Pages

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

0900-nummers? ... 't kan ook gratis!


Het komt tegenwoordig steeds vaker voor dat bedrijven voor de consument alleen bereikbaar zijn via een 0900-telefoonnummer. Deze nummers kunnen erg duur zijn, 70 cent per minuut is tegenwoordig niets bijzonders meer. En hoe duurder het bellen van zo'n nummer is, hoe langer het duurt voor u de juiste persoon aan de lijn heeft. Vaak krijgt u, voor u het keuzemenu eerst ook nog eens een reclameverhaaltje van het bedrijf te horen.

Kosten
Zo hangt u tijden aan de telefoon, gedwongen om eerst te luisteren naar de reclame van het bedrijf, daarna komt er een traag keuzemenu, en daarna zijn alle medewerkers in gesprek. Voor je er erg in hebt zijn er tien minuten voorbij, voor eigen rekening, voor 70 cent per minuut of meer.

Klantonvriendelijke gedrag
het wordt hoog tijd om eens tegengas te geven met betrekking tot dit uiterst klantonvriendelijke gedrag. Want als wij als samenleving, accepteren dat een bedrijf dat een fout maakt waardoor de klant genoodzaakt is te bellen, dik verdient aan die klacht via een 0900 nummer dan moeten wij niet verbaasd zijn als wij steeds minder service krijgen, want wij onderwijzen dat wij dit toestaan.

Bedrijf achter 0900-nummer opvragen
Bij de Opta is via het gratis nummer 0800-0223122 na te vragen welk bedrijf er schuilgaat achter een 0900-nummer.
Volgens de OPTA is dit gratis nummer alleen voor de zakelijke wereld en niet voor de consument, maar dat is wettelijk gezien niet zo. Met deze keuze kiest de OPTA dus duidelijk partij voor de zakelijke wereld, de Nederlandse consument speelt geen enkele rol bij deze dienst. De OPTA behaagt alleen de zakelijke wereld ten koste van de Nederlandse consument. De OPTA heeft haar onschuldige masker verloren. Het gratis nummer is ook voor de Nederlandse consument, wettelijk gezien heeft de consument evenveel recht op deze informatie als een bedrijf. Dat de OPTA hierin onderscheid maakt staat los van de wetgeving, dit heeft te maken met haar eigen belang.

OPTA speelt een dubbelrol
Toen CorCom bij het schrijven van dit artikel de heer Brummelkamp jurist bij de OPTA ( toestel nummer 070-3159225) telefonisch benaderde inzake waarom er geen paal en perk wordt gesteld aan die dure 0900 nummers verdedigde de jurist het corrupte 0900 nummers beleid van de OPTA met hand en tand, om vervolgens de zwarte piet neer te leggen bij het Ministerie van Economische Zaken. Als de OPTA aangesteld is om toezicht te houden op de naleving van de wet en regelgeving op het gebied van post en elektronische communicatiediensten en door deze dienst toch niet wordt ingegrepen bij dure 0900 nummers welk voordeel heeft dan de Nederlandse consument bij de OPTA, op deze vraag kon de heer Brummelkamp van de OPTA geen antwoord geven ? CorCom kan de bestolen consument en 0900 nummer slachtoffer 's wel deze vraag beantwoorden namelijk, dat de Nederlandse consument geen enkel voordeel heeft van de werkzaamheden die de OPTA verricht. Nederland is een van de duurste landen ter wereld als het gaat om internet, vaste en mobiele telefonie, en het wordt nog duurder dankzij de OPTA. Deze zogenaamde waakhond bijt naar onschuldige consumenten.

De OPTA is mede verantwoordelijk
De OPTA ( Onafhankelijke Post en Telecommunicatie Autoriteit ) is verantwoordelijk voor het toezicht op de naleving van de wet en regelgeving op het gebied van post en elektronische communicatiediensten. De OPTA speelt hierin een dubbelrol want zij blijft in gebreke om bedrijven tot de orde te roepen inzake de dure 0900 nummers. Dat de Nederlandse consument duur betaald voor het bellen naar 0900-nummers is mede de schuld van de OPTA, zij geeft niet alleen de dure 0900 nummers uit, maar blijft ook in gebreke om de comerciële diefstal waarvan de consument de dupe is aan te pakken.

