Years earlier the same happened after I had reported crimes at the EPO.

Right now I report on some more Microsoft crimes and substance abuse at the EPO. Crimes at Microsoft are routine, but some are more personal than others. Sometimes the companies can ‘personify’ matters to make the disputes seem like anything but corporate muzzling (like Philpott at EPO).

As a result, there is more heat and costs.

That does beg the question: how safe is it to be an investigative reporter in the UK?

Put another way: is it possible to really report on crime in the UK?

Or only the crimes detested by the state?

Back in 2009 we saw how the UK Ministry of Defence was classing Investigative Journalists among “Terrorists” or something to that effect.

Society where crimes cannot be reported – or cannot be safely reported on – would look something like Putin’s Moscow. We do not want that, do we?

Mentioning someone was in prison for bad things isn’t a crime, it’s a public service (he’s not even from this continent!)

Yesterday: They’ve Already Spent Close to a Million Dollars on Lawyers and Sent Us About 50 KG of Legal Papers (Sponsored by Mysterious Third Party) to Try to Censor Techrights, Without Success

As a little bit of an introduction, this article concerns a firm that breaches rules and admits this [1, 2]. Breach of confidence included. We’ll come to this in a moment. It’s so bad a reputation that around here in Manchester very small law firms already know that London firm for being one of the worst and they were sued by their own clients last month [1, 2, 3]. Having dealt with SLAPPs for many years, this one was lousy to begin with, resulting in a firm counter-suit (almost 200 pages long), just months after two more counter-suits [1, 2]. Both cases involve Americans [1, 2] who merely ‘visit’ Europe via the lousy law firm in London, egging on women to attack other women on behalf of men who attack women. No wonder this law firm is seemingly ‘selling the office’ already (its contents) and is happy to misuse data, despite it claiming to be an expert in data protection. This month their staff was passing around in legal documents and to third parties photos of our home taken for purposes unrelated to the matter (couriers giving photographic evidence of delivery), so we’ve reported the matter to British authorities. Those photos are clearly misused. Imagine me getting proof of delivery photos, then starting to spread such photos around, blogging photos like these to an audience they are not intended for (with the faces of people that I delivered parcels to, without any consent).

With that little introduction out of the way, today we deal with this person.

His lawyers are acting like assassins or Mafia, to use the metaphor those firms earned for themselves (in my opinion, some of their managers literally look like assassins, maybe they fancy themselves that). They sent an Hells Angels-like motorcyclist to our home. It was the delivery person whom they paid a lot of money to ride up to Manchester. Don’t they know sending big men with helmets and dark overalls can scare people? Thankfully, I myself am a big person, so it didn’t startle me; he chatted with me for a long time about the truly ridiculous things this law firm does for an American against Brits who reported, correctly, what he did to other Americans.

He totally sympathised with me, saying what they had done is “ridiculous!” (Direct quote; he said more things to that effect, dismissive of what he helped deliver)

He was actually very nice to me, borderline apologetic for what he was doing. He agreed that I ought to be seeking compensation for what they did to me and to my family.

Job insecurity compels people to do things without caring “too much” about the consequences or whose interests are served (e.g. Americans who spent about a million dollars to harasses not only a reporter in Europe but also his whole family).

Imagine a society where workers think about and care about the ethics of what they do for a living, and then act accordingly instead of just following orders.

This man put his life at risk on a motorcycle with super strong gusts (and heavy rain, hence wet surfaces on the road) to come here on a day like this and I still find it ironic that at the end he was more like a friend to me, and not scary at all.

“Pawn” of the lawyers…

Since Graveley was paid by Microsoft (an American from an American company) and his American litigation buddy is funded by some shadowy rich people (or corporations) by his own admission I’m led to believe that they don’t get their money’s worth, they just try to intimidate my wife and I in vain.

At the end, this ugly and clearly coordinated effort is doomed to backfire because we’ll write everything they did to us and report to the correct authorities, including politicians.

When law firms take any unscrupulous person as a client they end up being known in distant cities for how bad (low success rate) and evil they are. The only thing that can compel firms to do this is financial trouble, hence low standards or low thresholds (it doesn’t seem to matter where the money comes from, but that is very risky). ?

