into a crowd in downtown Oakland".

"Police in the majority of cities are acting with restraint and humanity towards the encampments, but Veterans For Peace will not be deterred by police who choose to use brutal tactics," the organisation said in a statement.

Oakland police confirmed at a press conference that they used tear gas and baton rounds, but said they did not use flash bang grenades. Police could not be reached for comment, but Finneburgh, who said he had been "present in many protests" where flash bang grenades had been used, said they had been deployed.

Finneburgh said he had returned to where Olsen had originally lain injured later in the evening, and close to a pool of blood had found a beanbag round, apparently fired by police. The controversial projectile, a small fabric pillow filled with around 40 grammes of lead shot, is one of the most commonly used projectiles in US policing, though it was withdrawn for 18 years after a fatal incident in 1971.

• This article was amended on 27 October 2011. The original made one reference to Veterans for Police. This has been corrected.

YouTube footage with commentary:



Raw video (be warned: language):





I have family who are police and as such I've been unhappy with a lot of the anti-police rhetoric from the Occupy movement, but this sort of thing just makes me sick. I sincerely hope that there is a legitimate investigation and that the Oakland Police cooperate and are willing to follow through on any disciplinary action that is found to be necessary.