Wij hebben een alternatief voor deze dure 0900-nummers gevonden
Namelijk het originele telefoonnummer van het bedrijf. U belt gewoon het alternatief nummer dat geplaatst is achter het dure 0900 nummer en u heeft meteen contact met het bedrijf of de instelling. Ieder 0900-nummer is gekoppeld aan een gewoon vast nummer. Als u dat vaste nummer belt dan komt u bij het zelfde callcenter terecht. Punt is dat u wel moet weten naar welk nummer een 0900-nummer dan verwijst. Klik op Read more voor de alternatieve nummers»

Bij de Opta is via het gratis nummer 0800-0223122 na te vragen welk bedrijf er schuilgaat achter een 0900-nummer.

Met dank aan
www.VraagAlex.nl

Saturday, August 15, 2009

December Bride (1991)



Winner of 14 International Film Awards

A woman in 19th-century dress stands on a hill, her back to the camera, looking toward the gorgeously photographed sea. She brings to mind many other enigmatic heroines in movies and novels, from "The French Lieutenant's Woman" to "The Piano." Like them, Sarah, the title character of "December Bride," embodies the flip side of Victorian repression. She is a sexual rebel, a servant in turn-of-the-century Ireland who moves into the house of two brothers, becomes pregnant, and defies anyone in their narrow community of Ulster Presbyterians to make her reveal which of the men is the child's father.

What sets this 1990 Irish film apart from others of the enigmatic-heroine school is that Sarah (Saskia Reeves) seems more willful than sensuous, her rebellion one of class at least as much as passion. She insists that her son have her name, and his existence elevates her status in the household.

Thaddeus O'Sullivan, a cinematographer directing his first feature, has smoothly overcome a thorny problem here. "December Bride" is a passionate film about people who seem uncomfortable with sex, an eloquent film about inarticulate characters.





The older brother, Hamilton (Donal McCann, best known for his role in John Huston's final film, "The Dead"), is well into middle age, and full of emotional warmth and responsibility. He is willing to marry Sarah, but she refuses.

His younger brother, Frank (Ciaran Hinds), is the handsome one. He is also the selfish one, who yells at Sarah's mother, "Remember that you are a servant in this house!" That line is among his longer speeches, and it sends the old woman packing, while Sarah remains behind with the brothers. Faced with a neat split between Frank's sexual attractiveness and Hamilton's affection, Sarah chooses both.

The secret of which brother she loves, and when, is kept from the movie audience almost as thoroughly as it is from the community. Keeping things mysterious makes sense; though her affections seem to sway from one brother to the other, the three are profoundly linked. Eventually the brothers battle each other, yet the menage a trois stands united against a scandalized neighborhood.

Bruno de Keyzer's rich photography makes the seaside landscape look varied and stunning, from a wild storm at sea to a peaceful church garden and whitewashed thatched cottages with dim interiors. But the emotional tone of "December Bride," which opens today at the Quad Cinema, is as harsh and complicated as the lives of its characters.



The main actors are exceptional at suggesting, through looks and gestures, the complications beneath their arrangement. Ms. Reeves's stern face and manner suit Sarah's willfulness; even at her youngest and prettiest there is nothing soft about her. Mr. McCann makes Hamilton just alluring enough to entice Sarah, though his natural personality seems as dull as their old wooden table. Mr. Hinds even creates sympathy for Frank, a man whose idea of courtship is to grab Sarah without a word.

A chorus of minor characters, all acted with great impact, define the narrow world that has provoked Sarah. Early in the film, Frank and Hamilton's father (Geoffrey Golden) makes a dramatic gesture that ends his own life and influences Sarah's. Brenda Bruce, as Sarah's mother, reveals her character's sincerity even when she is maddening, trying to hector everyone back to religion. And as the minister who tries to urge Sarah and the brothers to make things right, Patrick Malahide is a sad vision: thin-lipped, self-righteousness yet astute. "When the community are offended these are a people with hard hearts," he tells Hamilton.

Hard though she seems on the surface, Sarah's heart turns out to be soft after all. At the end, the film jumps ahead 18 years. Sarah makes a grand concession to society, but she keeps more than one secret.

DECEMBER BRIDE Directed by Thaddeus O'Sullivan; screenplay by David Rudkin, from the novel by Sam Hanna Bell; photography by Bruno de Keyzer; music by Jurgen Knieper; produced by Jonathan Cavendish. At the Quad Cinema, 13th Street west of Fifth Avenue, Greenwich Village. Running time: 85 minutes. This film has no rating. WITH: Saskia Reeves (Sarah), Donal McCann (Hamilton), Ciaran Hinds (Frank), Patrick Malahide (Sorleyson), Brenda Bruce (Martha) and Geoffrey Golden (Father).

