When The S*** Hits the Fan

Higher Power: How Ancient #Church Spires Help Rural Areas Get Broadband #Internet

by

 

(ANTIMEDIA) United Kingdom — Ancient churches will play their part in bringing superfast broadband to rural Britain following the Church of England’s pledge this week to use 10,000 churches as communication towers. The medieval spires and towers will aid the rollout of superfast internet provision in some of the U.K’s most remote locations. The church’s move comes amid criticism that the government is masking the true extent of poor connectivity.

In rural and remote areas, the costs of installing infrastructure are significantly higher than in urban and suburban areas, often outweighing potential revenues for providers. The Church of England already provides a far-reaching broadband service through its company, WiSpire, using 47 churches across Norfolk as relay towers. Each one provides wireless coverage within a 4km radius.

Communities still struggling with slow speeds are set to benefit from the new set of guidelines being drawn up by the Church of England, which pledged an additional 10,000 churches for use. Last November, the prime minister pledged to provide fast broadband to all homes and businesses, giving the public a legal right to broadband speeds of at least 10mbps by 2020. But the Church of England’s offer is intended to plug the gap as the government struggles to implement the United Service Obligation, which aimed to put access to broadband on a similar footing as other basic services like water and electricity.

The original plan to connect 95% of the population with superfast speeds by the end of 2017 is reportedly on track, but getting the final 5% online (about a million properties) is proving challenging and potentially expensive — so much so that in a recent consultation, published in March, the government backtracked on its original commitment.

Therefore, the solution appears to lie in the steeples of thousands of parish churches,

many of which are ideally located in remote locations. Paul Miner of the Campaign to Protect Rural England said rural areas continue to suffer from poor coverage and slow speeds. Claiming there have been a number of cases where masts have unnecessarily harmed landscapes, he explained that adding new infrastructure to existing buildings, such as churches or farm buildings, is preferable — providing there is no damage to the heritage value.

Steve Maine, chief executive of WiSpire, questions the government’s 5% figure and claims the true extent of poor broadband in Britain is being kept under wraps. “Is five percent the right number? No. The amount of people without a good broadband connection is a lot higher than 10 percent,” Maine told Newsweek.

Adding that many premises are inaccurately counted and included in the 95% figure as being supported by existing fiber networks when they are not, he added:

“In a world where you can’t even get your grants as a farmer unless you apply for them online, there will be more and more areas of life where good broadband connectivity is absolutely vital — even when applying for welfare benefits. The scale of the problem is a lot bigger than the government is prepared to admit to.”

This article (Higher Power: How Ancient Church Spires Help Rural Areas Get Broadband Internet) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Michaela Whitton and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

 

From theantimedia.org Team

#UK Government Urged To Answer for Policy of Targeted #Killing

by

 

(ANTIMEDIA) When is it acceptable for a state to take a life outside of armed conflict? Is assassinating someone in order to protect other lives justified? If so, who gets to decide what constitutes a threat? In order to clarify the answers, a parliamentary committee in the U.K. has called into question the government’s interpretation of the law when it comes to the targeted killings of suspected terrorists outside the scope of armed conflict.

A new report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) has called for more accountability from the British government when it uses such force. However, campaigners claim the new recommendations risk legitimising extrajudicial killing. Although the inquiry was triggered by the RAF drone strike that targeted and killed 21-year-old Reyaad Khan in Syria last August, the JCHR focused on the wider legal issues surrounding the U.K’s targeted killing policy. They concluded the legal basis for the policy requires urgent clarification.

The U.K. government currently considers the use of drone attacks outside of armed conflict justified, as long as it complies with international law governing the use of force on the territory and the Law of War. However, the report highlighted a number of areas where the government’s legal basis for its own policy remains unclear, urging it to provide more clarity.

It also recommended the government establish its understanding of key concepts, such as what constitutes an “imminent threat” under international law. In addition, it stated the government must make clear its legal basis for contributing to the use of lethal force by other countries abroad, such as the U.S. Jennifer Gibson, a lawyer from Reprieve, called the report a wake-up call. She warned the U.K. risks “following the US down the slippery slope of kill lists and targeted killings.”

Chris Cole from Drone Wars U.K. also issued a word of caution. “We must be careful not to fall into the trap of putting in place policies and procedures that normalise and legitimise extrajudicial killing,” he said. “The UK must not follow the US down the path of adding suspects to a ‘kill list’ in order that they will be assassinated at the first opportunity in an ever-expanding, global battlefield.”

