WebProNews

Tag: great britain

  • Princess Diana Exposé to be Published by Former Aide

    July 29 marked the 33rd anniversary of Princess Diana’s marriage to Prince Charles. Although the couple’s marriage would eventually crumble following the revelation of Charles’s affair with Camilla Bowles-Parker, the royal duo is perhaps one of the most famous couples of all time. And, despite his past actions, it is still quite apparent that Prince Charles never lost his love for Princess Diana, as exhibited by his latest fury concerning the upcoming release of an exposé by the Queen’s former Press Secretary, Dickie Arbiter.

    Arbiter joined the staff of the Royal Palace in 1988 and was a member until 2000. During his twelve years of service, Arbiter was privy to all the intimate and confidential details of the royal family. Arbiter became Prince Charles’s confidant while he was struggling with his affair with Camilla Parker-Bowles, and was close enough with the Queen that the two even did the dishes together at one point in time. It was this close relationship with the Queen which gave Arbiter access to such secret information such as the Queen’s opinions on other Prime Ministers and world leaders throughout her reign.

    Royal Palace sources have commented on the publishing of the book, stating:

    Charles is furious. This man was a trusted friend…He is raking over the breakdown of the marriage and the Prince has been asking aides Why do we have to go through this all again? It is just a case of a man who he thought was a friend and who could be trusted cashing in on the misery of that time. It is disloyal… Arbiter has been told that he does not have official permission to write this book and a legal team has reviewed all his old contracts in a bid to try and find a way to stop it.

    While Palace sources state Arbiter is legally bound to not publish the book due to the Official Secrets Act he signed upon becoming an employee of the Royal Palace, Arbiter and his legal team believe that the publishing of On Duty With the Queen does not violate any contractual obligations Arbiter may have: “It is an autobiography – it is about my life. There aren’t any revelations… I left a note at the palace telling them I was doing it. I am not breaching anything.”

    On Duty With the Queen certainly promises to be insightful and entertaining due to Arbiter’s position within the Royal Family, but Prince Charles and the Queen cannot help feeling betrayed, especially due to comments once made by Arbiter himself: “Everyone who writes a book is just cashing in. Frankly there is nothing more to write on Diana.”

    With the publishing of his book, Arbiter can join the leagues of hypocrites everywhere, as he expects to cash-in a cool £250,000 for his memoirs. On Duty With the Queen is set to be released on October 1, 2014.

    Image via Twitter

  • J.K. Rowling Voices Opinion on Scottish Independence

    The debate over whether or not Scotland should separate from England and become its own, independent, sovereign nation has been waging for quite some time now. The discussion will finally come to an end on September 8, when Scots 16 years and older will vote in the referendum. Before that time comes, though, both sides of the argument have much work to do in order to convince their constituents to vote for the right side. Unfortunately for the No movement, the Yes campaign may have just acquired the last piece of the all-powerful Deathly Hallows with the celebrity endorsement to end all celebrity endorsements.

    J.K. Rowling, author of the immensely popular Harry Potter series, has pledged a donation of $1.68 million (or 1 million pounds) to the Better Together campaign, a group pushing for the people of Scotland to stand together with the United Kingdom and vote No in the referendum.

    Rather than simply give a substantial sum of money to her side of choice, Rowling went one step further and justified her position through a blog on her official website.

    While Rowling insists that she is Scottish through and through, stating, “By residence, marriage, and out of gratitude for what this country has given me, my allegiance is wholly to Scotland and it is in that spirit that I have been listening to the months of arguments and counter-arguments,” she had serious doubts as to whether or not Scotland can continue to exist as it does now if it decides to break its 300 year tie with Great Britain.

    Rowling’s main skepticism comes through economic worries:

    My hesitance at embracing independence has nothing to do with lack of belief in Scotland’s remarkable people or its achievements. The simple truth is that Scotland is subject to the same twenty-first century pressures as the rest of the world. It must compete in the same global markets, defend itself from the same threats and navigate what still feels like a fragile economic recovery.

