PLEASE READ THIS!!!!!
Hi guys, sorry to hear about the nightmare stories, but never fear Blazin Storm is here.
I went for an assessment (Wolverhampton), and informed the ‘nurse’ that i was going to use my phone to record the assessment. she said i couldn’t as they had a policy on recording,As state in the above post. i agreed to the conditions of recording and with professional equipment, but stated that i was not going to cover the cost of the recording as it was their policy, so they would have to cover the costs. They agreed unwillingly, but said that they did not have the equipment and would have to loan it from the DWP. they sent me. i was sent another appointment. (this is against the LAW (Equality act 2010)).
I attended the appointment and was given a CONSENT form to sign.(consenting to the recording). I read the form and it gave the usual information about how long they would keep the recording, where it would be stored, etc. Paragraph 5 of the CONSENT form stated that they had the right to give a copy of the recording to the DWP if they requested it.( that is no problem, but it means that they can give their copy of the recording to a third party). The 6th paragraph stated that:
” the recording that you have is to be used solely for the purposes of your benefit claim and cannot be published or reproduced”
I said that i was not agreeing to that so i crossed out paragraph 6, initialed it and signed the rest of the consent form. The receptionist came back about 15 minutes later with another form and said that the manager would not accept that i crossed out the paragraph and wanted me to sign another copy, which i refused on the grounds that by putting a condition in the consent form, it turns the consent form into a contract. They refused to give me an assessment, so i went straight to the job center and complained that ATOS had refused me an assessment on 2 occasions.
I was telephoned later by the DWP and i told them that they could not force me into a contract with ATOS and i would not sign anything that had stipulations in it. The woman said that she would ask ATOS to change their CONSENT form. She phone later and said that they wouldn’t change it so she would contact the Contracts manager of the DWP. I was called on the next day by a DWP rep who agreed that i didn’t have to sign a contract with ATOS, but that i may be ;liable to prosecution if i used the recording inappropriately (Empty Threat). I told her that as the recording contained my own personal information i could hang it off of the top of Big Ben if i wanted and there is nothing they could do about it. I also told her that i was willing to undergo any assessment but if there were any stipulations that implied any kind of contract with ATOS i would not sign it and if ATOS refused me another assessment, for any reason i would expect my full benefits,while ATOS and the DWP sort out their contract with each other.
ATOS sent me another appointment for the 2nd NOV. 2011. Watch this space!!!!
I can beat these idiots at their own game and so can YOU!!!. I’ve only come into contact with them twice an MADE them change their policies twice. I already told them that they would wish they never met me and once i beat them i will tell everybody how to beat them. i cannot expose my plan at the moment but i will within the next few weeks, but until then remember
You DO have the right to have your assessment recorded (Audio or Video). when you receive the appointment, inform them straight away that you want to have the assessment recorded as set out in their own policy. Under the Equality act 2010, they must have provisions in place for disabled people.
Do not sign ANYTHING that stipulates what you can do with your copy of the recording. (under the Data Protection Act) you can request a copy of the recording and then are free what you want with your own personal information jf you have already been duped by this stipulation).
The law states that you must attend the assessment.in order to get your benefits, and the government employ ATOS to conduct these assessments. The contract that ATOS have with the DWP means that if they refuse you an assessment after you have made all reasonable attempts to undergo an assessment, they are breaking the law and denying you the right to your benefits.
The reason that ATOS and the DWP are getting away with these injustices is mainly because WE, the people, are letting them get away with it. The more we do this, the more untouchable they will feel that they are. We can beat them if we unite and stick together. The protests that we see going on around the country are not effective but i am planning a protest that will cause major disruption to ATOS and the DWP and will be in touch with the moderators of this site an many of the other sites in due course, Until then keep checking these sites for more information.
Don’t get worried, and don’t get Mad. GET EVEN
Saturday, 29 October 2011
By Steve Elliott ~alapoet~ in NewsFriday, October 28, 2011 at 7:07 pm
The Obama Administration has officially "responded" to the "We The People" online petitions regarding marijuana legalization. Well, kind of -- if you're willing to dignify a bureaucrat mouthing the same old meaningless platitudes by calling that a "response."
