Hundreds of confidential documents detailing the personal data of tax payers were discovered strewn on a busy roundabout.

Sensitive debt recovery papers containing names, addresses, money owed, monthly payments and court hearing dates were found by motorists blowing about in the breeze.

Letters to tax payers from council bailiffs chasing up unpaid tax bills were also found on Monday at the Gallows Corner roundabout in Romford, Essex.

The documents, which date from 1992 to June this year, should have been destroyed by Havering Council.

Car shop worker Colin Iszatt told how he gathered up more than 50 documents outside the shop. He slammed the council's blunder, saying it left tax payers open to fraud.

He said: 'I couldn't believe what I was seeing. There were hundreds and hundreds of these papers flying down the road.

'What chance have we got against fraud when they're doing this? It's unforgivable.'

Havering Council has launched an urgent investigation but could not answer how the papers came to be at the roadside.

A spokesman said it was 'a relatively small amount of data' despite claims hundreds of documents were found.

Havering Council's assistant chief executive Christine Dooley said: 'I am taking this incident extremely seriously and apologise to anyone whose detail may have been lost.

'As soon as we were informed, a team was sent to inspect the site and recover any further material.

'I have launched an immediate investigation into how this occurred and will take whatever action is necessary to prevent it happening again.

Council Labour leader Coun Keith Darvill criticised the gaffe, adding: 'It would be embarrassing if details got into the wrong hands. Information like this should be shredded.

'It's very disappointing to see that happen and the council needs to tighten up procedures.'

Michael Parker, a spokesman for privacy campaign group NO21D, said it was unacceptable that such documents had not been disposed of properly by the council.

He said: 'Especially documents relating to court appearances should be treated with the same respect and vigilance as you would treat cash, because in the wrong hands that information could ruin your life.

'If the council is going to make a habit of collecting this information, it had better make sure it knows how to deal with it.'

Tomislav Nikolic went too far for party hardliners

The head of the main opposition party in Serbia has resigned after senior colleagues refused to back the country's efforts to join the EU.

Tomislav Nikolic had recently persuaded his Serbian Radical Party to approve the ratification of an important agreement with the European Union.

But there was a party revolt over the issue, with critics saying it meant abandoning Serbia's claim to Kosovo.

Kosovo unilaterally declared itself independent from Serbia this year.

Mr Nikolic had steered his party towards the centre of Serbian politics, focusing on social issues such as unemployment and poverty, rather than the militant nationalism of the past.

Mr Nikolic is officially the deputy president of the party as its leader, Vojislav Seselj is facing charges at the international war crimes tribunal in The Hague.

His endorsement of the Stability and Association Agreement, signed earlier this year but still awaiting ratification by the Serbian Parliament, was a bridge too far for many of his party colleagues, our correspondent says.

A meeting of the party leadership on Friday night reversed the decision to endorse the agreement with Brussels.

Mr Nikolic resigned in protest, both from his position as de facto leader of the party, and as the head of its group in parliament.

The parliamentary vote on the agreement with the European Union is expected next week.

Telegraph: EU wants to ban 'sexist' TV commercials -- Adverts which use sex to sell or promote gender stereotypes could be banned by the EU by Chris Irvine

Swedish MEP Eva-Britt Svensson urged Britain and other members to use existing equality, sexism and discrimination laws to control advertising.

She wants regulatory bodies set up to monitor ads and introduce a "zero-tolerance" policy against "sexist insults or degrading images".

Ms Svensson said: "Gender stereotyping in advertising straitjackets women, men, girls and boys by restricting individuals to predetermined and artificial roles that are often degrading, humiliating and dumbed down for both sexes."

She added: "Gender stereotyping in advertising is one of several factors that have a big influence in efforts to make society more gender equal.

"When women and men are portrayed in a stereotypical way the consequence may be that it becomes difficult in other contexts to see women and men's resources and abilities."

Yes, when I see a half naked chick trying to sell me perfume, I have a difficult time seeing the "resources and abilities" of other women. On the contrary, I wish to see more of her "resources and abilities."

I'd love to see what standards are used to determine what is "degrading" and what is an "insult."

Fear not, however. The self-appointed experts always know what is best for the rest of the world.

As you may have heard, the EU declined to include the "European perspective" phrase in an agreement that the Brussels is scheduled to sign with Kyiv at the EU-Ukraine summit in Evian, France on September 9th.  Instead, the EU will acknowledge: "the European aspirations of Ukraine" and will leave "open the way for further progressive developments in EU-Ukraine relations."  The difference is one of depth and level of commitment.

The latter phrases allow the EU to remain, at least nominally, engaged with Ukraine, but unambiguously refuting any idea of a prospective membership in the European Union.  The former phrase (i.e. European perspective) would identify Ukraine's EU aspirations as something more than a hypothetical idea.

What's your point?

To myself, I thought that this is not surprising.  With the EU still digesting the 2004 and 2007 enlargement waves, experiencing the Romania-Bulgaria fatigue syndrome, and dealing with an internal problem caused by Ireland's vote against the Lisbon constitution treaty, any talk of further enlargement perspective for other states, especially those like Ukraine with 46 million citizens or Turkey with 70 million, must be nauseating.  Although, smaller states, like Serbia with a population of 7 million, have a more realistic perspective as we have recently learned from Mr. Barroso; Julien Frisch disagrees.

