Translate

Saturday, March 31, 2018

China censorship and the 'Social Credit Score system'.


China censorship and the 'Social Credit Score'




In china it is forbidden or really ill-advised to criticise 'the party'.



Everyone In China Is Getting A 'Social Credit Score'




China introduces 'social credit score' for citizens




China’s "Social Credit System" Has Caused More Than Just Public Shaming (HBO)




Is China taking social monitoring too far? l Inside Story




China's TERRIFYING Social Credit System




Everyone In China Is Getting A 'Social Credit Score'




China's social credit score bans some from travel




Journalist sentenced to three years in a labour camp



(RSF/IFEX) - In a letter to Public Security Minister Jia Chunwang, RSF protested the sentence handed down to journalist and dissident Liu Haofeng, to three years in a labour camp. RSF asked the minister to release the journalist. "Once again a journalist is secretly sentenced to a harsh punishment. The Chinese government is demonstrating that it is not prepared to respect its international commitments," affirmed RSF Secretary-General Robert Ménard. RSF also expressed its concern after the adoption of a new rule called the "Seven Nos", of which the goal is to increase state control over the media. "This rule could result in the arrest of journalists who try to report on corruption or other spectacular and sensitive subjects, or criticise the Communist Party," said Ménard.

C.ET: this item is old, but things have been getting worse since 2014 and 2016 when political and military power was given to the president.




Guangdong: journalists criticise Party propaganda and censorship
by Wang Zhicheng
Press freedom "raped". Head of provincial propaganda under attack after forcing the publication of an editorial lauding party achievements and removing newspaper editorial calling for the implementation of the constitution. Open letter from journalists blocked online; their microblog threatened. The public worry the newspaper will be closed. The contradiction between Xi Jinping’s sermons, in praise of constitution, and the reality of the provinces, governed in a Stalinist way.
One of the journalists, Su Yongtong, had prepared an editorial that was to have opened the edition. The title was "The dream of China, the dream of Constitutionalism", which stated that the Chinese could hope to realize their dreams if the constitution is implemented. The implementation of the constitution was one of the themes repeated by the new leader Xi Jinping during and after the Party Congress.

But one day before the release, the provincial chief of propaganda, Tuo Zhen (see photo), who is also vice president of Xinhua, forced the newspaper to replace the editorial with another titled "Pursuing dreams," which claims the Chinese people are closer in achieving their dreams thanks to the painstaking efforts of the Party.
After the open letter was removed, many journalists expressed their concerns through their personal microblog. But 15 of them received threats and were obliged to remove their posts.



China bars human rights lawyer from US State Dept. program



               While Russia has traditionally relied on bots to push its agenda online, China’s Communist party has raised a volunteer troll army of real people, most of them young men, to go online and attack its enemies.

For years, China’s nationalist trolls were known as “50 cents”, or wumao, for the Rmb0.50 they were said to earn for each patriotic post. But more recently a new breed of volunteer warrior has emerged, nicknamed the “bring-your-own-rations wumao” for their willingness to work without pay. Some like to call themselves “little pinks”, a name derived from the colour of a popular online forum used by nationalists.

With nationalism on the rise, fuelled by China’s economic ascent and perceptions of western decline, the propaganda drive has gone global. “Tell the China story well and build China’s soft power,” President Xi Jinping urged delegates at the party’s 19th congress in October.

State media have rapidly expanded their overseas operations, while the government has pushed patriotic videos on western social media platforms.
China's troll army also organises via private groups on Facebook — which is blocked for the general public.



Chinese chatbot vanishes after spurning Communist Party
China's largest internet company has quietly deleted a chatbot which told users it does not love the Communist Party.

C.ET: but this is already in practice in the western industry. Already is partisan, not meaning that it has been poisoned by other, meaning western is in itself a filthy censor.

They do this to everybody, but also to people who does not earn millions and thereby can throw a legal party.



