Two teenagers were refused entry to the United States after a series of tweets were taken somewhat out of context. Another reminder to think before you tweet.
Amid the funny wigs and the undue pomp in the traditional British courtroom, it seems that our distant American cousins fail to share our often-poor taste in humour.
When one teenager tweeted his friend claiming that he was going to “destroy America”, it appears that U.S. authorities took the public message somewhat too seriously.
At least the other teenager did not respond by joking about “diggin’ Marilyn Monroe up”. Oh, wait.
To their surprise, however, when they arrived at L.A. International, they were not only detained and questioned at length by U.S. authorities, but were swiftly — after a night in the cells, naturally — plonked back on a plane back to England, and barred from entering the United States again.
One U.S. Homeland Security agent allegedly told the hapless teenager: “You’ve really f***ed up with that tweet, boy.” At least on this side of the pond, one can bet that Her Majesty’s finest would not be so rude.
The famous quote goes: “England and America are two countries separated by a common language.” In this case, it could not be closer to the truth.
Just as something classified as “sick” can describe both a good, and a rather vomitous situation in English slang, so can the word “destroy”. And “crumpet”, come to think of it.
It’s not the first time a Twitter user has fallen foul of the law, however. In 2010, Paul Chambers fell foul of Section 127 of the UK’s Communications Act 2003, which describes how one tweet was of “indecent, obscene, or menacing character”. He only threatened to blow up an airport in a fit of anger.
When reporters asked whether the local police force would prosecute the lot of them, they reportedly replied with a rather succinct: “No.”
It just goes to show that even seemingly innocent descriptors can be taken wholly out of context. Anyone who has been through the U.S. border will know it is wise not to make any smart cracks, witty remarks, or frankly show any emotion for that matter.
It nevertheless serves as a reminder to think very carefully before you tweet.
Remember reports earlier this year that the new perfume Lady Gaga has in development with Coty will smell like blood? It turns out the perfume, which is expected early next year, is based on molecules of her own blood, “so it’s a sense of having me on your skin,” she says now. “Actually the perfume smells like an expensive hooker.” [Daily Mail]
Lady Gaga‘s Workshop, a creative collaboration involving the entertainer, fashion designer Nicola Formichetti and others, opened at Barney’s New York at 11:59 p.m. Monday. It features eight shops that take up the fifth floor of the Manhattan flagship, offering lots of Gaga-inspired gift items. [Telegraph][Barneys]
Net-a-porter has begun selling replicas of the cowl-necked Alexander McQueen gown bridesmaid Pippa Middleton wore at the royal wedding of her sister Kate and Prince William back in April. It’s available on the online retailer’s British site for $3,100. It’s not on the U.S. site at present, but I did find a street-length red dress in a similar style (for $1,680). [Telegraph][Catwalk Queen][People]
It was inevitable: Many items from the Versace for H&M collection that went on sale last week are being hawked on eBay. But many aren’t selling; prices are too high. [The Cut][Fashionista]
Valentino and business partner Giancarlo Giammetti plan to launch the Valentino Garavani Virtual Museum on Dec. 5 (you can preview it now). It will include views of 300 dresses from more than 50 years of Valentino’s career, including Jacqueline Kennedy‘s wedding gown. [WWD]
Sir Paul Smith has been named winner of the Outstanding Achievement in Fashion Design prize, Britain’s highest fashion honor. It will be given as part of the BritishFashion Awards later this month. [Telegraph]
The next London fashion week isn’t until next February but already it’s on fire. The house of Alexander McQueen this morning announced that it will be putting its McQ label on to a catwalk for the first time and opening a flagship store for the brand next spring. This exciting news for the fashion capital comes just one day after the announcement that Stella McCartney will also return to London for a special show next February.
McQ was set up in 2006 as a younger-looking, fashion-savvy take on McQueen signatures. It features clothing and accessories for men and women at a more affordable price point than the mainline label, which will continue to show in Paris.