Some time ago I wrote to you regarding a cyber issue. I appreciated your response and it seems like you took my input seriously and changed accordingly so as to alleviate concerns about online scams and communication over E-mail.

Today I want to give some input regarding your branch at Manchester City Centre (Market Street).

In a nutshell, my wife and I had a 9:30 appointment and spoke to an employee whom we liked and has been very helpful to us in the past. We appreciated how she solved an issue and even communicated with us several time, by landline, to ensure the issue had been solved.

Today it seems like when handling us she was being supervised from the desk to us (accompanied from afar), where a person we assume to be her manager eavesdropped on our communication and threw mildly demeaning remarks our way (if not microaggression, definitely micro-managing the lady who served us, based on our intuition). The lady we sat with wanted to offer the services that we scheduled the meeting for, however this was interrupted by the other lady, who insisted we needed to do it using an “app” (which we don’t have) on our own. It was rather unpleasant, probably not only for us but also for the lady who served us.

After this appointment my wife and I spent some hours discussing this matter in a coffee shop down the road and decided to write to you about it. We want to be heard and we amicably ask for our input to be humbly considered. We write with good intentions, no bad faith here.

To keep this tidy, I wanted to take this opportunity to raise a number of pertinent concerns only partly related to this appointment (some are more general). The appointment started OK, but ended with some disappointment, not appointment per se.

1. Online Pressure and Discrimination Against ‘Offline’ Banking

When online banking was phased it more than 2 decades ago we were assured it would mostly enhance services rather than exclude or discriminate against people (e.g. things exclusive to some customers, not available to those who don’t opt in; some cannot feasibly opt in, see point (3) below).

My wife and I are both Computer Scientists and prefer for banking to be done in person. We know why. We know how computers work. Herding clients into “apps” and Web sites is not only unsafe; it’s also a risk. It is possible that things will not be done correctly, then blamed on the customers. Instead of saving time it might end up costing the customers a great deal of time, even distress.

2. In-Branch Services

We were told that there is guarantee of access to a branch, however the branch where we both opened out accounts more than a decade ago literally became a casino (the branch got closed, only to be replaced by a gambling shop near Piccadilly Station) and it looks like senior staff – i.e. people who know us and vice versa – was removed over time, only to be replace by much younger people who are less experienced and very dependent on colleagues. That slowed things done. Things that can (or could) take just 5 minutes would take up to an hour, sometimes even longer.

It moreover seems like every year more things become “online-only”, thus we are led to assume the end goal is for the bank to just become some “app” and Web site with no physical presences, no staff to approach, and no collaterals or assets with which to back savings. This seems like a risky gambit and a worrying trajectory that does not inspire confidence.

With banking, it all boils down to trust and confidence. People need to sense that they can confidently withdraw their money. They need to feel like the money is in safe hands.

3. Accessibility

For the sake of people with disability/ies (all of us are likely to become at least partly disabled at one point our our lives) it is crucial to maintain in-person services and imperative that assurances to this effect are given. Contrary to this, the impression given to us today is that such a commitment is gradually being phased out and banking with a human touch (as such) will be only temporarily available, leaving clients grappling to face persons who are qualified and familiar with the particular processes.

Please, can you investigate and clarify these matters? Our aim is not to belittle or insult anybody; we just try to do our best to improve the service or the perceived customer experience. We felt like we witnessed today competing interests: the profit motive against the clients’ genuine interest.

4. Customer-First Approach

In 2000 I was already a very early adopter of online banking, but now I partly regret what became of it; it seems to be means of outsourcing labour from bank staff to the clients, both at the expense of staff and clients and at risk (accountability) to staff and clients, for neither stands to benefit from this role-passing, i.e. it’s detrimental to us all, even your own staff, whose future seems increasingly uncertain. There is no lack of manpower (there are many people out there eager to find a job), there is just a race to the bottom in terms of filling up positions (or simply deprecating them altogether).

But there are still some people out there who are debt-free and actually save money.

People of that latter group like to talk about securing assets or “diversifying investments” etc. People with a ‘survivalist’ mindset or survival instincts do not look ahead or foresee danger; instead they wait for something to happen and then respond to that, putting out fires instead of preventing fires (to use a metaphor if not a real scenario).