Injustice In Seattle White House Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske is lying his ass off.Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske chose to respond to eight petitions regarding cannabis law reform with one blanket response. Speaking of which, ol' Gil tried to put a wet blanket on the grass-fire that is the legalization movement, but it turns out all he could do is blow smoke.Conventional wisdom dictates that when you have to make a press release, but really want it to get as little media attention as possible, you release it late on a Friday -- which is exactly what the White House has done with this one. That way, all the top-line reporters have gone home or are bar-hopping by the time the release hits, and it has Saturday and Sunday to blow over before the week's regular news cycle resumes Monday morning.Kerlikowske struts about self-importantly on a dead stage, completely unaware that history has passed him by. His refusal to even meaningfully engage with drug policy reform advocates shows that worse than being useless, he is just in the way -- a willing part of the problem.
Foreign Policy "Can they all tell I'm lying by the look on my face?! Oh shit, they can!!""When the President took office, he directed all of his policymakers to develop policies based on science and research, not ideology of politics," Kerlikowske's response begins. Doing great so far, eh? Maybe he's going to mention all those studies that show cannabis is not only medically very useful, but also remarkably non-toxic! Yeah, right."So our concern about marijuana is based on what the science tells us about the drug's effects," Kerlikowske lied.According to scientists at the National Institutes of Health- the world's largest source of drug abuse research - marijuana use is associated with addiction, respiratory disease, and cognitive impairment. We know from an array of treatment admission information and Federal data that marijuana use is a significant source for voluntary drug treatment admissions and visits to emergency rooms. [Editor's note: Kerlikowske is lying. Almost ALL of the unfortunate schlubs in "marijuana rehab" are there under a court order, and would be thrown in jail if they didn't agree to the "treatment." Source: a report from the federal government!] Studies also reveal that marijuana potency has almost tripled over the past 20 years, raising serious concerns about what this means for public health - especially among young people who use the drug because research shows their brains continue to develop well into their 20's. Simply put, it is not a benign drug.Like many, we are interested in the potential marijuana may have in providing relief to individuals diagnosed with certain serious illnesses. That is why we ardently support ongoing research into determining what components of the marijuana plant can be used as medicine. [Editor's note: Kerlikowske is lying. The federal government has done everything in its power to BLOCK medical marijuana research, recently even denying respected University of Massachusetts researcher Dr. Lyle Craker permission to grow cannabis suitable for such studies.] To date, however, neither the FDA nor the Institute of Medicine have found smoked marijuana to meet the modern standard for safe or effective medicine for any condition.As a former police chief, I recognize we are not going to arrest our way out of the problem. We also recognize that legalizing marijuana would not provide the answer to any of the health, social, youth education, criminal justice, and community quality of life challenges associated with drug use. [Editor's note: Kerlikowske is lying. How the hell would he know what effects legalization would have, if he's never tried it? What we do know is that regulated models like the policy of "tolerance" in the Netherlands and of decriminalization in Portugal have been proven to reduce drug use, especially among teens.]That is why the President's National Drug Control Strategy is balanced and comprehensive, emphasizing prevention and treatment while at the same time supporting innovative law enforcement efforts that protect public safety and disrupt the supply of drugs entering our communities. [Editor's note: Kerlikowske is lying. The federal government's drug enforcement budget is heavily weighted towards enforcement, not treatment.] Preventing drug use is the most cost-effective way to reduce drug use and its consequences in America. And, as we've seen in our work through community coalitions across the country, this approach works in making communities healthier and safer. We're also focused on expanding access to drug treatment for addicts. Treatment works. In fact, millions of Americans are in successful recovery for drug and alcoholism today. And through our work with innovative drug courts across the Nation, we are improving our criminal justice system to divert non-violent offenders into treatment.Our commitment to a balanced approach to drug control is real. This last fiscal year alone, the Federal Government spent over $10 billion on drug education and treatment programs compared to just over $9 billion on drug related law enforcement in the U.S.Thank you for making your voice heard. I encourage you to take a moment to read about the President's approach to drug control to learn more.Sadly, that seems to be the best that the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy could come up with in response to online petitions with a total approaching 151,000 signatures.Kerlikowke's, er, "response" did absolutely nothing to address the questions of medicinal use addressed by several of the petitions to which he was supposedly responding. Neither did it answer the concerns regarding states' rights and the freedom of states to chart their own courses when it comes to cannabis policy.P.S. It seems Obama just didn't have the sack to make the response himself. Hypocritical pot-smoking bastard.
