D-Notice 2012

Today's #QTWTAIN: Is the census a breach of human rights?

2012-05-27T12:02:00.001+01:00

The government's prosecution of census objectors is in jeopardy after a Birmingham man was granted a judicial review to challenge the legality of the act that makes it an offence not to complete the 10-yearly survey.

Privacy campaigner Nigel Simons, who did not fill out the census, argues that section 8 of the 1920 Census Act conflicts with his right to privacy guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.

It's an interesting case, and I can see where he's coming from, especially given that here's a good chance that the information would be processed in the US, but he'll lose.

The ECHR states that the right to privacy (Art. 8) can be breached if it is "in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others".

It's pretty clear that the census would certainly fall the "economic" justification, under this given that a census is kind of essential for establishing a country's demographics. It could also fall under "national security and public safety" for the same reasons.

The new #singhBCA? - result

2012-03-31T17:05:00.002+01:00

In July 2011 I mentioned a stupid libel case which was taking place: a guy was being sued for calling someone a "creationist" in a review placed on Amazon.

The judgment was published yesterday (apparently a draft version was published back in December, but it has taken until now to be finalised): the case was struck out and the Claimants have to pay £75,000.00 in legal costs.

Unfortunately, it seems that the First Claimant is being a bit of a bad loser and appears to be harassing the guy he sued.

Anyway, given that the case has ended, I thought I'd bring up how the case has affected me.

On 13th September, the Claimant wrote to me and basically threatened to sue me for libel. Apparently it was because I had stated that the case itself was a complete load of bollocks:

Dear Gareth Winchester,

Re: Libel – http://d-notice.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-singhbca.html

You run the above blog and your email and partial address are confirmed by a Facebook page on which you announce your intention to run for Parliament.

We give you the benefit of the doubt at this preliminary stage in any possible action that:

1) you did not know the character of the Fourth Defendant prior to publishing your post above and do not know the full extent of the case against him, which the Fourth Defendant clearly wishes to conceal, giving only partial and self-serving information on his blog;

2) you do not endorse any of his political or anti-religious views;

3) you did not know the extent of the case being brought against him, including possible criminal proceedings;

4) you have been unwittingly enjoined by the Fourth Defendant to add to, and promote, his on-going libel at his own blog, to which you provide the following link in your post: http://vjohn82libelcase.blogspot.com/

However, whether witting or unwitting, you repeat and provide links to on-going libellous material and we respectfully ask you to remove your webpage above and submit Google cache removal requests for this immediately.

No doubt the existing libel case in question will be decided upon in due course and at that point the public will have the benefit of the full picture, until which time we are unable to comment further.

Yours sincerely,

Mr. Christopher A. McGrath

& McG Productions Ltd.

Unity at the Ministry of Truth received a similar letter.

I never complied with his request to remove my original post referring to the case, and instead simply ignored it; given what I had written - nothing more than a summary - there was never any basis for a claim against me.

UPDATE (10/04/2012): the judgment is now available on BAILII.

Why EU law is a good thing

2012-03-26T23:04:00.002+01:00

I saw this on Twitter today, but think that it deserves more coverage.

It's a long and bring article about the impact of having laws passed at EU level vs national level.

Granted, I'm not selling it in anyway whatsoever, but it's the EU so it's hard to make it interesting at any time.

In summary, doing stuff at EU level makes things easier for businesses - after all it's much simpler to only have to comply with one set of laws with apply through almost 30 countries, compared to complying with many, many different sets of laws.

It also goes into issues regarding enforcement and the difficulties which result from using EU Directives vs EU Regulations.

Like I said, it's a very dry and boring piece, but useful if you wanna see how things work in the real world, not in some UKIP-delusion world.

Oh Canada!

2012-03-26T22:54:00.002+01:00

From CNN:

Ontario's top court has legalized brothels, saying Canadian prostitution laws unfairly discriminate against prostitutes and their ability to work in safe environments.

A panel of five judges wrote that the law banning common bawdy houses "is grossly disproportionate" if all it aims to do is keep public order in a neighborhood and maintain public health standards.

"The record is clear that the safest way to sell sex is for a prostitute to work indoors, in a location under her control," the judges wrote in a much anticipated ruling.

Good.

