Kim Kardashian Paris robbery her own fault?

One thing the herd populace is told by police during every holiday season is to NOT post their holiday destination and time frame on social media in order not to alert the criminal element of society as to when the household would be ripe for the picking of valuables.

We also posted an article on why not to post one's picture of one's boarding pass, see link:

http://corpau.blogspot.com.au/2016/09/do-not-take-photos-of-your-boarding-pass.html

So, does this one simple rule also apply to people with more dollars than brain cells?

• Could Kim Kardashian have brought this upon herself?

•  Was it an 'inside' job?

• Was her security detail flawed due to her being a 'tight arse' (Australian colloquial term for stingy)?

• Would she be entitled to an insurance payout as a result of her own fault?

• Was it a 'publicity stunt' - with those retards attention whores anything is possible?

Irrespective of how much you flaunt your riches in front of the heard populace non one really 'deserves' to be robbed at gunpoint.

See (text version) of article from news.com.au from 4 October 2016 of the headline:

Kim Kardashian reunites with Kanye West in New York as ex-bodyguard says Paris robbery was inside job

AS Kim Kardashian reunited with Kanye West in New York after being robbed at gunpoint in Paris, her former security guard said the jewellery heist was “a crime waiting to happen”.

The 35-year-old and her rapper husband were surrounded by dozens of security guards and police officers as they darted inside their Manhattan apartment on Monday afternoon.

The reality TV star fled France just hours after she was tied up and held at gunpoint by thieves dressed as cops who stole around $14 million in jewellery from her room at the exclusive Hotel de Pourtalès about 3am Monday local time.

The five attackers — wearing ski masks and clothes with police markings — also reportedly made off with two of her smartphones.

Kardashian’s bodyguard, Pascal Duvier, has come under fire for not being with Kardashian during her nightmarish ordeal. He was reportedly with her two sisters as they partied at a nightclub.

Kardashian was in the country for Paris Fashion Week, alongside mother Kris Jenner and sisters Kourtney Kardashian and Kendall Jenner.

GUARD DOWN: ‘Where was Pascal Duvier?’

HEIST ‘WAS CRIME WAITING TO HAPPEN’

Steve Stanulis, who provided security for Kimye during New York Fashion Week in February for 10 days, and worked with them again around the Met Gala in May, claims the heist was an inside job.

“This was a crime waiting to happen. Kim is lucky to be alive,” he told The New York Post.

“I would say it’s either an inside job or publicity stunt. That hotel is so secure, somebody must have tipped them off that she was alone inside, or shown them a way in.”

Stanulis, who was sacked by West for allegedly getting too close to his wife, said his former bosses don’t take their security as seriously as they should.

“When I worked with them, Kanye would ask me to walk 10 feet behind him, which makes it so hard for anyone working their security to do anything if someone lunges at them. There was numerous times he’d try to ditch his security. He’d jump in a car and tell me to take a taxi,” he said.

JEWELLERY HEISTS: Kim K joins elite list of victims

SOCIAL MEDIA: Celebs react to Kim K robbery

He continued: “They need to pay for an armed security guard. She almost got killed at gunpoint, because she didn’t want to pay for an extra armed and well-trained person. It takes one minute of dialogue to figure out if someone really is a cop, they should not have got in the building.

“Sadly, the only person to blame for this incident, is Kim Kardashian. She has tens of millions of dollars of jewellery, but she can’t pay for an armed guard to protect her? The fact that five days ago that someone broke through her security chain and tried to grab her, then this happened, shows her security is not strong enough, and this should be a wake-up call.”

He said Kardashian brought the robbery on herself: “Kim’s social media and her Snapchat is her undoing. When she is posting, ‘Here I am, and this is the $5 million ring I am wearing, here’s where I am going’, you are basically inviting someone to rob you.”

KARDASHIAN ‘BEGGED FOR HER LIFE’

Kardashian’s publicist said the star was “badly shaken but physically unharmed” after robbers tied her up in the bathroom of her Paris residence and put a gun to her head.

A Paris police source told Reuters that five attackers, wearing ski masks and clothes with police markings, struck early on Monday morning.

Two of the men entered the apartment after threatening the night guard with a hand gun. Kardashian, who has two young children with West, was not beaten but the robbers put a handgun against her temple before tying her up, the source said. iTELE television said she had been tied up with packing tape.

