freedom of investigation

today is madiba's birthday. 93 i think. congratulations to him and us all.

people are asked to spend some time on voluntairy work today. ill count listening to cameron and sir sth. as that. i surely didnt like the experience.

this post i write mostly to make clear what i do and might not mind in those schemes of police and politicians. i think it is all in the posts i wrote yet, but mainstream the distractions still have the overtones, wich basically means we are being screwed, (and for wich police is coresponsible).

of all the phones i so far understand they are 'hacked' (copied. bought. whatever, purposedly dissiminated) i mind none.

perhaps i mind what is done with a few. not the deleting of mollys(1) messages from a copied and loaded phone, of wich the contents are at the police (..tasty guys those)

apparently the journalist also hoped she was still alive for one thing.

so let us try not to make a single non-statement. not one point that is moot to the foreground.

celebs, i dont give a damn, hack'm. if you like to read the extravaganza they are out at. enjoy. its for what they are lifted over the masses.

9-11 and that london bombing for wich the exact schemes were handed out a month before?
good thing to investigate. tasteless to go for the victims, but maybe only the cops dont want to make you any wiser..

the victims could well be only a minor part of that targeted to dismantle that fraud. (2)

so not very tasty, but no probs, and btw, such phones could hardly reveal anything very personal or so. what is personal about aaaw i am dying? when a 100 do so?
tasteless it is, but like i said, who tells us they are not a handpicked example for disgust, all others are.

hacking politicians is also okay with me. they shouldnt have so much to hide, it will allways be and remain hard to get at their info's, and it wont work all the time, there will be plenty room for them to make backroom deals etc. still.

so that is about this exemplary 'repugnant' collection of acclaims.

obviously politicians want their backroomdealing as secure as possible. and the wanton examples of their doings, give us good reason to disagree.

i think it is obvious where the police is in all this, a willess tool. complicit in every case and each aspect. an institute for the dismantlement of the intent of the law,

give an example? r.b. was supposed to be just inquired, but went arrested, this arrest may prevail her appearing before parliament. (latest news again suggested it wont).

she has been released, but you must read well to find the 'on bail'. she was intimate with cameron, but it takes lowly mets to get it into the open...

i am wondering about sir sth.s reasons to hire a former notw hacker as an advisor, they have all the phonecalls we make, every word we produce, and if they use it don't expect the fee,

what did he need him for? a cover , payed for with a spa?
seems a bit to simple,

perhaps to be sure about the molly's, that advisor may just like most of us not show the back of his tongue, but he must have had some extra use perhaps. interesting.

you can consider the yard as something of a cia, they serve as subordinate, but also as the organisational stage for covering up that what we are not supposed to know, and telling the disgusting story's we can considering their credentials better not take seriously.

it is our duty to be critical and not believe what politicians or cops say, if you start believing them you are like a fish on a hook, believing anything they will draw you out of this sea of confidentiality, and have you suffocate in broad daylight.

beyond that, well you can still debate, and you know better, and probably with more of an impact what they are really on about behind all the smokescreens still.

concerning murdoch and his 'empire'

personally i am against monopoly's and news that is 'made' as opposed to 'happening'.

murdoch empire is a great example, yet, the real danger of monopoly's feature in oil, armstrade, pharmacy and a few, we don't hear about that. just about limitation of pressfreedom over handpicked examples of complicity (that only if you think independently).

now i am to disgusted to immediatly think on, and i dont think i can stay coherent(for you, the public) if i try.
i hope i have been of help.

would it be they name them molly cus they hate molly's? they hate resistance, at every inproper time and point? protecting what? their positions? innit. association is a powerfull tool in witless masses. ( a molly is an abb. for molotov cocktail)

(1) ok now you screw with my writing i remember she was called milly perhaps, not going to look it up. molly serves for sth.
(2) more probably (and considering murdoch) to cover it up.