Recent Posts

Danish inventor Peter Madsen given life sentence for murdering journalist Kim Wall on his submarine

No comments
Danish inventor Peter Madsen has been sentenced to life in prison without parole for the murder of the Swedish journalist Kim Wall on his submarine.
Madsen had planned to kill Ms Wall, 30, either by suffocating her or cutting her throat, the Copenhagen court heard.
Her dismembered remains were found by Danish police at sea on 21 August last year, 11 days after she interviewed him on board his homemade vessel.
Madsen, 47, has said he will appeal against the conviction.
He was found guilty of premeditated murder and sexual assault after previously admitting to dismembering Ms Wall's body on the submarine and throwing her remains overboard.
His claim that Ms Wall's death was accidental was dismissed by the court. 

What did the judge say?

The case was heard by Copenhagen City Court Judge Anette Burkoe and two jurors.
Judge Burkoe said: "It is the court's assessment that the defendant killed Kim Wall.
"We are talking about a cynical and planned sexual assault and brutal murder of a random woman, who in connection with her journalistic work had accepted an offer to go sailing in the defendant's submarine."
She said Madsen had "failed to give trustworthy explanations" and had "shown an interest for the killing and maiming of people and has shown an interest for impaling".
Presentational grey line

No emotion

BBC's Jenny Hill, at the court in Copenhagen
In the stuffy, crowded press room, everyone exhaled at once as the judge announced her verdict. This case has horrified Denmark - and not just because of the brutality of the crime.
Peter Madsen's stunts and projects, after all, had captured the public imagination. But the man people thought they knew as a harmless eccentric turned out to be a calculating and violent killer.
Madsen went to extraordinary lengths to evade justice, scuttling his own submarine and changing his story several times. Today he sat, staring ahead, betraying no emotion as the judge told him that she didn't believe that Kim Wall had died accidentally.
This was, she insisted, a "cynically planned murder". Only Madsen knows exactly what happened on board the Nautilus that night but the details pieced together by investigators suggest a crime so gruesome that even the prosecuting lawyer admitted afterwards that he'd found the case particularly hard to deal with.
Presentational grey line

What do we know about the murder?

Ms Wall had been researching a story about Madsen's venture and was last seen on the evening of 10 August as she departed with him on his self-built 40-tonne submarine, UC3 Nautilus, into waters off Copenhagen.
Her boyfriend raised the alarm the next day when she did not return from the trip. Madsen was rescued at sea after his submarine sank the same day. Police believe he deliberately scuttled the vessel.
map shows what happened when
Ms Wall's mutilated torso was spotted by a passing cyclist on 21 August but her head, legs and clothing, placed in weighted-down bags, were not discovered by police divers until 6 October.
After his arrest, Madsen gave differing accounts of what had happened on board his submarine.
During the opening session of his trial last month, prosecutors said there was a suspicion that he had "psychopathic tendencies" after investigators discovered films on his computer showing women being tortured and mutilated.

What did Madsen say about that night?

Madsen's shifting and unconvincing explanations helped convict him.
Initially, he said he had dropped Ms Wall off at about 22:30 the night before she disappeared and had not seen her since.
The next day Madsen gave police a new account of events, telling them there had been a "terrible accident" on board the self-built submarine.
Ms Wall, he said, had been accidentally hit on the head by the submarine's 70kg (150lb) hatch. He had then dumped her body somewhere in Koge Bay, about 50km (30 miles) south of Copenhagen.
On 30 October, police said the inventor had changed his story again and told them Ms Wall had died on board of carbon monoxide poisoning while he was up on deck. He also admitted dismembering her body, which he had previously denied. 
After the verdict was announced, Madsen's lawyer Betina Hald Engmark told the court her client would appeal. He will remain in custody pending the process.

What does life imprisonment mean in Denmark?

Theoretically it means just that, but in reality life-term prisoners do not serve the sentence. Police killer Palle Sorensen, paroled in 1998 after 32 years, and Naum Conevski, jailed in 1984 for killing two young men, are unusual in having served considerably more than the average of about 16 years.
Sorensen died earlier this year. Conevski is still in jail.
The sentence range for murder starts at five years and runs to life.
One study shows the number of life-termers in Danish prisons increased from 10 in 1997 to 25 in 2013. The 2015 study said only every fifth or sixth murder convict was serving life.

Who was Kim Wall?

Friends and family describe her as a formidable character and driven journalist.
She was born in 1987 and grew up in a close-knit community in the small town of Trelleborg in southern Sweden, just across the strait dividing Denmark from Sweden.
She studied international relations at London School of Economics and went on to gain a place on the masters programme of Columbia University's School of Journalism - described as the "Oxbridge of journalism".
Even within her cohort she was top of the class, winning honours in her year, her classmate and friend Anna Codrea-Rado told the BBC.
Ms Wall's close family members were not present in court for the verdict.