It'll make it safer for the women involved both for public health reasons and by making it more difficult for them to be exploited.

An argument in favour of road privatisation

2012-03-19T14:20:00.004Z

The government has said that it plans to private our roads.

I plan to buy one.

there's no particular reason why I would want one - I don't drive and don't travel very far on the roads any other way - but I feel that I have to have one for the future of the UK.

Why?

Simple, if I buy a road I will install metric road signs throughout.

After all, the government has basically admitted that it has no reason for them not to be used throughout, i.e. in addition to the small-scale use it currently has, yet refuses to do so.

Who wants to contribute?

Mafia State

2012-03-07T21:09:00.000Z

I was reading a post on the Economist about Russia.

Apparently a lawyer uncovered a $230m tax fraud being done various Russian officials, and he ending up paying for it with his life.

There seems to be a campaign to ban the officials who were allegedly behind it from getting visas to the UK. These were apparently named in Parliament back in January*:

From the courts service:

Judge Yelena Stashina;

Judge Alexei Krivoruchko;

Olga Egorova

From the Interior Ministry:

Oleg Silchenko;

Oleg Urzhumtsev;

Alexei Anichin;

Oleg Logunov;

Boris Kibis;

General Major Tatiana Gerasimova

From the FSB (the Russian secret service and the successor to the KGB):

Viktor Voronin;

From the tax offices:

Olga Stepanova;

Elena Khimina

From the prison services:

Dmitri Komnov;

Fikhet Tagiev;

Yuri Kalinin

From the General Prosecutor’s Office:

Andrey Pechegin

I wonder if anything will happen?

On a related note I'd recommend Luke Harding's "Mafia State" book.

* As a result, they can be reported freely on the grounds of qualified privilege.

Where do my taxes go?

2012-03-01T20:09:00.000Z

I saw this on Twitter yesterday:

a spreadsheet which shows where your tax money goes (Excel) (assuming you're a UK taxpayer).

It's very interesting to see how it all breaks down.

UPDATE: Given my post on the costs of the EU, I thought I'd work out how I pay per year for the hulking bureaucracy that resides in Brussels.

Apparently I pay £26.29 (€31.51)/year net to be in the EU, or 7.2p (8.6c)/day.

The UK's net contribution to the EU works out at a staggering 0.49% of total government expenditure: £2.533 billion/year, which averages out at - assuming there's 62 million people in the UK - £40.85 (€49.03) per person/year or 11.2p (13.4c) per person/day.

I think I can justify such expense...

An Open Letter to David Cameron

2012-03-01T09:37:00.002Z

Dear Mr Cameron,

Last night on C4 News I saw film of you in Parliament using the term "Trotskyites" towards those who oppose people being forced to work for no pay on the Workfare scheme.

Do you seriously believe that such a miniscule, hard-core left-wing group has such extensive power in the UK and that only people with those views are opposed to the scheme?

Do you seriously not realise that you can be opposed to such a scheme simply on the grounds that people should be paid for doing a job?

If not, then are only two real alternatives:

either you are completely deluded, in which case you should resign, or
you lied to Parliament, in which case you should definitely resign!

After all, you can't seriously say that the SWP secretly control everything behind the scenes, and have more power than anyone else could possible imagine, can you?

UPDATE: It turns out that Trotsky would have supported Workfare.

If we leave the EU we'll have free access!

2012-02-27T22:21:00.002Z

One argument that people make in favour of the UK leaving the EU is that it costs us money.

Of course, reality is not so simple. In fact, the Norwegian government has done a report on the impact being outside the EU has upon it.

There's also these things known as the EEA Grants and Norway Grants.

These are payments made by non-EU EEA countries (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) in order to access the EU's Internal Market.

Next year Norway will pay the EU €290 million in order to gain access, which works out at €0.79/day . This is €0.10 more than what the UK pays!

Overall between 2009-14 Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway will pay €988.5 million in EEA Grants (of which Norway will pay 95%, i.e. €939.075 for Norway and €49.425 between Iceland and Liechtenstein*), with a further €800 million contributed by Norway as part of the Norway Grants**.

Therefore, life outside the EU is not cheap if you want to access the EU's market. Of course, even if you pay for access, you also end up having to comply with EU laws with no say in them. What's technically known as a "fax democracy".