Some people like to believe that hoarding money will make them very safe, even if the process of making that money harms their physical and mental health, not only shortening the life but also lessening its quality. Some processes of hoarding money increase the risk of getting arrested. How’s that for safety?

Some people make bunkers because of an assumption of looming war/s; some lose money to classic scammers, including the fear-mongering “bunker industry”. Some become drug addicts. Some try to “spread” the assets/money, but that often focuses on: 1) multiple bank accounts. 2) multiple banks. 3) like (2) in several countries. 4) gold/silver 5) fakecoins (‘crypto’). 6) a safe at home. 7) car (loses value fast). 8) home (endless maintenance). 9) jewellery (value lost immediately once purchased).

Yes, a car is a liability and constant cause of unforeseen expenses, including several annual bills, never mind the wear and tear. It is a truly terrible form of investment. There is no “magic” or “perfect” option.

Here’s another: purchasing future supplies – inevitable or unavoidable commodities – years in advance (some not perishable), especially when inflation rates are high and financial rewards for savers are low. This option relies on ample storage space. Does that pay off? Maybe.

Inflation is still high; governments changed what they measure.

My thoughts about Elizabeth’s death were expressed online and have been on the public record since the day the death was announced. I personally did not dislike Elizabeth and I know people who had strong opinions, harsh experiences etc. Hence, they disliked her and/or what she stood for.

70+ years is a very long time. It’s a sort of ‘time bridge’ (or wormhole) to the distant past. They insist that the “royals” no longer play any meaningful political role. If that is the case, then what’s the point of them?

Elizabeth was liked by many, both at home and abroad. The same cannot be said about either of her sons, including the elder.

Maybe it’s about time to accept that in a country where many say “eat or heat” it makes no sense to pay a ton of taxpayers’ money for both a funeral and a coronation. Maybe the big funeral can take place. A funeral not just for Elizabeth but also for the monarchy as a whole.

Democratic societies should recognise imperialism for what it is — a relic of the past, a shameful disgrace that involved colonialism, slavery etc. even if euphemisms like “commonwealth” are used (the wealth is not shared; it’s about extraction).

As noted before, Elizabeth seemed like a generally good person. Ending the Monarchy with “Elizabeth the Second” would seem better than ending it with another major scandal/blunder involving Andrew, Charles, and their sex lives.

As a side story, I was a room apart from “the Queen” when I was in London aged about 9^*, she passed by us just over a decade ago in her car, and I was close to shaking hands with his son Charles some years when he visited Manchester. There’s nothing magical or exceptional about them, unless you believe the hype of course…

Judge people by their accomplishments, not family heritage.

____
^* If I remember correctly, my parents asked if I could enter to see her too. My Ph.D. Supervisor received an OBE from her (in person). But she hands out a load of these. “BE” stands for something that seems like a stain on one’s reputation in the scientific world. We seek merit, not “medals” from self-appointed ‘royals’. Such medals are meant to serve themselves and their egos.

he war in Ukraine needs to end; neither side is going to “win”. Worse yet, the conflict would spill over to other countries.

It’s nice to “pick sides” and cheer, especially when you’re far away, but the perpetuation of current tensions (and rising death toll) will elevate risk.

Choose the side of peace. The aim should be to end this as soon as possible, by diplomatic means if possible. Concessions are likely still possible.

When dealing with nuclear-armed nations there’s no prospect of “defeating” the enemy, only destroying the world.

here’s this stigma or stereotype associated with people who allege that the government, through politicians and state media for the most part, misleads its people. Sure, they typically lie to populations outside the country too. The stigmas or stereotypes are intended to discourage such view being held or publicly expressed. Of course the government does not always lie (absolutism), but oftentimes there’s more incentive to tell supposedly ‘white’ lies.

Over the past few months I’ve covered many examples where both our government and the BBC lied to us, mostly for business reasons.

Governments aren’t in the business of science, mere facts, truth, evidence…

Governments in modern history — even in supposedly civilised nations — act more like front groups of wealthy businesspeople. The politicians are beholden to them.

This does mean we should expect lies; this is especially true at times of war. I’ve decided to archive this old and rusty page, seeing it’s likely to be offline altogether some time in the future and it’s likely Fair Use given the diversity of voices and of course key quotes going centuries back. The underlying HTML looks like something from the 1990s.