Claiming part of the problem is that the issue is being examined in legal terms, Cole pointed to additional serious ethical and security issues raised by the increased use of drone technology. Acknowledging the growing recognition that drones are lowering the threshold for the use of lethal force, he added:

“The constant presentation of targeted drone strikes as ‘precise’ and ‘pinpoint accurate’ has serious implications for the public’s understanding and debate of these issues.

“Due to the nature of today’s military interventions, few people in the UK have first-hand accounts of the impact on the ground, creating in the minds of many the idea that such strikes are clean, safe and even bloodless.”

Although Cole acknowledged the report is an important step in opening up the debate, he said there is a need for more serious debate on whether targeted killing should be happening at all.

This article (UK Government Urged To Answer for Policy of Targeted Killing) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Michaela Whitton and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

 

0 Total Shares

From theantimedia.org Team

#Google Now Has Access To Millions of Patient’s #Medical Records

by

Michaela Whitton
May 3, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) United Kingdom — A controversial deal between tech giant Google and the National Health Service (NHS) will allow artificial intelligence units access to 1.6 million confidential medical records. Since 2014, Google has partnered with several scientists in an attempt to understand human health, but a new report reveals the data gathering goes far beyond what was originally anticipated.

According to documents obtained by the New Scientist, the data sharing agreement between Google-owned artificial intelligence company DeepMind and the Royal Free NHS Trust gives access to the sensitive healthcare data of millions of NHS patients. The chilling and wide-reaching deal allows DeepMind access to the medical records of the 1.6 million people passing annually through the three London hospitals owned by the Trust — Barnet, Chase Farm, and the Royal Free.

The Google-owned A.I. firm announced in February it was working with the NHS to build an app called Streams — intended to help hospitals monitor patients with kidney disease. However, the new information has revealed that the extent of the data being shared goes much further and includes logs of day-to-day hospital activity, records of the location and status of patients, and even logs of who visits them and when.

Results of pathology and radiology tests are also shared, as is information from critical care and accident and emergency departments. In addition, DeepMind’s access to the centralised records of all NHS hospital treatments in the U.K. means the tech company can access historical data from the last five years, all while receiving a continuous stream of new data.

At the same time, DeepMind is developing a platform called Patient Rescue, which uses hospital data streams to build tools to carry out analysis and support diagnostic decisions. The New Scientist explained how it works:

“Comparing a new patient’s information with millions of other cases, Patient Rescue might be able to predict that they are in the early stages of a disease that has not yet become symptomatic, for example. Doctors could then run tests to see if the prediction is correct.”

While the Royal Free has not yet responded to the question of what — if any — opt-out mechanisms are available to patients, the New Scientist suggests this is unlikely to be a straightforward process. Despite the agreement stating Google cannot use the data in any other part of the company’s business, many will be seriously wary of the access the online tech giant now has to the confidential data of millions of people.

As the New Scientist wrote:

“Data mining is the name of the game in the burgeoning field of machine learning and artificial intelligence, and there’s no company in the world better at that than Google.”

This article (Google Now Has Access To Millions of Patient’s Medical Records) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Michaela Whitton and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

 

From theantimedia.org Team

Activist Faces #Extradition and 99-Year Sentence on #Hacking Charges

by

Michaela Whitton
April 28th, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) United Kingdom — A British activist is fighting extradition to the U.S. after allegedly taking part in a hacktivist protest against the U.S. government. Accused of hacking into government websites — including those of the U.S Army, FBI, NASA and the privately-run Federal Reserve Bank — computer scientist Lauri Love now has three U.S. extradition requests with his name on them. Lawyers have warned he could face 99 years in jail.

First arrested in 2013 for alleged offences under the U.K.’s Computer Misuse Act, Love’s equipment was also seized. Britain’s National Crime Agency attempted to force him to hand over his encryption keys, but he refused to cooperate and was released on bail.

He was arrested again last year at the request of the U.S. government, which issued a number of indictments and corresponding extradition warrants. The FBI and Department of Justice accused Love of hacking into websites including the U.S. Army, NASA, the Federal Reserve and the Environmental Protection Agency. Operation Last Resort (#OpLastResort) was a series of online protests in 2013, which Anonymous hacktivists claimed responsibility for. The cyber attack followed the persecution and untimely death of Aaron Swartz and prompted the federal websites to demand legal reform.