Review by CARYN JAMES

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Meet Firefox 3.5

A quick overview of what makes Mozilla's latest browser so great.

Duration: 1:33



What’s New in Firefox 3.5:

Firefox 3.5 makes surfing the Web easier and more enjoyable with exciting new features and platform updates that allow Web developers to create the next generation of Web content. Native support for open video and audio, private browsing, and support for the newest Web technologies will enable richer, more interactive online experiences.

Performance.

Firefox 3.5 includes the powerful new TraceMonkey JavaScript engine, which delivers unprecedented performance with today’s complex Web applications. Firefox 3.5 is more than two times faster than Firefox 3 and ten times faster than Firefox 2.

Open Video and Audio. (See the video above)

Enjoy video and audio content from within your browser, without the need for plugins. Video is a vital part of the modern Web, whether it’s used to communicate, educate, or entertain. Firefox 3.5 delivers the first native integration of audio and video directly into the browser. Now everyone can easily watch open format Ogg Theora videos.

Web developers can use these technologies to design pages that interact with video content in new and exciting ways, offering richer interactive experiences beyond controlling playback and volume.

Privacy Controls.

Firefox 3.5 includes features designed to protect your privacy online and provide greater control over your personal data.

While using the new Private Browsing mode in Firefox 3.5, nothing you encounter on the Web will be stored from that moment on during your browsing session. Unique to Firefox 3.5, the new Forget this Site feature can remove every trace of a site from your browser. If you want to remove all private data or activity from the past few hours, Clear Recent History, another Firefox-only feature, gives you full control over what stays and what goes.

Location Aware Browsing.

Location Aware Browsing saves you time by allowing websites to ask you where you are located. If you choose to share your location with a website, it can use that information to find nearby points of interest and return additional, useful data like maps of your area. It’s all optional – Firefox doesn’t share your location without your permission.

How to get Mozilla Firefox 3.5:

Mozilla Firefox 3.5 is available now for Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X operating systems as a free download from http://www.getfirefox.com. It is also available in more than 70 languages at: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all.html.

EDITOR’S NOTE: For screenshots and videos, visit http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/press/images.html.

For more information about Mozilla Firefox 3.5 and how it provides a better and faster online experience, visit http://www.getfirefox.com.

Sunday, August 9, 2009

The Frighteners (1996)


Wicked fun

Just before doing "Lord of the Rings," director Peter Jackson (who can be seen in a cameo as "Man with Piercings") made an off-kilter horror/comedy movie called "The Frighteners," the tale of the undead and the guy who makes a living off of them. Though "Frighteners" was barely in theaters at all, this cult flick is funny, creepy, well-acted and wonderfully directed.

Frank Bannister (Michael J. Fox) has seen spirits and apparitions ever since the car crash that killed his wife. Now he operates an amateur "ghostbusting" operation that is supposed to exorcise ghosts from people's houses -- the problem is that the ghosts who haunt those houses are in league with him (Chi McBride as the opinioated afro-ed Cyrus, Jim Fyfe as the nerdy Stuart, and most of John Astin as what is left of The Judge).

Frank's business certainly isn't hurt by the fact that for years after a serial killer's murderous spree, people have died mysteriously of heart attacks. Then Frank starts seeing fiery numbers emblazoned on the foreheads of people who will die, including the husband of doctor Lucy Lynskey (Trini Alvarado). As if trying to stop a specter of death weren't hard enough, crazed FBI agent Milton Dammers (Jeffrey Combs) believes that Frank is the one murdering people. But the evil specter is still killing -- and Lucy is the next victim.

Peter Jackson once said that he has a "moronic" sense of humor, and it shows up in all its glory here -- from bug spray dissolving a ghost's face to a piece of talking oily sludge to a drill sargeant ghost with submachine guns, this is weird and absolutely hilarious. It's the perfect blend of comedy and horror.



But he's also good during the more serious moments, such as Bannister's flashbacks to his wife's death, or the eerie sight of homicidal young lovers dancing with a gun. The opening shot is pure Jackson, with the camera swooping through a window, past fluttering curtains, and though a hole in the attic floor to a screaming woman below.

Jackson also takes the opportunity to poke a bit of fun at more conventional ghost movies: the big Gothic house, crazy old lady, ghost in '70s clothes, and Fox's hilarious turn as a ghostbuster. Nothing horrific is sacred. "There ain't nothing worse than a bunch of pissed-off brothers... that's ALREADY DEAD!" Cyrus yells at one point.


