Geen evolutie en ecolutie zonder revolutie!

Albert Einstein:

Twee dingen zijn oneindig: het universum en de menselijke domheid. Maar van het universum ben ik niet zeker.

woensdag 20 september 2017

Trump dreigt Noord-Korea volledig te vernietigen, mocht de VN niet optreden tegen dat land........

Het is psychopaat Trump geheel en al in de bol geslagen, dat bleek toen hij gisteren een toespraak hield voor de algemene vergadering van de VN (UNGA). Hoorde e.e.a. gistermiddag op BBC World Service. Trump stelde onder meer dat de VS Noord-Korea volledig zal vernietigen als de VN niet optreedt tegen dat land...... Met andere woorden: Trump heeft China en Rusland gemaand serieus werk te maken van de belachelijke eisen, die de grootste terreur entiteit op aarde, de VS zelf, heeft gesteld aan Noord-Korea en de VN, zoals o.a verwoord door hare kwaadaardigheid Nikki Haley........

Trump gebruikte woorden al 'evil' en 'rogue states' sprekend over bijvoorbeeld Noord-Korea en Iran.... Voorts vertelde het beest zijn gehoor fijntjes dat de VS geschiedenis laat zien, dat het 'altijd probeert' niet haar levenswijze op te dringen aan andere landen........ ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Nee, inderdaad dat doet de VS niet, men stelt gewoon haar eigen belang, zoals oliewinning, ver boven de soevereiniteit van andere landen........ Waarbij de VS dan wel als excuus aanvoert dat men democratie wil brengen, daarbij wijzend op zichzelf, alsof je nog van een functionerende democratie kan spreken in de VS.......

Opvallend overigens: alle negatieve zaken die Trump durfde op te sommen, zijn één op één toe te schrijven aan de VS........ Zo noemde hij terreur en het op gang brengen van enorme vluchtelingenstromen........ Een illegale oorlog tegen een land beginnen, is een grootschalige daad van terreur, grotere terreur is bijna niet te bedenken....... Met die terreur, waarbij enorme aantallen mensen (veel kinderen en vrouwen) zijn vermoord, zoals in Afghanistan, Irak, Libië en nu weer Syrië (waar de VS al vanaf 2006 bezig was met de voorbereiding van een opstand, die in een coup tegen Assad moest eindigen) heeft de VS inderdaad miljoenen mensen op de vlucht gejaagd.......

Iran moet stoppen met dood en vernietiging brengen in de regio, Iran is een moorddadig regime, zo lepelde Trump de woorden op, die Netanyahu in zijn 'oortje' fluisterde.........

Iran en Noord-Korea zijn deze eeuw en de vorige niet één oorlog begonnen, het aantal illegale oorlogen dat de VS sinds 1945 is begonnen ligt minstens boven de 17....... Sinds die tijd heeft de VS 'maar liefst' 22 miljoen mensen vermoord in illegale oorlogen, geheime militaire CIA missies (dit terreurorgaan wil nu ook een eigen drone-programma in Afghanistan), georganiseerde opstanden en staatsgrepen........

Hier een artikel over de toespraak van het beest, geschreven door Fréa Lockley, dat theCanary vandaag bracht:

The Canary

The most horrifying truth about Trump’s UN speech was revealed by what he chose not to say [VIDEO]





SEPTEMBER 20TH, 2017  FRÉA LOCKLEY

US President Donald Trump gave his first speech to the UN General Assembly (UNGA) on 19 September 2017. He made frequent references to ‘world peace’, and was critical of many countries and regimes around the world. But it was what he didn’t say, and the countries that he didn’t attack, that was most revealing – and worrying.

The ‘strongest military ever’

Trump bragged that the US “will be spending almost $700bn on our military and defence”; and that “our military will soon be the strongest it has ever been”. He also praised America’s supposed history of not trying to “impose our way of life on others”. And he claimed the US is “guided by outcomes, not ideologies”.
The UNGA is assembled from all 193 members. And it is the only UN organ where each member nation has a vote. Speaking to representatives from these countries, Trump mentioned ‘sovereignty’ (a state’s authority to govern itself) on numerous occasions. But as he continued, it became increasingly clear that he was not referring to all UN member states.
Trump spoke, for example, of “small regimes” that the “righteous” needed to “confront”. And the list of US ‘enemies’ began to flow. And despite his references to respecting the sovereignty of other nations, he went on to make threats and call for regime changes around the world.