Who coined the phrase, “The first casualty of War is Truth”?

Mike Owen, Hebden Bridge UK

• In 1918 US Senator Hiram Warren Johnson is purported to have said: The first casualty when war comes is truth. However, this was not recorded.

  In 1928 Arthur Ponsonby’s wrote: The ‘When war is declared, truth is the first casualty’. (Falsehood in Wartime)

  Samuel Johnson seems to have had the first word: ‘Among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates and credulity encourages.’ (from The Idler, 1758)

  Peter Brooke, Mewmachar Scotland

• The original quote is “The first casualty when war comes is truth”. Hiram W Johnson, staunchly isolationist senator for California, to the US Senate in 1917 (the year of his election to the Senate, where he remained until his death in 1945).
  Philip Draycott, Leicester UK

• …”The first casualty when war comes is truth,” was coined by Hiram Johnson a Republican politician from California who served in the United States Senate for nearly 30 years, beginning in the midst of World War I and concluding with his death in 1945–as it happens, on the same day the U.S. dropped its first atomic bomb on Hiroshima…
  Gareth, Leeds UK

• Rudyard Kipling.
  Paul Hardy, Croydon England

• It has been attributed to both Athur Ponsonby in “Falsehood in Wartime” (1928) and US Senator Hiram Johnson in a 1918 speech. However, the true origin may be in the edition of “The Idler” magazine from 11/11/1758 which says “…among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates and credulity encourages.”
  Andy Ward, LONDON UK

• Hiram Johnson (USA). The full qoute is “The first casualty when war comes is truth”.

  Coincidentally Johnson died on August 6th 1945 (of old age!)

  Kevin Wooldridge, Lowestoft UK

• Boake Carter, an American Radio Reporter. Not sure when though. I seem to remember hearing the original broadcast in a TV origram some time ago.
  Ken Blair, Stirling Scotland

• Hiram Johnson (1866-1945) – a Progressive Republican senator in California. His actual quote, ‘The first casualty, when war comes, is truth’, was said during World War 1. He died on Aug. 6, 1945, the day the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima.
  Gilbert Sharp, Bury St Edmunds UK

• Michael Herr in his book “despatches” based on his experience as a journalist in the Vietnam War.
  Martin Togher, London England

• Aeschylus.
  Joy, Doha Qatar

• In war, truth is the first casualty.
  Aeschylus
  Greek tragic dramatist (525 BC – 456 BC)
  B Smith, Chicago Il USA

• The most fundamental of the Chinese fifth century general Sun Tzu’s principles for the conduct of war is that “All warfare is based on deception”.
  Ed Richardson, Deer Lake, Canada

• Alfred E. Neumann
  David Page, Gatineau, Canada

• Aeschylus
  Frank Olsen, Ringoes United States

• Although frequently attributed to Sun Tzu (544?496 BC), “All warfare is based on deception”; the Sun Tzu quote actually refers to methods of subterfuge in war and goes further to explain, “Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.”

  The first corroborated quote reflecting the true essence, almost verbatim is “In war, truth is the first casualty,” attributed to Greek writer/poet Aeschylus (525BC – 456BC).

  Reese, Jeffersonville, IN United States

• “In war, truth is the first casualty”, this quote is from Aeschylus
  Ensar, Dusseldorf, Germany

• Read “the First Casualty” by Philip Knightley – a history of deception in war – it’s all in there.
  John, London

• Aeschylus

  “In war, truth is the first casualty.”

  Susanna Richards, Somerset West, South Africa

• Aeschylus greek tragic dramatist
  525-546 BC
  In war, truth is the first casualty
  Andy, South Boston, Ma USA

• There are now two books that give authoritative answers to these kinds of questions, namely the Yale Book of Quotations and the Dictionary of Modern Proverbs. The latter records that Mrs. Philip Snowden wrote in the Journal of Proceedings and Addresses of the National Education Association: “Someone has finely said that ‘truth is the first casualty in war’.” A similar quotation appears in E. D. Morel, Truth and the War (1916). The Dictionary of Modern Proverbs further notes that “Currently the proverb is often attributed to Aeschylus, but the attribution seems to be no older than the 1980s.”
  Fred Shapiro, Bethany, Connecticut USA

• Soooooo many answers…. yet sooooo many of them are wrong, ignorant, and ethnocentrically shortsighted!