    In particular, Rowling worries that Scotland will not be able to continue to fund its universities and hospitals, to which Rowling has donated much money to fund the research of multiple sclerosis, an affliction her mother died from: “My fears about the economy extend into an area in which I have a very personal interest: Scottish medical research. Having put a large amount of money into Multiple Sclerosis research here, I was worried to see an open letter from all five of Scotland’s medical schools expressing ‘grave concerns’ that independence could jeopardise what is currently Scotland’s world-class performance in this area.”

    The most recent polls show that the No campaign has more support with 42 percent of the people planning to vote against independence in the September referendum. The Yes campaign trails the No movement by 12 percentage points, a margin which has held consistent over the past few months.

    In her blog, Rowling did not spare her opposition, likening them to the main villains in her Harry Potter novels:

    However, I also know that there is a fringe of nationalists who like to demonise anyone who is not blindly and unquestionably pro-independence and I suspect, notwithstanding the fact that I’ve lived in Scotland for twenty-one years and plan to remain here for the rest of my life, that they might judge me ‘insufficiently Scottish’ to have a valid view… However, when people try to make this debate about the purity of your lineage, things start getting a little Death Eaterish for my taste.

    Rowling’s views were met with extreme opposition and vitriolic behavior on Twitter, with one Scottish charity resorting to ad hominem attacks against the writer:

    It is quite evident from the discussion Rowling’s contribution has sparked that the debate for Scottish independence is far from over. Whatever the outcome, however, Rowling simply wishes that there are no regrets: “Whatever the outcome of the referendum on 18th September, it will be a historic moment for Scotland. I just hope with all my heart that we never have cause to look back and feel that we made a historically bad mistake.”

    Image via YouTube

  • Eve Muirhead And GB Curling Team Go For The Gold

    Since watching Rhona Martin win gold for Great Britain in the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics, Eve Muirhead has vowed to do the same in the sport.

    At just 12 years old, Muirhead knew winning the gold in curling was what she wanted to do. “From that moment, it was what I wanted to do. I wanted to be like Rhona and win an Olympic gold medal,” said Martin.

    Muirhead had joined the sport of curling when she was nine years old and by the age of 19 she had already won three World Junior Championships. Her dreams of Olympic gold were closer to reality when she was chosen to skip for Great Britain’s curling team in the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver. Sadly, the team didn’t make it out of the group stages.

    While curling runs in Muirhead’s blood – her father and two brothers also participate(d) in the sport – she is also a talented golfer. “With golf, it’s tough to make it to the top. I knew from a young age that I had good opportunities to do well in curling,” said Muirhead.

    Now it is 2014 and Muirhead is again on Great Britain’s Olympic curling team, this time in Sochi. In an amazing twist of fate for Muirhead, Rhona Martin is the coach of Great Britain’s curling team. The team is a bit different from when Martin played the sport. While Martin was a 36-year-old housewife raising two kids, Muirhead and her teammates Vicki Adams, Claire Hamilton and Anna Sloan are all full-time professionals in their 20s, spending their time at the gym, with nutritionists and psychologists.

    These young faces may be helping to change the way people look at curling. Said Muirhead, “A lot of people look at curling and think it’s a sport for the older generation, but that’s not the case and hopefully a lot more young people can get involved.”

    One of Muirhead’s former teammates, Jackie Lockhart, believes Great Britain’s curling team has a good chance in Sochi. “Eve has grown up massively over the last four years. She’s still only 23 but she’s very professional on the ice. She is a fiery character who will crucify herself if she doesn’t make a shot 100 percent, and she can’t allow that to happen in the semi-final. She has got to be focused and she is not afraid to make the big shots, which is what will worry Canada skip Jennifer Jones,” said Lockhart.

    Great Britain competed against Canada on Wednesday. Canada beat Muirhead and her team 6-4, leaving Great Britain to compete for the bronze medal against Switzerland on Thursday.

    Image via YouTube.

  • Stonehenge Receives a Revamped Visitor Center

    One of the most mysterious entities in the universe – besides the existence of both Bigfoot and aliens – has been Stonehenge. For hundreds of years now, people have pondered the meaning behind the ancient stone circle. Did it truly start as an ancient burial ground? Did it serve as a calendar of some sorts, or perhaps as a religious ceremonial center? The world may never know the true answers to these questions, but that will not stop historians, anthropologists, and average folk from trying to solve this mystery.