But I guess I was wrong.  It's not because of the above.  It's actually something entirely not related to the EU.

The reason that the EU decided against recognizing the "European perspective"of Ukraine is, because of the recent break-up of that country's ruling coalition, according to an EU diplomat (Ukr. via Neeka's Backlog) on the inside of the EU-Ukraine negotiations.

It's really that simple.  You see the Ukrainians - some would argue because of their political culture - undid their own chances at a closer relationship with the EU.  Here is what the diplomat said (rough translation; original in Ukrainian here):

The shortsightedness of your politicians is surprising. Up until as late as Wednesday, Ukraine's prospects were quite good to have included in the political section of the Association Agreement such statements as: "on the basis of shared values and Ukraine's European choice" and "will be open." However, now they are scratched off.

I agree that politicians are shortsighted.  Being rational actors, there are large incentives to maximize their self-interest in the short-term than over a long run.  Thus, that's not much of a criticism to say that "your politicians" are shortsighted.  Are the EU politicians well known for their long-term thinking?

Furthermore it is puzzling why the withdrawal of one section from the ruling coalition, and the consequent potential for a pre-term election is NOT an example of shared values between the EU and Ukraine.  As a democracy with competitive, free and fair elections, Ukraine is attempting to find an institutional solution that will accommodate all of its political actors.

It is a democratic process through which every democratic state must pass through if it is to move beyond the adjective - "transitional."  Well consolidated democracies, such as Canada and Japan are currently going through the same coalition formation/pre-term election process, and Belgium in the past year took 196 days to form a coalition, which almost beat their 1977 record of 208 days.

Thus, it would seem that what Ukraine is going through right now SHARES quite a bit with the European values.  It is unfortunate that some in the EU instead of owning up to their true reasons (i.e. fatigue enlargement and internal constitutional crisis) prefer to shift the blame on the other party in the negotiations.

May I suggest to the reader a small book by one Harry G Frankfurt titled - On Bullshit?

• Image credit:  User:Serhiy on Wikimedia Commons; license:  GNU Free Documentation License.

As my regular readers will observe I am not only taking a Russia-friendly approach on my blogs but I am posting articles which are actively calling for the European Union to build and strengthen a rapport with the Russian Federation as a friend and partner of the EU.

Ex-chancellor Gerhardt Schroeder is right to see Russia's destiny to be with the European Union. Moreover, I would like to see the Russian Federation join the EU but recognise that to be a pipe-dream, at least for now. Firstly, the EU would feel threatened by the prospect of its huge neighbour swamping the rest and secondly, the US would never allow such a threat to its global, imperial pretensions to materialise.

The present danger that we face in Europe is not from Russia but from the continued trouble-making instigated by self-serving neocons ensconced in the White House and their errand-boys in Downing Street and the east European EU. These fifth-columnists are on the payroll of US imperialism and have no wish to see a united Europe developing a foreign policy independently of the US. They would rather that the EU take on a 'Euro-Atlantic' role together with Washington's cat's paw, NATO, under US global military-economic hegemony.

Any sane person would see that such an arrangement, the present status quo, not only results in the destabilising of European security --as we have seen recently result in the Caucasus-- but that it puts Europe under the constant threat of regional war exacerbated and provoked by US interference. Saakashvili is not the only madman to have wheedled his way into power in eastern Europe. There are other narrow-minded fanatics and opportunists, for example in Poland, the Czech Republic and the Ukraine, who would be more than willing to do the bidding of neocon bosses in the USA to bring destruction upon the heads of Europeans.

Some of us remember how the US planned its nuclear strategy in the 'eighties to include a European Theatre of War, meaning a 'limited' nuclear exchange with the old Soviet Union to include Europe and not the north American continent. That threat led to the growth of a huge Peace Movement in Europe and an equal loss of US popularity. It is ironic that the US appears to be free now to develop its First Strike nuclear doctrine of 'Compellance' with the installation of the ABM missile shield (more of that anon) with no such resistance from Europeans.

The ABM shield is certainly not popular either amongst the people of Poland or the Czech Republic where public opinion is simply being ignored by opportunist, pro-US governments. While crowing about the need for representative democracy amongst others, the Atlanticists' own record in that concern is, to say the least, deplorable. While ruthless imperialism by war criminals is ok for the Good Guys of the West where Might is Right the slightest sign of the East's approaching western atrocities is noisily denounced. It's all rather yawningly tiresome.

At least one Russian strategist is warning us that the conflict in the Caucasus is by no means over and that the mischief-makers in Washington DC will now be looking to cause a bigger crisis in the Ukraine which could lead to civil war and a confrontation between Russia and the West. As well as that, the ongoing threat of a surprise attack by the US proxy, Israel, with or without support from the US military during the time prior to the November presidential election, puts us all on a Red Alert.

