Politika u UK

[Dr Arslanagić]

Jeste, safe labour seat.

[MancMellow]

ALi svejedno su ubili

[Dr Arslanagić]

Jbt, neprijatno je koliko Gardijan cvili i skiči zbog Korbinove pobede. Nadam se da će, kada postane premijer i uspostavi sovjetsku republiku, nacionalizovati list i postaviti Ovena Džonsa za komesara.

[Budja]

Ne, nisu labour ubili nego:

- azijatska zajednica

- popularan lokalni "blairite" kandidat koji je podrzao Kendalovu

 

 

To je sada spin.

[bigvlada]

UK MOVIE PIRATES SENTENCED TO A TOTAL OF 17 YEARS

BY ANDY ON DECEMBER 18, 2015 

 

Five men who released thousands of movies onto the Internet have been handed sentences totaling more than 17 years. The men, all from the UK and members of release groups including 26K, RemixHD, DTRG and RESISTANCE, were accused of "putting at risk" more than £52m in Hollywood revenues.

 

Čekam da vidim koliko će im trebati vremena da dođu do francuskih pokušaja eliminacije neovlaćenog kopiranja intelektualne svojine pomoću giljotine. 

 

https://torrentfreak.com/uk-movie-pirates-sentenced-to-a-total-of-17-years-151218

Edited December 19, 2015 by bigvlada

[bigvlada]

ANTI-PIRACY EDUCATION ENTERS UK CLASSROOMS

• BY ANDY
•  
• ON  JANUARY 4, 2016
• C: 185

NEWS

 

A new component of the Creative Content UK initiative is set to discourage Internet piracy via the classroom. Encouraging students to think about who will pay for Vin Diesel's socks if everyone pirates movies, charity Into Film in partnership with The Industry Trust, The IPO and FACT have a lesson plan up their collective sleeves.

It took an awful long time to arrive but late 2014 the movie and music industries eventually reached agreement with the UK’s leading ISPs to send warnings to subscribers suspected of downloading content from file-sharing networks.

The warning scheme (which is currently notable only by its absence) is part of the Creative Content UK (CCUK) initiative which marries the ‘stick’ of direct-to-door warnings with a broader educational campaign focused on deterrence.

As previously reported the first campaign titled “Get It Right from a Genuine Site” used a colorful cartoon to encourage viewers to boycott ‘pirate’ sites in favor of those which pay licensing fees supporting the entertainment industries.

And now, at the start of a new year, CCUK’s latest initiative can be found on the Intellectual Property Office’s education site, which was launched under the ‘Cracking Ideas‘ brand last November.

Fronted by clay animation stars Wallace and Gromit, ‘Cracking Ideas’ is offering a lesson plan which asks 14-19 year old students to consider “the impact and ethics of film piracy, the consequences of downloading a film illegally and the impact of film piracy on the creative industries.”

Produced by education charity Into Film in partnership with The Industry Trust, The Intellectual Property Office and the Federation Against Copyright Theft, the lesson (titled “Vin Diesel’s Socks”) is built around a student-created anti-piracy PSA of the same name which questions who will fund the action star’s footwear if people pirate rather pay.

When placed side-by-side with ‘classics’ such as “You Wouldn’t Download a Car“, the change of tone is notable.

 

 

The lesson is centered around 18 slides with accompanying notes encouraging teachers and other educators to question students on issues including illegal uploading.

“Why do you think people distribute and upload films illegally? What do you think are the consequences of this activity?” one slide asks. Students are given time to think but are then offered these reasons.

 

SLIDE

 

It’s no real surprise that cash is put forward as the prime motivator, even though the country’s most recently jailed pirates made not a single penny from their activities. It is interesting, however, that the slide balances this with the honest statement that pirates often beat legitimate providers to the market, with pricing and availability.

Mirroring similar campaigns underway in the United States, the lesson also reinforces the notion that ‘pirate’ sites are dangerous places. It also falls back on the controversial ‘disappearing money’ argument that money not outlaid on movies is somehow not spent elsewhere in the economy.

But credit where it’s due. A later slide concedes that people who pirate content online are often the same people who pay to visit the cinema, buy DVDs and stream content from legitimate sources.

 

SLIDE

 

Later, students are asked to consider “Should things that are online be free?” and “Should you do things just because they are technologically possible?”