American Cities Are Fighting Big Business Over Wireless Internet, and They’re Losing: “It’s often lost on the public just how badly they’re being screwed”

No comments
Big business is quietly trouncing cities in the fight over the future of the internet. The results of an obscure, bureaucratic battle inside the U.S. communications regulator could decide not only which Americans get ultra-fast internet but how much it’ll cost and even what city streetlights will look like.
On Wednesday, a committee created by the Federal Communications Commission will meet to frame the future of 5G, a technology that will make downloads dramatically faster on phones and perhaps replace home broadband for some. The group, with representatives of the business world outnumbering government officials four-to-one, may push for a vote on guidelines that have been under debate for more than a year.
It will be the first summit since Shireen Santosham and her boss quit in dismay. The city of San Jose, where Santosham works as chief innovation officer, resigned in late January from the wonky-sounding board, called the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee. New York City later followed. The process came to embody a nationwide effort by telecommunications companies, like AT&T Inc. and Sprint Corp., to establish business-friendly rules for their industry, Santosham and other city officials allege.
The FCC, with guidance from the committee, could make rules that will influence how 5G mobile internet is priced, how quickly it spreads around the country and whether local governments must subsidize the cost. The 5G system is meant to replace today’s mobile wireless technology, making it easier to stream high-definition video anywhere and enable new kinds of apps. The cellular networks will use frequencies that carry a lot of information but don’t travel very far. That means antennas need to be close together and will number in the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions. They’ll be closer to shops and homes than today’s arrays atop cell towers.
The influence of Big Telecom inside the FCC has already spread into state capitols. More than a dozen states, mostly in Republican strongholds, have passed laws borrowing similar language from the 5G committee. U.S. lawmakers are drafting legislation along similar lines. “This is the biggest movement in broadband that we’ve seen in recent history,” Santosham said. 
Santosham, a former McKinsey consultant, has been one of the most vocal agitators against the country’s telecom giants over the past year. Her office led committee work on behalf of San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo, a Democrat selected to join a year ago. She served as his official proxy. The initiative was billed as a way to bring cities, states, companies and interest groups together to devise guidelines for updating telecom infrastructure, a move that paves the way for self-driving cars and a world where every device connects to the internet.
An hour before the FCC introduced the group to the public in April 2017, Santosham said she learned San Jose would be the only city represented. Eventually, the agency added officials from Lincoln, Nebraska, and Lenexa, Kansas, but they have always been outnumbered by corporate suits.
Elizabeth Bowles, president of an internet provider in rural areas of Central Arkansas, was appointed chairman in July after the resignation of her predecessor, another telecom executive who was later arrested on an unrelated fraud charge. A few months into Bowles’s tenure, the group was deadlocked on most major issues. Cities and corporate representatives couldn’t agree on prices for installing 5G beacons on government property such as streetlights. An even bigger point of contention: Companies and the FCC have expressed desire for “shot clocks,” a basketball metaphor that would automatically give carriers permission to install beacons if negotiations with cities aren’t resolved in a timely manner.
“The problem with the debate is everyone is entrenched into their sides,” Bowles said. “Every single member of the committee will have something in those documents that they don’t like. That’s what a compromise is. If AT&T is thrilled with it, then we didn’t do our job.”
Too often, officials say, AT&T got its way. As committee members were returning from New Year’s festivities, they got an email from Douglas Dimitroff, a telecom attorney and chairman of one of the group’s city-focused subcommittees. “We have made substantial changes to the last version,” he wrote in an email obtained by Bloomberg through a public records request. Then he thanked Chris Nurse, a senior executive at AT&T who proposed hundreds of revisions, according to a copy of the draft.
Santosham protested. Sam Cooper, a senior technology adviser to New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, wrote: “Shotclocks. Object.” Even a telecom consultant said the revisions were unfair, tilted in favor of wireless companies like AT&T at the expense of cable providers like Comcast Corp. “AT&T has generally driven the bus,” said Angela Stacy, a committee member who’s vice president at a software company for cities called Connected Nation Exchange.
“The criticism speaks for itself — it’s baseless,” Republican FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said Wednesday in an interview. “I’m not going any further.” FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly has accused some officials of trying to “impose their will or extract bounties from providers” and suggested San Jose was seeking “high rents and fees.” AT&T said in an emailed statement that the city-focused working group had unanimously consented to a plan that will be presented to the full committee on Wednesday.
But that group now excludes San Jose and New York. Amid the fracas, Santosham asked San Jose’s mayor to write a letter to the FCC. Together, they attended the committee hearing in late January, and he resigned soon after. A cadre of state officials voiced their opposition to the process in a letter on April 6. “The ideas being generated are overwhelmingly lopsided” and create a “windfall for companies,” wrote John Betkoski, president of NARUC, a national association representing state commissions.
New York withdrew this month and embraced a popular conservative talking point to convey their frustrations: federalism. “It’s really the whole package of trying to preempt local governments from managing public-owned lands,” said Cooper, the adviser to New York’s Democratic mayor. “We couldn’t say in good conscience that these recommendations would be good for cities or localities to adopt.” 
Committee work was unglamorous, but Santosham said it could be stimulating.Members would talk on the phone for hours at a time and exchange emails, debating the anodyne decisions that make up much of local telecom regulation. The relationship was usually friendly, Santosham said.
But as corporate interests took over, officials who stuck around could be seen as endorsing the results. Cities can have more sway over technology deployment than many people realize. For instance, they pushed carriers to offer access to fast internet in low-income neighborhoods, said Gerard Lederer, a lobbyist on behalf of cities. “The reason that the vast majority of Americans today have access to high-speed broadband is not because of FCC policies and not because of things at the state level. It’s because of local governments,” he said.
Withdrawing from the process, however, means ceding some of the most influential internet policy work in years. The results will likely serve as something the FCC will “refer to as they make decisions for the next year, five years, ten years,” said Brent Skorup, a member of free-market think-tank The Mercatus Center who sits on the committee.
At Wednesday’s meeting, the committee is expected to discuss proposals for city and state code, including shot clocks. There remain fundamental disagreements, which may take time to reconcile, said Bowles, the chairman. The committee will meet again in July. Bowles dismissed concerns over departures. “I don’t have a whole lot of sympathy with the fact that you’re outnumbered, you should take your ball and go home,” she said.
For San Jose, the march toward 5G continues without the FCC. On Monday, the city struck an agreement with AT&T to install about 200 small-cell devices for 5G on light poles in exchange for $5 million in lease revenue over 15 years. Perhaps the worst part of the whole process, said San Jose Mayor Liccardo, is that most Americans aren’t paying attention: “When you’re talking about complex issues of technology and regulation, it’s often lost on the public just how badly they’re being screwed.”