The need for a collective, friendly European initiative towards Russia is now needed urgently. As France's Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner, is reported to have said the other day in respect of our need to build a common alliance with Russia:

"We have to be together. The US have their own views, but we are living close to Russia. We need to develop our own policy, a neighbouring policy. We have to talk about our views of being close to Russia, a great country, a partner."

Kouchner, of course, is absolutely right. It's not surrender-monkey talk but that of the pragmatic, classic diplomacy for which while France is traditionally famed is anathema to the fanatics who still rule the dual-party, opposame dictatorship in the USA. Kouchner, all credit to him, speaks as a European, unlike the traitorous Brown and Miliband who will happily sell out the interests of their own people in order to ensure a continued political sodomy by their American minders.

It's time to cut the crap and deal with matters of survival. The hour is already very, very late. Homegrown Europhobes who continue to bleat about a 'fascist EU state' are their and our worst enemy. For all their talk about a loss of 'sovereign' powers the reality is that they would rather Britain forsake its European partners to continue as a vassal state of Washington DC, serving the warmongering interests of the notorious Anglo-American fraternities responsible for the deaths of 70 million Europeans in two world wars.

So which is it to be, fellow Britons? Will you, as Europeans, choose a common destiny where Europe and Russia coexist together in peace or are you prepared, through inaction, to allow your quisling leaders continue with a diabolical 'special relationship' which has caused so much bloodshed and misery on this war-torn Planet? The time to decide has come and the time for dithering is ended.

Which is it to be?

Rory Winter, New Civilization

When everybody's eyes are concentrated on the Caucasian matter and when almost everybody still wonders if there is any possibility of another split in the Balkans, the Europeans don't realize what's happening on their own background. Of course as a matter of fact there is no war in Belgium (only political) but there is a serious problem that rises the tension in EU.

The problem that occurred in Belgium is from the first view a common European problem, the 'rich' Flemish part of Belgium is in an conflict with the 'poor' French speaking part. We had that already in Europe, the rich Catalonia region granted autonomy in Spain, the case fo Northern Italy and the 'poor' South, West-Germany paying off the post-communistic states etc. Although this time it's different.

The conflict started by economic reasons, turned into a fierce political 'war'. The northern region Flanders is the rich motor of Belgium's economy. The Flemish consider them self as an ethnic group, even more as an nation. The same counts for the southern part Wallonia which is actually french speaking, and many citizens consider them self French. Nobody agrees that there is a Belgian nation, there is a common believe on both sides that the country and the nation is an artificial product. The Wallonians consider a division, even more there are talks about joining France. The French political scene spoke with one voice, that is is the personal matter of Belgium, but if something like this happens France could accept Wallonia.

After the last elections Belgium still has problems with establishing a stable government. I'm wondering how will the rest of the EU union react of the fact of the division in Belgium. I mean after accepting Kosovo? Still Europe today is on a strong integration path, the policy is all about uniting around the European Union (Schengen etc). So it is really ironically that in country that has the capitol of the European Union - Brussels, they are talking about dividing not uniting.

Then there is also the matter of other regions, like the Basque country in Spain, or Scotland in the U.K.? We can not decide about other people independence and every nation has it rights to sovereignty, but where will this policy bring us?

Will Europe ever have a chance to race with superpowers such as the USA, China, India? Not even we go on like this...

MP

In reality, the new "soft" cold war appears to already be in full swing. Spectacular propaganda battles over conflict in S. Ossetia  expose large divide in East-West intellectual culture.

Media Wars

The rightfulness of military response to Georgian aggression and the decision to recognize Abkhazia and S. Ossetia is virtually unchallenged in Russian media. On the other hand mainstream Western reporting sees Russia exclusively as an aggressor and Georgia as the victim. This view is taken as given, and deviations where Georgia is seen as aggressor and S. Ossetia as victim are frowned upon and virtually nonexistent. A FOX interview with a twelve year old Ossetian girl went into commercials and was cut short when she broke the taboo.

When it comes to media wars, Russia has so far failed to convince the West that it acted in good faith, more or less.

U.S. Geopolitics in Europe

Most alarming is the U.S. foreign policy offensive in Europe which followed the conflict. Russia and the U.S. fought proxy wars before, but never since the late 80s the U.S. so boldly supported regimes which are in conflict with Russia. Recent $1 bln U.S. aid package to Georgia, Cheny's lobbying in Ukraine, militarizing Poland and the Baltic states, as well as NATO naval presence in the Black Sea are all one major poke in the eye for Moscow. Imagine Vladimir Putin travel to Canada to offer "protection", set up Russian interceptor missiles in Mexico and send Russian fleet to within reach of American cities, to see why. Needless to say that Russia is disappointed especially after it closed down radar site in Cuba, military bases in Vietnam and Europe as act of goodwill towards old cold war foe in the 90s.

Sadly many European nations seem to have failed to pursue independent policy towards Russia. Thanks to support mainly from Italy and France, the EU did not go beyond verbal condemnation of conflict in Georgia, but virtually no EU states aligned themselves with the Russian point of view. Russia now appears politically isolated and on geopolitical defensive from U.S.-led NATO advance in Europe.