C.ET: unfortunately, in that example it is a maze that is quite hermetic. for example, for chinese people phrases such as tianmen square story or even contemporary history such as the famines under Mao, is completely under censorship, so how could people check what chinese people feel, think or know about subjects that cannot be found on the web used by the chinese. I think in these situations the web, which is our principal (possible or immediate) tool now to research our subjects, does not apply or is used to create a vacuum.
Of course, the electronic wall, also censors an incredible amount of all western media too. chinese people cannot have access to millions, billions of documents produced outside china.



China censorship drive splits leading academic publishers
Beijing’s challenge divides western university presses on whether to resist or comply

               Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.


               Having silenced many of his domestic critics, President Xi Jinping is seeking to export the Chinese Communist party’s heavily circumscribed view of intellectual debate as part of his push to promote Chinese soft power.
had blocked access to at least 1,000 academic articles in China that mention subjects deemed sensitive by Beijing, including Taiwan, Tibet and Hong Kong.



China forbids Christmas decorations as Xi Jinping ramps up war against religion and foreign culture




China’s war on words: Anything — be it a phrase or picture — that can be used to insult Xi has been banned


CHINA’s new President-for-life doesn’t like criticism.
Since claiming the eternal throne of an Emperor earlier this week, he’s clamped down — hard — on any hint of dissent.
Censorship has always been a way of life under China’s one party state.
But things have just ramped up to a whole new level.
Authoritarian rule is being established.

Book publishers, internet services — even scientific journals — have been accused of censoring works out of fear of offending powerful Chinese government groups.

“One by one, big Western companies like Apple, Daimler, Marriot International and Yum Brands are being cowed by hordes of nationalistic trolls for the crime of crossing patriotic red lines,” Ryan states.


7 things you can't talk about in China
In a directive reportedly distributed last month to local party committees, China’s top propaganda officials issued new
restrictions banning discussion of seven topics deemed to be “dangerous Western influences.”
The bans came amid a revival of hardliner attacks on constitutionalism in China, and the shutdown of blogs belonging to several popular, prominent writers. Last week, four blogs belonging to writer Murong Xuecun, including an account with 14 million followers, were shuttered, sending a chilling message to even mainstream critics of the government.
"Universal values"
"Freedom of speech"

In keeping with its Leninist heritage, the CCP sees control of public discourse — particularly the media — as crucial to its hold on power.
"Civil society"

This banned topic seems particularly odd: what does the CCP have to fear from “civil society,” meaning community groups and
non-governmental organizations?
"Civil rights"
No surprise here. Given that the government regularly jails and relentlessly harrasses lawyers

"The historical errors of the Chinese Communist Party"

For years, the CCP has tried to enforce selective historical amnesia, teaching students about the suffering of China under Western colonial powers in the 19th century, but skimming over many of the country’s worst 20th century traumas, which were caused by CCP misrule: the Great Leap Forward, which killed up to 45 million
Crony capitalism
Judicial independence

In China, some 99 percent of criminal cases brought to trial end in conviction. As with the media, the CCP sees the courts as an arm of its control.
In fact, high-ranking Party officials accused of crimes often do not enter the civilian judicial system at all: they are dealt with by internal disciplinary committees called "shanggui."



Li Rui: The old guard Communist who was able to criticise Xi Jinping
He was hand-picked by Mao to become his personal secretary in 1958.

But he was also imprisoned soon afterwards for criticising Mao's Great Leap Forward, the failed modernisation programme now thought to have killed between 30 and 60 million people through torture and starvation.
"We are not allowed to talk about past mistakes."

Li Rui said this in 2013, while reflecting on the similarities between China's then-new leader Xi Jinping and the founding father of Communist China, Mao Zedong.