    Luckily for those groups striving to reduce the ambiguity in their lives, English Heritage, the public organization in charge of overseeing Stonehenge, has decided to revamp the ancient monument and build a new visitor center. The center, which will be located 1.5 miles away from the monument itself, cost $44 million to construct. The majority of the money used to build the new center came from donations and profits stemming from Britain’s national lottery.

    Unfortunately for the 1 million tourists who visit Stonehenge each year, though, the price of tickets has risen to alleviate the economic impact upon the English Heritage. Tickets, which were once priced at $13, will now cost $23.

    The price increase is not without boons, however. The new visitor center will eliminate one of the roads which passes near Stonehenge, eliminating the eye and ear sores of having anachronistic traffic pass by while one is attempting to view a majestic, ancient monument. Not only will the road be replaced with grass, but the surrounding sites, such as the old visitor center, will be demolished to leave the landscape surrounding Stonehenge barren of man-made constructions.

    The visitor center itself will house up to 250 never-before-seen prehistoric relics which have been uncovered from many archeological digs over the years. Perhaps the most entertaining aspect of the new visitor center, though, will be the reconstruction of a Neolithic man’s face, based upon a skull that was excavated from a 5,000 year old grave. Oscar Nilsson, the forensic sculptor responsible for reconstructing the face, commented on the attractiveness of the Neolithic man, stating, “The women here at English Heritage are very fond of him.”

    (image)

    When one visits Stonehenge from here on out, the journey will begin at the visitor center. Once there , visitors can experience a virtual tour of the monument and learn more about the Britons who originally constructed the site. After all is learned at the visitor center, tourists then have the option of taking a shuttle to the site or hiking the 1.5 miles along the ancient processional trail.

    Perhaps the best part of the new experience for British visitors, however, is the creation of a cafe which serves tea: “There’s been no exhibition, no opportunities for people to even have a cup of tea,” stated Simon Thurley, chief executive of English Heritage. Now that all qualms against Stonehenge for not offering tea have been allayed, Stonehenge can stand as one of the greatest wonders ever on Earth.

    Images via Twitter (1) (2)

  • Britain’s Gaming Addiction Gets The NMA Treatment

    Are you addicted to video games? You probably want to say no, but you realize that spending 40 or more hours a week in front of a screen might not be all that healthy. Well, rest easy knowing that you’re not as bad as some gamers in the UK.

    Domino’s Pizza recently surveyed UK gamers to ask them multiple questions about their gaming habits. While most surveys would be content to just ask about average weekly playtime, Domino’s went a bit deeper. The chain found that half of all male gamers would rather play games than have sex. Some female gamers also reported not showing up to important events, like weddings or funerals, to play games.

    As expected, our favorite Taiwanese animators at NMA couldn’t leave such a story alone. In it, we’re treated to the extremes some people will go through to keep playing games. The video may even be prophetic as a bride is playing games via the Oculus Rift while she’s at the altar. Nothing says love like ignoring the groom to play a French Revolution simulator.

    While the above may be in jest, any kind of addiction is no laughing matter. I have stared into the abyss of gaming addiction and it isn’t pretty. This isn’t to say that you should give up on your current gaming habits, but sprinkling in other activities, especially those with friends, is never a bad idea.

    [Image: Taiwanese Animators/YouTube]

  • Roger Daltrey, of The Who, Performs at US Capitol

    This Wednesday, Congressional leaders such as John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, and Harry Reid convened at the Capitol Building in order to conduct business of the utmost importance – dedicating a statue to Winston Churchill.

    In 2011, to mark the 70th anniversary of Churchill’s address to Congress in December of 1941 (after the bombing of Pearl Harbor), John Boehner passed a resolution to add a bust of “The British Bulldog” to the Capitol Building. The bust was donated by the Churchill Center.