Some European governments show staggering determination to advance current U.S. foreign interests without much popular support at home. Poland agreed to place U.S. missiles on its soil and rearm the military amid criticism (BBC Russian) that the costs vastly outweigh the benefits. Ukraine is seeking NATO membership amid opposition of almost 80% of population. The fact that current Bush administration extensively supports the present government in Ukraine makes one wonder whether the aim is really advancing democracy.

Latin America

Nicaragua is one of the first to recognize independence of S. Ossetia and Abkhazia. The U.S. worked hard to drive socialist Sandinista government out of power in Nicaragua in late Cold War days (and was found guilty of supporting terrorism (the Contras) by International Court of Justice for doing so). By openly aligning with Russia, Nicaragua may hint at its willingness to help project geopolitical power in Latin America should tensions further escalate between the East and the West.

del.icio.us :: Digg it :: Newsvine :: Reddit :: Facebook

If Finland is not at war with Iraq, what is it that these Finns fear so much?

The Yale social psychologist on the program said that if we fear our interpretation of outsiders becomes rigid.

He sums it up well, when the clerk actor refused to serve a Muslim. He explains why some stood up against the clerk: "They saw an injustice. It is justice that binds us together. It is justice that makes us a society. Any threat to that kind of justice and fairness undermines the entire system."

There is also another disturbing aspect in the program: 13 stood up for the Muslim woman, 6 sided with the clerk, and 22 said nothing.

What do you think would have been the results if the same program would have been done in Finland?

For those who fear Muslims, I dedicate this video clip.

Attribution for this article has been given at the foot to this journal. The article presented here is in my own words and includes a personal testimony: 

BRITAIN requires stronger laws in how it sets limits on how genetic-data can be used. This is a view that is gaining widespread support.

Some years ago, when visiting the UK, President Clinton took advantage of a photo opportunity by drinking some real ale in a local English pub. After the president left, one of his security guards paid for the beer, adding the price of the glass and carefully sliding it into an open holdall. It is quite possible that the president's cohorts and protectors feared that someone might just send his saliva off for DNA analysis and sell the genetic information to an external source.

If so, their fears could have been well-founded. A couple of years ago, it emerged that Kirk Kerkorian, a wealthy US businessman, had hired the services of a private investigator to steal the dental floss from the rubbish bucket of Hollywood producer Steve Bing to test the DNA. Kerkorian alleged that Mr. Bing was the father of his former wife's daughter.

In another case, the Burlington North and Sante Fe railroad company, within America, agreed to pay compensation to employees over tests done without their permission to see whether they were genetically disposed to carpel tunnel syndrome, which is associated with repetitive strain injury (RSI).

Both these cases were the subjects of civil legal proceedings. But, does civil law provide us with enough protection against the theft or improper use of our DNA?

In the United Kingdom, the Human Genetics Commission - a Government advisory body - has often concluded that is does not. The Commission recommended that the government make it a criminal offence to surreptitiously or deceitfully collect or use genetic information. Whilst the British Government has passed some legislative measures along these lines, it is expected that other countries, too, might follow suit, soon. There is, though, an increasing need to protect people from a range of more subtle, but no less damaging, abuses of personal genetic information. Consider medical research. Recently, in the largest project of its kind worldwide, researchers in the UK began looking for over half a million ordinary middle-aged people who were willing to contribute to medical research by donating DNA samples, lifestyle information and access to their medical records. The result is in building up a Biobank, a vast collection of DNA sequences and health records that researchers will be able to trawl to trace the genes and lifestyle factors that cause so many of our killer diseases.

The writer confirms that an approach had been made to me personally, in contributing such information, although I later declined to take part. It is, though, a wonderful opportunity to contribute to pioneering research but, those who volunteer will want to be sure that their liberties will be protected. Any agency holding DNA on an individual can reveal an enormous amount of pesonal information on that individual, some of which might not be that obvious to the unsuspecting eye. Existing case law is not reassuring. In the case of W vs. Edgell, for example, a patient at a secure hospital was applying for release and his solicitors sought psychiatric reports from Dr Edgell to support the application. Edgell was so convinced that the applicant was mad and dangerous that he released his report to the tribunal without W's consent. The High Court decided that the public interest outweighed W's privacy.

So, medical researchers cannot guarantee that the identity of Biobank participants would be protected in all circumstances. Criminal investigation warrants could override them. There could be other circumstances, too, in which immunity might not be safeguarded. The public interest test in which individual privacy might be breached is only really testable through a court of law except provisions altready made clear.

PRESENT CLIMATE

At the present time, the needs and demands of law enforcers seem to trump all others, especially in the UK. Why, for example, is the British DNA forensic database the largest in the world? The answer to that would appear to be that the law in the UK permits the police to take and retain DNA samples from everyone who is arrested, even those who are not charged. Huge numbers of people picked up by the police in their youth but never convicted of any crime will remain on the DNA database for life.

Members of the public know that to refuse to consent to a voluntary sample awakens suspicions. Yet no mechanism exists for someone to apply for removal of the sample later.