Total destruction’

As The Canary has reported, tensions between the US and North Korea have been rising. And Trump’s latest rhetoric will do little to ease diplomatic relations. Not least because he said:
The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.
While the issue of sanctions for North Korea is far from simple, and there was no mention of the billions of dollars the US will make selling weapons to South Korea, the threat of ‘total destruction’ is unlikely to help anyone.

Hypocrisy

The US President then turned his attentions to Iran, calling it a “murderous regime” which “masks a corrupt dictatorship behind the false guise of a democracy”.
As The Canary has reported, Trump has been ramping up tensions with Iran since he came to power:
But not because of democracy or human rights. Instead, his hostility is largely because Iran’s regional enemies, Saudi Arabia and Israel, are US allies; because there’s a barely reported conflict occurring over oil pipelines in the Middle East; and because Iran does not bend easily to America’s will.

Although both Iran and Saudi Arabia have equally poor human rights records, for example, Trump made no criticism at all of Saudi Arabia. In fact, he claimed that Iran had “fuel[ed] Yemen’s civil war”, while completely ignoring Saudi Arabia’s key role – and alleged war crimes – in the Yemeni conflict.
Nor did Trump mention the ongoing atrocities committed by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. So it comes as no surprise that, since Trump’s speech, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said:
In over 30 years in my experience with the UN, I never heard a bolder or more courageous speech.

Trump also criticised Iran for ‘restricting internet access’, ‘shooting unarmed student protesters’, and ‘imprisoning political reformers’. But there was no mention of US allies like Turkey which have reportedlycommitted the same abuses.

Guided by outcomes, not ideologies? Really?

Trump then got ideological. He first targeted Cuba, calling it a “destabilizing regime”; even though Cuba has recently helped Colombia to end its decades-long civil war.
He also called Venezuela’s democratically elected government a “socialist dictatorship”, saying its people were “starving”. But while trying to score political points over Venezuela – an oil-rich nation which the US has long sought to manipulate by pushing large amounts of money into opposition hands, Trump essentially ignored the widespread famine across Africa that is also deeply rooted in political issues; a crisis that now threatens over 20 million people and which Oxfam has called the “largest hunger emergency in the world”.
Trump then went on to say:
"From the Soviet Union to Cuba to Venezuela, wherever true socialism or communism has been adopted, it has delivered anguish and devastation and failure".

Apart from his inaccurate comparison of socialism and ‘communism’, Trump also failed to mention China; a nominally communist country which some forecast will overtake the US as the world’s biggest economy in the coming years. Perhaps Trump’s silence had something to do with his recent trade deal with Beijing?

A dangerous rant, not a speech…

Trump’s UN rant about the countries he didn’t like wasn’t surprising. But it was what he didn’t say that was most revealing – and dangerous. For example, there was no mention of:
  • The alleged ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims in Burma (Myanmar), which has forced 400,000 refugees to flee the country in recent weeks.
  • The fact that US authorities have reportedly killed around 100 civilians a month so far in 2017.
  • The alleged war crimes in Yemen of the Saudi Arabian dictatorship (a Western ally heavily linked to terrorism).
  • The alleged war crimes in both Turkey and Syria of the increasingly authoritarian Turkish regime of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (and its alleged links to terrorism).
  • The fact that US ally Honduras (where US officials allegedly helped to install a pro-US regime through a 2009 coup) has one of the highest murder rates in the world.
  • The dismal human rights record of Western ally Mexico, including the forced ‘disappearance’ of 43 student teachers in 2014; the murder of thousands of women every year; frequent accusations of rigged elections [Spanish]; and being one the most difficult and dangerous places in the world to be a journalist.
Essentially, Trump revealed in his speech a belief in the sovereignty of countries that are US allies; and a belief in regime change in countries that are not US allies. He also showed that he is perfectly happy to exploit human rights abuses for his own political benefit, as long as it’s not America’s friends committing those abuses. It was not a speech about peace or human rights. It was Trump laying out his hypocritically aggressive politics for the whole world to see.