Last November, McQ was brought back inhouse from a licensee to be overseen by Sarah Burton, the creative director responsible for steering the brand – and, of course, designing that royal wedding dress – since the death of founder Lee McQueen. In this month’s British Vogue, Burton said of McQ: “We have to define what it is and who she is. McQ should be about the things that are very connected to the roots of early McQueen, incorporating those house signatures that come from the street, but it has to be delivered in great fabrics, and great cuts.”
The label will showcase the autumn/winter2012/13 at London fashion week while the new four-storey McQ store will open on the increasingly fashionable Dover Street in Mayfair, London.
Iran‘s military has shot down a U.S. reconnaissance drone aircraft in eastern Iran and has threatened to respond to the violation of Iranian airspace, a military source told state television Sunday.
“Iran‘s military has downed an intruding RQ-170 American drone in eastern Iran,” Iran‘s Arabic-language Al Alamstate television network quoted the unnamed source as saying.
“The spy drone, which has been downed with little damage, was seized by the Iranian armed forces.”
Iran shot down the drone at a time when it is trying to contain foreign reaction to the storming of the British embassy in Tehran Tuesday, shortly after London announced that it would impose sanctions on Iran‘s central bank in connection with Iran‘s controversial nuclear enrichment program.
Britain evacuated its diplomatic staff from Iran and expelled Iranian diplomats in London in retaliation, and several other EU members recalled their ambassadors from Tehran.
The attack dragged Iran‘s relations with Europe to a long-time low.
“The Iranian military’s response to the Americanspy drone’s violation of our airspace will not be limited to Iran‘s borders,” the military source said, without elaborating.
The United States and Israel have not ruled out military action against Iran‘s nuclear facilities if diplomacy fails to resolve the nuclear dispute.
Iran has dismissed reports of possible U.S. or Israeli plans to strike Iran, warning that it would respond to any such assault by attacking U.S. interests in the Gulf and Israel.
Analysts say Tehran could retaliate by launching hit-and-run strikes in the Gulf and by closing the Strait of Hormuz. About 40 percent of all traded oil leaves the Gulf region through the strategic waterway.
Iran said in July it had shot down an unmanned U.S. spy plane over the holy city of Qom, near its Fordu nuclear site.
As the Occupy Wall street movement gains steam and inspires similar protests worldwide, defenders of the so-called Tea Party have decried the Occupation activists as “law breakers” “radicals”, and even “un-American” (unlike themselves, of course).
One imagines that such objections, coming from Tea Partiers, are meant to contrast them not only from themselves, but from the original groups of Americans who made the term, ‘Tea Party‘, history.
In this version, they were nice, law-abiding folk, engaged in a little, oh, patriotic disagreement. Suffice it to say, it didn’t exactly happen that way.
The late great historian, Howard Zinn, in his groundbreaking: ‘A People’s History of the United States‘: 1492-Present (Perennial Classics: 2003), recounts the Tea Party as a great event not only of rebellion, but law-breaking. Imagine the worth of crates of imported tea, broken into, and tossed into the Boston Harbor. The property of local merchants–destroyed. Why? Because of the taxes added on, which made Americans angry at such high prices for something they considered a staple. It was also a thumb in the eye of the British.
The British government responded to this provocation by passing Parliament’s Coercive Acts, they closed down Boston‘s port, dissolved the local colonial government, and brought in armed troops, virtually establishing martial law (Zinn 67).
Now–which contemporary group more closely resembles their American ancestors? The Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street?
And lest we miss the big lesson, women played a pivotal role in these protests as well. John Adams’ wife, Abigail, wrote of a “coffee party”, led by nearly 100women, who, angry at the high coffee prices at a Boston store, marched down to the warehouse, and demanded the “stingy” merchant surrender his keys.