When the thieves left with “all her jewellery”, Kardashian “broke out of her bindings and got out,” the source told E! News.

E! News, whose US network broadcasts the Keeping Up With the Kardashians, quoted a source close to Kardashian as saying she feared for her life.

“She begged for them to let her live and (said) she has babies at home ... She thought they were for sure going to kill her,” the unidentified source told E! News. 

The robbers stole a box containing jewels worth between $7.3 million to $8.7 million and a ring worth about $5.7 million, the Paris police source said.

French police are now questioning a photographer who posed as a police officer to spy on Kardashian in a restaurant earlier in the week, The Sun reports. The snapper’s identity has not been released.

INSIDE THE LUXURY APARTMENT

The New York Post reports the apartment where the heist went down is owned by Kardashian’s husband, Kanye West. Kardashian reportedly spent a lot of time there before her 2014 wedding to the rapper.

According to another insider, that’s why the robbery could be “was so well planned out.”
“They knew exactly what room, etc,” they said.


The complex, known as ‘No address France’ is a favourite of other celebrities.

Footballer Zlatan Ibrahimovic also stayed in a $30,345 suite with his family when he first moved to Paris St. Germain, according to Le Huffington Post.

Leonardo DiCaprio, Madonna and Prince are among some of the other famous names to stay at the complex, which has secret exits for the A-list clientele.

REALITY STAR FLEES PARIS AFTER ATTACK

Hours after the shocking attack, Kardashian boarded a private jet back to the US with her assistant and bodyguard. The social media entrepreneur was pictured walking to the plane with her head covered with a black scarf.

“She’s very pleased to be heading back to the United States,” a source close to the case said. “She has given a full statement for the police.”

Kendall Jenner left Paris separately on Monday, E! News reported.

Kimmy K’s WTF month of Farshun

West was pictured looking worried as he left his Tribeca apartment in New York to meet his wife.
On Sunday evening he abruptly ended a concert in New York as soon as he heard the shocking news, citing a “family emergency.”

Videos shot by fans at the concert shows the 39-year-old rapper performing the song Heartless when the music suddenly cuts out.

“I’m sorry, there’s a family emergency — I have to stop the show,” he announced, promptly leaving the stage as fans at The Meadows Music & Arts Festival in Queens could be heard voicing their confusion.

Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo condemned the attack via Twitter, saying the Keeping Up With The Kardashians star is always welcome in Paris.

“This very rare act occurred in a private space and does not in any way call into question the work of the police and the security of the public space,” she said.

The Pourtalès — a 19th-century neo-Renaissance mansion — caters to top celebrities like Brad Pitt, Mick Jagger, Leonardo di Caprio and Madonna. Its nine apartments rent for as much as $US17,000 a night, The Telegraph reported, citing The Fab Day blog.

“The address is so secret that you will not find any information on internet. They have no website, no flyers, no telephone number and no street sign,” according to the blog.

“The only way to find them and to reserve an apartment is to use the old and classical word to mouth system,” it wrote.

What’s at stake as US cedes internet control?

THIS weekend, the US government plans to cede control of some of the internet’s core systems — namely, the directories that help web browsers and apps know where to find the latest weather, maps and Facebook musings.

Will you even notice? Probably not, although the subject has become a hot political issue for some conservative politicians in the country. Here’s a look at the systems in question and what’s at stake for internet users.

WAIT, THE US GOVERNMENT CONTROLS THE INTERNET?

No single government, business, organisation or individual controls all the computers and pipelines making up the internet. But the network relies on an addressing system called the domain name system, or DNS, which includes directories that help route data like email and web requests where it needs to go. And someone needs to run the DNS.

Control over the DNS mostly amounts to deciding what gets included in those directories. For instance, can a Google critic register google-sucks.org, or does Google get first dibs? What about creating a domain name suffix just for porn sites? It has nothing to do, though, with what websites publish. All it does is make sure your browser can find those sites.

SO DOES THE US RUN THAT SYSTEM?

Since 1998, an organisation called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers has overseen the directories, mostly by setting rules and creating mechanisms for settling disputes. But ICANN also has a boss at the US Commerce Department.