Why should we be alarmed that police or other investigators might have sight of our private records if we are decent law-abiding folk? Well, as the DNA database grows, so too does the risk of the innocent people whose DNA is stored on it being wrongly convicted as a result of cross-contamination or errors arising through the testing process. Once there is access, even for authorised police purposes, there is the risk of information leaking. If police officers sell information to tabloid newspapers, they will be just as likely to do so to insurance companies and employers.

If a DNA sample at the scene of a crime shows the offender carries the gene for a rare disease, could there be a trawl of DNA databases for individuals with that particular gene? Could DNA samples held for forensic purposes end up being subject to further tests for research?

Canada and France have already passed laws to prevent the retention of samples from persons acquitted of a crime, and in both jurisdictions samples from juvenile offenders will be destroyed once the young person reaches adulthood, so long as they remain crime-free for a set period of time. In the United States, the FBI expressed amazement at the legislation in force in the UK. They are certain that the American public, even now, would find such inroads into civil liberties wholly unacceptable, despite their enthusiasm for controlling crime.

Why doesn't the British public find it unacceptable too?

© Mark Dowe 2008: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com

- This site is non-commercial with no intent on raising revenue or publicity from advertising.

Reference and Attribution:

• Helena Kennedy QC: "Just Law: The changing face of justice - and why it matters to us all"

- Helena Kennedy is a leading human rights lawyer and has chaired the Human Genetics Commission

TEHRAN (FNA)- Tehran on Friday rejected remarks by French President Nicolas Sarkozy who termed Iran's nuclear program a threat to the region and the whole world.

"Nuclear weapons have no place in Iran's defense doctrine," Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hassan Qashqavi said.

Sarkozy on Thursday asked his Syrian counterpart Bashar al-Assad to play a stronger role in the standoff over Iran's nuclear program.

Sarkozy acknowledged Iran's right to have nuclear power, but meantime, stressed that the Iranian nuclear program would be a threat to the region and the whole world, implying that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

The United States and its Western allies accuse Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian nuclear program, while they have never presented any corroborative document to substantiate their allegations. Iran denies the charges and insists that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.

Tehran stresses that the country has always pursued a civilian path to provide power to the growing number of Iranian population, whose fossil fuel would eventually run dry.

Iran is under three rounds of UN Security Council sanctions for turning down West's calls to give up its right of uranium enrichment, saying the demand is politically tainted and illogical.

Iran has so far ruled out halting or limiting its nuclear work in exchange for trade and other incentives, saying that renouncing its rights under the NPT would encourage world powers to put further pressure on the country and would not lead to a change in the West's hardline stance on Tehran.

Iran insists that it should continue enriching uranium because it needs to provide fuel to a 300-megawatt light-water reactor it is building in the southwestern town of Darkhoveyn as well as its first nuclear power plant in the southern port city of Bushehr.

Iran has already launched studies for the construction of 6 more nuclear power plants throughout the country.

Tehran has repeatedly said that it considers its nuclear case closed as it has come clean of IAEA's questions and suspicions about its past nuclear activities.

Analysts believe that the US is at loggerheads with Iran mainly due to the independent and home-grown nature of Tehran's nuclear technology, which gives the Islamic Republic the potential to turn into a world power and a role model for other third-world countries. Washington has laid much pressure on Iran to make it give up the most sensitive and advanced part of the technology, which is uranium enrichment, a process used for producing nuclear fuel for power plants.

Washington's push for additional UN penalties contradicts a recent report by 16 US intelligence bodies that endorsed the civilian nature of Iran's programs. Following the US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) and similar reports by the IAEA head - one in November and the other one in February - which praised Iran's truthfulness about key aspects of its past nuclear activities and announced settlement of outstanding issues with Tehran, any effort to impose further sanctions or launch military action against Iran seems to be completely irrational.

The February report by the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, praised Iran's cooperation in clearing up all of the past questions over its nuclear program, vindicating Iran's nuclear program and leaving no justification for any new UN sanctions.

The February report by the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, praised Iran's cooperation in clearing up all of the past questions over its nuclear program, vindicating Iran's nuclear program and leaving no justification for any new UN sanctions.

The UN nuclear watchdog has also carried out at least 14 surprise inspections of Iran's nuclear sites so far, but found nothing to support West's allegations.

The Vienna-based UN nuclear watchdog continues snap inspections of Iranian nuclear sites and has reported that all "declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities."

Many world nations have called the UN Security Council pressure against Iran unjustified, especially in the wake of recent IAEA reports, stressing that Tehran's case should be normalized and returned to the UN nuclear watchdog due to the Islamic Republic's increased cooperation with the agency.

EU Foreign Ministers are calling for an international inquest into identifying who was responsible for starting the conflict in South Ossetia.

They made the statement in the French city of Avignon, where they have gathered for an informal meeting.