Friday, 28 October 2011
As a result of the devastating wars Liberia experienced between 1989 and 1997 and also between 1999 and 2003, over 200,000 people died and another half million Liberians were displaced. Liberian women, in record numbers, were confronted with unspeakable violence. During the war and post-conflict periods, these women faced the death of family members, sexual violence, shame, stigma and challenging economic and social environments. Today, Liberian women continue to face challenges when attempting to reintegrate into civilian life.
Women in Liberia: Fighting for Peace is a documentary that follows the epic journey of five Liberian women. Amnesty International invites you to the U.S. film launch and tour of this groundbreaking film.
Thursday, 27 October 2011
by Noreen Nielsen
Today, oil giant ExxonMobil announced their 2011 third-quarter earnings, reporting a whopping $10.3 billion in profits, an increase of 41 percent from the same period last year. Overall, Exxon has earned over $31 billion in profits in the first nine months of the year. Not surprisingly, ExxonMobil is also one of the most politically engaged of the top five oil companies. A few key facts:
Climate Progress, General -->
- Exxon is the top oil and gas contributor in 2011, giving over $569,714 in campaign contributions already this year, with 91 percent of the contributions going to Republicans.
- Exxon has spent nearly $7 million on lobbying Congress this year
- Exxon pays a lower effective tax rate than the average American. In the years spanning 2008 to 2010, Exxon paid an effective rate of 17.6 percent, nearly 16 percent below the average individual federal tax rate.
- ExxonMobil spent $5.7 billion—more than half of its first-quarter profit—to buy 69 million shares of stock in order to “reduce shares outstanding.”
- In the second-quarter 2011, ExxonMobil spent $5.5 billion repurchasing its stock – more than half of its profits.
- ExxonMobil is sitting on $8 billion in cash on hand. Added together, the Big Five oil companies — BP, Exxon, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Shell — are sitting on cash resources of $59 billion and made nearly $1 trillion in profits over the past decade
- Despite ranking in the top of the Fortune 500 list of company profits, ExxonMobil, along with other oil companies, continues to receive billions of dollars in tax breaks paid for by taxpayers.
- ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson ranked in as one of the highest paid CEOs in 2010, earning over $21 million in direct compensation.
3 Responses to ExxonMobil Profits Jump by 41%, to $10.3 Billion
- prokaryotes says:
The only path to sustain this kind of growth and to keep dominating the energy market, requires a switch to renewable energy generation.
Fossil energies are no longer compatible with our consumption rate. To keep up the rate of growth you need to create a sustainable energy market.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Australian Communications and Media Authority Abbreviation ACMA Formation 1 July 2005 Chairman and CEO Chris Chapman Website http://www.acma.gov.au
The Australian Communications and Media Authority is an Australian government agency whose main roles are to regulate broadcasting, radio communications and telecommunications, and to represent Australian interests in international communications matters. It also has a role in regulating Internet content standards.
On 1 July 2005, the Australian Communications and Media Authority replaced two former government agencies — the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) and the Australian Communications Authority (ACA). The ACA in turn came into existence on 1 July 1997 as the merger of the Spectrum Management Agency (SMA) and AUSTEL.
The ACMA is part of the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Australia) (DBCDE) portfolio. It is an independent authority with a board of seven members.
 Powers and funding
It exercises powers under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (in relation to broadcasting) and the Telecommunications Act 1997, the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 and the Radiocommunications Act 1992 and other related legislation (in relation to telecommunications).
The ACMA works with the communications industry, consumers and other stakeholders to achieve active self and coregulation by industry, licencees and companies, while ensuring compliance with licence conditions, codes and standards. The ACMA monitors the effect of regulations to ensure they are responsive to the community’s needs.
Though the ACMA is funded through the federal budget, it also collects substantial revenue on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia. Revenue is collected through telecommunications carrier and radiocommunications licence fees and charges, as well as through charges on telecommunications numbers. The ACMA also collects revenue from price-based allocation of spectrum.
 Main functions
In respect of telecommunications, the stated aims of the ACMA are to:
- Work to ensure quality communications services are available.