Women take to the streets of Iran without the veil as they show support for woman who was viciously beaten by 'morality police'

No comments
Dozens of women have taken to the streets of Iran without the mandatory hijab, after a video emerged showing 'morality police officers' brutally beating a young woman whose veil they deemed 'insufficient'.
Videos show them bravely defying the country's Islamic law, which requires women to cover their hair in public, as they walk through cities like the capital Tehran and Shiraz.
Several of them face verbal and physical abuse in the street, with witnesses urging them to cover their hair. 
Their protest has been named #WalkingUnveiled, and is quickly spreading on social media.
Their campaign is a response to the vicious assault last week, which has sparked a new public debate on the decades-long requirement for Iranian women.
The video appeared online last week, with activists suggesting it was taken in Tehran, though nothing in it offers hints at its location.  
The outrageous scene, in what appears to be a public park in broad daylight, was secretly filmed by an onlooker and has been spread online by dissident groups.
The disturbing footage initially shows a woman with a red scarf pushed to the back of her head having a heated conversation with a man and another woman.
Seconds later, two women wearing all-black coverings that leave only their faces visible barge onto the scene and begin grabbing and shouting at the woman.   
The aggressive women - who are believed to be members of the Islamic theocracy's morality police - become increasingly violent towards their frightened victim.
Other women, who do not appear to be members of the force, assist the primary attackers as an argument rages throughout. 
The victim can be heard screaming in terror, and can later be seen lying on the floor, crying in pain and without her head scarf, as a large crowd surrounds her. 
At the end of the video, the brutal attackers can be seen pointing and shouting at members of the crowd who appear to disagree with their barbaric actions. 
The video went viral on social media and drew an immediate reaction from officials  of all ranks up to President Hassan Rouhani.
President Rouhani, a cleric who is considered a moderate within Iran's political system, also criticized the morality police in a speech on Saturday. The police force's stated mandate is 'promoting virtue and preventing vice.'
'Grabbing people's collars to promote virtue will not work,' Rouhani warned. 'You cannot do it by being aggressive.' 
Iran's interior minister, Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli, ordered authorities on Thursday to investigate the incident soon after Masoumeh Ebtekar, a female vice president for women's affairs, condemned the police's 'violent' approach to the situation.
Reformist lawmaker Tayebeh Siavoshi said Saturday that the policewoman seen in the video grabbing the young woman's throat has been suspended pending the investigation. None of the women in the video have been identified.
'Imposing (force on women) will lead nowhere,' she said.
On the streets of Tehran, women are openly discussing the video and their own encounters with morality police.
'I think that it was very unnecessary the way that the police, or the morality police, handled the situation,' said Hamraz, 27, an Austrian national born to Iranian parents who is on vacation in Tehran. 
'It was very unfortunate that it was caught on camera, but in a way it was good that everyone got to see how people are being treated: very unjust and very unfair.'  
Sahar, a 25-year-old university student, agreed, saying: 'I think everyone must be free to choose what they believe in and we can deal with each other more peacefully instead of trying to induce people to do what you think is right. This method surely will not work.'
Afrouz, 28, who also only gave her first name for fear of retribution said: 'I used to be a person who would always say her prayers and deeply believed in God.
'I would always say grace before having a meal. Right now, I believe in none of those things.' 
My Stealthy Freedom, an online group campaigning against forced hijab and highlights instances of abuse of women who choose not to wear them, were the first to upload the video.
In a description of the footage, the activists wrote: 'This woman is savagely beaten up by morality police as punishment for her insufficient hijab. And they tell us hijab is a 'small issue'.'
They added: 'We expose them and we resist compulsory hijab.' 
The group's founder - and also the founder of the anti-hijab 'White Wednesdays' movement - said to the thugs who beat the woman: 'Shame on you'.   White Wednesdays encourages women to flout regulations by capturing footage and pictures of themselves without their hijabs and posting it online.
The veil has been a mandatory dress requirement for women in Iran since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. 
The Islamic code also forbids women touching, dancing or singing with men outside their families.
Women are only allowed to show their face, hands and feet in public and are supposed to wear only modest colours.
Women arrested for showing their hair in public in Iran can receive jail terms of two months or less and face fines equivalent to $25. 
Over the years, however, women have pushed back the boundaries of the law, with many wearing loose, brightly coloured headscarves far back on their heads. 
The My Stealthy Freedom and White Wednesdays movements have also grown in recent months, following several well-publicized arrests of women who have removed their hijabs in public.