When he refused, Adams writes:
“Upon which one of them seized him by his neck and tossed him into the cart. Upon his finding no quarter, he delivered the keys when they tipped up the cart and discharged him; then opened the warehouse, hoisted out the coffee themselves, put it into the trunks and drove off. A large concourse of men stood amazed, silent spectators of the whole transaction.” (Zinn 110)
‘Law-breakers?’ ‘Radicals?’ ‘Un-American?’
Well, they broke the law, certainly, for, during colonial days, English law ruled. Were they radicals? Probably.
Were they un-American?
They destroyed private property. They reacted to the rich getting richer by looting their warehouses.
Mientras el movimiento Ocupa Wall Street gana fuerza e inspira protestas del mismo tipo en muchas partes del mundo, los defensores del llamado Partido de Té han acusado a los activistas de ser “transgresores de la ley”, “radicales” e incluso “anti-americanos” –-a diferencia de ellos, naturalmente.
Uno se imagina que el propósito de dichos comentarios es diferenciarlos no sólo de ellos, sino también de los norteamericanos que originalmente hicieron el término Tea Party* parte de la historia. En su versión, los de la original Fiesta de Té fueron personas amables, respetuosas de la ley, que nada más se involucraron en un pequeño desacuerdo patriótico.
A decir verdad, esto no es precisamente lo que pasó.
El recién fallecido historiador Howard Zinn, en su invaluable obra La Otra Historia de Estados Unidos: 1492-al Presente**, habla del Motín de Té como un gran evento, no solo de rebelión, sino de bandolerismo. Imagínense el valor económico de las grandes cajas de té importado, saqueadas y tiradas al mar en el Puerto de Boston. La propiedad de los comerciantes locales quedó destruida. ¿Por qué? Porque los norteamericanos se enfurecieron cuando los británicos aumentaron los impuestos y ellos tenían que pagar precios muy altos por algo que consideraban como un producto de primera necesidad. Claro, les dio gusto burlarse de los británicos también.
El gobierno británico respondió a esta provocación con la aprobación de las Leyes Coactivas del Parlamento. Cerraron el puerto de Boston, disolvieron el gobierno colonial local y enviaron tropas a la ciudad, efectivamente estableciendo la ley marcial. (Zinn 67).
A ver… ¿cuál grupo contemporáneo se parece más a sus antepasados norteamericanos? ¿El Partido de Té o el movimiento Ocupa Wall Street?
Y para que no perdamos la lección más importante, las mujeres también tomaron un papel crucial en las protestas anti-coloniales. Abigail Adams, esposa de John Adams, escribió sobre una “Fiesta de Café,” organizada por casi 100 mujeres, quienes, enojadas por los altos precios del café en una tienda de Boston, marcharon al almacén y exigieron que el “tacaño” mercader les entregara las llaves. Cuando él se negó, Abigail Adams escribe:
“Una de ellas lo agarró del cuello y lo tiró en una de las carretillas. Como las mujeres no dieron cuartel, él les entregó las llaves. Luego ellas voltearon la carretilla y lo echaron fuera. Entonces abrieron el almacén, agarraron el café, lo pusieron en sus baúles y se fueron. Una multitud de hombres se quedaron ahí, atónitos, viendo toda la operación en silencio” (Zinn 110).
¿Transgresores de la ley? ¿Radicales? ¿Anti-americanos?
No cabe duda que violaron las leyes, porque durante la era colonial, la ley de Inglaterra regía todo. ¿Eran radicales? Probablemente. ¿Eran anti-americanos? Destruyeron la propiedad privada. Al ver que los ricos se volvieron más ricos, saquearon sus almacenes.
A mí esto me suena muy americano.
Desde el corredor de la muerte soy Mumia Abu-Jamal.
*N de la T. Cabe señalar que el Tea Party ahora se conoce como un partido político o un movimiento, pero el Tea Partyoriginal fue una Fiesta de Té o, en realidad, un Motín de Té.
** A Peoples’ History of the United States: 1492-Present, Perennial Classics: 2003.
From gagging orders to inciting rioting, and libel suits and defamation, Twitter can be a minefield for legal implications, according to new research.