Get Involved!
– Read more Global stories from The Canary. And follow us on Facebook and Twitter for more independent international coverage.
Featured image via Facebook
Become a Canary member to support fearless independent journalism
=================================
Vanmiddag heeft opperhufter Haley (VS ambassadeur bij de VN) de wereld laten weten, dat Trump niet uit is op de vernietiging  van Noord-Korea....... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!









       en:  'Korea, Afghanistan and the Never Ending War Trap' (met ook daaronder een mogelijkheid tot vertaling)

      en: '
De VS en haar 'zachte diplomatie' t.a.v. Noord-Korea.....'

New York Times met schaamteloze anti-Russische propaganda en 'fake news....'

Robert Parry legt op Consortium News uit, in een artikel overgenomen door Anti-Media, waar goed journalistiek werk o.a. aan moet voldoen: een teken dat een artikel het product is van slordige of oneerlijke journalistiek, kan gezien worden als de kern van het verhaal als feit wordt neergezet, terwijl dit niet bewezen is, of onderdeel is van een serieuze discussie. Veelal wordt zo'n artikel het fundament voor andere (niet bewezen) claims, waarmee een verhaal 'wordt gebouwd', dat gefundeerd is op los zand....

Dergelijke journalistiek zou niet in de reguliere media terecht mogen komen, echter tegenwoordig is het tegendeel vaak de praktijk, zoals we zien in de reguliere westerse (massa-) media. Neem de berichtgeving over de illegale oorlogen van de VS tegen Afghanistan, Irak, Libië en nu weer tegen Syrië. 'Voldongen' leugens werden en worden als feiten en de enige waarheid neergezet.......

Hetzelfde geldt voor alle belachelijke claims, dat Rusland de VS verkiezingen zou hebben gemanipuleerd middels hacken en het publiceren van artikelen door o.a. Sputnik en Russia Today (RT). Daarbij worden  naast een 'tsunami' aan berichten op Facebook en Twitter, nu ook advertenties genoemd, die werden geplaatst op Facebook....... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Voor al deze zogenaamde feiten, is geen nanometer bewijs, maar ze worden desondanks door diezelfde reguliere media en het merendeel van de westerse politici als de enige waarheid gezien, dit terwijl het overtuigende bewijs van het tegendeel terzijde wordt geschoven.........

Parry schrijft over een artikel dat afgelopen vrijdag over 3 pagina's werd geplaatst in the New York Times (NYT). Daarin wordt betoogt dat Rusland 'een leger van nep-Amerikanen' heeft gebruikt om de VS verkiezingen te beïnvloeden....... Of wat dacht u van: 'met een vloed aan Facebook en Twitterberichten hebben bedriegers haat en verdeeldheid gezaaid in de VS.....' ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Ja, ze durven wel hè, terwijl die zogenaamde Amerikanen elkaar al een paar eeuwen de strot kunnen afbijten!! (neem alleen al de nog steeds bestaande grove discriminatie van gekleurden in de VS....)

Facebook weigert intussen nog steeds om de advertenties vrij te geven, die volgens haar door de Russische overheid werden geplaatst....... Kortom Facebook beschuldigt een land van uiterst grove handelingen en stelt daarna vrolijk dat men maar moet geloven op de blauwe ogen van de redactie........

Lees het volgende uitstekende artikel van Parry en zegt het voort!

Has the New York Times Gone Completely Insane?



September 16, 2017 at 11:31 am
Written by Robert Parry

Crossing a line from recklessness into madness, The New York Times published a front-page opus suggesting that Russia was behind social media criticism of Hillary Clinton, reports Robert Parry.
(CN) For those of us who have taught journalism or worked as editors, a sign that an article is the product of sloppy or dishonest journalism is that a key point will be declared as flat fact when it is unproven or a point in serious dispute – and it then becomes the foundation for other claims, building a story like a high-rise constructed on sand.

This use of speculation as fact is something to guard against particularly in the work of inexperienced or opinionated reporters. But what happens when this sort of unprofessional work tops page one of The New York Times one day as a major “investigative” article and reemerges the next day in even more strident form as a major Times editorial? Are we dealing then with an inept journalist who got carried away with his thesis or are we facing institutional corruption or even a collective madness driven by ideological fervor?