Mr Xi, he warned, was echoing Mao's suppression of individual thought, and was trying to build a similar cult of personality - both things he had experienced at first hand.



http://www.asianews.it/news-en/%28China%29-For-the-Olympics,-prohibited-to-protest-or-speak-with-foreign-journalists-12623.htmlFor the Olympics, prohibited to protest or speak with foreign journalists
In Shanghai, rigid new rules of "public order": prison for those who violate them. Meanwhile, the Olympic Committee warns Beijing to "separate sport and politics" after authorities in Lhasa used the torch to express hopes for "final victory" over the Dalai Lama. Water shortage in Beijing.

Although propaganda has for years been publicising the "green Olympics", Beijing is facing a severe water emergency.  […] considered an "emergency" reserve, have been tapped.  The water is brought from Hebei through a huge channel dug for the Olympics, but the province has been suffering from drought for years, and even lacks water for farming. http://www.asianews.it/news-en/%28China%29-For-the-Olympics,-prohibited-to-protest-or-speak-with-foreign-journalists-12623.html



NB: to search in more depth: Korea war, Vietnam war and the invasion of Tibet by the english forces followed by its handing-over to China. Tibet, since there is no beauty that strikes human's hearts effectively, still will be seen as a water reserve in Asia that is vital for the whole of Southeast Asia (India, and all other neighboring still independent countries).
Entertaining theories: the love intertwined that have solidified, not ey yet (eye, tail, take, yes, yes, yeti) liquidified, the imperialist wannabes. 

Saturday, March 17, 2018

institutional abuses in care in london boroughs.



Article directly related to a council corruption investigated by the council. No way for victims or witnesses to halt them, as they are sole judges of their own actions and decisions.






Institutional abuses in health and care in London borough.


Madam, sir,

Here is an account of national scaled institutional abuses that are rampant practises in every borough of London.

First, you will find below the letter I sent to a borough.

It is about someone attributed with 8 hours a day care by a borough who does not bother having any report about him.


The very stunning point is that this service user is supposed to benefit from large amount and varied help but the pluri-disciplinary staff don’t link nor share any information.
Obviously despite an in principle big team of people at disposal, this lead to a very low standard of care, as explained below.

This story is to highlight because it is the representation of what happens when several agencies or departments are involved, or more definitely not involved with each other.

I have been a carer in the uk for this past 3 years –and 3 years more in France- in different and various positions and I could provide you with other striking examples.
In the case of J, he is a young autistic man, deprived of clear speech and put aside of any social activities and it is why I ask you to read the following.


The point 2 and 3 roman, are very particular to this case also you may not be interested by reading them but please do read the letter and point 1.

Please if you have any questions, I am ready to work on this text or on telling this story to someone willing to rewrite it.

I wish the contents of those facts or a part of it could be published in order to alert the public opinion. I could testify they are all 100 % true, I witness them and there are proof about that.


Looking forward to hearing from you.




Social care and meeting.

25/05/09

Institutional abuse:

I write to you to let you know about an absolutely aghasting borough practise.

It is about the care of your service users.

There is in your borough a person for whom you provide a package of full time care and that has been lasting for years. For doing so instead of employing staff working directly for the council you delegate to a support worker agency what is surely supposed to be a subsidiary of the state or at least supposed to be working hand to hand with the borough and the professional they employ directly.

The fact is that this person’s well being depends on his carer knowledge, serious and following of daily targets and naturally the daily, weekly, monthly reports of his behavioural and activities management, the strategy put in place to improve his chance of linking with people and of engagement in activities.
The shame is that he has several carers, to whom not, even not one report on their activities and monitoring is asked and worse; though it has been years of daily work with him, not one, not even one single meeting implying his team of carers has ever taken place. Do you consider this situation as being appropriate or justifiable at all?





This was the letter addressed to the council.
Their reaction? Dismiss the agency from this particular case.
I am afraid that is no proof of that reality being taken seriously.
Of course, a part of the question is about the policy of the mere agency.
The main priority and sources of immense concern lay not in that particular case though treated as if it was isolated. That example cannot be the forgotten piece of the whole story but simply reflects the kind of no-links, no communication and not even the most remote sign of implementing one. A comprehensively mute bunch of people in charge and without any devices for having a feed-back loop system or for conveying info for a better professional practise, (and after years of having practise like that let s say without doubt, without plan nor the shades of one). The result of a dismantled depleted network it should have been for this situation went on for 5 years.