Amid the super-injunction controversy earlier this year, 68 percent Twitter users in the UK have “little or no awareness of their legal responsibilities”, law firm DLA Piper found.
Britain’s libel law is of a particular concern, something that came to light earlier this year, when thousands of Twitter users defied a court-ordered injunction by publishing and retweeting the names of celebrities who had taken legal measures to protect aspects of their private lives.
Out of the 2,095 adult web users surveyed, the results showed that websites are not as moderated as once were, with 6 percent of respondents saying that they have had a comment removed from social media sites, compared to 14 percent in 2008.
Also, with citizen journalism on the rise, using public sites like Twitter to contribute to the news collective, just over a third thought that users should be held to the same standards as journalists on social media outlets.
If this is the case, why are so many then going on to break libel law or court orders, when journalists must often refrain from publishing or broadcasting potentially harmful or damaging content?
Super-injunctions are a very British invention. The news that court-issued gagging orders could prevents the disclosure of information, but also the very fact an injunction has been taken out, rose to infamy earlier this year, when footballer Ryan Giggs gagged the entirety of Britain, without the general population even being aware of it.
One of the problems with super-injunctions, simply put, is that bar a very select few — including lawyers, courtroom staff and the person whose privacy is held in the balance — nobody knows about the gagging order.
As the issue of freedom of speech in the UK has always, particularly in recent times, been a controversial topic, it takes only one anonymous Twitter user to break the silence, and the word can be spread virally in minutes.
Twitter, though now operating under UK law since the opening of a London office, it continues to highlight the need that “the tweets must flow”. Yet, if the tweets do flow and one unwittingly or knowingly breaks a super-injunction, that person can find themselves in contempt of court.
Suffice to say, it can carry a penalty of two years in prison.
Americans have watched in astonishment, along with the rest of the world, at the violence that’s erupted in England as young, disaffected Britons take to the streets to vent their rage.
But could it happen in the United States as it grapples with a 25 per cent youthunemployment rate and a double-dip recession potentially in the offing?
The current bleak landscape in the United States is littered with all the same disturbing elements at play in the U.K. _ racial tensions, high unemployment, a growing income gap between rich and poor, a gloomy economic outlook and a feeling of hopelessness among youth.
Recent statistics reveal that 39.2 per cent of black teens and 36.2 per cent of Hispanic youth are jobless. In New York City, black and Hispanic youths are twice as likely to drop out of school as their peers, have a poverty rate that is 50 per cent higher than other ethnicities, experience an unemployment rate that is 60 per cent higher, and make up more than 90 per cent of young murder victims and perpetrators.
Although the biggest riots in the United States have involved race and civil rights, some observers think throwing a Great Depression-esque economic situation into the mix could spur America‘s youth to rise up too.
“There is a direct correlation between the violence here in Chicago, which is off the charts right now, and the lack of investment in inner cities and inner-cityyouth,” Phillip Jackson, founder of the Million Father March, said in an interview on Wednesday.
“In Chicago and other major American cities, the violent acts are singular and random. The violence in London has become collective and focused, but the underlying causes are precisely the same, and as soon as Americankids figure that out, we’re in trouble.”
But others point out that America has evolved in a far different direction than the country it broke away from in the 18th century. Class divisions are not as pronounced as they are in the U.K., they point out, and America‘s lower classes generally don’t regard the upper classes with the seething contempt that their British counterparts do.
“In the U.S., if you’re born into a lower socioeconomic class, there is still the perceived possibility of transcending that, of achieving wealth,” said Sean Snaith, the director of the University of Central Florida’s Institute for Economic Competitiveness.
“The upper classes, the celebrity class, the wealthy _ to the average American, they’re what royalty is to the British. Americans consider that something to be admired and held in esteem and awe. So that’s a pretty good anesthesia in a lot of ways.”