    Churchill was such an amazing figure in history that it wouldn’t be enough to simply give him a bust placed in the nation’s capitol; In order to really make the occasion special, John Boehner thought it fitting to invite Roger Daltrey to perform at the dedication ceremony – you know, the lead singer of Tho Who.

    Why did Boehner choose Daltrey to pay tribute to Churchill? Perhaps because they are both British royalty…. Or more likely because John Boehner is a fanboy. Whatever the reason, the appearance of Daltrey was enough to allow Democrats and Republicans to drop their feuds and become bipartisan, for once.

    During the ceremony, Boehner also expressed his intense crush on Winston Churchill. According to NPR, Boehner appeared to stifle back tears as he spoke on the importance of Churchill to the United States: “Growing up, he read our books. He revered Lincoln. He knew better than most Americans the trials of the Civil War. He even wrote in our magazines on everything from hospitality to food to our engines. You could say that he saw in America the very exceptionalism that we see today.”

    Following his opening remarks for the ceremony, Boehner introduced Roger Daltrey to the crowd to play two songs. The first was Ben E. King’s, “Stand By Me,” a song Daltrey chose to represent the special relationship between the United States and Great Britain. The second was The Who’s hit, “Won’t Get Fooled Again,” a choice which Daltrey stated, “…was very pertinent to the occasion. Isn’t it pretty obvious?”

    While Daltrey may think his choice of songs was quite obvious, the purpose of the ceremony seems a bit perplexing. This year marks no significant anniversary of Churchill’s interactions with the United States, nor have any specific developments happened to strengthen the ties between Great Britain the United States. Not only that, but it would seem as if Congressional members and Secretary of State John Kerry would have more pressing issues to attend to than the dedication of a bust. Then again, maybe this private concert by one member of The Who was the spark needed to create a bipartisan legislature. After all, according to Senator Pat Leahy (D – Vt.), “It doesn’t get any better… I love that song but hearing it live in here — nothing could top that.”

    Image via YouTube

  • Man Booker Prize: Eleanor Catton Wins The Award

    The Man Booker Prize of 2013 was awarded to Eleanor Catton. Catton is a lives in New Zealand, and only 28 years old. She was born in Canada, but moved to New Zealand at the age of 6. This makes her the youngest author to ever win the award, which is the highest literary honor to receive in Great Britain. In addition to being the youngest author to be awarded the prize, the book also sets a record of being the longest book to win the award, at 832 pages.

    Each year, a different author’s work is awarded for their work in fiction, and this year the award went to The Luminaries, Catton’s latest book, which was published in September of 2013. She was awarded the prize today, and it was presented to her by Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall. She has previously written one other novel, The Rehearsal.

    The Luminaries is set during New Zealand’s gold rush, and is described as a layered murder mystery, centered around a group of men with intertwined fates. Other nominees for this year’s award included A Tale For The Time Being by Ruth Ozeki, Harvest by Jim Crace, The Lowland by Jhumpa Lahir, The Testament of Mary by Colm Toibin, and We Need New Names by NoViolet Bulawayo.

    Last year’s prize went to Bring Up The Bodies by Hilary Mantel. The winner is selected each by the judging panel on the day of the ceremony. This year’s ceremony was a momentous occasion because it marks the last year before the award is opened to entries from the United States and beyond. Just a month ago, it was announced that the Booker Prize Foundation would be open to all novels written in English and published in Britain, regardless of the author’s nationality, finally letting Americans in on the glory as well.

    There is only one other author from New Zealand to win the award, Keri Hulme, who won in 1985 for her novel The Bone People. During her speech when she accepted the award, Eleanor Catton thanked her publishers for executing the “elegant balance between making art and making money.” She was stunned at the announcement that she won, calling her lengthy and complex novel, a “publisher’s nightmare.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iUMQUfEe_o

    Image via Youtube

  • Badger Cull: Pilot Efforts Begin in UK

    The BBC is reporting around 5000 badgers are expected to be shot in the controversial badger cull, an effort which is intended to halt the spread of bovine tuberculosis in Great Britain. Many farmers are in favor of the efforts to help protect their beef, but just as many remain unconvinced.