The council allows one person to be taken everyday for years, 8 hours a day, a person with very serious speech and communication impairment and therefore depending on people knowing him very well to report the way he wants or he needs things and what things to be done.
Instead of that no reports asked, not a single meeting. Like that thousands of hours of get to know the job and performing the job duties, lost.
Even in the case where he does have good carers, without detailed description of how one proceeds, if the main carer leave, the next carers will found themselves without the information that have been gathered in years of pragmatic experiments, observation and hours of practising how the service user will like and need to have people assisting him and with that.
But when you said not a meeting, actually there is.
Only for the means supposed to be at his disposal yield so little advantages:

Here is the situation-



I.

A team of one psychiatrist, one psychologist, social worker, senior carer, and several carers. One or perhaps two meetings a year.
But what kind of meeting?
Not one including his daily workers team, just like if they did not work or did not wish to have objectives while working.
Among this highly qualified persons (psy, social worker…) not one person that will wonder how it come that daily carer are not asked to give reports or to attend meeting for a then possible re-assessment of the needs, capacities, projects and targets of the very young man service user’s life and schedule.


I really like to know how it comes that all these people have readily accepted to leave things in that state. To that question, blatant facts will strike the mind.

One, they manage to pretend to assess a situation without enquiring about the daily happenings or non-happenings which is supposed to be the basis of all decisions and which will have a conclusive effect on everyone else’s deeds towards the life of the service user. . For every case it is the case but this man is deprived of speech, plus when you send people for 8 hours shifts you expect them to do something somewhat intelligible with it.


Two, whereas psychologists, social worker team should try to assess a situation with the purpose of improving or adjusting this situation, the fact is that they don’t try to check out what difficulties his only carers
(and only person who are in real contact with him may come across with. Check on their possible, better put, advisable-should-be-compulsorily-requested questions, claims, projects, strategies, differences, techniques, and if any work done during these 8 daily hours, their practices.
These person who are supposed to look after the well being of a person just don’t ask for any records about what the only staff that are in interaction with that person do.
This fact underlines that they are supposed to assess the life conditions of an individual about whom they know nothing, and about whom they don’t try to ask anything.

There is no pluri disciplinarity team, whereas the taxpayer pays for one and is told that there is. There are several people, agencies who work but do not team up. Who absolutely does not bother about the hackneyed notion from the nvq 1 health and care of the holistic approach.

A team of staff left without aims, without objectives and assessment of their jobs.
A service user file thus life management and planning without the latter are meant to say ‘no futur’

To what everything in place there is not a single attempt at verifying, gathering, assessing, compiling information nor the will of having that.
That is to say there is no way of checks and balances, the basis of democratic system has to provide an info and grievance canal.
Nothing checked; nothing shared.

.


Nb: It is useless to add that this absence of any checking is open-door to abuse among staff, or hierarchic, towards the service user, or abuse of the time or the means put at disposal.

Three, it is just common doing, and implicitly better for each one not to make comment on anything in a clog.

II.



This young man has been discarded from the system as a whole.
His health condition has for effect him not to be able to stay in place where there is noise.

This young man is ‘barred’ from having any kind of social grouping due to this sensitivity to excessive noise, as the same council has been enable to find for him a place- when you think this is actually happening in London-, a centre where he could have regular encounters with someone else than his carers.

The carers will find themselves being given the schedule of an outcast, with no socialising place in his timetable, taking the pretence that he needs somewhere quiet to feel well, he is left on his own, like if you could not find or even make up a quiet group for people who need quietness to enjoy their time.
With will and cooperation this would be easy to find and to eventually enable J to have at least a weekly meeting where he can meet people instead of none a year he has been imposed with.