Youth might also be nervous taking to the streets given the tendency of American law enforcement agencies to respond to force with even greater force.
“Our police are much more willing to use brutal force,” said Snaith. “There is no bobby mentality here; American police officers carry guns. If there’s violence going down, they’re going to respond with violence.”
And there’s another factor that may cause youths to think twice before taking to the streets: U.S. President Barack Obama.
“Younger people tend to be more Democratic than Republicans, and they may not be happy with their president but they also don’t view the current economic situation as being his fault,” he said. “So perhaps they’re less likely to riot over what’s going on _ he’s still their guy, and that may quell some of the anger.”
But Sean Varano, a criminal justice expert at Roger Williams University in Rhode Island, says Americanyouth could very well rise up in the months to come, particularly in the wake of the massive spending cuts that will result from a recent debt ceiling deal struck on Capitol Hill.
Picture provided by The Black Star Project.
“Austerity measures haven’t been taken here yet, but if we start to see dramatic cuts in social welfare, I believe we could look to the U.K. and to Europe as a sign of what may come here,” he said.
“These types of urban riots are possible anywhere if the right circumstances are there. In different cultures, there are different sparks.”
Americankids are plugged in, he added, with many of them possessing mobile phones and on Facebook and Twitter, so social media could engage them in the same way it has youth around the world, Varano adds.
He points to the recent spate of so-called flash robs in cities across the United States. Young criminals are using Twitter to organize large-scale robberies, proof that Americankids are certainly capable of electronically mobilizing.
“There’s no real evidence yet of an undercurrent of youthviolence that is becoming well-organized in the United States,” Varano said. “But if you look at flash robs, you are seeing that the urban underclass might be able to mobilize using social media, meaning the chances of future unrest might be a lot more real than we’re aware of right now.”
The answer, says Jackson, is for governments of all levels to start investing in youth and inner-city communities, and to ensure kids stay in school and are given a helping hand when needed.
Sadly, he adds, that’s not likely to happen in these tough economic times _ exactly when such measures are needed most.
“No one, no level of government, is addressing any of these problems. The few existing social programs that we have are being cut off,” he said.
“So I can absolutely see the same thing happening here that’s happening in London. But if you want to prevent it from happening, if you want to make America great, you invest in our youth. You don’t bomb Libya.”
The British government announced plans to modernize and reform U.K. copyright law following up on recommendations contained in the Hargreaves report commissioned by British Prime Minister David Cameron and a technical review by telecoms regulator Ofcom. The most significant decision is the scrapping of the government’s plan to block copyright infringing websites.
The blocking of filesharing and other copyright infringing websites was a key provision of the Digital Economy Act, but that has now been scraped as is it “not effective” and “extremely complicated to implement,” according to Ofcom.
A recent U.K. court ruling ordering U.K. ISP BT to block access to the movie rights infringing website Newzbin2 ( Billboard.biz, July 28) is also seen as a key factor in the decision. That court order rendered the introduction of web-blocking laws largely irrelevant, argued some observers.
The government’s decision to scrap web-blocking has, however, been criticized by sectors of the music industry.
“Every day blatantly illegal foreign sites flout our laws, rip off consumers and musicians and wreak huge damage on our creative sector,” said Geoff Taylor, chief executive at U.K. labels trade body BPI, in a statement.
“Government has recognized that blocking such sites could help to reduce levels of infringement, but that there needs to be a more effective framework that enables speedier action than would be possible under the relevant DEA provisions,” Taylor continued, urging the government to “act urgently to put in place effective means to protect consumers, creators and UK jobs from the impact of illegal foreign sites.”
The government’s wider plans to modernize and reform U.K. copyright law were unveiled by Business Secretary Vince Cable, who was speaking at the British Library in London. One of the key proposals is to allow individuals to make digital copies of CDs and DVDs to play on other devices.