I'm not sure what Switzerland contributes, but will try & find out for a later post.

UPDATE: According to Nosemonkey it turns out that in 2009 Norway paid €340 million/year. Also I've amended the figures in the footnote.

* I can't find a breakdown for the amounts paid by Iceland and Liechtenstein. However, it seems to be based on GDP: Norway ($414.462 billion) + Iceland ($12.594 billion) + Liechtenstein ($4.797 billion) = $431.853 billion. On a strict GDP basis, these would be 95.97% + 2.92% + 1.1%, but their actual shares are 95%, 3% and 2% respectively.

Taking into account the percentage shares, the figures equate to €939.075 million for Norway (average: €187.815 million/year, or €0.515 million/day or €0.10 per capita/day [the difference is due to an increase in the amount Norway pays in the later years]); €29.655 million for Iceland (average: €5.931 million/year, or €0.016 million/day or €0.05 per capita/day); and €19.77 million for Liechtenstein (average: €3.954 million/year or €0.011 million/day or €0.30 per capita/day).

Polio wiped out in India

2012-02-27T20:55:00.000Z

In a change to our scheduled programming of disdain towards most things, here is some good news.

The World Health Organisation has said that India is free of polio.

Guzzle the World

2012-02-27T12:47:00.003Z

My girlfriend and I have started up a food-review blog: G & T Guzzle the World.

It'll cover the variety of food and drink we come across in and around London.

Check it out!

Blog Post of the Day/Month/Year

2012-02-18T16:30:00.003Z

You're probably aware of the current fuck-up surrounding the Greek economy.

I know very little about economics - not that's necessarily a bad thing - and I also don't know what can ad should be done to sort it out.

Which is why I'm glad I found a post on Crooked Timber to help me.

It's a Choose Your Own Adventure game over the various options there are for Greece and everyone else, and it takes into account the economic impacts and limits and also the political ones.

It's a great post which explains the situation in a simple-to-understand manner.

When I did it I got the "Argentina 2001" option. That's not good.

Hopefully, other people can do better.

Technical Legal Argument of the Day

2012-02-18T16:22:00.000Z

On Thursday the Court of Appeal released its judgment in the case of Simcoe v Jacuzzi UK Group Plc.

For work reasons* I had been keeping an eye out for this.

What I didn't expect - and I doubt anyone else did - was for the Claimant to also win on a very obscure technical argument (para. 20-34).

The best was to describe it is**:

Lawyer: The law doesn't apply because the government fucked up when they drafted it

Court: [looks at the background to the law] You're right

I have to applaud whoever considered such a strategy - normally you would assume that any amendment is valid - mainly due to the amount to work involved in researching the issue itself and the background of how the law was amended and it actually should have been changed.

However, I'm expecting the Defendant to appeal to the Supreme Court, either on the technical argument or generally. I'm also expecting the Supreme Court to give permission due to the wide-ranging impact a decision would have.

* It was a technical argument over from when interest on costs can be claimed in cases funded by CFAs/"No win, no fee" agreements. The Court says that it can be claimed from when the main case settles, not just from when the legal costs are agreed which will be some time later on, possibly years.

** Legally, the argument was that CPR 40.8 doesn't apply in the County Court because the law amending it didn't comply with the Act of Parliament which it was enforced under: it says that the Treasury should also have been consulted in preparing it, but there is no suggestion that it ever did. The Court also said that even if it was wrong, the amendment simply led to a general rule that interest would still apply, but could be ignored if it was justified.

attends #feb11global

2012-02-12T13:35:00.000Z

Yesterday I popped along to Amnesty International's "Middle East and North Africa Global Day of Action" which was held at Trafalgar Square.

It was a protest against the current slaughter of Syrian public by their own government over the past year/in favour of the West's attempts to "control" Syrian oil*, as well as protests against the actions of the Egyptian military ovet the past year since Mubarahk was forced to resign as Egypt's president.

From what I saw there were a few speeches by Egyptian exiles, but unfortunately, other than noisy protests by what appeared to be Syrian exiles, I didn't see much about Syria. That may be because I had to leave because my toes went numb, in spite of wearing two pairs of socks...

However, I did manage to take a few photos.

