Note to Readers:

Summary of Ecology of Peace Problem Solving: The problems of poverty, unemployment, war, crime, violence, food shortages, food price increases, inflation, police brutality, political instability, loss of civil rights, vanishing species, garbage and pollution, urban sprawl, traffic jams, toxic waste, racism, sexism, Nazism, Islamism, feminism, Zionism etc; are the ecological overshoot consequences of humans living in accordance to a Masonic War is Peace international law social contract that provides humans the ‘right to breed and consume’ with total disregard for ecological carrying capacity limits.

Ecology of Peace factual reality: 1. Earth is not flat; 2. Resources are finite; 3. When humans breed or consume above ecological carrying capacity limits, it results in resource conflict; 4. If individuals, families, tribes, races, religions, and/or nations want to reduce class, racial and/or religious local, national and international resource war conflict; they should cooperate to implement an Ecology of Peace international law social contract that restricts all the worlds citizens to breed and consume below ecological carrying capacity limits; to sustainably protect and conserve natural resources.

EoP v WiP NWO negotiations are documented at MILED Clerk Notice.

Friday, September 28, 2012

UK Press Complaints Commission Rulings Re: Breivik Inacuracy Complaints to New Statesman & The Guardian



UK Press Complaints Commission Rulings Re: Breivik Inacuracy Complaints to New Statesman & The Guardian

No Surprise! :: The Commission did not establish a breach of the Code.

29 September | Press Complaints Commission | The Guardian & New Statesman


The Commission did not establish a breach of the Code.

The Commission acknowledged the complainant’s concern about Mr Breivik’s ability to receive a fair trial, it made clear however that this issue did not fall within the Editors’ Code of Practice, and therefore it was unable to comment on this further.

The Commission turned next to the complaint regarding the article of 28 August. The complainant considered that the newspaper had breached the terms of Clause 1 (Accuracy) by referring to Mr Breivik’s “conviction” and by inferring that his inspiration was from the “far right”. Regardless of whether or not there is a review, it remained the case that the conviction stood at the time of publication, and the newspaper was entitled to refer to it. There was no breach of Clause 1.

The Commission addressed the complainant’s concern that it was inaccurate to state that Mr Breivik got his inspiration from the far right. Clause 1 (iii) states that “the press, while free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.” The Commission considered that the article was a comment piece and the remark reflected the journalist’s opinion that Mr Breivik’s actions were based on an extreme right-wing ideology. In this regard the Commission was satisfied that readers would not have been misled and did not establish a breach of the Code.

Complaint to New Statesman


Complaint (PDF) submitted to Press Complaints Commission (PCC) against New Statesman: Åsne Seierstad: Article: The grotesque manipulations of Anders Breivik; Violation of Editors Code: 1. Accuracy.

This complaint relates to the following statements made by Ms. Seierstad in her article: The grotesque manipulations of Anders Breivik:

So, how do we handle the man who is truly guilty? Are we prepared to punish the culprit in keeping with the standards of his crime?
[..]
In the letters, Breivik explained how he plans to keep fighting against the values of Norwegian society. Those same values that gave him a fair trial, lax treatment in prison and even the right to keep spreading his message.
[Complaint to Statesman]


Complaint to The Guardian


Complaint submitted to Press Complaints Commission: Complaint against The Guardian: Sindre Bangstad: Article: After Anders Breivik's conviction, Norway must confront Islamophobia (PDF).

This complaint refers to a violation of Editors Code. 1. Accuracy, and relates to the following statements made by Mr. Bangstad in his article: After Anders Breivik's conviction, Norway must confront Islamophobia[1]:

After Anders Breivik's conviction, Norway must confront Islamophobia

The far right can no longer deny Brevik was inspired by their ideals. Negative attitudes towards Muslims must be challenged.

After a national trauma, the verdict presents us with the opportunity to finally face and confront the hatred in our midst with the honesty, seriousness and commitment it requires of us all.

[1] Inacuraccy of Mr. Breivik’s ‘conviction’: Conviction has been appealed by means of review.

[B] Possible Inacuraccy of Mr. Breivik’s inspiration being the ‘far right’

[C] White Guilt Liberal Bigotry to Muslims Implying they are incapable of hearing criticism: challenging alleged ‘negative attitudes’.

To challenge a ‘negative attitude’ that is sincerely believed, but founded on inaccurate information, and to enable the holder of the negative attitude to change their opinion, thanks to being converted by more accurate information is to be applauded, irrespective of whether the ‘negative information’ is about corrupt left or right wing politicians, left or right wing journalists, left or right wing muslims, conservatives, liberals, Africans, Europeans, feminists, etc.

To challenge a ‘negative attidude’ that is allegedly ‘negative’, but based upon accurate information, and to demand the holder of such ‘negative attitudes’ change their attitudes to your ‘positive attitude’ that is founded on inacurate information, is to endorse brainwashing and political conformity to propaganda political correct horseshit.