What is stunning about the lede story in last Friday’s print edition of The New York Times is that it offers no real evidence to support its provocative claim that – as the headline states – “To Sway Vote, Russia Used Army of Fake Americans” or its subhead: “Flooding Twitter and Facebook, Impostors Helped Fuel Anger in Polarized U.S.”

In the old days, this wildly speculative article, which spills over three pages, would have earned an F in a J-school class or gotten a rookie reporter a stern rebuke from a senior editor. But now such unprofessionalism is highlighted by The New York Times, which boasts that it is the standard-setter of American journalism, the nation’s “newspaper of record.”

In this case, it allows reporter Scott Shane to introduce his thesis by citing some Internet accounts that apparently used fake identities, but he ties none of them to the Russian government. Acting like he has minimal familiarity with the Internet – yes, a lot of people do use fake identities – Shane builds his case on the assumption that accounts that cited references to purloined Democratic emails must be somehow from an agent or a bot connected to the Kremlin.

For instance, Shane cites the fake identity of “Melvin Redick,” who suggested on June 8, 2016, that people visit DCLeaks which, a few days earlier, had posted some emails from prominent Americans, which Shane states as fact – not allegation – were “stolen … by Russian hackers.”

Shane then adds, also as flat fact, that “The site’s phony promoters were in the vanguard of a cyberarmy of counterfeit Facebook and Twitter accounts, a legion of Russian-controlled impostors whose operations are still being unraveled.”

The Times’ Version

In other words, Shane tells us, “The Russian information attack on the election did not stop with the hacking and leaking of Democratic emails or the fire hose of stories, true, false and in between, that battered Mrs. Clinton on Russian outlets like RT and Sputnik. Far less splashy, and far more difficult to trace, was Russia’s experimentation on Facebook and Twitter, the American companies that essentially invented the tools of social media and, in this case, did not stop them from being turned into engines of deception and propaganda.”

Besides the obvious point that very few Americans watch RT and/or Sputnik and that Shane offers no details about the alleged falsity of those “fire hose of stories,” let’s examine how his accusations are backed up:

An investigation by The New York Times, and new research from the cybersecurity firm FireEye, reveals some of the mechanisms by which suspected Russian operators used Twitter and Facebook to spread anti-Clinton messages and promote the hacked material they had leaked. On Wednesday, Facebook officials disclosed that they had shut down several hundred accounts that they believe were created by a Russian company linked to the Kremlin and used to buy $100,000 in ads pushing divisive issues during and after the American election campaign. On Twitter, as on Facebook, Russian fingerprints are on hundreds or thousands of fake accounts that regularly posted anti-Clinton messages.”

Note the weasel words: “suspected”; “believe”; ‘linked”; “fingerprints.” When you see such equivocation, it means that these folks – both the Times and FireEye – don’t have hard evidence; they are speculating.
And it’s worth noting that the supposed “army of fake Americans” may amount to hundreds out of Facebook’s two billion or so monthly users and the $100,000 in ads compare to the company’s annual ad revenue of around $27 billion. (I’d do the math but my calculator doesn’t compute such tiny percentages.)

So, this “army” is really not an “army” and we don’t even know that it is “Russian.” But some readers might say that surely we know that the Kremlin did mastermind the hacking of Democratic emails!

That claim is supported by the Jan. 6 “intelligence community assessment” that was the work of what President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called “hand-picked” analysts from three agencies – the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation. But, as any intelligence expert will tell you, if you hand-pick the analysts, you are hand-picking the conclusions.

Agreeing with Putin

But some still might protest that the Jan. 6 report surely presented convincing evidence of this serious charge about Russian President Vladimir Putin personally intervening in the U.S. election to help put Donald Trump in the White House. Well, as it turns out, not so much, and if you don’t believe me, we can call to the witness stand none other than New York Times reporter Scott Shane.

Shane wrote at the time: “What is missing from the [the Jan. 6] public report is what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies’ claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack. … Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to ‘trust us.’”

So, even Scott Shane, the author of last Friday’s opus, recognized the lack of “hard evidence” to prove that the Russian government was behind the release of the Democratic emails, a claim that both Putin and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who published a trove of the emails, have denied. While it is surely possible that Putin and Assange are lying or don’t know the facts, you might think that their denials would be relevant to this lengthy investigative article, which also could have benefited from some mention of Shane’s own skepticism of last January, but, hey, you don’t want inconvenient details to mess up a cool narrative.