In conclusion he is left with only his team of carers, to whom he is totally dependent as for his goings and comings, and all activities, or any sort or planning they will offer. The same people to whom no one asks what they do, how they practise, or to hand out their reflective accounts; and the same people that are left on their own without support, nor objectives.
He is left with not other encounters.



III.


In parallel if you got a problem – violence or abuse in the surrounding of this person or among the professionals, or if the person you look after is subjected to abuses…without the network of a pluri-disciplinary team (it would take two meetings a year, some forms, and shared reports), are you supposed to rely on telling the social services, that demonstrates on that they just don’t talk in any case about what happens in the actual service users’ care.


Because this case has been reported and what they did was to suspend everyone, like if it was a surprise to them that family and team of workers endure problems if they are left cut from other places. Sometimes unsolvable, often leading to the wearing of motivation – one cannot be the only one in the village- stop doing of activities or of their coherence or of their relevance to the need of the service user that without detailed writings will stay unknown, no thinkable continuity to it (there are nonexistent), nothing about what have been done. And about the endorsement of one’s responsibilities? There is no more frameworks and a general fear of taking initiatives since the support and surrounding coming from higher is at zero. This type of organisations always leading to isolation and the impossibility of using the resources needed to render comprehensive care. Dignity.

Like if they were surprised by the absence of this meeting whereas they are the one not asking for any.

Like if it was the fault of the workers that dare pointing out this fact.
Like you I thought that it was the fault of the agency. But in fact the agency itself just look for being competitive, and this include not too much demand from her staff as the salary is limited and that the other agencies don’t ask for reports either since, it is simply not ask by the boss, the leader of the care programs, the councils.
Agencies who are only what they are taken for, a commercial, administrative, logistic, company who merely applies the rules that the very same council ask them to follow.
Provide me with temporary, no-unionised, cheaper, got-riddable-of-at-will-without-contrat-nor-the-inch-of-a-view-inside-the-pyramid (5 years they have been relying on temporary workers for the same job with exactly the same type of care and schedule, not an inch of change, nor the perspective of doing it). Be happy taxpayer, twice as much expensive these temporary agencies, spare our administrators the burden of the responsibilities, of the feed-back to their staff, of a file that is supposed to be filled, gathered, shared and read.

I report that to the council. I had not choice. I wanted to complain about the council but when I went to the government site, they say that if you want to complain about the council then you have to write to the council! How is that possible? Not in a democracy.
It is not an isolated case, just a mistake, an oversight. It is sheer common implementation, professional customs, organisational cordiale entente, systematic arrangement; oblivion.
It is institutional abuse.
The council suspended the staff of the agency that take on them, like if it was the problem.
They suspended the team, not responsible for not having no one to talk, no one who are here for supervise, advise, collect, put further, forward…
They treat the temporary worker like inexistent and when they voice the problems of not being able to link with anybody, they give you the sack.

Madam, sir, sorry about this, I admit, a bit long and heavy description of what is to find inside the thick walls of our institutions, but just a reminder- here described a council job.


No one checks, no one assesses, (those are a very widespread, endemic everywhere happening, but at least in some places they provide to fill up a form that gives you a chance to whistle blowing).

No grievances procedures, no help, no security.

The game was clear. If you speak, they remove you. So what do you do if you need the job?
More vicious than that, no one needs a job in particular but something you desperately need is references.
You may work very satisfactorily for two years with you boss, if the 25th month he decides you have been a rubbish the way long it is what he may just decide to begin saying.
You don’t possess, it should be compulsorily given, here in the uk it is forbidden to ask for it, a regular overview. A say quarterly appreciation of your work by your manager, attestation by what you may appreciate that you cannot work anymore for a person that don’t give you good references, or improve your practise if the comments are justified or by what you are sure that if someone say you are a good worker one month he won’t be totally allow to say that you are inadequate the days you are not anymore in his books.
Also if you spot abuses, don’t report it because who is gonna give you or not access to another jobs afterwards, you former boss.
The system of reference! A lock-up system.

original date: 2010