Data protection expert Kevin Cahill has described Love’s case as unbelievably ironic, pointing out that the very same people seeking to extradite the political activist have been convicted of hacking in the U.K. “The United States government was convicted on October 6th of the criminal offence of interception of emails in the United Kingdom,” he told  RT’s Harry Fear.

What’s also ironic is that while Big Brother keeps a beady eye on all of us, the very same governments that classify hackers as criminals are secretly exploiting their expertise, according to documents provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Just weeks away from his June hearing, Love remains on extradition bail and is required to sign on at a police station twice a week. Claiming he wants the court deciding his fate to be a British one, he says he has been informed the British authorities have no intention of charging him. “The U.S. government has attempted to fight a war against information transparency and hacktivism in general, and I’ve become swept up in that,”  said the 31-year-old activist, who has been described as one of the U.K’s most expert cyber-security scientists.

“I believe that if I am extradited to the U.S., my life is effectively over,” he added.

Love has Asperger’s Syndrome, as did British hacker Gary Mckinnon, who escaped U.S. extradition after a ten-year battle. Central to Mckinnon’s eventual win was the risk that his vulnerable health would decline during U.S. incarceration. Naomi Colvin, of the Courage Foundation, said Love’s case will be a vital test of whether the U.K.’s outdated extradition laws have changed since the Mckinnon case.

Tor Ekeland, Love’s lawyer, called the case a draconian and heavy-handed prosecution. Insisting the U.K. authorities are very much acting on behalf of the U.S., he said he fails to see what the major harm is. He added that while the U.S. has a particular “puritanical zeal”  in its punishment of hackers compared with other countries, it doesn’t do much to deter the real bad actors, which are usually nation states and criminal gangs.

“I don’t think I’ve committed any crimes,” Love said, before adding, “Whether I have done anything illegal is something that gets determined in court.”

The computer scientist’s extradition hearing is at the end of June, with a decision expected in July. You can read more about the case and show him support here.

This article (Activist Faces Extradition and 99-Year Sentence on Hacking Charges) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Michaela Whitton and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

 

From theantimedia.org Team

#Spy Agency Apologizes for Chemical #Castration and Horrific Treatment of #LGBT People #turing

by

 

Michaela Whitton
April 19th, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) United Kingdom — Britain’s secret intelligence agency has apologized for the “horrifying” treatment of one of its most famous members, as well as for the organisation’s historic prejudice against homosexuality. Speaking at a conference organised by LGBT rights charity, Stonewall, Robert Hannigan — director of Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) — paid tribute to former staff member Alan Turing, who was dismissed by the espionage service over his sexuality in the 1960s. Hannigan went on to apologise to all those unfairly dismissed as a result of the archaic policies, which included a ban on LGBT people joining the agency until the 1990s.

Described as a visionary and a brilliant mathematician, codebreaker Alan Turing’s skills are said to have shortened World War Two by two or more years, yet he was hounded from the secret service because of his sexuality. Known as the father of the modern computer, Turing led the well-known Bletchley Park codebreakers who cracked the encryption devices used by the Nazis.

When his home was burgled in 1952, the resulting police investigation uncovered that Turing was in a relationship with a young man. Homosexuality was still illegal in Britain, and he was ousted from his job following a conviction for indecency. Given the choice between prison and being treated with an experimental hormone to “fix” his sexual orientation — essentially chemical castration — he chose the latter. The treatment rendered him impotent and, in 1954, he took his own life by eating an apple laced with cyanide.

Hannigan said he attended the Stonewall conference to champion the right of people to be themselves. Apologising for the treatment of Alan Turing and many others discriminated against by the intelligence agency, he added:

“The fact that it was common practice for decades reflected the intolerance of the times and the pressures of the cold war, but it does not make it any less wrong and we should apologise for it.

“Their suffering was our loss and it was the nation’s loss too because we cannot know what Ian and others who were dismissed would have gone on to do and achieve. We did not learn our lesson from Turing.”

This article (British Spy Agency Apologizes for Chemical Castration and Horrific Treatment of LGBT People) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Michaela Whitton and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

 

From theantimedia.org Team

#Australian Dad Charged With #Murder for Self-Defense: “#Rapist Found Near Daughter’s Room”

by

double-barrel-shotgun-wikimedia

It’s every family’s worst nightmare, and it’s the reason to have self defense tools and preparations in your home.