- Represent Australia in international regulation of communications (see International Telecommunications Union)
- Manage access to the radio-frequency spectrum through radio communications licensing
- Resolve competing demands for spectrum through price-based allocation methods
- Regulates use of the radio-frequency spectrum and helps in minimising radio communications interference
- License telecommunications carriers and ensure compliance with licence conditions and carriage service provider rules
- Regulate industry compliance with mandatory standards and voluntary codes of practice
- Administer legislative provisions relating to powers and immunities of carriers in constructing telecommunications facilities
- Monitor compliance with consumer safeguards and service guarantees
- Administer universal service initiatives
- Report and inform the Australian community about communications regulation and industry performance
- Maintain and administer the Telecommunications Numbering Plan (for telephones)
- Inform industry and consumers about communications regulation
In respect of broadcasting:
- develops licence area plans, and issuing and renewing licences for television and radio broadcasting in a range of licence classes including commercial, community, subscription, datacasting and narrowcasting;
- administers the ownership and control rules for broadcasting services
- oversees program content by investigating complaints about breaches of industry codes of practice, as well as complaints about the national broadcasters (Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service)
- administers the introduction of digital TV and radio.
 Internet censorship and criticisms
This article's Criticism or Controversy section may compromise the article's neutral point of view of the subject. Please integrate the section's contents into the article as a whole, or rewrite the material; see the discussion on the talk page. (November 2010)Further information: Internet censorship in Australia
Since January 2000, internet content considered offensive or illegal has been subject to a statutory scheme administered by the ACMA.
Established under Schedule 5 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, the online content scheme evolved from a tradition of Australian content regulation in broadcasting and other entertainment media. This tradition embodies the principle that – while adults should be free to see, hear and read what they want – children should be protected from material that may be unsuitable for (or harmful to) them, and everyone should be protected from material that is highly offensive.
The online content scheme seeks to achieve these objectives by a number of means such as complaint investigation processes, government and industry collaboration, and community awareness and empowerment. While administration of the scheme is the responsibility of the ACMA, the principle of ‘co-regulation’ underpinning the scheme reflects parliament’s intention that government, industry and the community each plays a role in managing internet safety issues in Australia. The ACMA has a significant cyber safety education program called CyberSmart which provides resources for youth, parents and teachers.
Some people[who?] strongly disagree with this approach[why?]. They say the Australian constitution does not clearly provide either the states or the Federal Government power to censor online content, so internet censorship in Australia is typically an amalgam of various plans, laws, acts and policies. The regulator has been criticised for its role in examining internet censorship in Australia and how it is enabled and might further be enabled. Particular criticism has been leveled at the regulator's technical understanding of what is involved overall in internet regulation and censorship.
On 10 March 2009, the ACMA issued the Australian web-hosting company, Bulletproof Networks, with an "interim link-deletion notice" due to its customer, the Whirlpool internet community website, not deleting a link to a page on an anti-abortion web site. The web page, which is the 6th of a series of pages featuring images of aborted foetuses, had been submitted to the ACMA, who determined it was potential prohibited content, by the user whose post on Whirlpool containing the ACMA's reply was later subject to the link-deletion notice. This came with an A$11,000 per day fine if the take down was not actioned after 24 hours. In order for other URLs contained on the same website to be 'prohibited', a separate complaint would need to be submitted and reviewed by the ACMA.
 ACMA blacklist leaked
On 19 March 2009 it was reported that the ACMA's blacklist of banned sites had been leaked online, and had been published by Wikileaks. Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, obtained the blacklist after the ACMA blocked several Wikileaks pages following their publication of the Danish blacklist. Assange said that "This week saw Australia joining China and the United Arab Emirates as the only countries censoring Wikileaks." Three lists purporting to be from the ACMA were published online over a seven day period.
The leaked list, which was reported to have been obtained from a manufacturer of internet filtering software, contained 2395 sites. Approximately half of the sites on the list were not related to child pornography, and included online gambling sites, YouTube pages, gay, straight, and fetish pornography sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions, Christian sites, and even the websites of a tour operator and a Queensland dentist. Colin Jacobs, spokesman for lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia, said that there was no mechanism for a site operator to know they got on to the list or to request to be removed from it. Australia's Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy later blamed the addition of the dentist's website to the blacklist on the "Russian mob".