Syrian exiles selling stuff with the proceeds going to people who have been made refugees:

... and that's were I bought my new scarf (the design is the pre-Ba'ath regime Syrian flag):

As far as I could tell, these were Syrian exiles chanting anti-Assad slogans. The ones I managed to speak to were condemning the outside world for effectively washing their hands of the situation, and they particularly loath the Russian and Chinese governments:

Amnesty have their own coverage.

I'm not sure if it did much - hopefully given that there seemed to be a few in different place around the world, it may have some impact upon the Syrian government. However, if you're going to slaughter your own people for speaking out against you, I doubt that the views of people in other countries are of little concern...

* Your view may be dependant upon whether you have been watching with horror at the events - which have escalated since Russia and China vetoed outside action to resolve the situation given the apparent failure of peaceful attempts and sanctions - or assume that there must be an ulterior motive for other countries' condemnation.

... becomes a food and drinks critic...

2012-02-11T21:23:00.000Z

I currently live in a north London suburb which is basically houses and little else. The main benefit of where I currently live is that the shops sell a variety of interesting food and drink from various eastern European countries.

A few weeks ago I bought some Bulgarian cheese French-bread-style crisps, which amongst other languages, had their ingredients in Georgian and Armenian.

I've also noticed that they have booze which you would struggle to find anywhere else, if at all: I've found wine from Cyprus; and lager from the Baltics (Latvia and Lithuania - all hail EU laws on free movement of goods!) and from Ukraine*.

I've also stumbled across some Moldovan red wine, which was very nice - quite sweet, but not so sweet that it was off-putting. I'd recommend it, if you manage to get hold of it.

As a result, I'm on the look-out for other interesting/obscure brands of drinks, mainly so that I get get into it before they get popular... If anyone can recommend any I'd be very grateful. If not, I'll simply spend time looking through eastern European food and drink shops, picking up stuff at random.

* Well, I think it was from Ukraine; the label was in Cyrillic, but it contained the word "Україна" which is Ukraine as spelt in that alphabet...

#Syria: a simple question

2012-02-10T19:31:00.000Z

If you've been following my Twitter feed over the past few days you might have seen that there's a bit of a heated discussion between Justin McKeating, Flying Rodent, Daniel HG, Branes and I over the current situation in Syria.

Since last March thousands of Syrians have been killed by their own government simply for saying "We want you out".

Daniel & I take the view that "enough is enough" - sanctions have clearly failed, as have attempts to resolve the situation peacefully - and in any event there are certain acts which no government should be allowed to do, i.e. kill vast numbers of its own population.

The others don't. As far as I can tell - and I'm happy for be corrected - the opposition seems to boil down to "It'll be another Iraq" and/or "It's about control of oil" or we (by which I'm assuming means western countries) lack the "moral authority" due to historical reasons.*

I take the view that something along the lines of Libya, Bosnia, or Kosovo should be done - outside action to stop the slaughter. I accept that there would be causalities, both civilian and military, but consider that is the least worst option in the circumstances.

I'll assume that even the most vehemently opposed to the use of force would accept that there is a limit on the number of deaths after which other countries should get involved in the situation.

So the question is, what is that limit? Is it a certain number or percentage of the population? Is it over a certain time-frame.

UPDATE: On a related note, I find this piece about the reaction of Chinese bloggers interesting, and the cartoon very appropriate.

UPDATE: This piece from Raincoat Optimism from January goes into more detail about the positives and negatives.

* Frankly, I consider Iraq to be a false comparison due to their being significant differences - e.g. it's clearly not an attempt to settle old scores (we have none!)/find any excuse to invade (the situation has been going on for almost a year, without any suggestion that the Syrian government would stop killing people) and it's clear that the people want to get rid of their government - while claims about it simply being about oil are complete load of bollocks - Syria's main export is oil, of which Europe is its biggest consumer. We had (prior to the sanctions) very easy access to it - in fact they were completely dependant upon our business! If you have easy access to anything - especially when you're the only customer - you don't take out your suppliers. In fact - and unfortunately when it comes to oil - you support them no matter what, like we do with Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. As for moral authority, while I accept that western government have fucked about in the past, that's not an argument against resolving the situation.

...helps out the government

2012-02-06T19:12:00.000Z

You may be aware that the government has a public consultation on reducing "red tape". It seems that anyone can make a suggestion.