The ministers said the EU needed to re-evaluate its foreign policy, particularly in relation to Washington. French FM Bernard Kouchner said U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney was not America’s best ambassador

"The very fact that Americans didn't find anything else to support their failed ally - Mr. Saakashvili - other than sending Mr. Cheney to the region, who is incredibly unpopular in the world, who is associated with the war in Iraq, with all these neo-conservative, black-and-white visions of the world, who was accused of corruption - remember the Halliburton affair in Iraq. And if they wanted, if the Bush administration really wanted to consolidate the international community behind the United States in criticising Russia, I think they should find somebody else and not send Mr. Cheney," Kouchner said.

He also said the European Union should develop a joint approach to Russia.

"We have to be together. The U.S. have their own views, but we are living close to Russia. We need to develop our own policy, a neighbouring policy. We have to talk about our views of being close to Russia, a great country, a partner," he said.

The ministers are also debating when and under what terms civilian monitors will be sent to Georgia. EU is about to send 700 observers to the region.

A discussion on delivering humanitarian aid and restoring Georgia’s economy is also on the agenda.

The meeting comes just four days after an emergency summit in Brussels, at which EU leaders denounced Russia's recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

To watch the full press-conference of French FM, Bernard Kouchner, and other EU foreign ministers, please follow link.

International parliamentarians visit South Ossetia

Meanwhile, an international parliamentary delegation is already in South Ossetia. The main goal of the trip is to clarify the sequence of recent events in the region.

The group consists of members of parliament and public representatives from several European and CIS countries.

They will be joined by a delegation from Russia.

The officials will meet local residents, before heading to the neighbouring republic of North Ossetia, which hosted large numbers of refugees after the conflict.

Most pirates do not belong to the group of organized bootlegging warehouses where music CDs and DVDs get copied; most pirates are the people who send their friend a song, the people who watch an episode of Prison Break on a lonely, rainy evening).

Piracy has developed with breakthroughs in technology which have allowed for it to be a possibility, and conditions of goods and services and the markets which allow for it to thrive.

As piracy is technology dependent, it is more accessibly, and dare-I-say understandable to youths. There are many youths who don’t take drugs, a few even stay away from legal drugs (cigarettes)- but the percentage of youths with access to a computer and internet who haven’t or will not break copyright laws before they’re of voting age is approximately equal to zero.

[gallery]Even as you go into the 18 to 35 age group this statistic still approximates zero. In older age groups this probably tends to increase to around 30%- but over time this will also creep down. By obvious association, we are all not good people.

What’s on every (pirate’s) mind is “how can we expect the European legislators to understand any of this; they are too old to know what an MP3 is.” Surely young pirates they may not understand as well as you, but they do have knowledge enough. Most of them have had some sort of song sent to them, movie, episode of TV series, or why not have seen their favourite video clip on youtube. If not they themselves personally, their kids have forced it on them by saying “daddy, mummy, listen to this song… or come watch this really nice movie with me, I’ve set it up on the 54 inch screen in the living room!” The problem young pirates, is that these European legislators are obviously under tremendous pressure to defend economic interests. And a healthy economy is key to… well everything- so their duty is in fact to choose right over wrong and not popular over unpopular.

The main questions that should be asked about this subject are:

a)      What is the real economic effect of piracy at national and international levels

b)      Why has piracy penetrated our societies to such an extent, and

c)       What should be done about this and how

What is the real economic effect of piracy at national and international levels?

Starting with the ever-important economic effect of piracy, I’ll be brief and not go into what a devastating effect it has on various entertainment markets and industries, including advertising. The reason I won’t go into it is because it’s a bunch of... inaccuracies. 

Studies on the economic effect on the industries take the route most effective in PR campaigns, and measure how much money would be generated if all the pirated material all over the world was purchased legally instead of illegally. Well that’s just useless. A 16 year-old who has after a couple of months downloaded 850 movies (many of which he’ll never watch), 98 full television series (likewise), and 6349 full music albums (5900 of which he’ll never listen to, and 250 of which he’ll only listen to once) is obviously not costing the industries €842,000. A sixteen year old is probably costing the industry around €5,000 in the course of his lifetime. The figure of €842,000 would also increase 100-fold in his lifetime. So that brings us to a ratio of… Some decimal you get when you divide 5 thousand by 842 billion. This is clearly hyperbole, but the aim is to show the paradox of blaming a teen for hundreds of thousands of industry losses when he could probably not afford to spend more than a couple of hundred in a year (if he saved up and didn’t have many other hobbies).

                And seriously- the money that the little guy (or girl) didn’t spend on going to the movies was spent going ice-skating, bowling, or why not on a new Sony PSP. So to point out the obvious, the industry is suffering, but money does not disappear, it gets spent ELSEWHERE! So yes; the industries will have to readapt, and from a more macro perspective there is a shift between industries (for example people will spend less on going to the movies or buying CDs, but more on electronic goods, or why not on locally produced goods and services). In the short term some industries suffer, and some boom. Economically speaking – this is what happens anyway; the predictability of piracy should make the transitions easier and less hurtful. And well, if you do a little soul-searching, you might not mind that Brad Pitt gets paid a little less for his next movie, or Michael Jackson has to sell off his ranch worth millions. Yes it’s not great that less actors and musicians will make less money, but the man serving ice-cream down the street might get a tip. The youth might choose to get a Live Strong bracelet instead. The money won’t disapeer; back into the economy it will go. Even leaving this line of rationale for a second... are people ignoring the fact that 2007 set a new box-office record?