Dogs cannot get ‘autism’, British Veterinary Association warns after ‘anti-vaxx’ movement spread to pets

No comments
Dogs cannot get ‘autism’, the British Veterinary Association has warned, after the ‘anti-vaccine’ movement spread to pets.
'Anti-vaxxers' believe that immunisations have harmful side effects and may be the cause of autism in children - beliefs widely debunked by the medical community.
This theory is increasingly being applied to pets, particularly in the US, and there are fears it is spreading to the UK and could cause already low vaccination rates to fall.
The BVA said: “We are aware of an increase in anti-vaccination pet owners in the US who have voiced concerns that vaccinations may lead to their dogs developing autism-like behaviour.
“But there is currently no scientific evidence to suggest autism in dogs or a link between vaccination and autism.”
“All medicines have potential side effects but in the case of vaccines these are rare and the benefits of vaccination in protecting against disease far outweigh the potential for an adverse reaction.”
Senior Vice President Gudrun Ravetz added: “Vaccinations save lives and are an important tool in keeping our pets healthy.  
“We know from the example of the MMR vaccine and its now disproven link to autism in children that scaremongering can lead to a loss of public confidence in vaccination and knee-jerk reactions that can lead to outbreaks of disease. 
"Distemper and parvovirus are still killers in pets – and the reason we no longer see these on a wider scale is because most owners sensibly choose to vaccinate."
The comments came after ITV breakfast show Good Morning Britain tweeted: "We're looking to speak to pet owners who haven't given their pets vaccinations because they're concerned about side effects - as well as people who have done so and now believe their pet has canine autism as a result."
The message was criticised by some users of the social media site, with one posting: "Please, please do not give airtime to this unscientific and dangerous mentality.
“If a single person sees the segment and decides not to vaccinate their pet/child, that's on you. This is not a case where 'both sides should be heard' - it's factually wrong and harmful.”
The BVA said: “While we welcome a platform for pet owners to discuss vaccinations, we’d be concerned about the adverse impact on pet health resulting from alarm such a show is likely to cause amongst pet owners if it does not offer a veterinary or scientific voice for a balanced perspective on the issue.” 
Pet vaccination rates in the UK are already falling. The PDSA Animal Wellbeing (PAW) Report in 2017 showed that 25 per cent of dogs, 35 per cent of cats and 50 per cent of rabbits had not had a primary vaccination course when young, up on previous years.
Usual vaccinations for puppies include protection against canine distemper; canine parvovirus; kennel cough; Leptospirosis; and parainfluenza.
The BVA suggested that owners who fail to vaccinate their pets could be breaking the law, commenting that: “It is important to remember that under the Animal Welfare Act, pet owners have a duty to protect their animals from pain, injury, suffering and disease.
“We know of no better, and scientifically proven, way to protect against disease than vaccination."

American Cars Of The '40-60s (89 Pics)

No comments