It’s a historical arrangement stemming from US funding for the internet’s early development. The domain name system we’re familiar with dates back to 1984, long before Pokemon Go or Amazon.com came along.

WHY DO PEOPLE CARE ABOUT THE TRANFER?

The US has been in charge of the DNS system for more than three decades. Plans to privatise control of these functions by transferring them to a non-profit oversight organisation have been in the works since the late 1990s.

As this Saturday’s (Sunday AEST) transfer date approached, some Republicans in Congress raised late objections, terming it a “giveaway” to the rest of the world. But they failed to block the move in a spending bill to keep the government operating.

Late Wednesday, the attorneys general from Texas, Arizona, Oklahoma and Nevada — all Republicans — filed a federal lawsuit to block the transfer because of worries it might affect government websites ending in “.gov.”

WHY THE US IS BACKING AWAY?

ICANN has taken its share of complaints over the years, often for being slow to adapt as the internet grew. (One common charge: It took too long to permit domain names in languages other than English.) And many countries believe that as long as the U.S. retains oversight – even if it leaves day-to-day management to ICANN – the internet cannot be truly international.

Some governments have sought to transfer control to a UN agency, the International Telecommunication Union. But critics objected to letting authoritarian regimes like Iran and China get equal votes on matters affecting speech.

Instead, the US government insisted that businesses, academics and other parties also get seats at the table. ICANN already had such a multi-party approach. The US agreed in June to relinquish control to ICANN after the organisation created additional mechanisms to resolve disputes.

WILL ANYTHING CHANGE FOR USERS?

Not much. The directories themselves aren’t changing, and people don’t interact directly with domain names as often in the era of Google searches, phone apps and Facebook links. In fact, few people would even know about the transition were it not for the noise from Washington.

REPUBLICANS RAISE ALARM

Republican critics claim that the transition would give countries like Russian and China the ability to control online speech – something supporters of the transition plan deny given the multi-party approach. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas is among those who tried to block the transition as part of a short-term spending bill to keep the government running past Friday.

Donald Trump also came out in support of Cruz, his one-time rival for the GOP presidential nomination. Ironically, those wanting the US to maintain its oversight role includes a group called Americans for Limited Government. Their efforts failed, though, as budget negotiators left out the transition ban.

A LAST-DITCH LAWSUIT

Four state attorney generals asked a federal court in Galveston, Texas, to block the move. Commerce and ICANN have delegated control of the “.gov” suffix to the U.S. General Services Administration. GSA handles day-to-day management of which government websites can use the suffix. Though the lawsuit claims that GSA decisions are submitted to ICANN for approval, that isn’t the case. ICANN does have trademark and other policies governing sites using particular suffixes, but they cover suffixes available to anyone. The “.gov” suffix is restricted to government agencies in the US.

The lawsuit also claims that ICANN could delete “.gov” entirely from the directories or delegate management of “.gov” websites to someone else. That’s possible, but highly unlikely, and the attorneys general offer no evidence that ICANN would do either.


new.com.au 2 Oct 2016

Queen's Birthday again?

Today is the 3rd day of October in the year of our Lord 2016, where it is also the Queen's birthday.

The Queen's Birthday is also on the 26th day of September.

Don't forget that the 13th of June too, is the Queen's Birthday, in Australia.

So how many 'Queens' have we got?

ANY monarchist will tell you  that this year is the 64th year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth the Second, who was born in on the 21st day of April in the year of our Lord 1926.

So what's going on?

The government of the colony is running a mok, that's what's going on!

You see ye good ol' subjects of the Queen, in short -

a company called the 'Australian Government' (which is not the same 'government' as Constituted in a document called the 'Australian Constitution' allegedly enacted by Elizabeth's great great grand mother, Queen Victoria, who is also the great great grand mother of Queen Elizabeth's husband Prince Philip) decided that all three of the above mentioned dates will be celebrated as the current reigning monarch's birthday in various states across this continent they called Australia.

Now would it be normal practice for the 'Australian Government' to put forward false dates of an actual event?

Apparently the people of this land are told that they are an independent (of the U.K) nation, where even the seven wise persons of the highest court in the nation cannot tell the plebs the date their 'independence' was obtained.

So which date did the government [officially] acknowledge (gazetted) our Independence Day?