    A letter from the National Farmers’ Union’s president, Peter Kendall, defends the effort, saying that the badger cull is “an important step not just for cattle farmers but for the whole farming industry.”

    Although bovine tuberculosis, or bTB, is not considered a massive health threat to humans, its contagiousness is substantial. Supporters of the badger culling believe that controlling the creatures in the wild is necessary to prevent more bTB from infecting healthy cows. Activist detractors feel that the efforts are inhumane and will consequently exterminate Great British badgers.

    The UK’s Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson, has said that the bTB problem needed to be dealt with using “every tool in the box because TB is so difficult to eradicate and it is spreading rapidly… If we had a workable vaccine we would use it… a vaccine is at least 10 years off.” Although the activists are suggesting the British government simply caved in to farmers’ demands, Paterson denies that suggestion. “In the Republic of Ireland the disease was rocketing until they began to cull,” he quipped.

    The Labour Party’s Shadow Environment Secretary, Mary Creagh, believes that badger culling is “not the answer” and that “The government’s own figures show it will cost more than it saves and it will spread bovine TB in the short term as the badgers are disturbed and spread infection to neighbouring herds… we agree with the scientists that it has no meaningful contribution to play in tackling bovine TB.”

    Twitter reactions seem overwhelmingly anti-badger culling:

    Some activists have gone as far to offer money to farmers who signed up to cull badgers in order to convince them to pull out. For more on this hotly debated topic, including a diagram of heavily infected areas, see the BBC’s story.

    [Image via a pretty Youtube video of a badger in wet grass]

  • British Zombie Plan Revealed In Freedom Of Information Request

    Is there a British zombie plan in case the nation is embroiled in an undead apocalypse? That’s what a recent freedom of information request sought to find out, and the answer didn’t disappoint.

    The Telegraph reports that the British government responded to the FoI request with a detailed plan on how Britain would emerge from any kind of apocalyptic event, whether it be zombies or Mayan doomsday prophecies. The government says that the Cabinet Office would lead efforts to “return England to its pre-attack glory.”

    As for the Ministry of Defense, the agency said it would only provide military support to the civil authorities during an outbreak of the undead. The agency said, however, that it “holds no information” on the matter of how the Cabinet Office would coordinate military forces in beating back a zombie plague.

    Might I suggest that the British government catch up on some solid zombie killing guides as seen in such films as Dawn of the Dead, Evil Dead and Shaun of the Dead.

  • Google, Twitter Can’t “Act Like a Policeman,” Says British AG

    The attorney general of England doesn’t believe that Google and Twitter should have to “act like a policeman” when it comes to what users of the websites post and share, according to The Guardian.

    You might recall that last month a cadre of Members of Parliament declared quite the opposite by arguing that the British government should task Google with the incredible responsibility of policing the content of its search results in order to purge material that courts deem to be a violation of privacy. Grieve insists, however, that while websites should still bear the burden of responding to court decisions, they can’t be expected to “act as a policeman on their network.” He also warned that such demands upon social websites could create a slippery slope of sorts because “excessive regulation” of the internet would imperil civil liberties on the web.

    The news must come as a welcome breath of fresh air to Google, which has been embroiled in legal troubles where the content posted to its websites is concerned. On the other side of the Atlantic, a one-considered-finished lawsuit brought by Viacom that focuses on a similar issue has recently been resurrected. In the suite, Viacom claims that Google should be held responsible for the copyrighted content that is illegally shared on YouTube, which is owned by Google. A lower court had previously sided with Google/YouTube, but the judge presiding over Viacom’s appeal swung the momentum in the opposite direction and said, “A reasonable jury could find that YouTube had actual knowledge of specific infringing activity on its website.”

    With Google basically being a permanent resident in the news where internet legality is concerned, you have to begin to wonder that the company wouldn’t actually know what to do with itself if one day it ever wasn’t being sued by at least somebody.

    Twitter, on the other hand, hasn’t exactly experienced the demands to appear in court that Google has, but it certainly caused a few waves earlier this year when it updated its policies that basically gave itself the powers to electively censor tweets on a regional basis. So far, there hasn’t really been any reports of that policy being enacted but the microblogging site has raised a few eyebrows with how its enforced its rules regarding parody accounts of political officials.