But what if students believe that piracy generates free buzz, that if they download something and rave about it to their friends, that will boost sales? The lesson’s covering notes provide guidance for teachers on how to respond.

“You may like to explain that creators of films, music or any other product should be in control of how they distribute their product. If they want to share it for free that is their choice, but illegal distribution removes that choice from the creator,” the notes suggest.

And, if students think that plenty of people still go to the cinema and film companies continue to make lots of money, the suggested response is as follows.

“You can suggest that it can take a long time for many films to make a profit and that unless people pay for the film at the cinema, online, on DVD etc, films will not cover their costs or make a profit, this will affect the quality and range of films that are made, and the career opportunities available in the film industry.”

But what if students get really tricky by suggesting that the film industry “is behind the times” by not serving those who want to watch movies as soon as they become available?

“You can suggest to students that some films are available online and on DVD at the same time as they are in the cinema, but that watching a film in the cinema is a different experience to watching it at home and many filmmakers and studios want their films to be an experience, and viewed in the optimum conditions. How a film is released and how much the creators charge for their product is their choice.”

In a later slide students are advised about being monitored online by copyright holders and the subsequent ISP warnings their activity might generate. Notably there is no mention of any punishments or references to breaking the law. The warnings are mentioned solely as a way to direct alleged infringers to legitimate content. This is a big change from past campaigns.

Finally, students are shown slides detailing the work of the Federation Against Copyright Theft but again there is little for them to feel threatened over. Instead, teachers are encouraged to explain that even pirates love movies.

“Explain that many people who access pirated film actually love film and want the industry to continue making great movies. If students love film, they should look for legal providers through Find Any Film next time. Play the Moments Worth Paying For/Star Wars: The Force Awakens trailer and ask students why they think film is worth paying for,” the notes to teachers conclude.

The Vin Diesel’s Socks lesson plan can be downloaded here.

This article has been updated to reflect that the lesson plan was produced by IntoFilm

 

http://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-education-enters-uk-classrooms-160104/

 

[Prospero]

[MayDay]

Kameron je bully iz osnovne škole sa ovim preporučivanjem Korbinu da kupi sebi proper odelo i kravatu. Sačuvaj Bože.

[Dr Arslanagić]

pa dobro, Korbin mu je pominjao majku

[adam]

nije korbin vec je neko iz redova laburista kad je kameron poceo da izvrdava pitanje viknuo - sta bi ti majka rekla? pa se ovaj nadovezao. moroncina. a majka je pominjana zato sto je pre par nedelja potpisala peticiju protiv smanjenja kinte za decu u lokalnoj jedinici kojom upravljaju konzervativci pa se proculo. korbin se nadovezao komentarom sta bi njegova majka rekla ali to je bilo posto je ovaj retard odlucio da mu ocita sto ne nosi odelo i ne peva himnu. 

 

evo clanka http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/08/david-camerons-mother-signs-petition-against-cuts-to-childrens-services

 

ima nesto i u kontekstu.

 

e, da - to je, baj d vej, bio kameronov odgovor na ozbiljno pitanje o problemima u zdravstvu. 

Edited February 25, 2016 by adam

[bigvlada]

'Kleptocracy tours' expose state failure to stop dirty money buying up London

Roman Borisovich

 

Why we started running trips to homes of the mega-rich that shed light on the offshore deals pushing up house prices

 

Wednesday 2 March 2016 08.40 GMT Last modified on Wednesday 2 March 2016 11.15 GMT

 

 

Curious sightseers have been flocking for tickets on a “kleptocracy tour” of London after a recent spate of publicity, hoping for a glimpse into the murky world of Russian oligarchs in the capital.

 

But providing an insight into the lifestyles of the super-rich was never our purpose.

 

Rather, the tour was designed to expose how billionaires from countries such as Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan have been allowed to buy London property with shady money and operate freely in our capital.

 

 

Mega-rich homes tour puts spotlight on London's oligarchs

 

More than 35,000 London properties have offshore owners, with no one knowing who they belong to or where the money came from.

 

During a tour of the most opulent of these our “guides”, all prominent investigative journalists and money-laundering experts, explain the role of the so-called enablers – bankers, lawyers, agents – who facilitate the transactions and describe how dirty money has flooded our bricks and mortar.