In government we trust?

Australia's Census fail - You did not have to fill it in?

People in Australia may have been all too aware of the government (advertising) for the 'residents' to fill in the census.

The TV airwaves were littered with government 'propaganda'.

The ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) has stated that the deadline was the 23rd of September 2016.

It was then stated that you will be fined, even up to $180 for each day the form has not been handed in.

Now ANY constitutional lawyer should tell you that this is 'unlawful'.

The ABS then went back on its 'lawfully binding contract' and took the deadline back by a week to 30th of September.


As people should be aware, the television is an advertising medium used by corporations to tell people to purchase their products.

Since when does the Australian Government advertise 'law'?

Ummm.... it doesn't.....

Have you ever seen an advertisement (by the government) informing you that you do not have to carry your licence if you are above the age of 26?

This could be a administrative nightmare for police, but that is the law, well in Victoria at least.

See current law - Road Safety Act 1986 Section 19, (8)

(8)     A person under the age of 26 years who holds a driver licence must have the licence in his or her possession at all times while driving or in charge of a motor vehicle.
Penalty applying to this subsection: 5 penalty units.

Ref:  http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/rsa1986125/s19.html

Please note that the validity of that Act is put aside.

If the people are told to do something, which is allegedly compulsory, it MUST be done in accordance with law.

What is 'law' in Australia?

WITHOUT going into too much detail, 'law' is written in a document called an 'Act'.

So where does the 'government' get its power to tell the 'residents' to complete a form called the census?

Why from the Census and Statistics Act 1905, of course.

You can download a copy from:

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C1905A00015/Amendments

'We' have a few 'problems' here with regards to the direction to fill it in.

The Act from the link above is called "An Act relating to the Census and Statistics of the Commonwealth"

It also states that it is from the "Commonwealth of Australia".

You got a letter from (a company called ) the ABS, a subsidiary of another company called the 'Australian Government' and NOT the de jure (lawful) government called the "Commonwealth of Australia".

So, what people must also note is that there is a document called the Australian Constitution, which is to be adhered to by ALL people in 'government'.

It's a document that tells the people how the 'government' MUST behave.

It's far from a 'conspiracy theory' as there is a place called the High Court of Australia, which upholds the law according this Constitution.

So you've been given a letter from the 'ABS' to fill out a census, but did you really have to?

According to the 'law', the Governor-General appointed Commonwealth Statistician, must direct your 'person' in writing to fill in the census form.

Let's put the lawful appointment of the Governor-General aside for now.

So has this been done, within the letter that every household in Australia has received?

Many people on social media forums have pointed out the 'unlawful' requests for the 'residents' to fill in the census forms, which we will not go into detail.

So the 30th of September was on Friday and you really have to (lawfully) submit ANY details to the company called the ABS?

Would you fill out a questionnaire from McDonald's asking you to tell them your personal information under the threat of an [unlawful] fine?

Australia's government getting more corrupt according to International Corruption Index

 

 

Australia has been singled out for its deteriorating position as it continues a four-year slide down the International Corruption Index.

Key points:

• Australia ranked 13th of 136 countries in International Corruption Index
• Australia has slid six positions since 2012
• Lack of action by successive governments blamed for the slide

Each year Transparency International gathers assessments and surveys business people to rank 168 countries by their perceived levels of public sector corruption.

Australia ranked 13th in the latest report, dropping six positions since 2012.

Figures released for 2015 show Denmark led the rankings, followed by Finland and Sweden, with New Zealand in fourth place.

The incoming chairman of Transparency International's Australian subsidiary, TI Australia, Anthony Whealy QC, said lack of action by successive governments to curb public sector corruption was the reason Australia continued to slide down the rankings.

"The delay in responding to these issues has now made reform critical and a commitment to ramp up efforts to tackle foreign bribery, which has particularly impacted perceptions of Australia, is now urgent," Mr Whealy said.

Those perceptions are not helped by the uncovering of large scale corruption linked to Australia's most reputable institutions, including the Reserve Bank.

Two firms owned by the RBA, Securency and Note Printing Australia, were charged with bribing foreign officials to win banknote contracts in 2013.

The scandal continues to taunt Reserve Bank governor Glenn Stevens as questions are raised about what he knew about Securency's alleged corruption involving up to $17 million paid in bribes.