But many governments around the world don’t hold the same basic protections for home defense that the United States does in most states (and clearly, there are forces at work to undermine that as well).

This father was charged with murder in Australia for fighting and killing a rapist who was entering their home in attempted robbery… and found close to his daughter’s room. Ask yourself, would you do any differently?

via the International Business Times:

A young dad in Australia has been charged with murder after he confronted a burglar inside his home. Father Benjamin Batterham, 33, discovered convicted rapist Ricky Slater, 34, near his daughter’s room inside their family home in Newcastle, New South Wales, at 3.30am.

With a 32-year-old friend, Batterham confronted Slater and the resulting skirmish sent Slater to hospital where he later died of his injuries, believed to include brain damage.

Batterham also suffered facial injuries and bite marks to his body and some reports say he had to be tested for HIV. Reports that Slater suffered a broken neck have been ruled out. After Slater was taken off life support Batterham handed himself in at a police station and was charged with murder.

The details of the incident are no doubt importance, but in essence, Batterham has lost his liberty on charges of murder for defending his family inside his home.

Australian law is crazy – apparently there is no right to self-defense?

Well, typically of laws, it is a bit vague, but killing an assailant in self-defense is only a partial justification in the eyes of the law, where excessive force considerations will still hold the man accountable to murder. In the case of Benjamin Batterham, it seems ridiculous.

That’s why more than 100,000 people have petitioned for his release:

Now an appeal on the apprentice chef’s behalf has attracted over 110,000 signatures (as of 6 April). However, a planned protest march on behalf of Batterhamwas called off when a teenager organising the protest said he was threatened by members of the Slater family.

But the family of rapist Ricky Slater have torn down signs and intimidated supporters out of holding a rally:

“So we ripped them off the poles and then my son-in-law saw this young bloke putting up more banners and just said ‘that’s not right’ and ‘can you give me the rest of them, sorry’” said Dickson. “He never assaulted him or anything. We’re just upset that they were going up. People have been saying so much about Ricky, it’s very painful for our family.”

Newcastle police are investigating the incident. The case has divided opinion across Australia, with most appearing to support the actions of Batterham.

So not only has the concept of self-defense been turned on its head, but the powers that be are again sowing division between racial groups in a case that is reminiscent of Trayvon Martin, and likely to split communities and debates along ideological lines.

But if you can’t defend yourself, you also can’t be free.

Read more:

Home Defense: “If You Can’t Protect It, You Don’t Own It”

A Green Beret’s Guide To Low-Budget Home-Defense Techniques 101: “Early-Warning Systems and Fortifications”

Empowering Citizens and Deterring Crime, One Free Shotgun At a Time

SHTFplan and Mac Slavo www.shtfplan.com

Police Forced to Apologize after Blood-Thirsty Officer Accidentally Records Himself

by

Michaela Whitton
March 30, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) United Kingdom —The Metropolitan Police have finally apologized and paid out damages for the false arrest and assault of a 20-year-old man at the 2010 student demonstrations — over five years after his tooth was knocked out by a police officer.

As an evidence gatherer, PC Andrew Ott was supposed to look for troublemakers during the student protests in central London. What he didn’t realize in his excessive enthusiasm for the task was that his police radio was on record, capturing every word of his violent boasting.

“I wanna kill these f****** little lot here,” Ott said. “Mate, if that fence goes I’m gonna f****** batter them.”

The accidental recording continued: “Guys, if you happen to move forward and he’s still there, stamp all over his little f****** head,” he said of one protester.

As he bragged that he was more covert than other cops because he wasn’t wearing a jacket, Ott’s menacing threats escalated: “So I’ll go stick in play now and I’ll f****** let some people have it as well.”

William Horner, a student situated near Westminster Abbey, eventually caught the fired-up copper’s attention — and became the target of his aggression. Shortly after Ott hollered to other officers to stop the man, camera footage captured William Horner on the ground, seconds after his front tooth was knocked out by Ott’s riot shield.

Horner had jumped a fence to get away from the increasingly chaotic demonstration in an attempt to get home. Another officer explained to Ott that the man had done nothing to warrant the violence. Rather than being remorseful, the PC continued his tirade: “I f****** knocked his tooth out the c***.”