Yet, if you struggle all the way to the end of last Friday’s article, you do find out how flimsy the Times’ case actually is. How, for instance, do we know that “Melvin Redick” is a Russian impostor posing as an American? The proof, according to Shane, is that “His posts were never personal, just news articles reflecting a pro-Russian worldview.”

As it turns out, the Times now operates with what must be called a neo-McCarthyistic approach for identifying people as Kremlin stooges, i.e., anyone who doubts the truthfulness of the State Department’s narratives on Syria, Ukraine and other international topics.

Unreliable Source

In the article’s last section, Shane acknowledges as much in citing one of his experts, “Andrew Weisburd, an Illinois online researcher who has written frequently about Russian influence on social media.” Shane quotes Weisburd as admitting how hard it is to differentiate Americans who just might oppose Hillary Clinton because they didn’t think she’d make a good president from supposed Russian operatives: “Trying to disaggregate the two was difficult, to put it mildly.”

According to Shane, “Mr. Weisburd said he had labeled some Twitter accounts ‘Kremlin trolls’ based simply on their pro-Russia tweets and with no proof of Russian government ties. The Times contacted several such users, who insisted that they had come by their anti-American, pro-Russian views honestly, without payment or instructions from Moscow.”

One of Weisburd’s “Kremlin trolls” turned out to be 66-year-old Marilyn Justice who lives in Nova Scotia and who somehow reached the conclusion that “Hillary’s a warmonger.” During the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, she reached another conclusion: that U.S. commentators were exhibiting a snide anti-Russia bias perhaps because they indeed were exhibiting a snide anti-Russia bias.

Shane tracked down another “Kremlin troll,” 48-year-old Marcel Sardo, a web producer in Zurich, Switzerland, who dares to dispute the West’s groupthink that Russia was responsible for shooting down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine on July 17, 2014, and the State Department’s claims that the Syrian government used sarin gas in a Damascus suburb on Aug. 21, 2013.

Presumably, if you don’t toe the line on those dubious U.S. government narratives, you are part of the Kremlin’s propaganda machine. (In both cases, there actually are serious reasons to doubt the Western groupthinks which again lack real evidence.)

But Shane accuses Sardo and his fellow-travelers of spreading “what American officials consider to be Russian disinformation on election hacking, Syria, Ukraine and more.” In other words, if you examine the evidence on MH-17 or the Syrian sarin case and conclude that the U.S. government’s claims are dubious if not downright false, you are somehow disloyal and making Russian officials “gleeful at their success,” as Shane puts it.

But what kind of a traitor are you if you quote Shane’s initial judgment after reading the Jan. 6 report on alleged Russian election meddling? What are you if you agree with his factual observation that the report lacked anything approaching “hard evidence”? That’s a point that also dovetails with what Vladimir Putin has been saying – that “IP addresses can be simply made up. … This is no proof”?

So is Scott Shane a “Kremlin troll,” too? Should the Times immediately fire him as a disloyal foreign agent? What if Putin says that 2 plus 2 equals 4 and your child is taught the same thing in elementary school, what does that say about public school teachers?

Out of such gibberish come the evils of McCarthyism and the death of the Enlightenment. Instead of encouraging a questioning citizenry, the new American paradigm is to silence debate and ridicule anyone who steps out of line.

You might have thought people would have learned something from the disastrous groupthink about Iraqi WMD, a canard that the Times and most of the U.S. mainstream media eagerly promoted.
But if you’re feeling generous and thinking that the Times’ editors must have been chastened by their Iraq-WMD fiasco but perhaps had a bad day last week and somehow allowed an egregious piece of journalism to lead their front page, your kind-heartedness would be shattered on Saturday when the Times’ editorial board penned a laudatory reprise of Scott Shane’s big scoop.