In the absence of a fully impartial investigation by conducting an objective and subjective test of Breivik’s evidence, it is not possible to determine whether his evidence is founded on inaccurate bullshit, or accurate experiences.

Nobody – least of all Muslims - benefit from being bullshitted that they do not need to improve some of their behaviours, if or when such anti-social behaviour is proven by accurate facts. Only white guilt liberals, who think that Muslims or Africans are some inferior retarded species, that need to be denied the opportunity to better themselves by means of constructive criticism feedback, so that they can forever remain retarded dependents of white guilt liberals, have such self righteous bigotry towards Africans and Muslims, while projecting that bigotry on individuals who do think that Muslims or Africans are quite capable of hearing honest criticism and share such criticism as a concerned individual, with the best of intentions for helping another person learn and grow.

[Complaint to Guardian]



* * * * *


Press Complaint Commission’s decision in the case of Johnstone v New Statesman / The Guardian

The complainant considered that the publication (23/08/2012) had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice by saying, in relation to Mr Anders Breivik, “so, how do we handle the man who is truly guilty?” The complainant was concerned that this characterised Mr Breivik as “truly guilty” before a verdict had been passed.

Clause 1 states that “the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information”. The Commission acknowledged the complainant’s point that, at this stage, Mr Breivik was not technically guilty in the legal sense. However, the Commission considered the context in which the words had been used and noted that the article made clear that the verdict had not yet been decided: “on 24 August, the verdict against Anders Behring Breivik will be pronounced at Oslo District Court”.

The Commission also noted that this article reflected the personal views of the journalist: “Asne Seierstad questions a system that gives Anders Breivik publicity”. The Commission made clear that columnists are entitled to express their personal views and comments provided that they are clearly distinguished from fact. The Commission considered that the phrasing “truly guilty” was the journalist’s view and that the readers would have been aware of this.

Read in the context of the article, the journalist had been discussing the amount of blame that the Prime Minister and other individuals should shoulder for the events; before addressing the “man who is truly guilty”. In this way the Commission considered that the term “guilty” was being used, not in the legal sense, but synonymously with the term “responsible” or “to blame”. Given that Mr Breivik had publically admitted to the murders and bombing, the Commission did not consider this to have been inaccurate or misleading. The Commission did not establish a breach of the Code.

The Commission acknowledged the complainant’s concern about Mr Breivik’s ability to receive a fair trial, it made clear however that this issue did not fall within the Editors’ Code of Practice, and therefore it was unable to comment on this further.

The Commission turned next to the complaint regarding the article of 28 August. The complainant considered that the newspaper had breached the terms of Clause 1 (Accuracy) by referring to Mr Breivik’s “conviction” and by inferring that his inspiration was from the “far right”. Regardless of whether or not there is a review, it remained the case that the conviction stood at the time of publication, and the newspaper was entitled to refer to it. There was no breach of Clause 1.

The Commission addressed the complainant’s concern that it was inaccurate to state that Mr Breivik got his inspiration from the far right. Clause 1 (iii) states that “the press, while free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.” The Commission considered that the article was a comment piece and the remark reflected the journalist’s opinion that Mr Breivik’s actions were based on an extreme right-wing ideology. In this regard the Commission was satisfied that readers would not have been misled and did not establish a breach of the Code.

Reference no’s: 123663 /123691

» » » » [New Statesman :: The Guardian]

No comments:

FLEUR-DE-LIS HUMINT :: F(x) Population Growth x F(x) Declining Resources = F(x) Resource Wars

KaffirLilyRiddle: F(x)population x F(x)consumption = END:CIV
Human Farming: Story of Your Enslavement (13:10)
Unified Quest is the Army Chief of Staff's future study plan designed to examine issues critical to current and future force development... - as the world population grows, increased global competition for affordable finite resources, notably energy and rare earth materials, could fuel regional conflict. - water is the new oil. scarcity will confront regions at an accelerated pace in this decade.
US Army: Population vs. Resource Scarcity Study Plan
Human Farming Management: Fake Left v. Right (02:09)
ARMY STRATEGY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT: Office of Dep. Asst. of the Army Environment, Safety and Occupational Health: Richard Murphy, Asst for Sustainability, 24 October 2006
2006: US Army Strategy for Environment
CIA & Pentagon: Overpopulation & Resource Wars [01] [02]
Peak NNR: Scarcity: Humanity’s Last Chapter: A Comprehensive Analysis of Nonrenewable Natural Resource (NNR) Scarcity’s Consequences, by Chris Clugston
Peak Non-Renewable Resources = END:CIV Scarcity Future
Race 2 Save Planet :: END:CIV Resist of Die (01:42) [Full]

:: Fair Use Notice ::

FAIR USE NOTICE: The Norway v. Breivik blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to provide information for research and educational purposes, and advance understanding for the EcoFeminist vs. Breivik: Beyond Left and Right Wing: From an ecological perspective, all human economics and politics are irrelevant’ Argument. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Copyright owners who object to the fair use of their copyright news reports, may submit their objections to Norway v. Breivik Blog at: [EcoFeminist]