Associate professor Bjorn Landfeldt of the University of Sydney said that the leaked list "constitutes a condensed encyclopedia of depravity and potentially very dangerous material". Stephen Conroy said the list was not the real blacklist and described its leak and publication as "grossly irresponsible" and that it undermined efforts to improve "cyber safety". He said that ACMA was investigating the incident and considering a range of possible actions including referral to the Australian Federal Police, and that Australians involved in making the content available would be at "serious risk of criminal prosecution".
Conroy initially denied that the list published on Wikileaks and the ACMA blacklist were the same, saying "This is not the ACMA blacklist." He stated that the leaked list was alleged to be current on 6 August 2008 and contained 2,400 URLs, where the ACMA blacklist for the same date contained 1,061 URLs. He added that the ACMA advised that there were URLs on the leaked list that had never been the subject of a complaint or ACMA investigation, and had never been included on the ACMA blacklist. He was backed up by ISP Tech 2U, one of six ISPs involved in filtering technology trials.
Conroy's denial was called into doubt by the Internet Industry Association (IIA), who publicly condemned the publishing of the list, chief executive Peter Coroneos saying, "No reasonable person could countenance the publication of links which promote access to child abuse images, irrespective of their motivation, which in this case appears to be political."
Conroy later claimed the leaked blacklist published on Wikileaks closely resembled the official blacklist, admitting that the latest list (dated 18 March) "seemed to be close" to ACMA's current blacklist.
In an estimates hearing of the Australian Federal Government on 25 May 2009  it was revealed that the leak was taken so seriously that it was referred to the Australian Federal Police for investigation. It was further stated that distribution of further updates to the list have been withheld until recipients can improve their security. Ms Nerida O'Laughlin of the ACMA confirmed that the list has been reviewed and as of 30 April consists of 997 urls.
 See also
- ^ "Broadcasting Services Act 1992 - Schedule 5". Commonwealth of Australia. Australasian Legal Information Institute. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/bsa1992214/sch5.html. Retrieved 18 February 2010.
- ^ "A Brief History of Internet Regulatory Proposals/Activity in Australia". Electronic Frontiers Australia. January 2000. http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/censhistory.html. Retrieved 18 February 2010.
- ^ "Internet Censorship Laws in Australia". Electronic Frontiers Australia. 31 March 2006. http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens1.html. Retrieved 18 February 2010.
- ^ Foo, Fran (13 March 2009). "ACMA takes aim at Whirlpool, supplier". The Australian. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/acma-takes-aim-at-whirlpool-supplier/story-0-1111119124846. Retrieved 18 February 2010. [dead link]
- ^ Foo, Fran (24 February 2009). "Row over web blacklist". The Australian. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/row-over-web-blacklist/story-e6frgamx-1111118942430. Retrieved 18 February 2010.
- ^ Moses, Asher (17 March 2009). "Banned hyperlinks could cost you $11,000 a day". Sydney Morning Herald. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/03/17/1237054787635.html. Retrieved 26 July 2011.
- ^ Tung, Liam (19 March 2009). "Wikileaks spills ACMA blacklist". ZDNet Australia. http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Wikileaks-spills-ACMA-blacklist/0,130061744,339295538,00.htm. Retrieved 18 February 2010.
- ^ a b Lake, Chloe (25 March 2009). "Stephen Conroy says leaked list of banned websites 'seems like ACMA's blacklist'". news.com.au. http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,28348,25240699-5014239,00.html.
- ^ Moses, Asher (27 March 2009). "Conroy admits blacklist error, blames 'Russian mob'". The Age. http://www.theage.com.au/news/home/technology/conroy-uses-russian-mob-defence/2009/03/27/1237657120642.html.
- ^ a b MacBean, Nic (19 March 2009). "Leaked blacklist irresponsible, inaccurate: Conroy". ABC News. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/19/2520929.htm?section=australia.
- ^ Moses, Asher (19 March 2009). "Blacklisted websites revealed". Brisbane Times. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/technology/blacklisted-websites-revealed/2009/03/19/1237054961383.html.
- ^ Luscombe, Belinda (27 March 2009). "A Blacklist for Websites Backfires in Australia". TIME. http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1888011,00.html.
- ^ "Official Committee Hansard", Commonwealth of Australia (Australian Parliament House), 25 May 2009, http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S12031.pdf, retrieved 18 February 2010
 External links