TI Australia CEO Phil Newman has called on the Turnbull Government to deliver a stronger federal anti-corruption agency.

"With Australia's worst foreign bribery offences having been committed by former or current government-owned entities - the Australian Wheat Board, Note Printing Australia and Securency Limited - there is no excuse not to have implemented all of the OECD's reform recommendations in this area by the end of the year," Mr Newman said.

The inflow of illicit foreign funds into Australia's property market is also cited as a problem.

Mr Whealy said unless Australia strengthened its anti-money laundering regime it would continue to fall in the corruption rankings.

"The illicit flow of funds into Australia and particularly from Asia is a very significant problem and we need to have proper laws to vet it, transparency, and we need to have sanction to ensure that it doesn't happen," Mr Whealy said.

"We need to have better vision and control of where money is coming from."

The 2015 report found "68 per cent of countries worldwide have a serious corruption problem" and "not one single country anywhere in the world is corruption free".

The report shows Greece, Senegal and the UK are among the improvers and North Korea and Somalia are at the bottom of the corruption index.

abc.net.au  27 Jan 2016
 

The penal colony system of rule in Australia allows corporate criminals to flourish.

 

That's what happens when you do not live in a 'free country' as a corporate slave.

The Australian Government - prolific child abusers

How can you really trust the people in the 'Australian Government'?

Judges (former and current) are also involved in a paedophile ring.

If you are part of the judicature where you are supported by your 'brethren' you can get away with all sorts of criminal activities that are committed against the slave population (serfs).

See link: 

http://corpau.blogspot.com.au/2016/09/list-of-paedophile-judges-in-nsw.html

From the article in theaustralian.com.au from the 27th of Sep 2016 of the headline:

Australia branded ‘child-stealing capital of the Western world’

Australian children are removed from their families more often than anywhere in the Western world, nearly twice as often as in the US and almost three times the rate in New Zealand, a parlia­mentary inquiry into child welfare has heard.

There is also “a culture of ­removal and a culture of victim blaming”.

Mary Moore, convener of the volunteer Alliance for Family Preservation and Restoration, told the NSW parliamentary committee yesterday that children were being taken into care based on the opinion of case workers where no harm had occurred “but because they have concerns the child might suffer harm in the future, and they’re then in care until age 18”.

Ms Moore said she had struggled in vain to find data from any government worldwide that demonstrated a higher rate of removal than Australia’s 2272 children per million. Finland, with a population of 5.4 million, was next at 1851 children per million, with the US in fourth place at 1255 per million and New Zealand sixth at 840.

Domestic Violence NSW policy manager Sophie Trower told of a woman whose children were kept from her after her jaw was broken by a violent partner, because case workers deemed her “too pretty” and therefore likely to get into another abusive relationship. This was despite the fact the agencies dealing with the woman and her two children in their out-of-home care placements recommended reunification “after incredible strength, resilience and hard work to improve safety and wellbeing by the mother had been clearly documented”.

The woman, from the NSW central coast, had also not previously been in a ­violent relationship, had not started another relationship, there was no evidence to suggest she was likely to enter another violent relationship and during the intervening time she had obtained a TAFE certificate in social work.

“I think in some jurisdictions there is a culture of removal, and a culture of victim blaming … in domestic and family violence there is a significantly lower knowledge base across the board of ­people who understand the ­dynamics,” Ms Trower said.

“This was a very clear case of where a woman was told that ­because she was too attractive she was more likely to get into a violent relationship.”

Ms Trower said the case had been referred to the Ombudsman but she did not know whether, seven months on, the children had yet been returned.

Ms Moore, whose submission described Australia as “the child-stealing capital of the Western world”, said a lack of regulation in child protection “breeds an environment of incompetence, misconduct and corruption experienced daily by children and families”.

She described cases where pregnant women entered hospital to give birth in full expectation of being able to take their babies home afterwards, only to have the infants seized immediately and unexpectedly without even being allowed to suckle them.

“These are parents who believe they were going to be given help but they are not even able to give the baby colostrum,’’ she said.

“As a nurse, I would never ­recommend that.’’

The inquiry continues.