The planned reforms are in response to Professor Ian Hargreaves’ “Digital Opportunity: A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth” – an independent report on copyright law, commissioned by British Prime Minister David Cameron, which was published earlier this year (Billboard.biz, May 20). Hargreaves’ report contained ten recommendations for relaxing U.K. copyright law, all of which have now received government backing.
Included among the ten proposals outlined by the British government is:
•The creation of a cross-sectoral Digital Copyright Exchange, thereby easing the process of selling licenses for rights owners.
• Legalizing the currently outlawed practice of copying content from a CD or DVD to a computer or portable device, such as an iPod. In addition to legalizing ‘format shifting’ this reform would also have important ramifications regarding the introduction of digital music lockers in the U.K.
• Copyright exceptions to allow parody to be introduced. “Newport State of Mind,” a take on “Empire State of Mind” by Jay-Z and Alicia Keys, which caused a viral sensation in 2010, has been cited as a parody work that would be allowed under the newly proposed laws. Although the track is still accessible on many websites, EMI initially fought to have it removed from streaming and video services.
•Licensing and clearance procedures for orphan works (material with unknown copyright owners) to be established.
•The introduction of an exception to copyright law for search and analysis techniques known as ‘text and data mining,’ thereby by-passing the need for permission from copyright owners. Research scientists and medical researchers were identified as the core beneficiaries.
“Bringing the laws more up-to- date to have a proper balance which allows consumers and businesses to operate more freely, but at the same time protect genuinely creative artists and penalize pirates,” said Cable, who predicted that the U.K. economy would benefit by £7.9 billion ($12.9 billion) resulting from the proposed changes made in copyright legislation.
The government also revealed the next steps in how it will deter internet users who repeatedly access copyright infringing material – another key provision of the Digital Economy Act. Beginning in the second half of 2012, infringers will be sent a warning letter telling them their internet connection has been identified as linked to unlawfully shared copyright material. Consumers who want to appeal will have to pay a £20.00 ($32.80) fee which will be refunded if the appeal is successful.
“We are pleased that Government has again reaffirmed its commitment to the Digital Economy Act,” said Taylor, in response.
“Other countries like the U.S. and France are already taking decisive, swift action on piracy and the U.K. must not fall behind if we are to deliver on growth,” he went on to say.
Following LulzSec’s defacement of The Sun on Monday, the FBI swooped down on Anonymous and arrested 16 people in several states for allegedly attacking PayPal.
A federal indictment against 14 of the arrested accuses them of launching a Ddos (denial of service) against PayPal after it closed down a Wikileaks donation account.
In addition to the defacement, LulzSec members said on Twitter they had made off with emails from The Sun‘s now defunct sister newspaper, News of the World. The shadowy hacktivist group is said to also have hacked other Murdoch properties including News International and the Times of London in the hours following the first attack.
On Tuesday, members of Anonymous and LulzSec said they would release the email and passwords from the now defunct Murdoch newspaper. “Sun/News of the world OWNED. We’re sitting on their emails,” a hacker known as Sabu tweeted last Tuesday.
Murdoch is currently under investigation in a phone hacking scandal. It is alleged that employees working for the tabloid newspaper News of the Worldhacked celebrities, politicians, members of the British Royal Family, and others beginning in 2006.
Suspects in the PayPal case were arrested in Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Washington DC, Florida, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Mexico and Ohio, according to a statement released by the Department of Justice and the FBI. The indictment claims members of Anonymous conspired to “intentionally damage protected computers at PayPal” between December 6-10, 2010, as part the group’s “Operation Avenge Assange.”
Suspects connected to the case were separately arrested in Florida and NewJersey while British police arrested one suspect and Dutch authorities four.
The FBI claims it traced internet protocol addresses of the hackers to Canada and then to California where one of the IP addresses used a virtual server for the attack. A separate investigation revealed Ddos attacks came from a server based in Texas.
In June, accusations surfaced claiming a member LulzSec is a Marine who works for military intelligence.