 Why has piracy penetrated our societies to such an extent?

Surely there’s scientific explanations, ranging from economic to sociological, to psychological needs to break the law. My personal opinion is that there are three factors:

Ease of control of pirated content. The content can be played, stopped, and manipulated at will. Copy, paste, structure folders in accessible manner for easy retrieval later. Subscriber services have now made it easier to buy songs, movies and episodes of TV series, but none compare to the ease of a simple file you can locate and move around. A file you can play on any program you choose, with whatever player you can squeeze it into or out of.

Easy-going time schedule. Missed the Oscars? Download them from notorious sites like the pirate bay the next morning and you haven’t missed a thing. Want to listen to Frank Sinatra? Can’t find the CD? Is it scratched? Search your MP3s and make it happen, or play a copy youtube hasn’t located and removed yet. It doesn’t matter what’s on TV- because you can just watch it in your bed with your laptop rather than in your living room. Want to see the new James Bond? Are you a hard-working senior member of a European political party who is simply too busy to spend time driving to the movies, finding a rare parking spot and waiting in queues for a ticket? Stream-it, download it, or just ask a friend who works in the Commission or the Parliament (they have GREAT internet  connections there).

No Ads! Everybody watches TV from time to time- especially for the football matches, or during the Olympics which happen to take place on a different continent. And it is at these times that we remember how much we hate not being able to control what we want and don’t want to watch. People don’t want to be sold stuff when they are eager to see whether Dr. House manages to cure the man who was allergic to water. People just want to see what happened!

The fact of the matter is that if people only consumed pirated music, series, movies, software, the companies making it couldn’t afford to pay the bills, and the industries would die, leaving consumers with nothing to consume.

One could argue however that free music trade means more fans for the artists- leading to more tickets sold at concerts. Sure it will mean a significant paycut for Madonna- but I’d rather have 10 popular artists with free music trade than 1 popular artist with people paying for music, even if it mean a significant income reduction (we’re still talking at least six figures a year here- don’t get upset) in that one record selling star.

One could argue that spending $100 million on a movie is kind of a waste, and that there’s clearly better things to do with the money. Also- in a world where free content distribution was legal and easily monitored, product placement could compensate for advertising revenue lost.

Software can also be fixed, but non-paying customers seeing small post-stamp sized advertisements on the top of their Microsoft Word.

What should be done about this and how?

Clearly from my writing it appears that I am pro-piracy. Well I can’t help it, it’s like a primal instinct. That doesn’t however mean that I don’t recognize that I’m wrong in feeling this way. If something is wrong, we need to fix it, or re-assess whether it is in fact wrong. Although I was determined to write about how we should take steps to change the way people perceive piracy so they don’t do it, I’m finding it increasingly hard to think this way after reading over this text.
What we should do is think long and hard before we start sending kids to jail for passing songs to their friends (or indeed Political personalities for watching a pirated movie on the plane). Yes, I’m sure that it’s not right for everybody to be a pirate, but I’m also sure that I’d rather everyone was a pirate and the streets be clean of drugs and violence than having resources devoted to stopping piracy. Support the industries to transform into entities that can initially be sustainable, and later thrive on piracy.

Dream on young pirates, dream on…

RESPONDING to Yurii Ruban, former Deputy First Minister of Ukraine, in an article entitled, "Crisis in Kiev", that appeared on the website of the Guardian Newspaper, dated Friday 5^th September 2008.

Mr. Ruban writes:

... The outlook for Ukraine is stormy, but the country's not about to split apart. Instead, a complex political dance is unfolding

Writing in response (amended):

VIKTOR YUSHCHENKO, Ukraine's President, threatened to call a snap parliamentary election because the parliament is trying to cut-back his powers. But, this is probably connected to that fact that Mr. Yushchenko had earlier accused the prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, of "treason" for not criticising Russia's military attack on the tiny mountain enclave of South Ossetia, during the recent conflict between the warring sides. Russia has since, though, admitted the independence of Georgia after claims of "territorial integrity" were dropped.

The Ukraine is a difficult issue because more than half of its citizens see themselves as of Russian origination, the Ukraine simply being an extension of their homeland. Ukraine remains a political hot potatoe as Nato and the EU tempt Ukraine in joining their membership; such moves will test the patience of Russia to the full. Issues over Ukraine will likely anger the Kremlin much more than Georgia ever could.

... The president has been clear that he sees the Black Sea fleet's continued presence as an anachronism.

Anachronistic is certainly key language. I think this point is worth bearing out a little.

For example, is the build-up of NATO warships in the Black Sea a provocative action or a routine naval presence engaged in nothing out of the ordinary? If we examine more closely the military logistics it is easily determined that US and other NATO warships outnumber the Russian vessels but, according to the alliance's military headquarters at Mons (Belgium), the six ships are all involved in pre-planned training, to which the Russians themselves broke away from after Nicholas Sarkozy, the French EU President, called the emergency EU summit meeting last Monday which angered the Kremlin. The Russians were angered because the summit was called in addressing ‘what should be done with Russia after its military campaign in Georgia'.