Stripping away even the few caveats that the article had included, the Times’ editors informed us that “a startling investigation by Scott Shane of The New York Times, and new research by the cybersecurity firm FireEye, now reveal, the Kremlin’s stealth intrusion into the election was far broader and more complex, involving a cyberarmy of bloggers posing as Americans and spreading propaganda and disinformation to an American electorate on Facebook, Twitter and other platforms. …

Now that the scheming is clear, Facebook and Twitter say they are reviewing the 2016 race and studying how to defend against such meddling in the future. … Facing the Russian challenge will involve complicated issues dealing with secret foreign efforts to undermine American free speech.”

But what is the real threat to “American free speech”? Is it the possibility that Russia – in a very mild imitation of what the U.S. government does all over the world – used some Web sites clandestinely to get out its side of various stories, an accusation against Russia that still lacks any real evidence?

Or is the bigger threat that the nearly year-long Russia-gate hysteria will be used to clamp down on Americans who dare question fact-lite or fact-free Official Narratives handed down by the State Department and The New York Times?

By Robert Parry / Republished with permission / Consortium News / Report a typo
=================================

Zie ook: 'JULIAN ASSANGE OFFERS U.S. GOVERNMENT PROOF RUSSIA WASN’T SOURCE OF DEMOCRATIC PARTY LEAKS, SAYS WSJ' (op Stan van Houcke die het overnam van Global Research)

Rutte (VVD en 'premier') blij met meer dan 1.000 ontslagen door fusie Tata Steel met Thyssenkrupp.......

De wanpresterend premier, de grijnzende VVD hufter Rutte Twitterde blij te zijn met de fusie tussen Tata Steel (in Nederland: de voormalige Hoogovens in IJmuiden) en het Duitse Thijssenkrupp. Het nieuwe hoofdkantoor zal in Nederland gevestigd worden, echter of dit ook maar één extra administratieve baan oplevert is niet duidelijk, daar de nieuwe combinatie ook stevig in de administratie gaat snijden.......

Wel is duidelijk dat in Nederland het hoofdbestanddeel aan banen zal verdwijnen, op de administratieve en productietak zullen gelijkelijk 2.000 banen moeten verdwijnen........ Dit betekent voor Nederland een verlies van minstens 1.000 banen, maar wellicht veel meer........ Echt iets 'om blij over te Twitteren......' 'Leve' het ijskoude, inhumane neoliberalisme........

BNR berichtte hier vanmorgen over (na 8.16 u.) en men had tot slot ook ploert Hans de Boer in de uitzending, u weet wel: de topgraaier van VNO-NCW. Uiteraard was de schoft blij met de fusie en zoals gewoonlijk is de Boer blij als bedrijven met minder personeel toekunnen (en ach degenen die werkloos worden, mogen blij zijn dat ze wellicht een aantal jaren een baan hadden, ja toch...????).......

De Boer liet verder weten, dik tevreden te zijn met de troonrede, niet echt sensationeel als je dat wanproduct leest, dat vooral gericht is op winstmaximalisatie en het verder terugbrengen van kosten. Ofwel: een neoliberaal wanproduct dat de nieuwe regering alle mogelijkheden geeft veranderingen aan te brengen waar het Rutte 3 maar belieft........

De Boer sprak nog even over de looneis van de FNV van 3,5 tot 5% voor de meeste sectoren. De woorden van psychopaat de Boer samengevat: het loon dat mensen verdienen is een soort natuurverschijnsel: gaat het goed dan moet een loonsverhoging mogelijk zijn, maar als dat niet zo is, kan er geen looneis gesteld worden........ Gezien de geschiedenis is dat echter bepaald geen natuurwet, zelfs als het goed gaat snijdt men het liefst in de salarissen en het personeelsbestand....... De eis van de FNV is in de ogen van de Boer te hoog, hij wil best meer loon voor arbeiders, maar dat moet van de overheid komen, middels een verlichting van de inkomstenbelasting......... De Boer herhaalde weer eens zijn versleten mantra dat de lonen in Nederland te hoog zijn..... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!  Wat een oplichter!!

Dat veel Nederlandse bedrijven de belasting hier ontduiken, zal de Boer aan de vieze reet roesten, nee de salarissen in Nederland zijn te hoog....... (Nederlandse bedrijven ontduiken op jaarbasis zo'n 30 miljard aan Nederlandse belastingen......)