Australia branded ‘child-stealing capital of the Western world’

Australian children are removed from their families more often than anywhere in the Western world, nearly twice as often as in the US and almost three times the rate in New Zealand, a parlia­mentary inquiry into child welfare has heard.

There is also “a culture of ­removal and a culture of victim blaming”.

Mary Moore, convener of the volunteer Alliance for Family Preservation and Restoration, told the NSW parliamentary committee yesterday that children were being taken into care based on the opinion of case workers where no harm had occurred “but because they have concerns the child might suffer harm in the future, and they’re then in care until age 18”.

Ms Moore said she had struggled in vain to find data from any government worldwide that demonstrated a higher rate of removal than Australia’s 2272 children per million. Finland, with a population of 5.4 million, was next at 1851 children per million, with the US in fourth place at 1255 per million and New Zealand sixth at 840.

Domestic Violence NSW policy manager Sophie Trower told of a woman whose children were kept from her after her jaw was broken by a violent partner, because case workers deemed her “too pretty” and therefore likely to get into another abusive relationship. This was despite the fact the agencies dealing with the woman and her two children in their out-of-home care placements recommended reunification “after incredible strength, resilience and hard work to improve safety and wellbeing by the mother had been clearly documented”.

The woman, from the NSW central coast, had also not previously been in a ­violent relationship, had not started another relationship, there was no evidence to suggest she was likely to enter another violent relationship and during the intervening time she had obtained a TAFE certificate in social work.

“I think in some jurisdictions there is a culture of removal, and a culture of victim blaming … in domestic and family violence there is a significantly lower knowledge base across the board of ­people who understand the ­dynamics,” Ms Trower said.

“This was a very clear case of where a woman was told that ­because she was too attractive she was more likely to get into a violent relationship.”

Ms Trower said the case had been referred to the Ombudsman but she did not know whether, seven months on, the children had yet been returned.

Ms Moore, whose submission described Australia as “the child-stealing capital of the Western world”, said a lack of regulation in child protection “breeds an environment of incompetence, misconduct and corruption experienced daily by children and families”.

She described cases where pregnant women entered hospital to give birth in full expectation of being able to take their babies home afterwards, only to have the infants seized immediately and unexpectedly without even being allowed to suckle them.

“These are parents who believe they were going to be given help but they are not even able to give the baby colostrum,’’ she said.

“As a nurse, I would never ­recommend that.’’

The inquiry continues.

theaustralian.com.au 27 Sep 2016

The people in the Australian Government are Human Rights abusers on a daily basis, where the masses are literally powerless to bring theses criminals before the courts, either domestic or international.

The people in the 'Australian Government' are not in office lawfully, but rather through deception, fraud, extortion and force.

Victoria Police asks for your money citing part of their oath

As many people would be aware the communications medium called television is used for corporations and business to promote their products via commercials or advertisements.

Victoria Police have started an advertising campaign where they are asking the public to dig deep into their pockets to support the Victoria Police charity.

Also as part of the advertisement (see screen capture in illustration below), it can be seen how an employee of Victoria Police is citing their oath.

 

Many people nowadays (via social media, blogs, etc) would be aware that an important feature of a person in office (power) is their 'oath'.

A few years ago a document was brought out into the public domain on the unlawful activities of Victoria Police.

The document was complied by an ex Victoria Police officer, citing various acts also including the oath of Victoria police.

The oath of Victoria Police is as follows:

“ I swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady the Queen as a member of the Police Force of Victoria in such capacity as I may be hereafter appointed, promoted, or reduced to without favour or affection malice or ill-will for the period of from this date, and until I am legally discharged; that I will see and cause Her Majesty's peace to be kept and preserved; and that I will prevent to the best of my power all offences against the same, and that while I shall continue to be a member of the Police Force of Victoria I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties legally imposed upon me faithfully and according to law.”

This can be found in a document of the title:

Ex Victorian Police officer comments on Fines

where it is available at:

http://corpau.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/ex-victorian-police-officer-comments-on.html

The blog Corporate Australia, has received accounting information pertaining to charities, where the figures show that 90% of funds are swallowed up by administration costs including high salaries for key personnel including CEO's.

Therefore no recommendation can be given to  any person give their hard earned cash to charities.

• Would you support a corporation that falsely prosecutes people in the name of the Crown?