 

Running a guided tour of London wasn’t the first choice of anti-corruption campaigners such as myself. The idea arose after our campaign for greater transparency of property ownership ran into a stone wall of government inaction.

 

 

ClampK.org, the Committee for Legislation Against Money Laundering in Properties by Kleptocrats, was formed after my documentary, From Russia With Cash, was broadcast on Channel 4 last July. Sixteen major anti-corruption NGOs soon joined the initiative.

 

Less than three weeks later David Cameron announced that he was aware of the dirty money pouring into the capital, and vowed to fight it. But months have gone by without any progress by the government.

 

There are currently 36,342 offshore owned properties in London, and we don’t know who owns them

We needed to find a way to raise the problem of questionable cash coming into our city, much of it linked to money laundering operations thought to total billions of pounds a year.

 

But we couldn’t rely on the media because of the threat of legal battles. Despite the fact that our journalists used mostly public sources in their investigations, publishers are wary of reprinting accusations of potentially illegal sources of wealth.

 

Journalists need hard proof of ownership, yet the offshore companies these homes are registered to make it nearly impossible to figure out who they actually belong to.

 

Many also have so-called “nominee shareholders” acting on behalf of the real owners. Ownership can only be established if someone gets hold of the nominee agreement, but these papers are guarded away and treated as top secret.

 

There are currently 36,342 offshore-owned properties in London. In Westminster alone, we don’t know who owns one out of 10 properties. Not because we are rubbish investigators – rather the system of offshore corporate vehicles is designed for this purpose, so that the real proprietor cannot be traced.

 

This is exactly why criminals all over the world use offshore companies to hide the origin of their funds. The ease with which this can be done has turned many London properties into the reserve currency of international crime.

 

For example, Deutsche Bank research has shown that illegal capital flowing from Russia in the tens of billions of pounds a year has had a direct influence on the rise in property prices in London.

 

Inaction

 

Call to tighten UK's new property law to crack down on ‘dirty money’

 

The government has done very little to bring transparency. Under pressure from the media, they admitted to the existence of the problem and the need to subject offshore companies which own real estate assets in the UK to the same regulations as any domestic company: requiring them to disclose ownership. But sadly, the matter hasn’t progressed any further.

 

The lack of action from Number 10 is even more surprising given the Global Anti-Corruption Summit opening in London in May.

 

The government has had almost a year since we started campaigning to start a legislative reform process which could have resulted in a draft bill in time for the summit. Cameron could have shown how Britain is championing the global fight against corruption – but he has squandered the opportunity.

 

So it’s left to us, and projects like the Kleptocracy Tours, to try to jump-start the process of cleaning up offshore home ownership in London.

 

The next Kleptocracy Tour of London takes place on 12 April

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/02/kleptocracy-tours-russia-ukraine-london

 

Duga legalistička tradicija^tm.  -_-

[Dr Arslanagić]

 

[Prospero]

Princip "izađi i pojačaj ekipu"  


 

Brexit Is Not All Bad for the EU

Posted by: CATHERINE WOOLLARD
TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2016


As the drama over a possible British exit from the EU rumbles on, my belief that the UK should leave is reaffirmed. Not because I’m a Euroskeptic but, on the contrary, because I strongly support the EU. The risks for the EU of Britain leaving have been widely discussed and should not be underestimated, but there are also benefits for an EU without the UK. Resolving many of the EU’s current challenges requires deeper integration and collective action—and sensible reforms. None of this is possible with an obstructionist UK still in the club.

The EU has been operating in a state of crisis for eight years since the financial turmoil in 2008. The way out of this crisis lies in compliance with existing EU law, common solutions, and closer integration in many policy areas, most notably finance. Competent management of the EU’s challenges will do more than any slick visibility measure to restore the European public’s support.

The fundamental principles on which the EU was built have never been fully understood or accepted in the UK. These principles include the supremacy of EU law over national legislation and reduced sovereignty, which member states willingly cede in the interests of the common good.

Generally, with the exception of small minorities on the pro- and anti-EU sides, most of the British public was not particularly interested in the bloc. For years, opinion polls showed a slim majority of Brits in favor of continued membership, lots of undecideds, but a strong majority indifferent. Until it was conflated with immigration, tiny numbers considered Europe an important issue—3 percent at the time of the 2010 general election according to one poll; even as recently as 2015, only 13 percent considered the EU important.