  The first to coin such a phrase (and then be PLAGIARIZED by all these other people that you all tout and argue over) was a Greek writer (Dramatist – theatrical arts) named Aeschylus.

  Good job proving the ignorance of the masses (especially since you can learn the etymology of this particular phrase with a little researching online these days… or by GOING TO COLLEGE and taking a dramatic literature course or two!)

  “Ignorance is a disease that can never truly be cured”

  James T., San Diego USA

• Perhaps “James T., San Diego USA” would likely to cite precisely where Aeschylus wrote it. As presently he’s is looking the most ignorant poster here.
  Davey F=Dave, Ickenham England

• This quote was stolen from Aeschylus “In war, the first casualty is truth.” Aeschylus lived from 456 B.C. to 524 B.C
  Jayme Ariss, Shelburne, Canada

• Let’s cut the sniping. Would anyone like to support their arguments by accurately citing the primary source?

  Many thanks,
  Ian.

  Ian Buckingham, Norwich, UK

AST year the world changed. Here in the UK nothing was the same anymore, even if the government likes to pretend otherwise and move on (pretending COVID-19 is “old news” is just about as bad as calling it “fake news”; people who believe either should be treated as “COVIDiots”). The government’s mortality report for the past week [PDF] has just been released and I’ve made a local copy of it [PDF]. This is the sort of data which is harder for the government to manipulate because while it’s not to hard to misattribute causes of deaths (e.g. in order to make COVID-19 response seem fit and proportional) it’s really hard to just hide the deaths themselves. Each death has a name and a person associated with it. The mortality rates can tell us something about the effect of the pandemic, taking into account even factors such as vaccine side effects. In the video above, which is spontaneous, I express my thoughts and interpretation of the situation. It ought not be taken out of context; my stance is very clear and it’s hardly even controversial.

Update: While uploading the video the NHS announced 88,376 more positive tests (new cases) for today. Tories aiming for 100k a day. They just don’t care.

S someone who works from home (for many years already) I may be biased, but here we go anyway.

I’ve long regarded long-distance flying (across nations, oceans, continents) as largely unnecessary or considered that to be a luxury that’s rarely essential except for visiting close relatives. Some people have taken advantage of the lowered cost of flying (not taking account/measure of environmental costs) to take a plane journey to some distant beach for only a few days.

Well, the pandemic makes such travel even less convenient than it was before (adding to the security theatre in all major airports around the world). For the sake of this planet, among other things such as biodiversity, one can hope not for travel bans but for travel deflation. Humans do need to travel, but rarely is it imperative to travel very far for very short timespans. There are other ways to get things done. Working from home, where the nature job is doable/applicable, is another.

If something good does come out of this whole pandemic/health crisis, perhaps it will be a much-needed decrease in travel. It has long been a major contributing factor not just to pollution (a silent killer) but to global warming.

ust over 3 weeks ago we went into lock-down again (personal decision), seeing the non-linear growth in the number of COVID-19 cases, not to mention how the government had (re)opened lots of non-essential things — all this while denying access to very critical services. They forced us to take a phone of a friend to bypass their oppressive restrictions [1, 2].

Apparently you can meet ‘mates’ down the pub but cannot see a public official to get important work done! Worse yet, those public officials don’t even respond to you. They don’t speak to you and there’s nobody to talk to. Not even in E-mail or over the phone.

While vaccination does lower death rates, it comes at a hidden cost. And morever we cannot entirely rely on it as if it makes people invulnerable and thus we can just go back to “normal”.

If you value your safety and well-being, and if it’s possible for you to work from home, consider doing that for months to come. Don’t trust what our ‘Orange One’ says. We have a psychopathic and insane Pry Minister who keeps spreading false optimism about coronavirus (this misplaced optimism is bound to make things even worse!). Patients admitted with coronavirus are up 40% this past week alone, yet the lying psychopath pretends it’s all going to be “business as usual” next month. Deja vu (last summer).

We shall stay home. Our leaders are nihilistic (what sane person says “bodies [can] pile up high”?), far worse than incompetent and more sinister than merely misinformed.