De neoliberale zakkenwasser Kockelman van Standpunt NL (Radio1) kondigde vanmorgen na 9.30 u. de stelling aan: 'Iedereen moet profiteren van de aantrekkende economie' (behaald door eerdere resultaten in de Duitse en Britse economie, plus de dumping van vlees op de EU en wereldmarkt). En wie had Kockelman uitgenodigd in de studio? Hans de Boer!!! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Het spijt me, maar ik had geen zin, om deze hufter meer dan 20 minuten aan te horen (zelfs 1 minuut was me teveel), terwijl je van te voren weet, wat hufter de Boer aan smerigs te vertellen heeft........

Regering May bezuinigt gehandicapten de dood in....... De BBC verzwijgt e.e.a. willens en wetens.......

TheCanary bracht op 16 september jl. een artikel waarin stuitend bewijs wordt geleverd over de BBC, die de Britse regering uit de 'VN-wind' houdt.

De VN heeft een rapport uitgebracht, waarin de bezuinigingen op het budget voor minder valide mensen, door de inhumane neoliberale regering May aan de paal wordt genageld. Volgens het rapport zijn deze bezuinigingen levensbedreigend en leiden tot moord, suïcide en euthanasie......*

De regering May insinueert met haar uitlatingen t.a.v. deze groep zwakkere mensen, dat het parasieten en uitnemers van de sociale zekerheid zijn, ze zouden leven op het belastinggeld van anderen...................... 

Op 14 september jl. publiceerde de VN een audiobestand van de persconferentie over deze zaak, waarin het ook een volledig BBC interview overnam van 10 minuten, een interview met Theresia Degener, voorzitter van de VN commissie voor mensen met een handicap (UNCRPD).

'Vreemd genoeg' zond de BBC maar 20 seconden uit van dit interview...... U had het al begrepen: totaal niet vreemd, daar staatsomroep BBC vooral het regeringsbeleid verdedigt, hoe fout dat beleid ook is

Lees de uitstekende analyse van Steve Topple over deze ongelofelijke zaak (bij mijn noot (*) onder dat artikel nog een kleine aanvulling over het Nederlandse beleid op hetzelfde gebied, dat zoals u wellicht weet, weinig beter is (terwijl de reguliere pers hier, Rutte 2 de hemel in prijst..)......


The BBC didn’t want you to hear the UN’s most damning interview about the UK government in full. So here it is 



SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2017  STEVE TOPPLE

BBC interview, of which only 20 seconds out of more than 10 minutes were broadcast, has come to light. And it has exposed the UN’s most scathing attack on the Conservative government to date.
Published by the UN, it reveals the organisation thinks that austerity is “life threatening” to many disabled people in the UK. And it sees the government’s actions potentially leading to “killings and euthanasia”, because it has helped create a society where a whole group of people are viewed as “parasites”. But it’s an interview the BBC completely dumbed down for its viewers.

A ‘human catastrophe’

In August, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) met in Geneva, Switzerland. It was assessing if the UK government meets its obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled People.
And it was publicly unequivocal in its opinion on how disabled people are treated by the Conservative government. Its Chair, Theresia Degener, said in a statement seen by The Canary:
"Evidence before us… reveals that [welfare] cut policies [have] led to human catastrophe in your country, totally neglecting the vulnerable situation people with disabilities find themselves in".

But on 14 September, the UN published the audio of the committee’s concluding press conference. And it left in a full BBC interview with Degener. John Pring at Disability News Service (DNS) discovered the audio; you can read his full analysis here and listen to the full audio here.

Disabled people: ‘parasites’ who could be ‘killed’


In the BBC interview, one of the UN’s most scathing comments was about public attitudes towards disabled people. Degener said [20.43] that the government and the media “have some responsibility” for society seeing [20.12] disabled people as “parasites, living on social benefits… and [living on] the taxes of other people”. And she said [20.23] these “very, very dangerous” attitudes could [20.52] “lead to violence… and if not, to killings and euthanasia”. And she urged [21.10] the government to “stop” this (audio):

Overarching concerns

You can read The Canary‘s full analysis of the UNCRPD report here. Broadly, it only noted two areas which it considered “positive” in the Tory government’s approach to disabled people. But it highlighted nearly 70 criticisms over the Conservative government’s treatment of disabled people. And it made over 90 recommendations to the government. It was these concerns and recommendations that Degener referenced in her BBC interview.
Degener said [11.40] that rights for disabled people in the UK were “going backwards”. She said [12.14] that the Tories have implemented:
"a policy of austerity… which discriminates against disabled people by taking away benefits which were supposed to help disabled people to live an independent life… [one] equal to others…"