Does it have a flaw? Yes -- the opening scene doesn't seem to make much sense later on in the movie. But Jackson makes up for that with a surprisingly tight, coherent plot, and a satisfying finale that makes more sense than most other horror movies do.

The cast is brilliant, whether it's the twitchy, wild-eyed FBI agent, or the three weird ghosts. Michael J. Fox does an excellent job as Frank, with the right combination of cockiness and pathos, while Alvarado is solid as the idealistic young doctor. But the scenes are reallystolen by Dee Wallace-Stone and freaky-eyed Jake Busey, as homicidal young lovers.

"Frighteners" might not make you believe in ghosts, but it will make you laugh, shiver, and maybe even shed a tear or two. Wildly funny, weird, gross, and sometimes really peculiar, this is Jackson's splatter-gore at its best. By E. A Solinas



The Frighteners

Movie Trailer



Thursday, August 6, 2009

Äideistä parhain (2005) aka Mother of Mine


Powerful, touching and affecting

Äideistä parhain (English title Mother of Mine) is a Finnish film released in 2005. It was directed by Klaus Härö. The film received good reviews from the Finnish press, and was selected to be Finland's nominee for Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film at the 78th Academy Awards. The film is based on a novel by Heikki Hietamies.


1943: Nine-year-old Eero whose father is killed during the war is brought to Sweden to foster parents to his protection like thousands of other Finnish children. Eero feels lost, particularly as his foster mother Signe behaves very unfriendly. She was expecting a little girl and still mourns for her daughter who drowned in the sea. The situation changes when Eero's mother tells with a letter that she wants to go with her lover to Germany and Eero should remain with his foster mother. Thus Eero becomes Signe's son. Now she cares lovingly for him. Eero makes friends with the little girl Siv and enjoys childhood for a while. However, after the end of the war the boy has to go back to Finland against his will where his mother waits for him. Never again he will be able to trust her, since she has disappointed him too often. 60 years later, invited to Signe's burial, he will understand while reading all letters that both women only wanted the best for him.

(Pictures form another source)

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Gandhi (1982)


His Triumph Changed The World Forever.


Gandhi is a 1982 biographical film about Mohandas (Mahatma) Gandhi, who led the nonviolent resistance movement against British colonial rule in India during the first half of the 20th century. The film was directed by Richard Attenborough and stars Ben Kingsley as Gandhi; both won Academy Awards for their work on the film. The film was also given the Academy Award for Best Picture and won eight Academy Awards in total.

It was an international co-production between production companies in India and the UK. The film premiered in New Delhi on November 30, 1982.


The film opens with a statement from the filmmakers explaining their approach to the problem of filming Gandhi's complex life story:

No man's life can be encompassed in one telling... least of all Gandhi's, whose passage through life was so entwined with his nation's struggle for freedom. There is no way to give each event its allotted weight, to recount the deeds and sacrifices of all the great men and women to whom he and India owe such immense debts. What can be done is to be faithful in spirit to the record of his journey, and to try to find one's way to the heart of the man...
Read more ...


Review by Barron Laycock

This movie was the realization of a lifetime dream for Sir Richard Attenborough, who finally succeeded in bringing this incredible spectacular to theatrical release in 1982. I was living outside London working for the American Forces in the greater London area at the time, so was thrilled to have the privilege to see this movie in its limited initial release in Britain, and was amazed by its scope, accuracy and integrity in bringing the quite controversial facts surrounding Gandhi's life and politically-motivated assassination to the screen. Ben Kingsley is simply magnificent as the diminutive, principled, and indefatiguable lawyer, humanitarian, and citizen of the world with an uncannily prescient feel for what was possible for a determined and energetic person as well as how to achieve his lofty otherworldly goals right here on earth.

Based on his appraoch here, Attenborough seems to have learned much from such masterful British film-makers as David Lean, for the use of scenery, topography, and natural surrounding of the characters as they wind through the more than 40 years of story line is breath-taking. His methods owe much to the kind of subtle insinuation of the local environment David Lean in particular used so memorably in movies like "Bridge Over The River Kwai" and "Lawrence of Arabia" (see my reviews) in making the scenery more than an incidental player in the storyline. Seeing Gandhi immersed in the incredible multidimensional diversities that were (and are) India helps the viewer as we begin to understand just how incredible his efforts were to unite the country with his strange yet irresistible moral authority, an authority that all of the various factions recognized and respected as the authentic thing.