The Russians have reacted in ways not probably fully envisaged. They dispatched one guided missile cruiser, the Moskva, and two missile boats to the port of Sukhumi because, put simply, the Western naval presence in the Black Sea appears threatening to Russia. In counter-balancing, yet further, Russia is said to be mounting three destroyers, two frigates, five corvettes and scores of missile boats at the Sevastopol naval base leased from Ukraine. Anachronistic?

UKRAINE's latest period of political turmoil comes at a crucial time for the country. Following the recent Georgia-Russia war, Ukraine's discernment and anxiety of insecurity couldn't be any higher: relations with Russia are fraught and there are added fears, too, that Ukraine's own "territorial integrity" might be called into question. Political uncertainty in Ukraine, though, will be more beneficial for Russia because it will make it extremely difficult for the US and its allies in supporting Ukraine's application to join NATO.

Economic conditions in Ukraine are deteriorating. Inflation remains exceedingly high at 26.9%, and it is very likely that gas imports will at least double from the start of 2009. If that was to happen, it would be equivalent to an eight-fold increase since 2005. Critically, this could cripple vast swathes of Ukrainian industry, as well as igniting additional inflationary pressures.

Investor sentiment within the Ukraine has worsened; fears are high that Russia might seek in stoking separatist sentiment in the Crimea. With inflation so high, and a widening current account deficit, Ukraine is very much on the verge of macroeconomic instability.

Ukraine requires a stable government. Without it, Ukraine seems certain to deteriorate even further`. There are controversial policy areas which the political parties need to find common ground over - such as issues over privatisation - because, failure to do so, could leave the country open in being taken over directly by Russia.

ONE of the ways out of the turmoil is for the coalition parties to simply regroup. Ukraine should remember that the creation of its government, since the Orange Revolution came about through the grouping together of the country's allies. Yes, there are differences but, in Ukraine's case, politicians must realise what could happen if the parties don't unite. The biggest obstacle, certainly, is trying to unify over Georgia which, legally will require tacit support from all sides.

Clearly, Ukraine must be of independent mind in determining exactly its future destiny. Policies do require support if Ukraine is to move away from its economic plight. The presidential administration cannot continue in repeatedly and systemically sabotaging government activities.

Another option is in calling for another early election. However, given the political and economic challenges facing Ukraine, the distraction of an election would possibly be the worst outcome. The sensitive state of relations with Russia, for instance, could exasperate yet further some of the deep divisions.

Whilst Russia's anger and unrest appears to be over Ukraine and Russia, the most important pressure actually comes from China. For many years China has joined Russia in defending the notion of "territorial integrity", saying that sovereign borders were inviolable. Now, though, it sees Moscow jettisoning this principle to both countries potential cost. Russias bitter and sour myopia may have gained it two tiny scraps of land but has lost its main ally, and perhaps, in the future, some of its own troubled provinces too.

It is worth remembering that Ukrainian politicians made clear to the British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, that they wanted "all the badges of friendship that were going". Ukraine also cautioned that they thought Russia was ready in picking a fight over the Crimea. But, is the US and the EU treading just too carefully with Russias unrest? It seems as if proportionate punishment is hard to deliver.

© Mark Dowe 2008: all rights protected

- Copyright is the currency by which information may be exchanged in certain instances. If you are unsure of your rights relating to digital communications you should seek independent legal advice.

Reference(s):

• Economist, "An Orange divorce"

• Guardian: Andrew Wilson, "Is Ukraine next?"

... The EU should be thinking about how it can extend a commitment to security, democracy and prosperity to neighbours

Considerations:

• Guardian: Britain urges EU to halt talks on Russia cooperation pact

• Observer (Sunday August 31, 2008) Gordon Brown: “This is how we will stand up to Russia's naked aggression”

… As European leaders meet, the Prime Minister says security is linked to the politics of energy

It is quite obvious to those of us in the FREE WORLD that Russia is not an 'EQUAL'. Most of Russia's hatred is directed at the United States of America. This hatred is the product of their insane jealousy for the respect and admiration that the U.S. has and continues to receive from the vast majority of the worlds population. Of course there are thos who have made it their goal to attempt to destroy America's immage and would spew forth a flood of unfounded criticizms and lies in order to satify their own twisted sense of justifications. But the fact remains that since the early days of the establishment of the United States of America, people have flocked to her shores by the millions. Many millions actually fled from Russian domination and oppression (Many more were worked until dealth or brutally murdered).This is a thorn in Russia's side. HOW DARE THEY!

Until such a time comes that MILLIONS of people willingly and wantingly desire to become part of Russia, Russia will never be an 'Equal'.

Russia's only true enemy is Russia.

It probably never has crossed the mind of Russians that in order to receive respect you must first 'EARN RESPECT' It is not a gift to be layed at your feet because you are powerful.

Russian 'EGO' prevents them from even understanding such truths.

TRUTH is not to be found in the Russian vocabulary.