Not content with hunting down an innocent person, the aggressive cop then grappled with how to frame him. “Well he’s going to have to have done something at the moment because I just put his tooth out,” he said.

Ott was eventually convicted of Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) and sentenced to eight months in prison. This week, the Metropolitan police apologized for the incident and paid an undisclosed sum in damages to William Horner, who said, “I am of course pleased with the apology and damages but if it wasn’t for the accidental recording by PC Ott I could instead be living with a criminal record now.”

It’s unclear why it took the Met nearly six years to apologize. What is clear is that Horner isn’t the first person to be hospitalized by the British police, and he surely won’t be the last. While there is a least a glimmer of accountability for police misconduct in the U.K., this is not an isolated incident; it simply shows PC Andrew Ott was unlucky to be caught.

This article (Police Forced to Apologize after Blood-Thirsty Officer Accidentally Records Himself) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Michaela Whitton and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

From theantimedia.org Team

This Stun Gun Looks Like an iPhone, Delivers 3 Million Volts of Electricity

by

Michaela Whitton
March 14, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) United Kingdom — When members of the public became concerned that stun guns disguised as iPhones were readily available online to be imported into the U.K, they contacted national advocacy service Whistleblower.co.uk. The group contacted the Sunday Mirror, which launched an investigation into the devices that look and feel like iPhones, yet are capable of delivering over 3 million volts of electricity.

Available online in a variety of disguises, such as phones, torches, and key fobs, the stun guns can be bought and delivered for free in a few days with a couple of clicks. With the look and feel of a cell phone, the high-voltage weapons can be bought for as little as £13.00 ($22) and feature two electrodes at one end for zapping victims.

Claiming the availability of the stun guns could “fuel gang warfare on the streets,” the Sunday Mirror report uses predictably sensationalist language throughout. What it fails to mention is that the majority of buyers are purchasing the items for self defense. Just one sentence devoted to what a tragic indictment it is on today’s society that people are forced to carry high voltage devices on their key fobs — in defence against violent aggressors — wouldn’t have gone amiss but, after all, this was the Mirror.

What it does point to is how easy it is to get hold of the stun guns for malicious purposes, highlights the fact that they are classed as firearms in Britain, and that possession is illegal. While the site selling them is based in the U.S., possession in the U.K. can carry a prison sentence of up to ten years.

The investigation claims to have uncovered a series of prosecutions throughout the U.K. involving criminals importing the stun guns, referring to them throughout as “deadly weapons.” While intended to be non-lethal, there have been many deaths reported following police use of tasers in Britain, prompting Amnesty International to express concern that stun guns are “potentially lethal” weapons.

It says hundreds of the devices are slipping under the radar of the U.K. authorities only to be found in the possession of the likes of Nathan Matthews — the demented killer of Becky Watts — who was found with two stun guns disguised as torches. It also points to a naive holiday maker who was jailed for five years last month — after buying a stun gun designed as an iPhone as a present for a relative and bringing it into to Britain — unaware it was classified as an illegal firearm.

Meanwhile, a quick scan of the reviews for the iStun model from buyers in the U.S. reveal that not only does the device work, but that they are more than happy with their purchase.

“Used it on a drunk parking lot bully who was intimidating my wife, I got out and asked him to lay off, he said hey old man, who is gonna stop me,? you? he grabbed my coat and pushed my back, that is the line for me I stuck it in his rib cage and bully went down like a sack of potatoes he was still making threats as I zapped him again, called the cops and they took him away for threatening an elderly person.”

“This little diddy provides you with confidence to go dark places at night, hangout with shady people, or just yell offensive remarks at random strangers.
When confronted, just say you will ‘give them your iPhone’ as an apology. Then you give em the ol’ 3,800,000 volts and continue on your way.”

Alongside the pros, there are always the cons:

“It looks like an iPhone! My mom called me after I had this bad boy for about 2 days. Naturally I answered the phone. I woke up 2.5 hours later on the ground crying to the smell of burnt hair. Turns out I answered my stun gun! That was an iMistake I only made once. The only long term damage done was to my pride. Good news is, I know it works well.”