  • The UK Wants To Monitor Internet Use And Then Some

    It’s no big surprise now that many governments all over the world want to monitor the Internet usage and communications of its citizens. There’s a law currently sitting around in Canada, the United States’s rumored NSA surveillance facility, and the UK’s rumored legislation that would force ISPs to spy on their customers. From here, it looks like the legislation in the UK is the one that has the best chance of actually being enacted.

    The Telgraph is reporting that the new spying legislation will be proposed next month in the Queen’s Speech. The legislation would make it so that ISPs have to install hardware that would let the government spy in real time on its citizens. It’s the kind of Orwellian nightmare that many people have fought to prevent. The government thinks it has a good reason to enact such measures though – it’s all about keeping you safe.

    Perhaps in a way of not making it seem that bad, it is required that police have a warrant when they want to access the information. If that doesn’t make you feel better, you’re doing it right. The ISPs still have to keep records of all communications between yourself and groups of people. It doesn’t just stop at who you talked to, but for how long and how often.

    The UK government has been obsessed with security ever since they won the bid to host the Olympics in London this summer. They believe that the event will be a major terrorist target and they want to protect its citizens from any such event. A noble cause if there ever was one, but spying on your own citizens isn’t how one combats terrorism and crime. It’s invading the privacy of normal citizens. You would think governments would learn by now that terrorists and criminals, unless they’re really stupid, don’t use easily traceable and breakable forms of communication.

    This news is on the heels of the NSA being called in last month to answer questions on its rumored surveillance program that would spy on every citizen in the United States. The UK is at least letting their intentions be known via legislation, whereas the NSA is rumored to be doing its dirty deeds under the noses of everybody without any kind of oversight.

    The Telegraph says that a similar bill was proposed in 2006. It was eventually killed by massive outcry from citizens. We can only hope that the current bill faces a similar backlash that will eventually kill it. We’ll keep you updated when the UK government formally introduces this bill.

  • British MPs Want Google To Self-Censor Search Results

    A gang of parliament members are currently trying to convince the British government to introduce legislation that would essentially charge Google with the herculean task of censoring search results from containing material that a court deems is a violation of somebody’s privacy. The Members of Parliament, or MPs, basically think Google controls the internet and have therefore published a how-to manual for what Google should do to reel in some search results.

    Part of the MPs thinking stems from this guy, Max Mosley, who, in the grand tradition of Republican primary presidential candidate Rick Santorum, has something of a Google problem. He doesn’t like it and has in fact spent some considerable resources in numerous countries to remove evidence of a private video of his that was leaked to the internet. But really, he and now these MPs think that Google should be the one cleaning up the internet.

    It’s a slippery request the MPs are asking for because binding Google to remove all search results of material deemed to have been shared via someone’s privacy breach would assuredly open up a can of wormy litigation from all fronts.

    Rebuking the criticism of the MPs, Google argued that filtered search results would “threaten the unfettered flow of information online.” More specifically, were Google required to ban search results that were deemed by a court to violate someone’s privacy, how far would the waves caused by that heavy stone ripple across the internet? One would have to assume that, at least in some way, court-mandated search filters would practically neuter Google’s Search Plus Your World, the company’s personalized integration that includes content like Google+ profiles and photos into search results.

    Google already complies with courts whenever pages are deemed unlawful, but this sort of moderation could take censoring Google to wild new frontiers. Can you even conceive of what extensive work would be required to remove a single strand of data from all Google results? I mean, take for example if that Kardashian girl decided she wanted footage of that flour bombing (or other internet things she’s known for…) removed from Google’s search results? Not only would such an arduous task be highly regressive but would it even be possible given how the internet has been designed?

    More, if Google is found to be responsible for filtering and moderating the content found on its search results, we can presume that such a mandate would apply to Google’s sites, like YouTube. A legal precedent asserting that Google is responsible for the content uploaded by users of its sites could also have really punishing ramifications for Google in its legal battle with Viacom.

    And then the internet just all goes to hell from there, really.

    (Via The Guardian.)