Archive

Daily Archives: 07/04/2011

(essexcountystandard.co.uk) A WOMAN who was sacked after posting comments about her boss on Facebook has said she had no regrets.

Stephanie Bon, of Enville Way, Colchester, was a temporary human resources assistant for Lloyds Bank when she posted comments about the chief executive’s wages on the social networking site.

It was reported bosses at the bank were being paid £8million a year.

Miss Bon, 37, was on £7 an hour.

Miss Bon, who was working for Colchester’s Halifax branch, wrote: “LBG’s new CEO gets £4,000 an hour. I get £7. That’s fair!”

A colleague saw the comments and she was sacked.

Miss Bon said: “I was at my friends’ having coffee and it was on the news. I went on Facebook and within a couple of hours something else came up so I changed my status.

“I went to work the next morning and nothing happened. I went to lunch and when I came back, one of my friends there was saying ‘they are talking about you with Facebook last night’.”

Miss Bon approached her team leader and was told to leave.

She said: “He asked me why I was writing things like that.

“Then my manager came in and said she was disappointed in me. She said I was putting the company down. But I didn’t write anything that was confidential.”

Miss Bon was asked to pack up her desk and leave immediately.

She said: “It was hard losing my job. Luckily I had my friends and family and they were there to help me out.”

But she said she did not regret writing what she thought on the social networking site.

She said: “I can’t believe I’ve been treated so appallingly for what essentially amounts to a chat with my mates outside work.

“If I have got an opinion, I write it because I don’t expect my friends to grass me up.”

Miss Bon got a job as an administrator a few weeks after losing her position with the bank.

by Andrea Collitt

Source: http://www.essexcountystandard.co.uk/news/8954932.I_was_fired_for_attacking_Lloyd_s_Bank_boss_Ant__nio_Horta_Os__rio___s___8m_wage/#

(AntiWar.com) If there was any doubt about why the United States is involved in an increasingly messy military engagement in Libya, President Barack Obama cleared the air in his speech on March 29th.  The US has no vital interest at stake but is involved in a humanitarian mission, to save innocent lives, akin to the Balkan enterprise of the 1990s.  Other evidence provided by top administration officials suggests that the ultimate intention is to replace Muammar Gadhafi, in other words regime change, similar to the military action that removed Saddam Hussein from Iraq.

Obama could have made a plausible case for removing Gadhafi based on imminent threat.  Gadhafi has been a major state supporter of terrorism, no doubt about it, and he did down both American and French commercial airliners in 1988 and 1989, resulting in major loss of life.  He also ordered his agents to bomb a club frequented by American soldiers in Berlin in 1986, killing three, and resulting in a punitive attack by US military aircraft on Tripoli.  Though the United States has come to terms with Libya and its regime it is indisputable that Gadhafi is a murderous thug and he is eminently capable of resorting to the terrorism card if he feels his interests demand it.  Now that he has been condemned by the UN and attacked by NATO, he almost certainly will again exploit his considerable financial resources to fund terrorism.  But President Barack Obama did not cite the danger posed by Gadhafi and instead chose to emphasize the humanitarian aspect of a US military intervention.

Recall for a moment that when Iraq occupied Kuwait in 1991 there were tales of Iraqi soldiers hurling infants out of incubators.  Additional atrocities were described tearfully by a young woman who turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States.  Almost everything being reported about the bloodthirsty Iraqis turned out to be false, deliberately so, to make the case for war.  In light of the deliberate deception that has been part and parcel of every American intervention anywhere since the end of the Second World War, how can anyone believe the official narrative?  Why should anyone assume that Muammar Gadhafi will decide to slaughter his own people, particularly since he has a major interest in making the rebellion to his rule go away, an unlikely outcome if he engages in wholesale massacres.

Most Americans would accept that there will be times when our country must use its armed forces as an instrument of foreign policy, but this is not one of those moments.  Gadhafi posed no imminent threat to anyone but his own people and it is far from clear whether he was in fact poised to kill large numbers of them in some kind of paroxysm of revenge for the rebellion against his authority.  And the problem with humanitarian intervention as a concept is that it opens the door to more of the same wherever there are violations of fundamental rights.  It is perhaps necessary to step back and establish some sort of metric for intervention, but attempting to do so produces some odd results.  When should one intervene on humanitarian grounds and what are the numbers of deaths required to trigger some kind of United States response? Read More

(EFF.org) Legal Attack on Online Video Site Could Throttle Innovation with Fears of Litigation

San Francisco – The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and a coalition of advocacy groups have asked a federal appeals court to reject attempts to thwart federal copyright law and saddle online communities with new litigation fears in the appeal of Viacom v. YouTube.

In an amicus brief filed Thursday, EFF argues that the infringement claims made by Viacom and the other plaintiffs threaten to undermine the “safe harbor” provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) — safe harbors that have fostered free speech and innovation around the globe. Without the clear legal structure of the DMCA process, companies that host user-generated expression could be hit with potentially massive damage awards, which would encourage over-blocking of content or even the shutdown of services altogether.

“If the DMCA safe harbors are undermined in the way Viacom and the other content companies would like, the free flow of information will be seriously threatened,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Abigail Phillips. “Communications platforms like YouTube have enabled political and other speech to flourish online. We’ve all seen the critical role digital communications have been playing in protests across the Middle East. The safe harbors make posting of user-generated content like this possible.”

At issue in this case is copyright infringement on YouTube before the online video service voluntarily implemented content filtering technologies in May of 2008. The district court correctly found that YouTube was shielded by the DMCA safe harbors, and Viacom and others appealed the ruling to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“All the online services you use every day — Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, eBay — depend on the DMCA safe harbors in order to allow user-generated content on their sites,” said EFF Intellectual Property Director Corynne McSherry. “That’s why Congress designed the safe harbors — to allow innovators to manage legal risk and develop new services without fear of devastating litigation, while offering copyright owners an expedited process for taking down infringing content. Viacom’s arguments here misinterpret the law, with potentially disastrous results.”

Also joining EFF’s brief are the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, the American Library Association, the Association of College and Research Libraries, the Association of Research Libraries, and the Center for Democracy and Technology.

For the full amicus brief:
https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/viacom_v_youtube/ViacomvGoogleAmicus….

For more on this case:
http://www.eff.org/cases/viacom-v-youtube

Source: https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2011/04/07