Stun GunStun Gun

This article (This Stun Gun Looks Like an iPhone, Delivers 3 Million Volts of Electricity) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Michaela Whitton and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

From theantimedia.org Team

Is Britain About To Declare Independence from the European Union?

by

Michaela Whitton
February 22, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) United Kingdom — Much like the relentless media coverage of the U.S. presidential race, the British media is already awash with the political posturing and in-fighting that was to be expected in the run up to the E.U. referendum. Still four months away, the vote on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of, or leave the European Union, is scheduled for June 23. Is it any wonder that the public are dismayed when terms like “Brexit” and “Bremain” are being bandied about as sensible words.

Ask people in the street and many are confused as to what the being in E.U. has actually done for Britain. Others wonder what has it done to it. As usual, it’s almost impossible to ascertain what the practical issues are, beneath the propaganda and distraction of what appears to be rapidly becoming a civil war — not only between political parties, but within them.

Why is a referendum being held?

Shortly after Britain joined the E.U. — or the Common Market as it was then called — a referendum was held and the country voted to stay in. Since then, the public and politicians have called for another vote, claiming that the E.U. has changed so much in 40 years since many more countries have joined, and the institution has exercised more control. After initially resisting the calls, David Cameron changed his mind in 2013.

Who wants to leave?

Since September, the race has been fairly evenly split with latest opinion polls showing 51% wish to remain in the EU 51%, 49% want to leave. The U.K. Independence Party (UKIP), which won the European elections, campaigns for Britain’s exit from the E.U. In addition, about half of Conservative MPs, including five cabinet ministers, several Labour MPs, and the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) are in favour of leaving.

Why do they want to leave?

Many believe that the E.U. imposes too many rules and charges billions of pounds in membership fees for little in return. They want Britain to take full control of its borders and reduce the number of people entering for work. They also object to the idea of “ever closer union” and the ultimate goal to create a “United States of Europe.”

Who wants to stay?

David Cameron and sixteen of his cabinet back staying in. The Conservative Party has pledged to be neutral in the campaign, while the Labour Party, Scottish National Party (SNP), Plaid Cymru, and the Liberal Democrats are in favour of staying in.

Why do they want to stay?

Some believe that Britain gets a boost from E.U. membership . They claim it makes selling things to other E.U. countries easier and that the flow of immigrants fuels economic growth and helps pay for public services. The ‘ins’ also believe that Britain’s status in the world would be damaged by leaving and that the country is more secure as part of the bloc.

Who’s saying what?

A number of campaigners and union leaders wrote a letter to the Guardian calling the E.U. a “profoundly anti-democratic institution” and claiming that it is irreversibly committed to privatisation, welfare cuts, low wages, and the erosion of trade union rights. The letter stated: “We stand for a positive vision of a future Europe based on democracy, social justice and ecological sustainability, not the profit-making interests of a tiny elite. For these reasons we are committed to pressing for a vote to leave the E.U. in the forthcoming referendum on U.K. membership.”

Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has said that many Scots would object to being taken out of the E.U. against their will. She added that a second Scottish independence referendum would almost certainly be triggered if the U.K. votes to leave the E.U. but Scotland does not.

Caroline Lucas Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion said the end of David Cameron’s marathon twenty-five hour negotiations last week must mark “an end of men in grey suits shouting at each other” and added “The distraction of the negotiations is now over and the real debate can begin. Every single vote is equal in this referendum – and it’s crucial that this conversation is taken out from behind closed doors and into our communities.”

In an opinion piece for the Guardian, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn accused Cameron’s recent negotiations of“overblown tinkering.’’ Corbyn agrees that the E.U. needs reform but said Labour will be campaigning to stay in, as he said: “It’s because being part of Europe has brought Britain investment, jobs and protection for workers, consumers and the environment. We are convinced that the EU is a vital framework for European trade and international cooperation in the 21st century, and that a vote to remain in Europe is in the best interests of our people.”

London Mayor Boris Johnson released a statement on Sunday night siding with the exit campaign: “I will be advocating Vote Leave – or whatever the team is called, I understand there are a lot of them – because I want a better deal for the people of this country, to save them money and to take control. That is really what this is all about.” Despite the buffoon-like vagueness of his claims, the revelations caused shockwaves through currency markets on Monday with the pound hitting its lowest point against the U.S. dollar in seven years.

Stomach-churning photos of Nigel Farage and George Galloway at a rally for the Grassroots Out campaign last week no doubt boosted numbers for the Remain camp while prompting some hilarious tweets.

This article (Is Britain About To Declare Independence from the European Union?) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Michaela Whitton and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

From theantimedia.org Team