Assuming that this is not simply a way to excuse rolling-back employment rights, I've decided to help them out.

In an earlier post, I referred to the World Bank's "Ease of Doing Business Index", which - as the name suggests - lists how easy it is to do business in every country in the world.

Earlier today I saw that they've published their 2012 Index, in which the UK ranks #7 overall.

Therefore, I sent the following submission:

Dear Cabinet Office,

I saw that the World Bank have published their 2012 "Doing Business" rankings.

The UK comes in at #7 overall. In 3 categories we are in the top 25; in 2 more we are in the top 20; while in 3 other areas we score in the top 10.

Frankly, I do not think that it can be seriously argued in any way whatsoever that the country is hampered by regulations.

However, it is noticeable that we seem to be dragged down by the apparent difficulties in "Getting Electricity" for which we rank at #60, and "Registering Property" for which we come in at #68.

If any charges are to be made, I suggest that these should be the first areas to be targeted.

Yours sincerely,

They have an auto-response on their email, so they have definitely received it.

I'll let you know if I hear any more.

Legal Aid changes are delayed

2012-01-31T17:08:00.000Z

I've previously mentioned that the government plans to make big changes to legal costs, including how legal aid is dealt with.

While the reforms are still planned to go ahead, they have been put back until 2013 at the earliest.

The Return of SOCPA?

2012-01-30T20:45:00.000Z

It seems that our dear Mayor is trying to bring back the SOCPA/Parliament Protest laws...

I'd suggest that everyone emails Carl Schnackenberg at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport at Carl.Schnackenberg@Culture.gsi.gov.uk objecting to this proposal.

Out of Station Interchanges

2012-01-25T13:21:00.003Z

Earlier today I saw on Twitter that TfL have released a useful document under the Freedom of Information Act.

It's a guide to fares which they hand out to their ticket inspectors.

It also includes a list of what are classed as "Out of Station Interchanges" on p. 174 - when you can leave one station and enter another without being charged extra, e.g. Bounds Green and Bowes Park.

While I am glad that has been released, it's the sort of thing which should automatically be on their own website, so that people know that they can make changes easily.

Can anyone think of a reason why they would not do so?

Pay my phone bill!

2011-12-22T18:58:00.000Z

I recently bought a new phone.

Instead of remaining on Orange, I decided to use GiffGaff.

They work on a referral system.

For £10/month I get 250 mins + unlimited texts + unlimited data.

There are no issues with coverage as they use O2's network, because they are a subsidiary of them.

It's a fantastic offer & I recommend that others sign up too.

If you want to sign up for them, click here.

[If you go through me, I get a referral bonus]

Kim Jong-(is too) Il

2011-12-19T20:57:00.000Z

You are probably aware that the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il has died.

Officially he died of a heart attack caused by "great mental and physical strain caused by his uninterrupted field guidance tour for the building of a thriving nation"*.

Out of curiosity I asked on Twitter if anyone has seen any pro-Kim articles. I then went over to Facebook and saw that a friend had "Liked" the Juche Idea Study Group of England.

It seems to be a North Korean propaganda group who are based in Winchester.

I wonder if they have any talks planned? It'd be interesting to go along to one.

UPDATE: There is a piece on the Guardian about how the West should now work with North Korea. It has a pro-North Korean lean, but is not strictly pro-Kim.

UPDATE: Yay! A pro-Kim piece from the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist).

* I would link to the official North Korean state media's site, but they don't let to link to individual articles, but it is headed "Medical Analysis of Kim Jong Il′s Demise"

Lies, damn lies & Misleading Retweets

2011-11-23T16:23:00.001Z

Saw this on Twitter today:

Is this the sort of thing a reasonable person would do? I think not.

UPDATE: It gets stranger...

Over on The Blog That Peter Wrote is a piece going into more detail about what happened.

Cole has appeared in the comments saying

Peter, I like a lot of what you write so was sad to see this one. The tweet was done at the heat of the moment and does fall more into your latter suggestion [that, as Peter puts it, Cole "'innocently' amended the tweet because there wasn't space to put his insult about Ireland's wife in the 140 characters"] of space. So furious at the ridiculous allegation of the original tweet that on reflection I should probably have stopped and retweeted the original in whole at first. However the allegation that I was somehow threatening to his wife and kids is and remains bs. As I went on to explain in further tweets, Ireland is deluded with his giant conspiratorial web, that I'm frankly bored of being slightly tangled in. I stand by my denial of his assertions and am more annoyed I broke the first and second rules of Tim Ireland club. Engaging.