Arrests in the PayPal case arrive a few days after the Pentagon asked the private sector to join in a pilot program dubbed “Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace.” The plan envisions a unified plan incorporating DoD’s military, intelligence and business operations. It calls on AT&T, Verizon, and other telecoms and defense contractors to play a role.
The plan includes an effort for private companies to share information with the Defense Department and the Department of Homeland Security.
The Pentagon’s pilot program came after a March 24 cyber attack against an unnamed defense company. Around 24,000 of that company’s files containing military secrets were allegedly hacked into.
Two months later, defense contractor Lockheed Martin claimed it was the victim of a cyber attack of undisclosed magnitude.
A federal judge has denied Google’s request to dismiss several lawsuits accusing the company of illegally collecting private information from open Wi-Fi networks.
The ruling, filed in Californiacourt Wednesday, is a setback for Google as it tries to put its “Street View” debacle behind it.
In May 2010, Google admitted that the cars it uses to capture images for the “Street View” map feature accidentally collected about 600 gigabytes of data from unencrypted Wi-Fi networks in more than 30 countries.
Google, based in Mountain View, Calif., apologized in a blog post and called the data collection “a mistake.” Google also said that it never used the data and would work to dispose of it as quickly as possible.
But several lawsuits hit a few months later, accusing Google (GOOG, 00) of violations of state and federal wiretap laws. The complaints have been consolidated into one case seeking class-action status.
In Google’s motion to dismiss, the company maintained that the data collection wasn’t illegal because open Wi-Fi networks are “readily accessible to the general public.” 5 data breaches: From embarrassing to deadly
Judge James Ware disagreed, writing that “presumption of accessibility” applies only to “traditional radio broadcast mediums and do not address any broader radio-based communications (more…)
Oh say can you see…the end of American independence?
This Fourth of July, the United States celebrates its 235th year of freedom from British rule. That’s emancipated us from yeasty marmite, pesky ‘u’s in our ‘neighbors’ and from having to ask God to “save the Queen”.
Phew. Yes, today we celebrate our independence from Britain.
But we do that by underlining our growing dependence on another country – China. And with our most patriotic of Americana for the day – fireworks and flags.
Nearly 97% of U.S. money for firework imports popped up in China last year, according to U.S. trade statistics. The hard numbers: we paid nearly $200 million for all of our skyrockets, Roman candles, sparklers and other pyrotechnics. More than $190 million of that went to the Middle Kingdom.
As for the Stars and Stripes, about 88% of our money for American flag imports billowed over to China in 2010. U.S. foreign trade statistics show that the U.S. imported $3.2 million worth of flags, and $2.8 million of that went to our top (more…)
Pupils at St. Ignatius primary school in Tottenham, London, have been taking part in a knife-crime project following the death of a former student Photograph: Teri Pengilley
Fran Abrams, The Guardian
In a classroom at St Ignatius Roman Catholic primary school in Tottenham, London, Alvin Carpio sits amid a circle of children, 24 pairs of eyes intently focused on him as he talks about his own childhood, a few miles away in east London.
“Whoever stole the most, or had the biggest knife, was the biggest man there. And you wanted to be that guy,” he says. “We thought it was cool to steal – we really weren’t making the right choices.”
Choices are the theme of the day for this class of nine- and 10-year-olds. Carpio, social outreach co-ordinator of the church next to the school, has been invited in to lead a drama workshop about good and bad decisions. The class have been acting out little scenarios: pick up that purse and take the money, or take it to the police? Bully the new kid at school, or make him a friend? But they know there’s a darker theme underpinning the exercise. Carpio’s visit is part of a class project on knife crime, and the aim is to make them think about decisions they may one day have to make about whether to carry a weapon.
St Ignatius is among a growing number of primary schools that have decided to tackle the issue head-on – often prompted by their pupils. According to the Citizenship Foundation, under whose auspices this class are running their project, knife crime is one of the top three issues named by this age group as their most pressing concerns, along with (more…)