Human rights breaches

She went on to explain how the UN believed successive Conservative-led governments had breached “human rights laws” (audio):

Degener continued by saying [14.45] that the UN believes that austerity has left disabled people reliant on “voluntary” support; that disabled people cannot “participate in culture and public life”; that schools are excluding disabled children, leaving parents without “any support”. And she said [15.55] the loss of the Independent Living Fund (ILF) had led to disabled people being “homeless”, “desperate”, and suffering mental health issues. But she also noted [16.34] “terrible” reports of people taking their own lives “because of the cuts”.

The UK government: ‘threatening’ disabled people’s lives

The BBC asked [16.46] Degener why the UN gave “the longest list of conclusions and recommendations” it has ever given to a country. She said [17.05] it was because her committee had “set the bar very high”. But she noted [17.10] that, while the UK “claims to be a world leader when it comes to disability rights”, it is actually going backwards; and that this “worries” the UN “a lot”. She then said [18.25] government policies had become “life threatening to many disabled people” (audio):


Overall, the committee condemned the UK’s attempts to misrepresent the impact of policies through “unanswered questions”, “misused statistics”, and a “smoke screen of statements”. It also said the government had introduced policies and legislation which “fail to implement” disabled people’s rights in “reality”.

The BBC response?

The BBC journalist told [14.17] Deneger that she can “edit” the interview. And edit it the BBC did, as the only section broadcast was 20 seconds, containing some of Degener’s least contentious comments. So The Canary asked the BBC why it chose to edit the interview so heavily; only including a tiny section of Degener’s responses.
BBC spokesperson told The Canary:
"This is misleading. We make editorial decisions about what is newsworthy for inclusion in our coverage every day which often means using only key parts of interviews. On the News at Six and Ten and radio bulletins we very clearly reported on the UN report and its criticisms of the UK’s record on protecting the rights of disabled people, its concerns about the number of disabled living in poverty and the effects of cuts to benefits – including relevant sections of an interview with Theresa Degener".

The government’s response?

A government spokesperson told DNS:
"We’re disappointed that this report does not accurately reflect the evidence we gave to the UN, and fails to recognise all the progress we’ve made to empower disabled people in all aspects of their lives. We spend over £50bn a year to support disabled people and those with health conditions – more than ever before, and the second highest in the G7. We’re committed to furthering rights and opportunities for all disabled people, which is why it is encouraging that almost 600,000 disabled people have moved into work in the UK over the last four years."
"We’re also a recognised world leader in disability rights and equality, which is why we supported the development of the UN convention".


The UK government and the media must take responsibility


The UN has now reported four times in the space of a year on human rights violations by the Conservative-led government. As one disabled activist told The Canary:
"If this was happening in a Middle Eastern country, the US would probably have invaded by now, under the guise of ‘humanitarian’ grounds".

But the government’s response to all these reports? To simply shrug their shoulders and say they didn’t believe them. And now, we see the BBC cherry-picking the most palatable parts of an interview with the UN to broadcast. There is no discernible reason why the BBC could not have published the interview in full on its website. But as the UN implied, the BBC and the rest of the media must take some responsibility for disabled people’s appalling situation. The full responsibility, however, lies directly at the Conservative government’s door.

This article was updated at 5.10pm on Friday 15 September to reflect a statement from the BBC.
Hier de link naar het originele artikel.
===================================

* Nu nog een VN rapport, waarin de Nederlandse bezuinigingen op het budget voor invaliden, chronisch zieken, ouderen en de GGZ zorg aan de kaak worden gesteld......... Intussen kan hier als bewezen worden geacht, dat deze bezuinigingen al tot een fiks aantal suïcides hebben geleid...... Met dank aan hare VVD kwaadaardigheid Schippers en PvdA opperschoft Martin 'die vrouw' van Rijn....... (en ja, de zorg over de schutting van de lokale politiek gooien, is een hele smerige manier van bezuinigen, die zoals gezegd veel mensen in diepe ellende heeft gestort........