There is, of course, an immensely talented cast, including Martin Sheen as an American newspaper correspondent who becomes intrigued by Gandhi's profound and surprisingly effective non-violent approach to social change. Gandhi's approach to using reason and morality to approach issues and perspectives, and these methods become the real star of the film as it builds slowly over the scope of this very literate and intelligent script. This is a wonderful motion picture experience for anyone willing to sit through the more than three hour extravaganza, one that guarantees Attenborough's prominent place in film history, and one that leaves this reviewer smacking his lips in anticipation of whatever other wonderful effort such as this may someday appear based on Attenborough's talents, visions, and moral sensibilities. Enjoy!



Filesoup site owner (Geeker) arrested & on Bail


Arrested, now on bail... guilty until I prove I'm innocent.

Monday 27th July @ 9:05am

Police raid on my home, Warrant to enter and search premises issued on 16/7/09 @12:25

For issue of warrant under:
Section 109 Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988

Identify, so far as possible, the articles or persons to be sought and search for:
Evidence in relation to the illegal distribution or illegal filesharing of copyrighted films however held, whether electronically or otherwise. Also any evidence in relation to payments received relating to the illegal distribution or illegal filesharing of copyrighted films held whether electronically or otherwise.

Specify person or persons: AUTHORITY is hereby given for any constable (accompanied by):
Neil Gardner, an officer of the Federation Against Copyright Theft (F.A.C.T.)

I was arrested, and taken to the local police station, on the way I asked and was told that it would take about a couple of hours, when I arrived, the booking-in charge was entered as:
Suspicion of downloading copyrighted movies

I asked them while still at home if I could contact a member of my family so that someone could come and make sure my dog was catered for, they said that I couldn't. On the way to the police station I asked if they could contact someone to take care of the dog or if I could make a phone call, they again said I could not.

Before being put in a cell, I was given a Notice Of Entitlements sheet. On this sheet it clearly stated under HOW YOU SHOULD BE CARED FOR. Keeping in touch:
As well as talking to a solicitor and having a person told about your arrest you will usually be allowed to make one phone call. Ask the police if you would like to make a phone call. You can also ask for a pen and paper. You may be able to have visitors but the custody officer can refuse to allow that.

I asked again as I was put in the cell, if I could contact someone or make a phone call, I was told no I couldn't do that, I asked why and was told that the Inspector had put a block on any and all communication from me to anyone.

I was checked on approximately every 30 minutes, each time I asked if they could please contact someone to inform them that I had been arrested and that I wanted to make a telephone call to arrange for a solicitor, every time I was told that they would check into it, see what they could do, ask a superior etc etc, but I wasn't allowed to do either for the whole duration of me being in the cell, which was around 7.5 hours.

After a few hours, I was visited by two Independent Custody Visitors, who asked if I was being treated well and if there was anything I wanted or needed, I told them that I had asked several times already, that I wanted someone contacted to let them know that I'd been arrested and that I wanted to make a phone call, but both had been refused, they appeared surprised and said they would look into it for me, but that was obviously a worthless statement from them, because in the hours that follwed, I still wasn't allowed to do either.

I did get something which resembled an all day breakfast meal, but the taste was so awful, I only had a couple of spoons of it, I had several cups of water and a cup of coffee, I also asked for and got a blanket when I got a bit cold, police cells aren't the warmest of places I now know!

I'm guessing that around about 4:45pm a policeman who I'd not seen before, came into the cell with some paperwork, it was a 12 page list of items they had seized from my house, he asked me to sign a document to confirm that the items listed were mine, after looking at the first few pages, I told him that there were no specific identifiable details for any of the items they had seized and listed, no manufacturers, no model numbers, no serial numbers, for anything and that because this important information had not been detailed, I was not going to sign anything stating that I owned any of it, not without first visually confirming that all the listed items were actually my propety, here's the list of items they say they seized:

01. Nokia mobile phone
02. Large brown package containing several large padded envelopes
03. Western digital hard drive
03. Realistic telephone answering machine
04. 18 mini discs
05. Sharp video camera in grey carry case
06. 8 blank cd's
07. Tandy laptop & bag
08. Black media device
09. Grey mitac laptop computer
10. 10 mini discs
11. eMechanics computer hard drive
12. Box containing venus hard drives
13. 10 blank jvc cd's
14. Memory stick from rear of eMachines computer tower
15. Box containing 10 traxdata cd's
16. Box containing 10 samsung cd's
17. Large computer tower
18. 2 cd's 1 floppy disc and misc papers containing invoices
19. Advent computer tower and external drives
20. Wharfdale rewritable dvd player
21. 5 x hard drives
22. Grey phillips receiver
23. 3 x memory sticks
24. Misc cd's and mini discs
25. Hard drives
26. 1 x hard drive
27. Various cd's & dvd's
28. Computer base unit
29. Computer drive & lead
30. Asda bag containing computer drive & discs
31. Sat nav in black case
32. Paperwork containg details of addresses in Scotland
33. Documents seized from desk

What do they take me for, a complete idiot! ...no one in their right mind would have signed to say any of these items were their property, especially if they'd not been there when it was seized!
Anyway, he got extremely pissed off, insisted I signed it, I refused and he said something to the effect of "fine, then don't sign it" and stormed off out of the cell.

At 5pm a solicitor arrived and I was put in an interview room to speak with him and his assistant, I said that with my limited knowledge, as far as I was aware, downloading of something which had copyright, was a civil offence and not a criminal one and I asked him why the police were involved in this case, he told me that under Section 109 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act of 1988, the downloading of any copyrighted item, without the owners consent, was a crimnal offence and not a civil one ...first I knew of it!

I was then interviewed by two police officers and it was recorded on tape, they asked loads of questions about all sorts of things to do with Filesoup, I had to correct and explain things to them several times, in very simple terms, a lot of the misconceptions or misunderstandings they had about the way BitTorrent works, how servers and hosts operate, how the internet works, what a domain name was, what a URL was, to name but a few things! The tape machine beeped and kept stopping part way through the interview, it appeared that they knew it was a "bit faulty" at times, but fiddled with it and carried on regardless, eventually, the interview was finished.

My solicitor and I asked them if they would very kindly drive me back home again, he did agree, but he first had to complete some paperwork, he said he'd be as quick as he could and put me back in the cell again to wait for him. Quite some time later, he returned and took me back to the booking desk.

I was given a multi-paged document entitled:
Notice of Excercise of Additional Powers of Seizure under Sections 50 or 51 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, which listed the same items as above. It gave this information for anyone wishing to make an application for the return of seized property in this case or an application to attend examination of seized property, should apply to:
Neil Gardner
Senior Invesigator
Federation Against Copyright Theft
Europa House
Church Street
Old Isleworth
Midlesex
TW7 6DA

On returning my personal effects, the officer noticed the Filesoup credit card which they had overlooked when I was being booked in, he confiscated the card and gave me a receipt for it.
I was released on police bail with the alleged offence(s) stated as being:
Distribute Article Infringing Copyright

I must surrender to the local police station on 02/10/2009 at 5:00 pm

I asked the officers why everyone had continually refused all day to contact someone to inform them of my arrest and why I'd been refused to make a phone call, they told me that the Inspector had lifted the "block" at around 2:30pm and that they didn't know why the officers on duty at the station hadn't been informed of this fact.

Time of release from police custody was 19:42

I got back home just before 8pm to find my belongings had been turned upside down, the dining room was a like a whirlwind had gone through, I'm not the tidiest of people as it is, but at least I knew where everything was, but after they had been there going through everything, they'd turfed out all the drawers of the desk, chucked back what was of no interest to them, left a pile of paperwork scattered across my desk and table with wires everywhere, talk about a nightmare!. My dog was extremely traumatised, he'd been barking almost non-stop all day long the neighbour told my Dad when he went over at about 6:30pm to feed the dog as I hadn't got back yet. My dog rarely barks at anything, now he barks at the least little thing, I am SO annoyed that they have done this to him!

Well that's it, lock, stock and barrel... how can anyone have any faith in our current justice system ...what the hell happened to the old belief "innocent until proven guilty"? Gits!

Link to thread if you wish to comment or read the replies: http://filesoup.com/forum/news_updates-f9-arrested_now_on_bail_guilty_until_i_prove_im_innocent-t29230.html


Please tell everyone you know about this fiasco, the more people who know about it and talk about it, the better chance I will have of getting the media attention this kind of injustice deserves.

Thank you all for your continued support.

Kind regards
Geeker
(Steve)

Disclaimer

dimhirwen.blogspot.com disclaims any and all responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality and reliability of the information and links displayed on this website. You (the visitor) understand and agree that dimhirwen.blogspot.com can not be held responsible for any damages or other problems that may result from use of this website.