I think that Cole has misinterpreted Peter's view - see how "innocently" is in quotation marks and how he notes that it carries on about Mrs. Tim. He also says

That I am in anyway protecting someone and thus a threat to your family is a crock Tim. That is the allegation you made and that is my denial. Again.

Even though - as is clear from the two images - Tim made no such claim.

At the best, it seems that reading comprehension isn't Cole's strong point.

At worst, we it appears that Cole wanted to alter Tim's original message in order to give misleading impression of him, and, in a later message, to suggest that Tim has a persecution complex towards Cole.

Person of the Year 2011

2011-11-20T17:29:00.001Z

I came across this a few weeks ago, but it seems like I didn't write about it.

Every year Time Magazine hand out a "Person of the Year" award.

It is given to the person who "has most influenced the news" over the past year.

Given this year's events, there can only really be one winner: Mohammad Al Bouazizi AKA the Tunisian guy who set himself on fire last December.

This led to the Tunisians overthrowing their dictator, as well as causing revolutions in other Middle Eastern & North African countries.

This has obviously been the biggest news event of the year.

Everyone should vote for him and hopefully Time will do the right thing.

'Tis the Season

2011-11-20T15:33:00.001Z

As we're getting close to Christmas it's time for the annual "They've Banned Christmas!!!!!1!!!!!1111!!!!!" myths to re-appear.

As previously said, the Daily Mail has admitted that its "Birmingham have replaced Christmas with Winterval" piece was a load of bollocks.

However, other myths exist.

Thanks to Jamie Sport, I've discovered that on Facebook people are ranting about the Red Cross Banning Christmas so as "not to offend Muslims" or to "peaceifi [sic] muslims", amongst other things.

Shockingly, this too, is a complete load of crap.

Last year the Red Cross did a blog post about how the claim is a load of rubbish, and Jamie has kindly agreed to let me reproduce it:

Yesterday, we started getting some comments on our Facebook page from people angry with us for ‘banning Christmas’, which we haven’t, and the story now seems to be spreading on some American websites.

It turns out that these people have stumbled across an article that appeared in the Daily Mail in 2002 and now forms part of the paper’s online archive. Unfortunately, the article isn’t dated on the Mail’s site, which had led some people to believe this was a current news story – although references in it to Sangatte, the Calais refugee camp that closed in 2002, do serve to date it. We denied the gist of the piece strongly at the time.

Christmas is a major UK holiday and time of celebration, which is shared by people of all faiths and those of no faith. Many of our shops and offices are decked out in festive decorations around this time of year – we also sell a range of Christmas cards and gifts in our shops, both high street and online.

It’s true that you won’t find explicitly religious items or displays, relating to any faith, in any of our shops, at Christmas or any other time. But this certainly doesn’t amount to a ban on us celebrating or mentioning Christmas, or any other holiday. And it’s absolutely nothing to do with “offending non-Christians” or to serve any other sort of politically correct agenda.

The point is that the Red Cross is not a political or religious organisation. This neutrality is one of our fundamental principles and governs everything we do in the whole Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. It means that we can reach and help people in need, whoever and wherever they are. Often we provide help in countries that other organisations cannot or will not work in. We cross front lines in times of war to help conflict victims and visit prisoners of war on both sides. We can only do this life-saving work because we are understood to be a completely neutral, independent organisation. Put simply, our neutrality saves lives.

We can’t let people in need down by compromising our neutrality. That is why we do not align ourselves with any particular political cause or religious creed anywhere in the world. And that’s why we don’t have any items of a religious nature in our shops.

A nativity scene in a shop in Kent might seem like it has nothing to do with our sensitive, precarious work in a war zone in Africa or the Middle East. But in a world where information travels quickly and pervasively – a world where an eight-year-old news story is still raising questions with our supporters – we have to make sure we act consistently across the board with regard to our neutrality.

We wish all our supporters a merry Christmas and a happy new year!

Hopefully more people will see this message and how it's wrong.