• Would you support a corporation that sends out millions of  [unlawful] 'fines' every year?

• Would you support a corporation whose members deliberately lie under oath in the courts every day?

• Would you support people who deliberately destroy incriminating evidence against themselves?

• Would you support  people who assault you if you ask about their oath of office?

• Would you support people who commit more criminal offences every day than the public they are supposed to allegedly 'serve and protect'?

• Would you support people who believe their uniform allows them to assault you without repercussions?

Please note:

• Victoria Police is an arm of the executive, meaning they work for the benefit of government.

•  Employees of Victoria Police are not 'public servants' (meaning 'employed' by the general populous, where the people are their 'masters') as mistaken by many a lay person.

There are plenty more actions of police corruption that the corporate media has not reported.

One example is one that occurs every day in the so called (kangaroo) courts of Australia.

For one the police swear an oath to a false entity namely the Queen of Australia.

As of 2013 Victoria Police was made a corporation with a CEO, arising from the Victoria Police Act 2013.

Is the corporate media protecting the names of criminals in Victoria Police?

Normally the corporate media publishes the names of (alleged) criminals in society.

When you are taken to court for an alleged criminal offence, you do not know (the legal name of the person) who takes you to court in the case of police, whereas your name is published in the court list.

As an example the name of an officer is published as P. Smith, which is NOT a legal name.

See article from news.com.au from 22 September 2016 of the headline:

Vic police suspended for leaking info

Four serving police officers and a former officer are being investigated in Victoria over drug use and the leaking of police information to criminals.

Search warrants were executed at five Melbourne properties on August 17 and the five were all interviewed and released as part of an ongoing investigation, Victoria Police say.

"The arrests and searches relate to a protracted investigation into the improper release of police information to people not entitled to be in possession of such information, including criminals," a police spokesman said.

The investigation is also looking at drug use.

The four police officers, a female senior constable and three male detective senior constables, have been suspended with pay pending the outcome of the criminal investigation.

Police would not comment any further, saying it would be inappropriate "as the investigation is ongoing".

Over 700 Million People Taking Steps to Avoid NSA Surveillance

There's a new international survey on Internet security and trust, of "23,376 Internet users in 24 countries," including "Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden, Tunisia, Turkey and the United States." Amongst the findings, 60% of Internet users have heard of Edward Snowden, and 39% of those "have taken steps to protect their online privacy and security as a result of his revelations."

The press is mostly spinning this as evidence that Snowden has not had an effect: "merely 39%," "only 39%," and so on. (Note that these articles are completely misunderstanding the data. It's not 39% of people who are taking steps to protect their privacy post-Snowden, it's 39% of the 60% of Internet users -- which is not everybody -- who have heard of him. So it's much less than 39%.)

Even so, I disagree with the "Edward Snowden Revelations Not Having Much Impact on Internet Users" headline. He's having an enormous impact. I ran the actual numbers country by country, combining data on Internet penetration with data from this survey. Multiplying everything out, I calculate that 706 million people have changed their behavior on the Internet because of what the NSA and GCHQ are doing. (For example, 17% of Indonesians use the Internet, 64% of them have heard of Snowden and 62% of them have taken steps to protect their privacy, which equals 17 million people out of its total 250-million population.)

Note that the countries in this survey only cover 4.7 billion out of a total 7 billion world population. Taking the conservative estimates that 20% of the remaining population uses the Internet, 40% of them have heard of Snowden, and 25% of those have done something about it, that's an additional 46 million people around the world.

It's probably true that most of those people took steps that didn't make any appreciable difference against an NSA level of surveillance, and probably not even against the even more pervasive corporate variety of surveillance. It's probably even true that some of those people didn't take steps at all, and just wish they did or wish they knew what to do. But it is absolutely extraordinary that 750 million people are disturbed enough about their online privacy that they will represent to a survey taker that they did something about it.

Name another news story that has caused over ten percent of the world's population to change their behavior in the past year? Cory Doctorow is right: we have reached "peak indifference to surveillance." From now on, this issue is going to matter more and more, and policymakers around the world need to start paying attention.

Related: a recent Pew Research Internet Project survey on Americans' perceptions of privacy, commented on by Ben Wittes.

schneir.com 15 Dec 2014