True, the British public didn’t trust the EU institutions (only 20 percent did in 2010, according to a Eurobarometer survey), however Brits didn’t trust their own political institutions much more (around 25 percent). Now, the more prominent the Brexit debate becomes, the more the polls show the UK population turning against the EU. That is not surprising as many British sources of information are highly biased.

If the UK remains in the EU on the basis of the February 19 deal on the terms of the UK’s membership, which led British Prime Minister David Cameron to crow about “special status,” it would open up the prospect of each member state negotiating its own special status, a lethal version of variable geometry.

The deal risks imposing the UK’s vision of a looser union, not just a version that predates the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, but one that rejects the authority of EU law and the principle of equal treatment. In an era of nationalism, many leaders are ready to use a new principle of special treatment to their advantage. Indeed, the basis of nationalism is that one’s own nation is distinct from others and deserves preferential treatment. The EU will be locked in perpetual negotiations about the specialness of each member state as every national capital seeks to secure its own exclusions from the union’s common rules.

The unedifying spectacle of EU leaders discussing how to appease the UK’s Euroskeptics while desperate people fleeing the war-torn Middle East and North Africa drown in Europe’s seas is only the start. The vision of a two-speed EU with an inner core becomes more appealing, but even the EU’s armies of lawyers, think tankers, and academics, with their love of debates about EU organizational structures, will struggle to prepare an institutional design to put into practice a functional two-tier system.

The irony is that the deal the prime minister struck won’t work. Whatever its contents, how does Cameron plan to win the June 23 referendum on the UK’s EU membership with the virulently Euroskeptic British media shaping the debate in cahoots with the Euroskeptic elements of the political elite?

Cameron himself is hardly a persuasive advocate for membership. He wants the UK to remain in, but I’ve never heard him say a positive word about the EU—with the rare exception of the benefits of membership for Britain’s security. The tone and content of his speeches present the EU as a necessary evil at best; at worst, Europe and Europeans are the enemy, with Cameron promising to “lock and load” before going to Brussels and keep scroungers out of Britain at all costs. He often talks as though the UK has already left.

If the UK does leave, it is likely to break up, with the more pro-European Scotland voting for independence so it can rejoin the EU as a separate member state. That in turn opens up the question of UN reform. A diminished UK would have a tenuous grip on its permanent seat at the UN Security Council; the current situation is already palpably unjust. The disproportionate number of (male) British officials in senior UN positions could also be reviewed. Without its Five Eyes ally at the table, the United States would lose some of its influence on EU decisionmaking—no bad thing.

The UK government’s approach to the EU is characterized by an unpleasant nationalism, which interprets everything in terms of the greatness of Britain. The positive role that the UK has at times played as a promoter of international standards on human rights, development, and climate change has been eclipsed. According to the government, migrants want to come to the UK because of this greatness, not because of, say, the English language. A refugee fleeing the horrors of Syria or the externally generated chaos of Iraq and Afghanistan is likely to speak English as his or her only European language and thus to want to be in the UK to work, like most migrants. Family reunification and community support are also parts of migrants’ reasoning, rather than a desire to exploit the UK’s greatness.

Current strands of Euroskepticism also reflect a deeper antipathy toward multilateralism, based in part on a lack of international experience. Working in international environments provides direct experience of other forms of politics, such as the consensus-based decisionmaking that is part of EU practice. Multilateralism both contrastswith and tempers the adversarial and combative British political and legal traditions. Those who work for or with multilateral organizations are all too aware of their faults but also see their value, benefits, and necessity.
 
There is hardly a member of Cameron’s government who has ever worked outside London, and the influence of the internationalist Foreign and Commonwealth Office is vastly diminished. A nationalistic UK—deluded about its power, pursuing its own self-interest, and with an underlying antipathy toward Europe—is not a good EU member.

So Brexit is not all bad. The rest of the EU should work out how to take advantage of the UK’s departure, because it’s also inevitable.

[Hamlet Strašni]

 

Jel joj to devojacki govor

[Dr Arslanagić]

Ne, ovo je već treći gde ih buši za penzije. Razbija devojka, prirodni talenat. Imaš skoro sve snimke na tviteru.